The URL can be used to link to this page

5 Request for Rezoning from A2 to PUD, Bluff Creek Corporate Center PC DATE: 4/1/98 ["' .') j "";"'~"~~ CITY 0 F CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 4/27/98 CASE #: 97-2 PUD By: Generous:v J- Z <( U - ...J 0- Il- <{ ~ ~ W J- - (f) STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Preliminary POO approval for an office-industrial project including a church/institutional use, request for preliminary plat approval to create five lots, two outlots, and associated right-of-way, request for a wetland alteration perrnit to fill a small wetland on site, and a conditional use permit to excavate, fill, and grade within a flood plain, Bluff Creek Corporate Center LOCATION: South ofHwy. 5 and north of Coulter Boulevard at Stone Creek Drive APPLICANT: Land Group, Inc. and Bluff Creek Partners 123 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 333-2244 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 27.3 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R, Walnut Grove and Highway 5 \ S - PUD-R, Townhomes at Creekside and Coulter Blvd. E - A2, vacant W - 01, Bluff Creek Elementary and Chanhassen Recreation Center WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains rolling topography with a high poipt in the east-central portion of the site of962. The property is bounded on the east by a tributary to Bluff Creek and on the west by the main branch of Bluff Creek. The site is bounded on the north by Hwy. 5 and on the south by Coulter Boulevard. An electric transmission corridor bisects the site running from the north to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial and Parks/Open Space '~"'m-..},@,llff~.._"':.ll"I."rIJ .z:;5 ~ " ~ ~ \ '\ , ./;0Fii \\Z~~'SJ a. . ~"i~{_ , J lvd Park u ~ r / I' ('t""" r T : L:J}.. \\J"l/TIT = IfP jj- TIn ~ ~ /I:Z~;) ~-~-~~ . ~/~I~ ~m~ '\ j~.5 _( Park :> L~ \ .L.l'~'~ ~I'"", 8(//<: .,'.', 'ix"ci :. - . L4.te · ... ..... ....... 1 "'}':;" .'.. " .. . ~.>2, .'.' "'\ ! ... . (( ~ rc. 'J)..r~:,' ..,'", ..~ '/.i.,.... '. ...... .' :.; .... " - >-- .\ Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a PUD for Bluff Creek Corporate Center, an office-industrial project which would permit a church/institutional use. The issues that need to be addressed as part of the review include the institutional use for the site, the benefits to the community of permitting a PUD, and the implementation of the Bluff Creek Corridor preservation and restoration. As part of the applicant's submittal, they are also requesting that the city permit banks and restaurants within the project. Staff believes that the restaurant use if incorporated only as part ofa hotel facility. Individual users could provide cafeterias for their employees. Bank facilities appear to be totally out of the character for this area as an industrial park, and are therefore not recommended. The applicant has revised the plat plan to shift Stone Creek Drive to the west to accommodate additional parking adjacent to the office/industrial buildings. Staff advised the applicant early in the process that we could support the inclusion of a church facility in the project ifthere was some benefits to the development and the community at large. Specifically, staff envisioned that the church would provide shared parking that would permit the development of the office and industrial use with greater building square footages than would be possible based on their individual sites. Staff estimates that the church use displaces approximately 60,000 square feet of office industrial uses. Based on the use ratio proposed by the developer, this corresponds to approximately 160 parking stalls. Staff recommends that the church commit to provide this amount of parking for the industrial office users of the property. In addition, shared parking also should be required for the church on the office/industrial parcels. The church facility within the project provides the potential to transition land uses from less intensive residential to the south and southwest and institutional to the west to more intensive office/industrial to the north and east. Churches also provide community services that otherwise may need to be provided by governmental units, e.g., social services, counseling, senior care, day care, etc. Churches provide a sense of community and permit residents to gather and share with one another. The applicant's concept site plan proposes two large buildings, two office buildings, and a church facility. Staff is concerned about the building and parking lot configurations. Staff recommends that the building orientation be primarily toward Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard. The proposed project is between the east and west (main) branches of the Bluff Creek. Both the east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek are DNR protected. The City ofChanhassen protects Bluff Creek as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. Staff recommendations for this project will be maintaining the natural vegetation and landscape where it still exists, intensify the proposed landscape plan along the creek to improve the buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with an 50 foot buffer area. This area has been identified by the Bluff Creek Management Plan, as a candidate for Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April I, 1998 Page 3 floodplain forest restoration. The applicant shall incorporate Lowland Hardwood Forest restoration in the landscape plan. Plantings along Bluff Creek and the proposed storm water pond should be chosen based on wildlife food and/or cover value. Since an important facet of the management plan is to provide a wildlife corridor along Bluff Creek, it is essential to landscape appropriately. Proposed overstory and ornamental trees could be a choice of quaking aspen, amur maple, willows, black cherry, serviceberry, swamp white oak, or aborvitae while proposed shrubs could include highbush cranberry, winterberry, and red-osier dogwood. The proposed prairie and wetland seeding mixes are nice amenities in the landscape plan and will benefit the site greatly. As part of the City's discussion regarding the concept plan for the development, City Council requested that a tax analysis be prepared to show the implications of permitting a church facility on office/industrialland. Below is a summary of that review. Office Warehouse Mix Lot Area Bldg Sq. Ft. % Office FAR Taxes Lot ,Block 1 251,469 60,000 50% 0.24 $120,000 Lot 2, Block 1 110,521 22,000 50% 0.20 $ 44,000 Lot 1, Block 2 218,443 62,000 50% 0.28 $124,000 Lot 2, Block 2 144,046 30,000 50% 0.21 $ 60,000 Lot 3, Block 2 117,394 23,500 50% 0.20 $ 47,000 Total 841 ,873 197,500 0.23 $395,000 Primarily Office Lot 1 ,Block 1 251,469 60,000 50% 0.24 $120,000 Lot 2, Block 1 110,521 44,000 100% 0.40 $110,000 Lot 1, Block 2 218,443 62,000 50% 0.28 $124,000 Lot 2, Block 2 144,046 38,000 50% 0.26 $ 76,000 Lot 3, Block 2 117,394 39,000 100% 0.33 $ 97,500 Total 841 ,873 243,000 0.30 $527,500 Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 4 Difference between office warehouse and primarily office $ 132,500 Potential Revenue from Lot 1, Block 1 $ 120,000 Net Revenue due to development primarily office, allowing church Assume Office/Warehouse Tax at $2.00 per square foot. Assume Office/Warehouse Tax at $2.50 per square foot. Due to the applicant's decision to increase the office component of the development, the potential tax consequences are minimized. Net revenues are slightly positive based on the above analysis. Staff has prepared a draft design standard for the development. While modeled after other developments, these standards attempt to address the specific concerns for this site. Staff is recommending that the preliminary PUD be approved subject to the proposed conditions. BACKGROUND On January 12, 1998, the City Council granted Concept approval for PUD #97-2 subject to City Council's discussion and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit site coverage and impervious surface calculations for each lot and the overall site. 2. Staff recommends that the church commit to provide approximately 147 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. 3. Staff recommends that the amount of parking and impervious surface on Lots 2 and 3 be reduced. 4. Staff believes that a U-shaped building on the northerly portion of the property would be more appropriate to address pedestrian circulation to the proposed warehouse as well as address the sight lines for the truck loading facility. Staffwould recommend that the building orientation be primarily toward Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard, especially for Lots 1 and 2, rather than the orientation shown on the concept plan. This would require the building on Lot 1 to be reoriented 90 to 180 degrees and the building on Lot 2 to be reoriented 90 degrees. Staff would also suggest that the church investigate a walkout type facility, similar to that used for the St. Hubert Catholic Community in Villages on the Ponds, to help reduce site grading. To improve the layout, staff suggests to design a parking lot on both sides of the building and add sidewalks. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1 , 1998 Page 5 5. Staff strongly recommends all 34 boulevard trees be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. 6. Additional landscape islands are required in the parking lots; a minimum of one island for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area. 7. The loading docks of the southern warehouse building are visible from Coulter Boulevard and require evergreen plantings to screen the area. 8. Visibility of the expansive parking lots from Highway 5 should be limited as much as possible. 9. The applicant shall incorporate increased evergreen plantings and berms to obstruct sight lines into the parking areas. 10. Plantings along Bluff Creek and the proposed storm water pond should be chosen based on wildlife food and/or cover value. Proposed overstory and ornamental trees could be a choice of quaking aspen, amur maple, willows, black cherry, serviceberry, swamp white oak, or aborvitae while proposed shrubs could include highbush cranberry, winterberry, elders, sumac, and red-osier dogwood. City staff shall approve final landscape schedule. 11. In lieu of parkland dedication and public trail development, the city shall collect full park and trail dedication fees for this development. In the event that the applicant deems the dedication of the "creek" outlots into public domain desirable, the Park & Recreation Commission would review this offer. But, again, no park fee credits would be granted. 12. The applicant is required to plan private internal trail connectors from their site to the surrounding public trail system, thus maximizing their benefit of the recreation system already in place. 13. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 ft. trail easement over the trail segment located in the southeast comer of the site that lays outside the Coulter Boulevard right-of-way. 14. The development shall maintain the natural vegetation and landscape where it still exists, intensify the proposed landscape plan along the creek to improve the buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with a 50 foot buffer area. 15. This area has been identified by the Bluff Creek Management Plan as a candidate for floodplain forest restoration. The applicant shall incorporate some element of forest restoration in the landscape plan along both branches of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 6 16. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 17. The applicant's engineer should review the possibility of connecting into the City's existing storm sewer in Coulter Boulevard from the southerly drainage pond or combining the pond with the proposed storm water basin north of the church. If the developer desires to construct the southerly pond, the City shall not be responsible for maintenance and the developer shall not receive credit against their SWMP fees. 18. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4: 1 overall or 3: 1 with ala: 1 bench at the normal water elevation. 19. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall incorporate temporary sediment basins to address site runoff during the grading operations. 20. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a la-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations and drainage maps including pre- and post-development conditions for a 1 a-year and lOa-year storm event will also be required by City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 21. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in coordinating the storm drainage system from Trunk Highway 5 into the proposed stormwater basin north of the church site. The applicant may be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees as a result of pond oversizing and pipe extension. 22. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 23. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. 24. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly comer of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 7 25. Public streets shall be incorporated to provide access to all three lots. A 60-foot wide right- of-way with a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac shall be incorporated into the site plan. The private street shall be constructed to a 9-ton design. 26. All parking lot drive aisles adjacent to 90 degree parking shall be a minimum of 26-feet wide pursuant to City Code. Drive aisle configurations near the intersection of Lots 1,2 and 3 lot line shall be reconfigured to minimize drive aisle points onto main street. 27. The developer's right for a future right-in/right-out access to Trunk Highway 5 shall be extinguished upon final platting unless the developer negotiates with MnDOT to transfer the right-in/right-out access to the adjacent property to the east. 28. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the streets. 29. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 30. Install post indicator valve on fire water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. 31. An additional fire hydrant will be required near the church main entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant. 32. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Sect. 10-502. 33. "No parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within jurisdiction when any portion of the facility, or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building, is located more than 150 feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 8 When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. When access roads cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 (b). Note: As building plans become available we will review the plan to determine if standpipes are required in any portion of the building due to the fact that we cannot achieve 150 foot access of all portions of the building. " Staff believes that many of these issues have been resolved between the preliminary and concept stages of the PUD. Site Characteristics The site contains rolling topography with a high point in the east-central portion of the site of 962. The property is bounded on the east by a tributary to Bluff Creek and on the west by the main branch of bluff creek. The site is bounded on the north by Highway 5 and on the south by Coulter Boulevard. An electric transmission corridor bisects the site running from the north to the south. The site is highly visible from Highway 5. In addition, it serves as a transition area to less intensive development to the south and west from the potential more intensive industrial uses to the east. The proposed project is between east and west (main) branches of the Bluff Creek. The City has planned to have the Bluff Creek as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. This site can showcase the city's attempt to preserve, protect, and enhance the bluff creek corridor. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 27.3 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are two (2) components to the PUD: industrial/office and institutional. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit 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 Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 9 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. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scemc VIews. Findine:. The applicant has shown some interest in protecting natural features on site. If the developer incorporates staff recommendations for setbacks, reforestation/revegetation, additional protection will be achieved. 2. More efficient and effective use ofland, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Findine:. The mixing of land uses can be more efficient provided sufficient shared parking opportunities are provided to reduce the total amount of impervious surface. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding 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. Findine:. The proposed design standards will assure a high quality design. Each site would be reviewed through the site plan review process. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Findine:. The inclusion of the institutional facility assists in providing a transition from the less intensive uses to the south and west to the more intensive uses. In addition, the preservation of the Bluff Creek corridor would be assured. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Findine:. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 10 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. FindiD1!. The comprehensive park plan does not propose public lands in this area. The Bluff Creek corridor would be preserved as part of the development. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findine:. Not applicable as part of this development. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Findine:. Additional conservation could be achieved if the design standards are followed. 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. Findine:. Appropriate traffic management techniques will be used. The developer and site users will be required to use traffic demand management strategies. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: · Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan · Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, trees, topographical features) · Sensitive development in transitional areas . More efficient use of land · Reduced impervious surface · Higher quality site design and building architecture GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development would need, at a minimum, to comply with the Highway 5 Design Standards. In addition, staff would recommend that the development comply with the following: Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 11 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS Development Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Photo-composite images of proposed development adjacent to Highways 5 shall be submitted as part of the review process. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a primary use has occupied the site. Shared parking shall be required of the development. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to institutional use on one lot only or light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Light Industrial - The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. Warehousing - Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. Office - Professional and business office. Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. Hotel/Motel _ establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general public. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 12 Research Laboratory - establishments engaged in scientific research or study. Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use) Showroom - showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only. Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. Prohibited uses · Contractors Yard · Lumber Yard · Home ImprovementlBuilding Supply · Garden Center · Auto related including sales and repair · Home furnishings and equipment stores · General Merchandise Store c. Setbacks The development is regulated by the Highway 5 and the PUD Standards. There are no minimum requirements for setbacks on interior lot lines in the PUD zone, except as specified below. The following setbacks shall apply: Frontaee Minimum Setback Buildine/Parking Maximum Setback Buildine/Parking Hwy. 5 (Outlot A) 70/50 150 Coulter Boulevard 50/30 100 * Interior Street 30/20 , NA Bluff Creek: West Lot line Lot 1, Block 1 80/80 NA West Lot Line Lot 2, Block 1 15/15 NA East Lot Line Lot 1, Block 2 110/110 NA East Lot Line Lot 2, Block 2 110/110 NA North Lot Line Lot 2, Block 2 80/80 NA East Lot Line Lot 3, Block 2 60/60 NA * Church facility is excluded from this maximum building setback. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 13 (Lot and Block Designations are based on proposed preliminary plat numbering.) The average hard surface coverage does not include Outlot A. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Anyone site/lot can exceed the 70 percent requirement, but in no case can the entire finished development exceed 70 percent. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box 1. Building Area Building Square Footage Breakdown Use Maximum Percent Total Square Feet Office 62% 160,000 Light Industrial !Warehouse 40% 100,000 Ancillary/other 15% 40,000 Institutional 23% 60,000 Total (Maximum) 260,000 2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. 3. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. e. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Primary building orientation shall be to Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted cinder block. 3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured, coated, or painted. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 14 6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HV AC screen. 7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from adjacent public right-of-ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. 9. The use oflarge unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. 10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an enclosure for each lot developed in the Business Center. 11 Each buildings shall contain one or more pitched roof elements depending on scale and type of building, or other architectural treatments such as towers, arches, vaults, entryway projections, canopies and detailing to add additional interest and articulation to structures. 12. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of buildings visible from public right-of-ways. All elevations visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. f. Site Landscaping and Screening I. Landscaping along Highway 5 shall comply with Buffer yard standard C. Coulter Boulevard shall comply with Buffer yard standard B. The master landscape plan for the Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process. 2. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1 , 1998 Page 15 3. Undulating or angular berms or elevation changes of3' in height shall be placed along Coulter Boulevard. The berms shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of each project Phase grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 4. Loading areas shall be screened 100 percent year round from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. g. Sign age 1. The Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD shall be permitted two identification signs: one sign on Coulter Boulevard and one sign on Highway 5. The sign on Coulter Boulevard shall not exceed eight feet in height. The sign on Highway 5 shall not exceed 20 feet in height. A maximum of 80 square feet of sign area shall be permitted per sign. 2. All freestanding parcel signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 3. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. Wall sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site. 7. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting along Coulter Boulevard. 2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 16 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. i. Alternative Access 1. Each site shall accommodate transit service within the individual development, whenever possible. 2. Pedestrian access shall be provided from each site to the public sidewalk and trail system. 3. The developer and site users shall promote and encourage Traffic Demand Management Strategies. 4. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage. SUBDIVISION REVIEW WETLANDS There are two wetlands identified on this site. One is a small ag/urban depression located in the north edge of the project, which the applicant is proposing to fill. The second wetland is part of the west branch of the Bluff Creek and was created as part of a wetland mitigation and enhancement project. This wetland is identified as a pond on the south part of Outlot B on the applicants plans. When the City extended Coulter Boulevard, connecting Galpin Boulevard to Audubon Road, we were required to mitigate for wetland impacts and impacts caused by utilities crossing Bluff Creek. As a result of these wetland impacts, the City constructed a wetland mitigation plan that created 0.70 acres of new wetlands by raising the outlet control and increasing the width of the creek in this area. Initially the plan would have created 1.4 acres of new wetland in this area, but was rejected because of impacts to future development's storm water basin. To fulfill the remaining mitigation requirements, the project provided 0.90 acres of upland vegetation to improve the creek's buffer on both sides. The plan also removed the existing reed canary grass and reestablished emergent vegetation. At the request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, a rock weir structure was constructed to promote fish travel and spawning in the creek Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 17 While the applicant has expressed disappointment with the impact this project has had on their site, it is important to remember that the applicant petitioned for the capital improvements which made the wetland project necessary. In developing this mitigation project, the City followed the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan. The plan targeted this area for improvements with forested areas as well as vegetation restoration. WETLAND IMPACTS The proposed impacts of this project will affect a Type 2, Ag/urban wetland basin which is part of the Bluff Creek Watershed. This wetland is area that has previously been altered due to agricultural practices. It is now a partial drained wet meadow wetlands dominated by reed canary grass. This wetland is approximately 845 sq. f1. in size. The impact of this proposed project would eliminate this wetland entirely. The rules of the City's wetland ordinances and the State of Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act, allow for wetland impacts up to 2,000 square feet with no mitigation. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost ofland and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu ofland and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. SWMP water quality charge is $4,633/acre for industrial developments. The proposed development would be responsible for a net area of 19.33 acres which results in a water quality connection fee of$89,556. This fee is waived if the applicant provides adequate stormwater treatment, as outlined by the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial developments have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. The proposed Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 18 development would then be responsible for a net area of 19.33 acres which results in a water quantity connection charge of$84,279. Both water quality and water quantity fees are due at the time of the final plat. BLUFF CREEK The proposed project is between east and west (main) branches of the Bluff Creek. Both the east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek are DNR protected waters, which require a minimum building setback of 50 feet. The City has planned Bluff Creek as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. The City recently completed the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan, a study of the creek's watershed which proposed increased setbacks, to preserve the creek and its natural qualities. This development lies within an area identified as the meadow lands in the study. This study recommended 300 foot setbacks along both sides of the creek. The report committee felt that distance was necessary to maintain the integrity of the creek's natural features and to buffer it from the intense development of streets and homes. Staff recognizes that due to intense land use (farming), this portion of the creek corridor no longer contains the significant or native vegetation along the west branch, and very little along the east branch. As part of the design standards for the development, staff has proposed setbacks that, we believe, implement the intent of the Bluff Creek study. The proposed setbacks, while reducing the developable area of this site, do not overly burden the development. Staff recommendations for this project will be maintaining the natural vegetation and landscape where it still exists, intensifying the proposed landscape plan along the creek to improve the buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with an 50 foot buffer area. Staff is proposing that the edge of the pond and along the existing wetland be considered where measurements for any corridor be established. This area has been identified by the Bluff Creek Management Plan, as a candidate for floodplain forest restoration (project 2b of the Bluff Creek Study) to recreate a lowland hardwood forest. The applicant shall include a flood plain forest restoration in the landscape plan. This wetland starts just south of Highway 5 and extends south adjacent to the creek. The vegetative community directly adjacent to Highway 5 is still moderate quality flood plain forest which contains willow and box elder. We recommend that this area be preserved. The rest of the wetland is dominated by a narrow band of reed canary grass along the creek. The west side of the wetland, which is adjacent to school ball fields, has had much of the vegetation replaced with turf grass. Turf grass has a very shallow root system that inhibits soil binding. Small gullies are forming on the side of the wetland which is planted with turf grass. The east side of the wetland has a narrow band of reed canary grass before the adjacent agricultural field. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1 , 1998 Page 19 Wetland restoration of this basin will involve the establishment ofa flood plain forest. The goal could be to widen the flood plain forest community on the east side of the creek through excavation. Increasing the flood plain forest will provide additional storage during storm events and help shelter the creek and school from future development. Reestablishment of the shrub and native herbaceous layer in the saturated turf grass area adjacent to the stream will help reduce erosion to the creek and provide cover for animal passage. Additional benefits include providing a nature interpretive area for the nearby school. A mixture of lowland hardwood tree and shrub species characteristic of the big woods region should be planted on this site (see plant list appendix C). Measures will need to be taken to reduce competition between new tree and shrub seedlings and reed canary grass. The site should be mowed or sprayed before planting seedlings. From 500 to 800 trees per acre should be planted depending on caliper size of seedlings. Spot spraying or mowing around seedlings should be done until seedlings are above the height of the reed canary grass. Once tree seedlings are established, the same procedure should be repeated to establish shrubs. Eventually, trees and shrubs should attain a size large enough to shade out most of the reed canary grass. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Landscaping needs and requirements for the site are influenced by three important factors: visibility into the site from Hwy. 5 and Coulter Blvd., recommendations from the Bluff Creek Management Plan, and the large expanses of parking lots. Because the site slopes down from Highway 5, much of the proposed development could be seen by east and west bound traffic. While it is important for drivers to be able to see who the businesses in the site are, visibility of the parking lots is an issue. Reduction of parking lot . ~isibility will be helped by the two-story buildings closest to the highway and landscaping. As proposed, evergreens and shrubs will act as screening for the front parking lots. Staff recommends understory trees be added to further enhance the landscaping and screening without requiring a solid front of evergreens. Visibility of parking lots from Coulter Blvd. is greatly reduced by the fact that the road is nearly 10' below the proposed development and drivers would be looking up to look into the development. Proposed landscaping between the road and parking lots includes evergreens and shrubs with some ornamental trees. Existing boulevard trees planted by the City will remain. Staff recommends these trees be protected by tree fencing during construction. The Bluff Creek Management Plan recommends native vegetation for planting within the Bluff Creek corridor. The applicant is proposing native grasses and forbs be seeded within the 100' corridor along with groupings of tree and shrubs scattered throughout. The majority of groupings include mainly understory trees and shrubs. Additional native overstory trees need to be added to these plantings. Natural wooded habitat along the Creek always includes overstory trees and the Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 20 sections along Bluff Creek Partnership development should be no exception. Selections of plant materials for the creek corridor are consistent, if somewhat limited, with recommendations made by the management plan with one exception. Amur maple has been proposed as an understory tree to be planted within the corridor. While this tree has many positive landscape qualities and has high value for wildlife, it is a non-native, invasive species and should not be included in the corridor plantings. Staff recommends applicant consult the Bluff Creek Management Plan and select a recommended understory species to replace all Amur maples scheduled to be planted within the corridor. Parking lots in the development cover a significant amount of the site. The applicant has done a good job in meeting parking lot landscaping ordinance requirements. Preliminary measurements of landscape islands showed some islands measuring less than 10' in width, the minimum required by ordinance. Staff recommends all landscape islands be at least 10' in width and that additional trees be planted in the western central area of the development along the proposed pond between the church and the building fronting Highway 5. Native overs tory trees and shrubs should be incorporated in this area. By ordinance, developments that front on public streets are required to provide overstory trees every 30 feet. The applicant has not met this requirement along the proposed extension of Stone Creek Drive. PARK AND RECREATION The Park & Recreation Commission met on November 25, 1997 to review the proposed concept plan. The City's Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this site as a portion of the service area for the Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff Creek Elementary School. No additional public park areas are required in this service area. Comprehensive Trail Plan The City's Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies Coulter Boulevard and the Bluff Creek Corridor as "planned" trail routes. Coulter Boulevard borders this site on the south and the main branch of Bluff Creek borders the site on the west. Both the Coulter Boulevard trail "main branch" and Bluff Creek Trail are already in existence. Trail connections from this development site to the existing trails is desirable. GRADING The majority (90%:t) of the site is proposed to be graded to develop the streets, parking lots, storm drainage ponds and building sites. The site ranges in elevation from 927 at the Bluff Creek Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 21 west branch to 962 in the center of the parcel. The five proposed building sites range from 935 to 963. It appears based on the building elevations that some of the topographic characteristics of the site will be retained. Site grading will require extensive earthwork to prepare the site for development. Should earthwork quantities not balance on the site and material needs to be imported or exported from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. In addition, if the material is proposed to be hauled off site to another location in Chanhassen, it should be noted the properties will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. The plans propose a regional storm water drainage pond north of the church site on Outlot B to pretreat runoff prior to entering the wetland. The pond shall be constructed with 4:1 slopes overall or 3: 1 with a 10: 1 bench at the normal water elevation. Consideration for access to perform maintenance functions shall be included in the final pond design. Given the size of this development, temporary sediment basins should be designed with the final grading plans to address site runoff during the grading operations. The pond is proposed to be constructed within the 100-year flood plain boundary. The plans propose to alter the flood plain level as a result of the development. Any changes in the flood plain will also require the developer to notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the necessary documentation to have federal flood plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has programmed the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 in the years 2000-2002. Currently, construction plans are being prepared (approximately 60% completed) to widen Trunk Highway 5 to a four-lane facility from Powers Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grades and access (right in/right out) to be compatible with MnDOT's Trunk Highway 5 plans. The existing power line will be effected by site grading. The power poles/lines will need to be relocated or adjusted to blend with proposed site grades. The developer has suggested that MnDOT be responsible for the relocation of power lines, however, given the timing of Trunk Highway 5 upgrade, the developer will most likely be constructing on the site prior to upgrading of Trunk Highway 5. The developer needs to coordinate the adjustment/relocation of the power lines with MnDOT. DRAINAGE A comprehensive drainage plan has been developed to address storm water runoff from the site. The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey surface water runoff from the individual lots and buildings to a proposed regional storm water pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetlands. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24- hour storm event. Ponding calculations and drainage maps including pre- and post-development Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1 , 1998 Page 22 conditions for aiD-year and 1 DO-year storm event will also be required for City staff review and approval prior to final plat consideration. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available to the site indirectly. Subdivision of this parcel will require the extension of sanitary and water service into the development to serve all five lots. Currently, watermain service has been extended to the property line at the intersection of Stone Creek Drive and Coulter Boulevard. The City's sanitary sewer trunk line runs parallel to Bluff Creek's west branch. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended into the development just north of the church. The developer has requested the City install the public street and utility improvements through a 429 public improvement project. Currently, the City has reached its bonding limits for 1998. In addition, given the time of year, the project would not commence until October, 1998 due to the public hearing process, preparation of a feasibility study, plans and specifications, and award of bid. If the developer still desires to have the City construct the public improvements in 1999, a petition needs to be submitted to the City. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility easements over the existing utilities and drainageways (creeks). The City did not obtain easements for this work since the applicant was one of the petitioning property owners for Coulter Boulevard and it was presumed that the easements would be dedicated with the final plat of the development. The applicant did sign a right-of-entry form for the City to perform the work. The extension of utilities throughout this development will require submittal of detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for City review and City Council approval. Construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The mainline utility improvements to serve all five lots will, upon completion, become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services to each lot will be privately owned and maintained. Building permits from the City's Public Safety Department will be required for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements will be required over the public utility lines outside of public right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement shall be 20 feet wide. It appears that the proposed church may be encroaching within the proposed utility easement for the sanitary sewer through Lot 1. The building shall not encroach upon the utility easement or impede access to perform maintenance functions. The developer will also be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. Upon review of the preliminary watermain layout, a looped watermain system is proposed. It is prudent from a fire flow and dependability standpoint to extend a watermain lead to the east Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 23 underneath Bluff Creek east branch for future looping and connection to the next phase east of this development. The proposed wet-tap watermain near the trail in the southeasterly comer of the site should be relocated. The current proposal would interfere with existing trail and steps that were recently constructed with the pedestrian bridge. This can be further analyzed when an individual site plan from the parcel is submitted to the City for consideration. STREETS The plans propose servicing the site with the extension of Stone Creek Drive north of Coulter Boulevard. In addition, a private access from Coulter Boulevard west of Stone Creek Boulevard is proposed for the church. The plans proposed to construct a 36-foot face-to-face commercial type street section within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way as required by city codes. A 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the east side of Stone Creek Drive. The plans propose numerous crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive. Staff believes the number of crossings can and should be reduced from a pedestrian safety standpoint. Sidewalks along both sides of Stone Creek Drive may be appropriate to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive. The public streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. Staff is concerned about some of the drive aisle alignments and parking lot configurations from a traffic safety standpoint. There are numerous access points onto Stone Creek Drive which staff believes could be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning movements into the site. Reconfiguration of the drive aisles and parking lot areas would also permit additional green space be incorporated between parking lots and the main street. The sidewalk and driveway access points will be further reviewed as the individual site plans are submitted. The right-in/right-out access onto Trunk Highway 5 has been moved westerly approximately 100 feet to avoid the powers lines. Staffhas not received comments back from MnDOT regarding the access or site grading, however, we believe that the relocation should not pose a problem with MnDOT. Currently, staff assumes MnDOT will be constructing the right-in/right-out to the development as a part of the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. Depending on this project's phasing, the right-in/right-out onto Trunk Highway 5 may not be constructed in time to facilitate the needs of this project. During the interim, staff does not believe traffic generated from this project will adversely effect traffic along Coulter Boulevard or surrounding streets. However, should Trunk Highway 5 not be upgraded as currently scheduled, the developer should be aware that the right- in/right-out onto Trunk Highway 5 will be required to be constructed at the developer's cost. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 24 Security or language in the development contract will be required to guarantee completion of the right-in/right-out and deceleration/acceleration lane. The proposed development sign at the northwest comer of the Stone Creek Drive and Coulter Boulevard intersection falls within the sight triangle. City code prohibits structures in excess of 30" in height in order to maintain sight lines at the intersection. The sign should be relocated outside the sight triangle or it will be limited to a height of 30" above the centerline elevation of the street (Stone Creek Drive). The westerly drive aisle to the church from Coulter Boulevard could be realigned easterly to preserve more of the Bluff Creek corridor. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control fence needs to be added to the grading plan. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks, and at the base of slope in areas exceeding 3: 1 slope. Type I erosion control fence may be used in other areas. The plans shall also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent the pond after the pond has been constructed. MISCELLANEOUS When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Sect. 10-502. "No parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within jurisdiction when any portion of the facility, or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building, is located more than 150 feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. When access roads cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 (b). Note: As building plans become available Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April I, 1998 Page 25 we will review the plan to determine if standpipes are required in any portion of the building due to the fact that we cannot achieve 150 foot access of all portions of the building. " PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April I, 1998 to review the preliminary PUD proposal. The Planning Commission voted six for and none against a motion recommending approval of the preliminary PUD, including the Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit to permit grading and filling in the flood plain subject to the conditions of the staff report and the addition of condition "27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically I 00 foot setbacks with 50 foot buffer area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements." (A member of the Planning Commission had been mistakenly provided with an outdated copy of the Bluff Creek Ordinance during Planning Commission discussion of the item, one that included a 300 foot determination for the primary zone. However, this specification has been removed from the ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission and is pending before City Council.) With the exception of the setback for the north lot line of Lot 2, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 2, which equate to an 80 foot creek setback, the proposed setbacks as outlined in the design standards for the project comply with the setback specified by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: . "The City Council grants preliminary approval ofPUD #97-2, including the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill the small wetland located in the northern portion of the site and Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the following conditions: I. The church facility shall commit to provide approximately 153 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. In addition, the office and industrial site shall provide parking facilities for the church. A document acceptable to the city, protecting the joint use of the parking facilities, shall be recorded. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: . The developer shall add understory trees to the landscaping along Highway 5. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 26 · The developer shall add native overstory trees to the proposed plantings with the Bluff Creek corridor. Recommended species can be found in the Bluff Creek Management Plan. . All Amur maples shall be removed from the Bluff Creek planting plan and replaced with an understory species recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan. . All landscape islands shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. If islands do not meet minimum width, aeration tubes will be required. . The developer shall revise the landscape plan to include overstory boulevard trees every 30' along Stone Creek Drive. If 30' is not possible because oflighting or access points, the closest spacing will be accepted (i.e. 40 feet, etc.). . Additional native overstory trees and shrubs selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan shall incorporated into the landscaping around the proposed pond and western parking lots between the church and the building fronting Highway 5. 3. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. The developer shall dedicate to the City an easement for trail purposes, 20-foot wide over all existing and proposed trail segments. 4. The proposed industrial development of 19.33 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$89,556 and a water quantity fee of$84,279. The developer will be eligible for credit to the water quality fee based on stormwater treatment designs. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 5. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 6. All 34 boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. . Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive right-of-way. 7. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 27 hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City 8. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4:1 overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water elevation. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the design. 9. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. 10. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. 11. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly comer of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. 12. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the street improvements. 13. The developer shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding amendment to the existing floor plain boundary. The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the necessary documentation to have the Federal Flood Plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions. 14. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading and access to the site to be compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans. In addition, the developer shall coordinate the adjustment, relocation, and cost of the power lines with MnDOT. 15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat public drainage and utility easements over the existing and proposed utilities and drainageways (creeks). 16. No building shall be permitted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to perform maintenance functions to the utility system. 17. Individual driveway access points as well as sidewalks/crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive shall be re-evaluated with the individual site plans. There are numerous access points onto Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1, 1998 Page 28 Stone Creek Drive which staff believes can be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning movements into the site. It may also be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides of Stone Creek Drive to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive. 18. Depending on MnDOT's construction schedule and phasing of this project, the right-inJright- out access onto Trunk Highway 5 may have to be constructed by the developer. Security and/or language in the development contract will be required to guarantee construction of the right-inJright-out access and right turn lanes on Trunk Highway 5. 19. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks at the base of slopes in areas exceeding 3: 1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary sediment basins to accommodate site runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the pond once the pond has been constructed. 20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the developer $20 per sign. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the developer $20 per sign. The developer shall verify the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the utilities are accepted. 23. The developer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 1 DO-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The developer shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for I DO-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD April 1 , 1998 Page 29 24. The developer will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 25. The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically 100 foot setbacks with 50 foot buffer area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements." A TT ACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Site Plan 4. P.U.D. Narrative Bluff Creek Corporate Center 2/27/98 5. Memo for Steve Edwards to Liv Homeland dated 2/27/98 6. Church Size and Parking Changes from Previous Submittal 7. Comparison of Estimated Taxes Generated with Changes in Use 8. Memo from James Benshoof & Michael Chen to Liv Homeland dated 3/25/98 9. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 3/20/98 10. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 3/17/98 11. Appendix C - Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species and Natural Communities 12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 13. Letter from Robert Huffman to Robert Generous dated 3/11/98 14. City Council Minutes of 1/12/98 15. Letter from Lisa Christianson to Robert Generous dated 12/1/97 (from Conceptual Review) 16. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/1/98 g:\plan\bg\bluff creek corporate center preliminary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'UCANT: Land Group, Inc. OWNER: Bluff Creek Partners )RES& 123 North Third Street ADDRESS: 123 North Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Minneapolis, MN 55401 .EPHONE (Day time) 333-2244 TELEPHONE: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit .;x. Conditional Use Permit $400 - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit ..L- Wetland Alteration Permit $275 ~ Planned Unit Development* $750 _ Zoning Appeal ~ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign $150 - Site Plan Review. --X.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/V ACN ARI'N AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) ! Subdivision* five lots $475 TOTAL FEE $ 1, 175 ADD'I, FEES 875 (XX 2/27/98) A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8112" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract :: - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. . - .,1 O'.J " I C 1 .~ {,'ii 5i i I I,." !i ! 1 .-1 dt!ft ! f T -, J ,fI'1 3 '1 - I Jr'h II I ~~lll 5 a '-1 .hl.l e IsS I ~~i hllllhn;! UUUB;hl UUIUUUU I III I ;' I I I ~ : I .' ~, I I ( I ! I ...; I I "'( Iii I I I,' I I '. I i I III >- 0 ... a: .. C C!l 8 ~II ili ~li 8 0." J.. CJi" ::: ~:s ~ &l IIIGA. 0 III >- Z lie a: 0 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ .. ii1 If ~ ~ A. Z III a: III i!u .; a:!=: C&alO A,gcz ~O:":II IIIg "oi 01 5j;.~ .. I&. I&. ~ ...l CD z ~ ::J u ~>>i- J :z!~5si Sl'~p~ ~ II i I' ..s W ~ g- dEi i Ii ~I=! =- l;lW!- ~ lei! ~ il II;. ,'Sa i~: S:!t h~~ ~ Ji1i I it'll ~ ~ ". 4 .If 1 i II ~: i~ A:t ~! ~~~ ~ 'l~: tei~ . ill'! ~Slld \ \. I i ~ I 'I ' I II II I I f I I I ; I "," -~'~- "\ , \ \ [ l , I I -+.l I I I N . a ~ " ., ~ /' a ,-,.....--_/ f- _..f ---, . ' //' -- ~ ' ~/' ~~ ' /' .... .... a: IU ~ Z IU U IU Z ~ j C A- a:zl&l 0.... Ad ii a:=~ O"a: U;!C ~~iE lUG! IU iiI a: a: U A- U. U. :;) ..I ID .... .... 4- --'~- __'W /' .~ -' HI /~ ,- _-:...-=-=-- - ---' - ~ I if ~i !ex1nn l!XI!lH.~1 Ii ~I ,I .. o I~ do 19~nnl ~ 9siih ggggglll! _ft_ftft g H g g P.U.D NARRATIVE BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER February 27, 1998 INTRODUCTION: This narrative and the following guidelines are developed to provide a standard of quality and appearance to this project. The goal is to enhance this property with a cohesive development which is perceived as a single neighborhood, yet is flexible enough to provide visual interest between types of uses and between buildings. The Bluff Creek Corporate Center development is a mixed-use project consisting of a campus of office, office/warehouse buildings and a church. The site planning takes advantage of Highway 5 visibility as well as the creeks on each side of the site.. The office buildings and office/warehouse buildings are situated close to Highway 5 and to Coulter Boulevard to form a strong edge consistent with the corridor study guidelines. The church setting sits dramatically on the hill overlooking a pond with excellent exposure to Highway 5 In keeping with the Highway 5 corridor study, the landscaping and architecture will reflect the quality and intention of the guidelines. Rich masonry materials and architectural detailing will reflect in the facades that form a strong edge along Highway 5 and Coulter. Extensive landscaping and continuous trail systems will provide a pedestrian friendly environment within the site. The north and southwest elevations offer window and architectural opportunity for a front door image at all exposures. Service areas have been minimized and are screened on the creek side with an existing tree buffer. Parking areas are broken into small groupings separated by large landscaped islands and terraced to handle grade changes. The parking counts indicated on the plans reflect cross-over parking to minimize large expanses of parking. The compatibility of off-peak usage between the church hours and those of the office and office/warehouse building operation allows for this design. The church has 208 stalls to handle the congregation during the week. On weekends and evenings the church will have the use of shared parking with the office and warehouse buildings. 153 of the church's parking stalls are within a 400 foot radius of the office and office/warehouse buildings and are available for their use. The office/warehouse parking reflects 50% office and 50% warehouse based on market predictions. Primary access to the site is from Coulter Boulevard with secondary access from the west from Highway 5. The main entry from Coulter Boulevard aligns with Stone Creek Drive and features special landscaping. Another access is provide for the convenience of the church to the west P.D.D. NARRATIVE Bluff Creed Corporate Center Page 2 along Coulter. Circulation through the site is provided by public street, Stone Creek Drive, which serves all buildings. Access from Highway 5 will be from the previously MNDOT approved right-in and right-out on Highway 5, which was already in place when the land was purchased by the developers. Stone Creek Drive running through the site is a continuation of existing Stone Creek Drive extending from the south of Coulter Boulevard. Its extension through this site was previously approved by Council in 1996 as a public roadway, along with the right-in, right-out access on Highway 5. MNDOT is currently designing Highway 5 and a 70' wide green area would be provided between future shoulder of eastbound T.H.5 and the proposed parking lot. Along Coulter Boulevard, land is to be dedicated for roadway on the south border of site The setbacks along Bluff Creek are proposed at I DO' versus the width shown in the Management Plan. The 100' setback matches that provided for the Townhouses at the Creekside project on the south side of Coulter Boulevard. A reduction in the creek setback to 80' is proposed at one location in the northeast corner of the site. Landscaping and plantings to enhance the creek corridor are proposed. There is an existing powerline that runs through the center of the site. When MNDOT expands Highway 5, two poles in the north center and northwest corner of the site will be taken down and relocated. We are asking the City to specify that single metal poles be used as replacement rather than existing old wooden poles to ensure a quality image for the development. We believe MNDOT should be~ the entire cost of the poles and rerouting fees. It is possible, in order to maximize the development potential of the site, that the powerline should be rerouted beginning with the center of the site and angling over to the northwest corner. In such event, only one new pole would be needed along Highway 5. In such case, the pole in the center of the site will also be affected and we believe MNDOT should thus bear the cost of both poles. It is uncertain how this pole replacement necessitated by MNDOT's expansion of Highway 5 will affect the lines to the south of Coulter Boulevard. Ponding has been accomplished on site entirely within the flood plain as requested. The existing wetland, 845 sq. ft. in average, in the northern part of our site will be filled for a proposed parking lot as the wetland alteration area is less than the deminimis area of2,000 sq. ft. The proposed storm water pond would also provide wetland mitigation credits. As an off-set to development costs, including infra-structure, moving of powerline, soil correction and land costs, we are requesting a tax increment district be established for such funding. ~~l[Rnl [--~[- -] ~l Cl l..-..::.J . _J MEMORANDUM project file from date to Liv Homland Land Group, Jnc. rc Addendum to the Previously Submitted Family of Christ Lutheran Church Site Narrative Family of Christ Lutheran Church Chanhassen, MN 19l5 Steve Edwins. AlA 27 February 1998 The Site Plan for the Family of Christ Lutheran Church is a response to the City's guidelines for this area, namely: A. Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (Chanhassen, MN: July 1996) B. Ordinance No. 212. establishing Highway Corridor Districts, namely the HC-2 District C. Ordinance No. 231, for Article XXVI Signs D. Ordinance No. (draft#4), establishing the Bluff Creek Overlay Corridor The Site Plan is the result of concept review by Planning Commission and City Council and concurrent and subsequent discussions with Chanhassen planning staff. It is necessary to emphasis that this is not II flat site, and is quite complex. The elevation of Highway 5 is higher than portions of the site, particularly north of the Church site. Coulter Boulevard dips to a low point at the west fork of Bluff Creek. The development area slopes downward to the west, to the south and to the east The Church location is shown at the north side of Block 1. Lot 1. ratherJhan proximate to Coulter Boulevard (as the PUD rules ordain) for reasons that are important for the success of the church in terms of view, access andgrowth. and for the best preservation of the Bluff Creek Corridor. This is accomplished without sacrificing the requirement to buffer the parking area from Coulter. due to the particular topology of the site. S M S Q Architects 1205 South Water Street I Box 390 I Northfield Minnesota 55057 1507-645-4461 I FAX 507-645-7682 Addendum: Church Site Plan Narrative 27 February 1998 page two Travelers on Coulter cannot easily see the whole parking area above, given its height and the landscaped slopes. The proposed north location for the church building allows its classroom and meeting spaces to panake in the scenic creek and pond view at both floor levels, while the building hides the main church parking area from view to the Highway 5 travelers, who will be looking down toward this site. Thus, with travelers seeing the creek, pond, prairie plantings, new creek embankment landscaping, trail way, church yard, and the masonry building fonn behind, both the appropriate visibility of the church is created, and the natural amenities of Bluff Creek are maintained and enhanced. For the success of the church over the years, this plan allows tor good access, parking and space to grow. With the main entrance on its sunny south face, the walking paths from parking to the entry are somewhat protected from wintertime winds by the building itself Churches today also need outside "social" space near the entrances, which on the south can be used for a much of the year. In our climate it would be a great mistake to place the entry facing north with unfriendly shaded entry walks a constant ice problem. The church needs a long drop-off area to facilitate users during the week and for the great flow of people each Sunday. This area needs to be a]most level, and run the length of the building, as is possible with the slope down to the west. This also provides fire , equipment access. The parking slopes to drain away from the entrance and building. Space for growth is shown in two directions. To the west of the cenral core, the church expects to expand its two level educational and child-care facilities toward Bluff Creek. The building turns and has a smaller scale massing here. These are rooms with windows benefitting from the natural vista to the west and the new plamings re-establishing a "nalural" setting. Lower level parking is shown for easy access by parents to a child-care and/or nursery school program of the church. On the east side of the central core, space is "land-banked" for a future worship assembly space and its support facilities. This location places li'near a large number of church and shared parking spaces on three sides. llow does this design for church and parking respond to. the guidelines, better than other previous or other plans would? We propose that the "rules" for the site arc being followed as far as intent. yet with competing forces kept in balance, In Summary then: I. Travelers along Coulter see the landscape open laterally at Bluff Creek, without imposition of structures near the Creek. Not only is building structure and parking kept more than 100 feet from the creek centerline as required, the basic land form of the hillside is rt:spectt:d, so the newly planted landscaping can hay\: its intended J M S Q Architect. 1205 South Water Street I Box 390 I Northfie/d Minnesota 55057 1507-645.4461 I FAX 507-645-7682 Addendum: Church Site Plan Narrative 27 February 1998 page three effect. A small parking area at the west follows the contours, and is a shared benefit to the church and those visiting the Creek area. 2. A southwest driveway curves upward to the Church, with parking masked, for the most part, by landscaped slopes. The resulting landform will have a more natuml character than ifmade efficiently rectilinear. Parking is purposely. and necessarily, held back from Coulter near the southwest driveway to maintain natural looking slopes and a view of the Bluff Creek area for west bound travelers. 3. The landscape plan accomplishes both required screening and the fe-establishment of native vegetation along the Bluff Creek Corridor. Trees are situated for a continuity of "woods" along the Creek. set up framed views, yet al low necessary visibility of the church and for safe driveway use at Coulter. The climax tree species of the Big Woods are utilized along the creek. A number of pine species are used as required for screening along Coulter. Prairie grasses follow the slopes in the Creek Corridor, with marsh/wetland varieties surrounding the new retention pond north of the Church. Within the site. landscaped islands with trees break up the parking and provide shading of the pavements and parked cars.. 4 Pedestrian and bicycle access is encouraged with continuity among sidewalks and the creek side trail and access trails. Similarly sidewalks lead through shared parking to both Church and the other facilities to the east. S Parking is designed for shared use. The eastern-most upper parking benefits the weekday oftice activities east of the new north-south road and to the north. With the re-alignment of the new drive further west than in the approved concept plan, more orthe parking is now directly accessible to these otlices and ofticelwarehouse developments. The church parking has a short-cut to the north and at the southeast for easier access between parking ar~as for vehicles and walking. In conclusion. by locating the church on the north section of the Church's "pcnnisula". the church's needs are better served, while the community is also served by avoiding a building which might loom over Coulter and possibly detract from the landscape intentions of the Bluff Creek Corridor. The plan achieves an appropriate balance between the objectives of shared use of the site as a PUD development with its semi-urban, pedestrian friendly design objectives, and the needs to re-establish a natural waterway and trail corridor. end of Addendwn 19\1..,,1.c.8d2 S M S Q Archlleen ,205 South Water Street I Box 390 I Northlield Minnesota 55057 1507-645-4461 1 FAX 507-645.7682 03/24/1998 08:37 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES CHURCH LAND SIZE AND PARKING CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL Bluff Creek Corporate Center February 27,1998 Previous Submittal Current Submittal Size of Church Land Parcel Reduced: 6.9 Acres 5.77 Acres Increased Office & Warehouse Parking: 439Spaces 528 Spaces Reduced Church Parking: (Parking reduced along east side by Stone Creek Drive and added in southeast comer) 214 Spaces 208 Spaces PAGE 02 Net Change - 1.13 Acres + 89 Spaces - 6 Spaces CHURCH P ARKING ALLOCATED FOR USE BY OTHER BUILDINGS OUT OF A TOTAL OF 208 SPACES: 153 Spaces __9.~/ 24.L1J98 08: 37 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 03 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED TAXES GENERATED WITH CHANGES IN USE Bluff Creek Corporate Center February 27, 1998 Taxes Per Year ESTIMATED TAXES GENERATED BY CURRENT PLAN: 83,000 square feet of Office 100,000 square feet ofOmcelWarehouse $ 290,960 IF ALL OFFICE (excluding church site): 183,000 sf Office S 419,300 IF ALL OFFICE/WAREHOUSE (excluding church site): 153,000 sf* Omce/Warebouse S 153,236 IF OFFICE/WAREHOUSE ON CHURCH SITE: 38,000 sf omce/W arehouse Building (based on 120 available parking stalls). S 36,856 Assumptions: Offlce/Warehouse Butldings assumed to be 50% office and 50% warehouse. Value of O/c/Whse Buildings assumed to be S221sf. Value of OffICe Buildings assumed to be S50/sf. First $100,000 o/value assessed at 3", halance at 4.6"- *Note: Le...... squarefootage can be developed on the site since offlce warehouse is all single story. Also, the topography of the sire does not lend itself well to large single level building footprints. 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 02 w BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS ~E, SUITE 500 / EDINA, MN 55439/ (612) 832-9858 f FAX (812) 832-9564 March 25, 1998 Refer to File: 96-60 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Liv Homeland, Lane! Group, Inc. ~ ~ Ir{\c/ James A. Bensho~f & Michael H. Chen' RE: Traffic Impact Analysis Results for Bluff Creek Corporate Center Right Turn Access on T,H. 5 in the City ofChanhassen . PURPOSE As requested by the Land Group Company. this memorandum presents the results of our detailed traffic review for the T.H. 5 right turn access planned in conjunction with the Bluff Creek Corporate Center located in the City ofChanhassen, Minnesota. The analysis yeat for this development traffic study has been set at 2001. The Bluff Creek development is expected to be completed in the year 2000 and the analysis examines the impacts one year after completion, which is consistent with State environmental regulations. The analysis addresses traffic implications of the Bluff Creek development's right turn access onto T.H. 5 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. the time when volumes generated by both the development and T.H. 5 are at their highest. In order to accomplish this year 2001 traffic analysis, we have accomplished the following work tasks: 1. Collection of background data. Information was collected from MnlDOT, City of Chanhassen, Land Group Development Company, and actual field observations. 2. Development or Traffic Forecasts. Traffic forecasts were developed to account for the new Bluff Creek Corporate Center and other trips that would use the proposed right turn access. Turn movement projections were developed for the proposed T.R. S right turn in/out access for the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. 3. Traffic Analysis. An analysis of the T.H. S right turn access onto the Bluff Creek Corporate Center site was perfonned to determine both the operational characteristics of the access and the traffic impacts during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on both T.R. S and the extension of Stone Creek Drive. 4. ConclusiODs. Based on this analysis. a series of conclusions and recommendations have been developed. 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 03 Ms. Liv Homeland .2- March 25) 1998 BACKGROUND INFORMA nON This section examines the proposed development) s location and its principal characteristics. It is followed by an examination of existing road conditions along T.H. S to the north of the development site and a description of the expected improvements to T.H. S. DeveloDment Location and n,scriDtiOg The proposed Bluff' Creek Corporate Center is located immediately south of T.H. 5 and north of Coulter Boulevard in the City of Chanhassen. The site is approximately 1,500 feet east of Galpin Blvd. and 2,400 feet west of Audubon Road as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 also shows the location of some adjacent developments that are expected to generate some trips using the subject right turn access on T.H. 5. The Bluff Creek Corporate Center is comprised of two office buildings (39,000 and 44,000 sq. ft.), two mixed use office/warehouse developments (38,000 and 62,000 sq. ft.) and a church (20,000 sq. ft. expanding to 60,000 sq. ft. sometime between the years 2001 and 2010). The development is proposed to have its main access on the north side of the Stone Creek Drive and Coulter Boulevard intersection. The development has proposed that the existing Stone Creek Drive be extended from Coulter Blvd. north to T .H. 5 through the Bluff Creek development site. All the development access points on Coulter Blvd and the proposed Stone Creek Drive extension are expected to be full access driveways. The Stone Creek Drive intersection with T.H. 5 will be restricted to right in/right out movements. Exi.tinl ~hlt8cteriltia The primary roadway examined in this analysis is T .H. 5 between Galpin Blvd. and Audubon Road. This road is presently a two lane undivided A Minor Arterial facility with a daily traffic volume of about 30,500 vehicles. As buUt drawings for T.H. 5 show two 12 feet wide travel lanes and a paved 10 feet wide shoulder on each side. Immediately to the west of the development site is the Bluff Creek Elementary School and a Recreation Center. To the south of the development on Stone Creek Drive, there are multi- family and single family residential homes. These developments are all expected to contribute a certain portion of traffic onto the proposed Stone Creek Drive extension to T.H. 5. Future RoadwlY Imorovementl Mn/DOT will be improving the segment of T.H. S between Galpin Blvd. and Audubon Road from the existing two lane facility to a four lane divided facility. This improvement is expected to be completed in the year 200 I. As mentioned previously, Stone Creek Drive south of Coulter Blvd. is expected to be extended north to T.H. 5 through the Bluff Creek development site by the year 2000. The actual Stone Creek Drive access to T.H. 5 is expected to be open commensurate with the initial phase of the Bluff Creek development. 03/25/1998 11:05 6123345675 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 04 I ~l '. It. ~! I I ,) d( \ :~J . \ ;.\ \.1:~ ~ ~\ \ ! .' <.... ~.~'.:, ':~>":':'~.:.-::::;;,;,.;~.' :',~)"' ! ~~ ( .~,} ~ ,::....:.'.~,.....~..~:.:: ... \. j ),: t:-:: ~ ~ '''':''(l '-..... .! f. .<?~:::::;~' '"""''''-'--t;~'-'\~;.''.iI/'~, j',.'" ~, ~- " ~ ...' ,:-,:':'" \"'~'~ \:.... 'wl \ ~:\. ~ ~ . :\r';<(~ i i~ ,-; '~:. t ",~"''''' .;.; I - ,..-l.....II::~~~ ~/~ , :~ r-- ._-.....~~-- ; .,. I, . .'f w..__-......~~'.. ~/ ','"' :.I~' ---..:~ ~'::~..~ \ ~ '~.:....:::j -. '~'"'r~'..... , n, "-., i! ". ..~ ,"'.. r,~. ~ ~.......~....-_l-.... .,#'" '.\ ' ........ "'"""""" _...,,~.,. 1 ..\ _, II ...~, · .. -. '--4" ". '~~ /" ---+-1 · -"-', ~ .....n.FMIIl.y 1 'f.~\" I>- \ ,i ) II "':., ~~~~lji;'W(,,~ "" '- · AE8IICJNTlIt.. ~ -i'''''...... ,;.t~.....;:' ".,..4'< . _..._.,,'~ ,..~ ,...0J6 _--., , ~ ~ y ( ~,_ P'''''~''' ~ ~~ ",~".....-... ~... f ) U,,:~.J (..~_. . ;1 ~.~\:.:" ~~.\......~~...I* . ~ _r'~ .. ""'"\'" ,:"'J'''' :;" ~~..", f-- "y..,~ \ II.' ~~ .....' ....,..~,...~.......', , ":~'~ /' ~ -I'~.JoI" " I':;"; .,' ~":" ~ ''''~ . I ~.\. . .,-.w._r I._~ ':'0(1: 'A/if ~~~," ..1"7~. I ~~.. \. ~ . ..' ", " l~~ / '1i!;;"''It! l <f-.I-IIf<<aIJO.FiIlMLY __ <-.. ," ~: ,'J-I,.. ~I,)" "1~" r';' '* "to ! I AiEIIDEN1'W... .,.,. ........ ~' . ~I"......~~ );j\",'" t ..~ '. ...,1 " /" "'_.... 1J;!i . ,., ',;; 1\, t ! . "" " . .... ,,",' ( . '~{1I4 I'i" ," "j f +t;' ',........ ._~.../ I ... ---,fII " '-'~ ' 'n'~'" ,,,~., \ ;::f" ,,- '<,.' 0. " '." " :1'\';\1:..':"-''''- ~1~r.:i:';. "\ ~~.;# j:rt ....').~. \ I-)\~"::L 'I' )T." # . *p.. , _ ... . _ .... ";l> II. .... .6.. "" ,J I ~:'.. ,...:.)... __..... :.~...\ ~" ~ A>f'I, ........ .<;:-( ,.T, '? __.....- "f'~~J' ~, .~ · ~-~ ~ ::'..",.. ....f:'(!o 4 " ..;__~ ~ . . ",.' ;}, ry "l:;f .' ~~~ ~ I ~'l } \+......,.-'--~r #~.I' .~..:;.". \,.. !~:. ';J: ,;-: .~J~,,""--r- ft~'~l~; r ,.~. I ~. ",v~~.~ ,'..,,;.- ..#..~:/'1 -,7/-'- ,,;....~. ~t... '".'~'.. I'.,to~ J r~~ ~t V 19' ~) '\.. J .../ ~,'.J ,~"... I"'. p.~~~" .,~,^ . .'. ,or .,...... ._.. '..:/ i t ~ / r.r, '~.J .........7.-....... ~j.....:::<.... \ . .,. '.- "" ",v~iI'.", j ;" ~~ ,~'J ~. ,.~ q ,.~(,// .,." ,'/ ~ ,(~ ~t, .:': ~...':4J I ! I.. . N.',e, ", '5'~t. If'..... / fI,' . A; .~. 'to F'-. ~la~" ~ ..II~ ..... ~~,....... -~~.... / ~~,. ~ (; ~~y ~t.. . \..~~~~~ 'i~\.J/I'~.. r.~ '.1....;,....- ~'.;.. \. ..'....~." ii \",;q,~ ~1:1 ;'j! .,'!. -V'''''''' I '-I" t.."" .:';:l'{ ::-./:..' ~.. -,!.' I :~'~.'~4rf~'.f~""''''''::...J4'.<'.,.'.\S''N'''''~V'\ :J.i . ....." " ~:,,;:,)'-' ,H''' .y' . ': ... ....1 .,___. ~ t ~ '. .r" ,'<,Y .. i: ~ -. ,/~'r~ ;/ I"~<.l~ ~ \ '"':. ,."..' '(" ,. ~.(' '.. . ~ I,." .f, \ ) " :i' \. ~~. ~ ,'''(,'. :". \. ,..../J.~t .j...... ; 4JC':: ..:.' .....~~.~..~;~:.."'.~", .. :~;:"\ "~ ~--I'1 .... ~ ',' --..- ~~"'J i , ...,. \ ;:; (:\- "'J f' ~~\ \~, " .;.;> ,'~J ~~ '{ \ :;." ._: '.""'--".!.. :tr..... } '.- ..-::.J ..... '\..-(' :t::;t . ".',,)~.1 ,', 1:' --.....--- ..-". .s.A...\~.s;. 1 ~ l I. ':'....:,. .....".,...~~..':...... . ,.~",. " ,4., ~" .. \ <~. ..,:'.1" ,. '''If;' ./ ....-. ~ "r"/ \ -" ^,~" ';!- '- ./ \"....~-.., J ...~,.:lj ,;;~~ . "!- I ...,,{ ~ ~"". ,.....,.. 'S.j. \ '. ~~:i'~ .:t. \:..~? !. ,u:~i-i - / / i.....(~.-.'l . . ",..J If I, ,f',',,~..::...(';,t:. ....~~c. ! '_" "~ ..0("" ~l .if.~?=:..~ <::~~.~ , '1 .'....,~ . ~ :,,_ ;t:~, } ':' ~ ,..( """. " .'..... " i '. ~~:i:Lilij'~ r U~'~. .'It ,..., '\ .J ~,.:~~' j. ~.. Ii,. ~".._'"- " CI-IA,l':abS~EN \ :'.'tj "'" ':/" .".,\ ~ ' ~: \. d'. , /~:~ :-,~::~",.. .t//, :u \\ \ '" ;,....::.:~~ A "'.:~ . r f/ \\\ '" . '., .:',.,~,/ '\:'," . ; , , '",,::-'.~: .~..:_.~/:~:::;~.~~:;'.I' .. ... ~.- .' ~ (:(''::::;;'';:':~-'-'' " ~~ ~ ,-,~ AECREIJION CBtftER ,.., . ~ ~~~] ~'I'olr. I j:. , 'II) r r~?:r.:..A 'I. ;;....'D. '.. t\IIt -__ lot.. . i'" ... i ",.\ . .' :~~~ ~.: J.. ... ,~;'.... '":~~\"""'OM~ ,f. :'t'~"";, :::) ..., !ft..... ! C~ , ,~j . \ ~ :i '..; ..........."- "..,." \ J>< ...j ...,<~}!~%~:\, ~ "...,,, .l....'.' " >r;;/,u t '<~~! j /...... ) I SCALE ~ o -~ 2000' NOTE: FIGURE AlSO IDENTIFIES NEARBY DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TRAFFIC TO THE PROPOSED STONE CREEK DRIVE ACCESS ON TH 5. LAND GROUP, INC. TRAFFIC ANAL VSIS FOR BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER FIGURE 1 (Xi BENSHOOF & ~IATES, INC. V TlIANIPORTATIONENGINEEUANDPUNNER, SITE LOCATION 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 05 Ms. Liv Homeland -4- March 25. 1998 TRAF'FIC FORECASTS There are two distinct components in the development of traffic forecasts for this project. The first component examines the vehicle volumes to bc generated by uses in thc Bluff Creek Corporate Center. The second component examines the trips that are generated by the adjacent land uses and how they would impact the proposed T.R. 5/ Stone Creek Drive right turn access. Tramt Counts Daily traffic count infonnation wu obtained from the Mn/DOT which showed a 1997 avcrage daily traffic volume of approximately 30,500 vehicles on T.H. 5. Peak hour vehicle counts in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours show approximately 1,337 and 1;355 eastbound vehicles, respectively. TriD Generatiqo The trip generation rates used for the Bluff Creek Corporate Center development are based on established data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and other local sources. The resultant trip generation rates for the new development and for the adjacent land uses are &hown in Table 1. Table 1 Trip Generation Rates for Different Development Components and Adjacent Land Uses Development Land Uses Trip Rate Unit TriD Generation Rate A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Church Per 1 000 50. ft. 0.72 0;66 Office Per 1.000 so. ft. 1.56 1.49 Warehouse Per 1.000 sa. ft. 0.51 0.59 Adjaeeat Land Uses School Per student 0.28 0.24 Recreation Center Per 1.000 sa. ft. 1.32 1.75 Sin21e Familv Residential Per Dwellinp; Unit 0.75 1.01 Multi-Familv Residential Per Dwellinp; Unit 0.44 0.54 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 05 Ms. Liv Homeland -5- March 2S, 1998 For the mixed use office/warehouse developments, 500.10 of the floor area is assigned to each land use. Table 2 shows the resultant a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation projections. Table Z Trips Generated By Bluff Creek Corporate Center Development in A.M. & P.M. Peak Boun Development Size Trips Generated in A.M. Trips Generated in P.M. Component Peak Hour Peale Hour Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Church 20.000 s.t: 8 6 7 6 Office # 1 44.000 s.f. 60 8 12 S4 Office #2 39.000 s.f. 54 6 10 48 Mixed use # I Office 19.000 s.f. 26 4 5 23 Warehouse 19.000 s.f. 7 3 4 7 Mixed use #2 Office 31.000 s.f 43 S 8 38 Warehouse 31.000 s.f. 11 5 6 12 Total 209 37 S2 188 TriD Distribution and Alsh!Dment The vehicle trips generated by the proposed Bluff Creek Corporate Center development were assigned to the nearby roadways based on a distribution pattern of 10% north., 25% south, 50% east. and 15% west. These figures were detennined by examining the population density in the Chanhassen area and through discussions with Land Group to determine the area serviced by the development. Post.Dev~oDment Trip Forecasts A key component in determining the post-development volumes that would use the T .H. 5 / Stone Creek Drive access is the effect of the developments that are adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center site, as shown in Figure 1. For each of these other developments, its effects in terms of contributing traffic at the T.H. 5/ Stone Creek Drive intersection were determined through the following steps: 1) quantifying the size of the development, 2) projecting its total trip generation, and 3) determining the portion of trips that would use the subject right turn access. The results are described next for each particular use. · Bluff Creek Elementary School - The school is directly adjacent to Galpin Blvd. It will add eight northbound right turns in the morning peak hour to the Stone Creek Drive access onto T.R. 5 and 12 northbound right turns in the afternoon peak hour. 03/25/1998 11:05 6123345675 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 07 Ms. Liv Homeland w6. March 25, 1998 · Recreation Center - Given the proximity of the recreation center to Galpin Blvd. and Stone Creek Drive access, this facility will add one northbound right turn in the morning peak hour at the T.n 5 I Stone Creek Drive access and four northbound right turns in the afternoon peak hour. · Multiwfamily Residential - The 2S multiwfamily residential units to the south of the development on Stone Creek Drive will add six northbound right turns in the moming peak hour to the T.H. 5 I Stone Creek Drive access, with two eastbound and three northbound right turns in the afternoon peak hour. · Single Family Residential #1 - This area comprises 4S dwelling units to the south of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center development on Stone Creek Drive. These dwelling units will add two eastbound and nine northbound right turns in the morning peak hour to the T.H. 5/ Stone Creek Drive access, with five eastbound and five northbound right turns in the afternoon peak hour. . Single Family Residential #2 - This area comprises 23 dwelling units in the southwest portion of Stone Creek Drive. These homes will add three northbound right turns in the moming peak hour to the T.R. 5 I Stone Creek Drive access and three northbound right turns in the afternoon peak hour. The resulting year 2001 post.development a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes are shown in Figure 2 for the T.H. S / Stone Creek Drive right turn Wout access. The background growth rate for the volume on T.H. S used for these year 2001 forecasts was assumed to be 3% per year. TRAF'FlC ANALYSIS The analysis results and design considerations are presented next for the critical issues addressed in this study. The issues examined are listed as follows: · Levels of Service at Stone Creek Drive Right Turn Access on T.H. 5 · T.H. 5/ Stone Creek Drive Right Turn Access Design Considerations Levels of Servi~~ at Stone Creek Drive Ri,ht Turn Access on T.R. S The Highway Capacity Software program was used to analyze some capacity aspects of the T.H. S I Stone Creek Drive access. Level of service A refers to an operational condition with little delay where as level of service F refers to a condition where long delays can be expected. Intersections and roadways are designed to provide a level of service D or better. 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 08 r- "'" TH5 150511525 ) 52/22 ~ ~ ~ ~ .... [fi Os ~ 'lIit" ~ tI) NOTE: JUST EASTBOUND VOlUMES ARE SHOWN BECAUSE THE ACCESS WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RIGHT 11JRNS ONLY. N t AM PEAK HOUR I I PM PEAK HOUR XXIXX NOT 10 SCALE .... ~ LAND GROUP. INC. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER FIGURE 2 YEAR 2001 POST- DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES AT TH I RIGHT INIOUT ACCESS ao BENSHOOF & ASSOCIAlES,lNC. V TllAlltl'OlUATlOMMlNIIAtAllD !'LANN...t 03/25/1998 11:05 5123345575 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 09 Ms. Liv Homeland -8- March 25, 1998 Analyses were completed for two scenarios; the existing two lane operation on T.H. 5 and the four lane operation on T.H. 5 expected by the year 2001. The level of service results for these two scenarios are presented next: . Two Lane T.H. 5 Operation - The traffic signal at the Galpin Blvd. I T.H. 5 intersection will create gaps in the T.R. S eastbound traffic that will improve the operation of the Stone Creek Drive access. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the eastbound right turn is expected to operate at LOS B. The northbound right turn is expected to operate at LOS D during these two peak hour periods. It is important to note that these results are based on the year 2001 traffic projections. The stated LOS D operation for the northbound right turn movement would only be valid for the years 2000 to 2001 when the development is fully completed and prior to the completion of improvements on T.R. S. Since the development is expected to be constructed in several phases, the northbound right turn volume will actually be lower during this interim period and operate at LOS C or better at all times. . Four Lane T.H. 5 Operation - During both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, the eastbound right turn operates at LOS A and northbound right tum operates at LOS B. There is an improvement in the level of service especially for the northbound right turn movement because T .H. 5 would be improved to a four lane facility. The two eastbound lanes create more opportunities for northbound right turns to access T.R. S from Stone Creek Drive because the vehicle volume along T.H. 5 would be spread to two lanes. T.R. !i I Stolle C~k Drive Ri2bt Tum Access DelisrD COd.ideratiqn, Discussions were conducted with several MnlDOT staff regarding the operation of other existing right turn access locations that are similar to the proposed Stone Creek Drive access onto T.H. 5. Two similar right turn accesses are located on T.H. 41 south of T.H. 5 in Chaska. Trunk Inghway 41 is a two lane facility at these locations and the speed limit is 55 mph. The first location accesses the Chaska Commons development on the east side of the highway, and the second location accesses the 10nathan Square development on the west side. Both locations use a raised asphalt center island design on the approach to T.H. 41 to properly channelize the right turn movements in and out of the development site. The raised islands are marked with small white plastic bollards running along the edge of the island. There are signs on both T .H. 41 and the development sites that prohibit left turns. Stop signs control vehicles accessing T.H. 41 from these developments. Vehicles entering T.H. 41 are positioned at an angle that make potential illegal left turn onto T.H 41 awkward. Similarly, vehicles attempting to turn left from T.H. 41 into these developments are faced with an equally awkward movement. MnlDOT staff has noted that these two right turn only locations function well. These access locations have not been identified as safety problem locations. 03/25/1998 11:05 6123345675 STIElOW PROPERTIES PAGE 10 Ms. Liv Homeland -9- March 25, 1998 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the information presented in this report, we have developed the following conclusions and recommendations: · The proposed T .H. 5 / Stone Creek Drive right turn access would be the only access point on the south side of T.H. S between Audubon Road and Galpin Blvd., a total distance of 3,900 feet. Stone Creek Drive would be located about 1,500 feet from Galpin Blvd. and 2,400 feet from Audubon Road. These access spacing dimensions conform with MnlDOT's access management practices. · Prior to the completion of the T .H. 5 widening to a four lane divided facility in the year 2001, the northbound right turn movements at the Stone Creek Drive right turn access onto T.H. 5 will operate at a level of service D during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This LOS D operation will occur at the completion of the Bluff' Creek Corporate Center development in the year 2000. Since the Bluff Creek Corporate Center is developed in several phases, the critical northbound right turn movement from Stone Creek Drive onto T.H. S will operate at LOS C or better in both the a.m. and p.m. peale hours until the development is completed in the year 2000. · With the completion of the T.H. S widening to a four lane divided facility in the yeat 200 I, the critical northbound right turn movements at the Stone Creek Drive access onto T.R 5 will operate at a LOS B or better at all times. · The right turn access designs used along T.H. 41 in Chub at the Chaska Commons development and the lonathan Square development are similar to the proposed Stone Creek Drive access on T.H. S. Both T.H. 5 and T.H. 41 presently are two lane highways with 55 mph speed limits. MnlDOT staff will be required to decide on the exact design specifications for the construction of the Stone Creek Drive right turn access onto T.H. S. MnlDOT's design specifications for this type of access may include the construction ofa deceleration lane along T.R. S. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.1IS MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A. Of., ( FROM: DATE: March 20, 1998 SUBJECT: 97-2 PUD (Bluff Creek Corporate Center, Land Group, Inc. and Bluff Creek Partners) I was asked to review the variance proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN I RECEIVED I MAR 02 1998, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g:lsafetylsak\memoslplanlNo-comnt The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and CITY OF CHANHASSEN 10 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 :,zgineering Fax 612.937.9152 11tb/ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 li'fb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 17, 1998 SUBJ: Request for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate PUD; Preliminary PUD and plat approval for three lots and one outlot and for an office industrial project which would permit a church/institutional use on property located south of Highway 5 and north of Coulter Boulevard at Stone Creek Drive on 27.3 acres, Land Group, Inc. and Bluff Creek Partners, Bluff Creek Corporate Center. Planning Case 97-2 PUD. I have reviewed the request for rezoning for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. No comments at this time. g: \safety\ml\plrev97-2 Ie City of Chflllhassell. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play ~ ::: ~ ~: ~~~~~~~ :f,<r.<<''''':: ~ ! - ."."Vl co Hi II if i~~i~3~ ! II f_l -_~_~-~ i i - ~ ~ ~ ii'.: i i ~~ ~.." ..:; 5" ~~ -'" ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ::. "i -~ ~?pg'2:g:'~~~~~~~ v3; ~ 2 ~ :;; n v: ~ ~ ;, :l if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~:~ ~ =- ~ t:.....(";,r.'....,,:-c:ft.3~if= S' *" a. ~ r;; =- fi r.' ~ 8. S E IIIliiltlll1 "t" ~ .::;.':::" ::: =- ! r~!!l lr~F. a.~t OJ a-= ~~ ~ ~~~ ill -~ ~ i} i * ~ ~ ::!Jl. ~ ::: ~ . -it ~ i ~~~~gf~ar~i~ .... '& :: 3 - 1:': r. = q P'\'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -5 ~~ g ~ ~ r;. i ~ ~~~~~e; ~~~~!:~. [IIIIiHiHl - Eo: ~ ",en 11'" a ~ ~'1E ~= ~ ~ ~~ Co;:, 3;; ::;: 2 ~ ~ ~~ ". . ~: g ~~OQt~~~S:?F9a ~g.~!!:i'<~;;!. g:~ F. :;.r. ~& ~VlO>"'''' ~.!~ a, ~t ?" [~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 5"'=:~ iltlll ~ ! ~fi t: _ t: '&~~ - :.:" ~~] ii~ ~lr ~~~ ="'";1 ~.~: ~. :: E '" ~. ~ ~ ~~! ~.~~ lj.{ tII g s '"' '"' I 5.' i ~ ~ ~;- ". ~ ~r I :!l ". ~ ~ . ~ . i ~I:DO"t:lZ ~~~~~~ -=?tfr;~r."3 ~j ~ ~~1 iUljI -i ~1 - ~ R~t~~~ 2 ~ [[~~. 1 ~ &" ~'i ~ ~ f.~ - ~ = mm - "t.:' ~ "t ~- -.., ::- ~. ~. g l ~ s. ~ ;:. !~Ji ~"?'<l": ~'i~g [H:l ~ ~~ ~ :.: ..:. ~~ - ~. ;:. il!!I!11 ::::: ~ S. s- . s::~z,a.">.,,t"".l ~. 8. ~ ?- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl 'So ~-< ~.-< ~ _."':1 1! .., ~ = I:: F.' ~g~[~~~.s ~~~&t.!::.~~ fUnm l -!! g~ lii -? s: $ .: ;;:; ;;;. Hi , - . . > ~ . ;:. g'~b~~~~~W~~t HP'~jp:r~ ;-~ ~ a t~ 1 ~ ! ~g g a ~.]- ~. ~. r&a. ~~ l~ g.~ ~ a 11 f '< ~ El' ~ Co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ l ;:. go ~ ~ ~ ); ~ % " ~. ~ 4';?:f ~1~ '<1;,:"< ~ €-g ~1 ~ ~d l~j iil ~ ~ 0. (l. ;.0>- ~1. li ~~ ;( ~ ~"':: :s a. 5 l ~. ! ~ Appendix C - SluH Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities Resource: Minnesota's St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program. ;Jl~?=;o~;::!g'D;;: l i~ ~ ~. '\ ! I '" :7 ~ ~ "I Cl ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 1 , 1998 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive SUBJECT: Rezoning and Preliminary PUD for Bluff Creek Corporate Center APPLICANT: land Group, Inc. and Bluff Creek Partners LOCATION: So. of Hwy. 6, north of Coulter Boulevard NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Bluff Creek Partners, is requesting rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD; Preliminary PUD and plafapproval for 3 lots and one outlot and for an office industrial project which would permit a church/institutional use on property located south of Hwy. 5 and north of Coulter Bouelvard at Stone Creek Drive on 27.3 acres, Land Group Inc. and Bluff Creek Partners, Bluff Creek Corporate Center. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 19, 1998. ~o~~ HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN INC 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 RICHARD D FRASCH 8000 ACORN LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK FOSTER 8020 ACORN LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MGM CONSTRUCTION lNC. 450 EAST CO RD D LITTLE CANADA, MN 55117 PILLSBURY BAKERIES/FOOD SERVICE 8000 AUDUBON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INC 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9505 SHAMROCK PROP PARTNERS 7350 COMMERCE LANE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432 MICHAEL J GORRA 1680 ARBORETUM BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY & BETTY VANDEVEIRE 4980 CTY RD 10 EAST CHASKA, MN 55318 PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES ACCOUNTANTS 7801 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _..__.._.____.~ a. COMPANY ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE OCCADDR1 OCCADDR2 MICHAEL J GORRA 1680 ARBORETUM CHANHASSEN MN PID: 25-0100900 RICHARD D FRASCH 8000 ACORN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 8000 ACORN LANE MARK FOSTER 8020 ACORN LANE CHANHASSEN MN 8020 ACORN LANE SHAMROCK PROP 7350 COMMERCE MINNEAPOLIS MN NN PARK OUTLOT A -. --- ---- PAISLEY PARK ACCOUNTANTS 7801 CHANHASSEN MN PID: 25-6900020 -- .--------- LARRY & BETTY 4980 CTY RD 10 EAST CHASKA MN PID: 25-0101400 ....0__"_'-- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN PID: 25-0150300 PILLSBURY 8000 AUDUBON CHANHASSEN MN 8000 AUDUBON -...-----.---- HERITAGE 450 COUNTY ROAD D LITTLE CANADA MN 8080 STONE CREEK DRIVE --. .-. --- .--.-...- HERITAGE 450 COUNTY ROAD D LITTLE CANADA MN OUTLOT A-CRKSDE --. .-. -_. --.._...- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN OUTLOT B-CRKSDE HERITAGE 450 COUNTY ROAD D LITTLE CANADA MN OUTLOT E-CRKSDE --..-. --.--..-...- MGM CONSTRUCTION 450 EAST CO RD D LITTLE CANADA MN 1978 ANDREW COURT MGM CONSTRUCION 450 EAST CO RD D LITTLE CANADA MN 1976 ANDREW COURT MGM CONSTRUCTION 450 EAST CO RD D LITTLE CANADA MN 1974 ANDREW COURT MGM CONSTRUCTION 450 EAST CO RD D LITTLE CANADA MN 1972 ANDREW COURT HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1956 ANDREW COURT - -- .-. - -- --..- - - .. -.. HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1954 ANDREW COURT __a ___ ___ ___._ __ _... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1952 ANDREW COURT - -. .-. - -- .--.- - - - .. . HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1950 ANDREW COURT --. ._- __a __.._ __..._. HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1946 ANDREW COURT - -. .-. - -- --..- - - .. .. . HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1944 ANDREW COURT - _. ._. - _. __a._ _ _ .. e.. HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1938 ANDREW COURT __. ._. ___ ___._ __.. e.. HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1936 ANDREW COURT __A ._. ___ __a._ __..... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1934 ANDREW COURT - -. .-. - -- ._- .- - - .. .. . HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1932 ANDREW COURT __a ._. __a __.'_ __..... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1927 ANDREW COURT --..-. -----..- --..... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1929 ANDREW COURT __. ._. ___ __.._ __....0. HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1931 ANDREW COURT --. .-. --- --..- --..... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1943 ANDREW COURT - _. ._. - __ ._a._ _ _ .. ... . HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1945 ANDREW COURT --..-. ---..-..-- --..... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1947 ANDREW COURT - -- .-. - -. --- "- - - .. .. . HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1949 ANDREW COURT --. .-. --- .._..- --...... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1967 ANDREW COURT --...-. --....-..---.... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1971 ANDREW COURT __a __. ___ __a._ __"._' COMPANY ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE OCCADDR1 OCCADDR2 HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN 1973 ANDREW COURT - _. __. - __ a__ __ _ _ . ... HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN COMMON AREA-TOWN - -- .-. - -.. ..-. -- - - .. .. . - ----...---- HERITAGE 450 CO RD D EAST LITTLE CANADA MN OUTLOT A-TOWN @ ___ ._. ___ ..__ - __".0' ____a __.__ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE PO CHANHASSEN MN OUTLOT B-TOWN @ ----...-.-- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2033 POppy DRIVE __. ._. ___ __"._.e'_ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2029 POppy DRIVE --- .-- --- --_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2025 POppy DRIVE --- .-. --- --_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2021 POppy DRIVE ___ ___ ___ a__'_'O'_ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2017 POppy DRIVE --..-- -----..-...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2013 POppy DRIVE --- .-- --- ---.-..,- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2012 BLUE SAGE LANE --. .-. --- ..-_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2016 BLUE SAGE LANE --- --" --- --- --".- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2020 BLUE SAGE LANE --" .-. --- .-_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2024 BLUE SAGE LANE - _" ._" - __ __a ._ .. ._ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2028 BLUE SAGE LANE --..-. -----..-...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2032 BLUE SAGE LANE --" .-- --- ..-_._..'- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2031 BLUE SAGE LANE __. .__ ___ ___'_'0'_ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2027 BLUE SAGE LANE --"-' -----..-..-- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2023 BLUE SAGE LANE ___ .__ ___ ___._'0'_ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2019 BLUE SAGE LANE --. .-- --- -_..-..,- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2015 BLUE SAGE LANE - -- --" - -- ..-- .- .. .- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2011 BLUE SAGE LANE --.--- --""-.'-"'- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2010 WATERLEAF PLACE --. .-- --- ..__._.-.- RESI DENT~AL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2014 WATERLEAF PLACE --- .-- --- .-_._..,- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2018 WATERLEAF PLACE __" __a ___ __.._..,_ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2022 WATERLEAF PLACE --..-. -----..--..-- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2026 WATERLEAF PLACE --- ..-- --.. -----"'- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2030 WATERLEAF PLACE --- --. --- ---'-'.'- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2069 BLUE SAGE LANE --' .-. --- --_._._.- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2063 BLUE SAGE LANE --..-. -----..-.-.- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2057 BLUE SAGE LANE --. .-. --- --_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2051 BLUE SAGE LANE --..-. -----..-.-.- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2050 WATERLEAF PLACE --..-. -----..-...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2056 WATERLEAF PLACE --..-. -----..-.-.- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2062 WATERLEAF PLACE --. .-. --- --..-...- COMPANY ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE OCCADDR1 OCCADDR2 RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 2068 WATERLEAF PLACE - -. .-- - -. --- -- .. .- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7750 SNAPDRAGON DRIVE --. .-. --- --_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7754 SNAPDRAGON DRIVE - -. .-. - -- .-- .- ...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7758 SNAPDRAGON DRIVE - -- .-. - -- --. .- .. .- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7757 BUTTERCUP COURT --" .-. --- .-..-...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7753 BUTTERCUP COURT __. .-0 ___ .__._..._ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7749 BUTTERCUP COURT --. --. --- ..-_._...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7748 BUTTERCUP COURT - -- .-. - -- --- .- .- .- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7752 BUTTERCUP COURT --. .-- --- --- --'.'- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7756 BUTTERCUP COURT - -- .-. - -. .-- .- .. .- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7755 LADYSLlPPER LANE --. .-. --- --..- _..- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7751 LADYSLlPPER LANE __0 ._. __. ._.._..._ RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 7747 LADYSLlPPER LANE --..-. -----..-...- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN OUTLOT F-WALNUT GROVE --. .-. --- ._.._.-.- RESIDENTIAL 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN OUTLOT I-WALNUT GROVE __.._. _____.._..0_ RECEIVED MAR 11 1998 CITY Of CHANHASSEN A RAMENER6Y COMPANY Robert Generous Chanhassen City of 690 Coulter Drive, P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Robert: This letter affirms the ability ofMinnegasco to provide natural gas service in Chanhassen, MN to the proposed project 97-2 PUD. Please note that the developer must contact our office to arrange for commercial service and main line extensions. Service will be provided under the rules, regulations and tariffs on file at the time of the application. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 612-321-5527. City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Kate Aanenson: I'll let you know. Gayle Degler: Okay, and the third question is, this part of Audubon Road is now a city street, right? Okay. There's only one sign as you're heading north for a speed limit. That says 45 and then there's another one up further. Coming south, the only speed limit sign is right across from Park Road. Right south of McGlynn's, so anybody heading south I'm sure has no idea what the speed limit is and with another access for a resident, I mean I use that access now to get to the field and it's perfectly, well it's usable. But on the county level, the county has certain distances that you can get access to properties and I don't know what the city ordinance is, and especially with this speed limit, is a safety concern there. I'm sure you've looked into it but. Kate Aanenson: That was one of the concerns we have with the driveway. Mayor Mancino: That it has to be so many feet next, or away from another access. And it meets the requirement? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Gayle Degler: So they can be fairly close because obviously the ones to the south is real close. Kate Aanenson: The one to the south is already... Gayle Degler: Yeah, but it does meet... Right, I agree with Mr. Monson that if the trail takes the existing driveway, there's going to be quite an expense to make another driveway because the incline gets to be a problem. SO yeah. So those were my major concerns. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you for your comments. Next item on the agenda is number 7 was deleted. 8 was deleted. Number 9. Kate Aanenson: Can we get a motion to table? Mayor Mancino: Oh! Do we need to motion to table? Roger Knutson: So the record is clear what happened tonight. Technically you don't have to but it might be a good idea just so looking back in years you can say what happened... Mayor Mancino: Well, I motion that we table request for metes and bounds subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge into two lots on property zoned RR, rural residential located at 8850 Audubon Road. Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the request for a metes and bounds subdivision on Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge into two lots on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 8850 Audubon Road. All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist and Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR AN OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WHICH WOULD PERMIT A CHURCHIINSTITUTIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL 25 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 ESTATE AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE ON 27.3 ACRES. LAND GROUP INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS. BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER. Bob Generous: The application before you is a conceptual planned unit development. Conceptual planned unit development allows the developer to flush out the issues regarding the proposed development to find out what concerns the city has. It also permits the city the opportunity to provide the developer with direction on how to proceed with their project. Before us is a mixed office industrial park planned unit development. The number one issue that they want to flush out and provide direction is whether or not a church facility is appropriate use as part of the planned unit development. Staff believes that due to the design of the project, the use of shared parking opportunities, that a church facility within an office industrial park could make, enhance the development. Primarily we evaluated what the potential use of the site was. We, quick rule of thumb of 30% of the lot be. . . that could be developed. If that was the case we would have 190,000 square foot building and use the ratios of office and warehouse and they would provide 147 parking stalls. We believe that the church facility, because of it's different hours of businesses and manufacturing can provide those 147 spaces during the week to office and warehouse and industrial development around them. Our primary concern with designing the project is that we make the parking, the shared parking areas, more accessible and convenient for the office and industrial as opposed to just for the church use. This project went before the Planning Commission in December and they were okay with the use of the church use as part of the facility. Their primary concern was that this project be designed to preserve the primary corridor within the Bluff Creek corridor. As part of the discussion about that, the city had been using 100 foot rule of thumb for determining setbacks. Within the Bluff Creek study we delineated a primary and secondary zone. However, the city is in the process of developing a Bluff Creek overlay district that provides developers and property owners an opportunity to more accurately define what this line should be and that can be done through the study of soil, hydrology, vegetation, topography on the site and so the applicant has initiated that process and we're...looking at discussing what exactly that line is. The site characteristic, the site primarily, rolling topography has been used for agricultural purposes. This development would preserve the Bluff Creek corridor, both the east and the main branch of the development. We bel ieve that it can, through proper landscaping, enhance those corridors and create a Bluff Creek corridor that is consistent with the.. .of the Bluff Creek study that would provide both the natural area for, and a habitat area for the creatures in the community. Generally in a concept plan we don't get as far as developing development standards. However in this one, since I had a proforma available, I provided a draft copy so both the developer and the city could provide some comment. This development standards looked at.. .the permitted and ancillary use of the property. Various setbacks in the site coverage, building square footages, building materials, landscaping and screening. We believe that these standards provide a starting point for this development and would request that the Council look at that and provide us direction on whether or not the uses should be included or eliminated. As well as... design standards. .. . provide a pedestrian walkway or condition... staff is recommending approval of the concept plan and we have some 30 conditions that we'd like them to address... With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions before the applicant presents from Council? Councilman Berquist: The plan that you've got on that table, is that the same that's dated... Kate Aanenson: January 7th. There was discussion regarding the date on the plans which was not picked up on the tape. 26 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Bob Generous: Correct. What they is they responded to the Planning Commission and staff comments and they came and showed how they're addressing them. Councilman Berquist: What date was it at Planning? Bob Generous: December 3rd... Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, say that one more time. Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear we still have the site plan... Councilman Berquist: Right. Mayor Mancino: And our land use plan guides the entire space office industrial, correct? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to present? Come up to the podium and state your name. Liv Homeland: I'm Liv Homeland from Land Group Inc. We've been working on this project for approximately two years and did go to Planning Commission with a plan that we felt you know had merit. And we have been working with Family of Christ Church pretty much through that period of time. They are here also with some of their members as well to discuss further their site specifically. Okay, the top then is north along the highway so that helps I think there. We're very pleased to be able to be before you today. We did meet with the Planning Commission in December and we have changed our plan substantially in response to staff comments and recommendations which are the 34 points that they mentioned. Of those 34 points we really are at only two that we have some questions about, but other than that I think we've either revised all the points that they've discussed or we've agreed to them so I think that there's only two in that portion that we have, though there may be new considerations because we have changed the plan. The plan that we had previously worked on was showed more office along the highway and it was, at that point there was difficulties with the screening. The large buildings were difficult also, even though that was the market that we were after was more the office warehouse buildings. Warehouse had loading docks, and no matter which way we turned them they were screening from the wrong directions so we have gone with office. As it turns out, in that period of time we also have been working with two users now which make office more viable. We're working with a clinic in the northwest comer that would like to be on that site and that makes, you know very good use for that property. And we're working with an office, a tenant that is a financial institution that would like to be part of the office building in the northeast comer. So we have changed our plan accordingly. As part of that, also the church has been working with us for approximately two years and they've been very actively involved in the process as developing this for, what they would like to be their new home in Chanhassen. And we have also, we have spent a great deal of time, we are working actively to provide the crossover shared parking. I think that's an issue and that's a concern and I think with the heavier office use, I think that does addresses that better as well. So we have a number of changes that we feel have been effective. The site itself has a great deal of, is a difficult site. Has a lot of constraints to it. From the north along Highway 5 we are dealing with the taking, you know there will be some additional improvements there for Highway 5 as it expands. From Highway 5 to Coulter Boulevard there's a significant drop. The topography is very difficult on this site. This is another reason why the office 27 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 buildings in the north end work better than the office warehouse because there's a rolling topography and it actually drops about 40 feet from Highway 5 down to Coulter Boulevard. And this plan will require a lot less grading and a lot less massing of parking which was of concern previously as well. In this part. We're bringing in office users into the site. The north/south road that is shown on the site was previously approved by Council and was requested by staff and there is a MnDot approved right-in and right-out on the highway. In our previous plan that we came to Planning Commission, because we were trying to do office warehouse, the large buildings, we couldn't fit the north/south road on the site so our previous plan did away with that but we're trying to retain that MnDot approved access in case that we should go with office, and we've elected to, we very much want to keep the MnDot approved access point and the north/south road and therefore office makes more sense for us. There is on this site also is other constraints. There is a power line running right through the middle and we've pretty much kept the road where the power line is. The other constraints are, there's flood plain on the side and then we have primary creek corridor on the west side towards the school and a secondary corridor on the east side. So they're two corridors that we're working with as well. I'm going to introduce to you our architect Ron Krank of KKE Architects and he will go into more detail on the project and overall appearance and what we are trying to do here and then our engineer as well and the Family of Christ Church thereafter. Thank you. Ron Krank: Thank you Liv. Good evening. As Liv has told you, my name is Ron Krank. I'm with KKE Architects. Our role has not been as much as architect as assisting in the planning of the project and I thought what I'd like to do is explain a little bit of more background and tell you how we arrived at what we have. As Liv said, two years ago she came to us and she indicated that Family of Christ Church was interested in the property and she wanted to accommodate that opportunity and we talked about how that could happen. At that time the thought was that this would be, the remainder of the site would be office warehouse and she was thinking she could continue on with the opportunity and look for users. One thing that remained constant all the time, the church was very interested and is very interested in that property and a good team player in helping us get through all the issues of the ponding and the wetlands, the creeks n both sides. The access to Highway 5. All of the difficulties on this property and as you can tell from the staff report, it is a very complex site. There are a lot of engineering issues that dictate many of the design elements and Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madson will go over that with you. But we feel a real commitment to the church. They've been with us this entire two years in working with us and trying to get the project done. They've been very good in terms of redesigning their building and relaying it out on this site to accommodate the very topography and where the road was in or out. But we feel, and we . ~elt from day one that they were an ideal beginning user on the property. They're a good compatible use ror the school to the west. For the residential to the south. Very quiet, soft use. They don't create noise. They're off peak use. The traffic is off peak, and of course the opportunity to utilize their parking for the office building, office warehouse and vice versa made a lot of sense to us. As you may know, we did many iterations of plans that took all those items into consideration. The reason you see a second plan today is coincidental with the fact that staff prepared a very thorough report and listed all the elements of concern. Coincidental with the fact that two users came to the table very, very recently and that being, as Liv indicated, an office user, medical clinic user actually and a financial institution. So with those two users we know much more about the site now and can be much clearer to you in the direction the project is taking. Frankly when we began the project, we put this first set of drawings together, it was a guesstimate on our part. We admitted to staff it was conceptual, but we are committed to maintaining the quality that the Highway 5 corridor study expresses concern about. We know about the need to create outdoor living room spaces so to speak. Outdoor living areas. We know the need to shield the parking from the roadways and create as much berming as we can. We're aware of the need to do our best to create the urban edge. We are aware of the quality that you're looking for with materials and design. The minimizing of large expanses of walls uninterrupted by texture and windows and detailing. We, I 28 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 know we can do a good job in doing that. We're pleased in that the church is most likely, if you accept the plan, going to be the first building on this site or at least the first design through to you and they certainly have indicated a desire to have a very quality building and I'm reluctant to use the word signature because that sometimes means a very strong design but something well done. That will be the beginning for what we intend to do with the rest of the property in tying it together with design standards that would relate to the landscaping. The trails. The lighting standards and so forth. So we're here to tell you, one we're pleased that staff has given a positive recommendation. Planning Commission has done so. We're pleased we're able to get to you a revised plan, even though unfortunately it wasn't to you a long time ago but it takes us time to work through all the issues. So at this point I'd like to turn the presentation over to Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madson to go through the engineering aspects. Thank you. Ken Adolf: Good evening. Again I'm Ken Adolfwith Schoell and Madson. I'll quickly review the new site plan. As was stated, the significant modifications to the site plan was made in response to the recommendations in the staff report and also with better information being available as far as users. The significant addition is more south, the public street that passes through this site. This lines up with Stone Creek Drive on the south end. For orientation, this is Coulter Boulevard. The bridge is right here. Existing Highway 5. This is Bluff Creek. This is the pond that was created. Then on the east side of the project is... This area indicates the future eastbound lane of Highway 5. The existing lanes are going to become westbound lanes. We have stated adjacent to Highway 5... buildings. These are two story office buildings with the... which provides at grade access to... It also allows making the grade transition with some grading... west and southwestern site. These are two smaller office warehouse buildings. L shaped buildings with a shared truck dock area. This allows screening of the truck dock area with the buildings themselves. It's one of the items that staff...truck dock area and... This is a proposed storm water pond that would collect the majority of the runofffrom the site. Provide some.. .and rate control... This is a consolidation of two ponds. The initial plan had a smaller pond in this location and that's been... The church, the center portion is what... also a two level building with... some future phases proposed. The shared parking that has been discussed is in the...portion of the church lot. There's 170 parking stalls that are within 400 feet of these three buildings. That is the parking that is, that shared parking... Setback issues on the creek first of all on the northeast branch, if I understand the requirement to be is a 100 foot setback from the center line of the creek for structures. We are proposing this area that...80 feet and additional width be picked up on the east side of the creek. The applicant does control the propelty on each side of the creek.. .square off the creek setback... On Bluff Creek, the initial plan that was submitted had used that same 100 foot setback criteria. One of the concerns of the Planning Commission was that the recommendations of the Bluff Creek management study should be utilized. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the church has been relocated on the site. The previous building was an L shaped building. ... building in this area. That has all been moved farther to the.. .somewhat farther from the creek. We have reviewed the management study and believe that there are some reasons that there should be flexibility in the width of the creek corridor rather than just realizing what we're shown in the study. .. .have shown here, in the blue line, the... wetland boundary. Some of that has been changed by the.. .ofthis pond. .. .original flood plain boundary, and again that was changed from tbe earlier pond. What is shown in red here is the approximate primary creek corridor that was shown in the management study. But in this particular area the elevation of the corridor or into the corridor. .. Then in this area, the creek corridor is actually designed where the flood plain is actually.. . We feel that there's some questions about where the edge of the corridor should be in this area primarily because of topography. However the new plan did try to provide some additional separation from. Regarding the, some additional information on the impact and benefit of the shared parking. This plan is the same for the entire site with the exception of the church lot. What we have shown here is another office warehouse building on the church site. 170 stalls of shared parking that are required. ..parking 29 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 needs of Lots 2, 4 and 5 are in this area so the parking needs for this office warehouse building have to be met in this area. This again is an L shaped office warehouse. We offer some screening of the truck dock area which is back in this area. This plan shows a building area of 42,000 square feet which is significantly smaller than the 108,000 that was included in the staff report. I think one of the reasons why the general rules of thumb as far as building ratios and so forth don't work is because of the significant setback requirements from the creek and some other issues. But again if you probably lay this out somewhat more efficiently and squeeze in more square footage but you get from the 42,000 to the 108 that we'll have to... I should say that these office warehouse buildings are based on 60% office, 40% warehouse. Parking needs are calculated on that basis. Councilman Berquist: May I ask a question? This 49,000.. . indicating, are you saying that that parking adjacent to it would be used for that building as well as the rest of the building? That parking would be roughly 75% of what you've gOL.church there. That area there. Is that correct? Ken Adolf: Right. This parking would be assigned to this... This is really parking then that's necessary to satisfy the parking requirements of... We tried to utilize the previous plan and then just see what could be done with the church site. So this. Mayor Mancino: So you can still get shared parking on it? Ken Adolf: Well no, there's no shared parking proposed here because you'd have all of the uses would be using the stalls at the same time. Councilman Berquist: Well what you're saying is, staff...is 108,000 feet here would really, I mean you're questioning 58,000 square feet ofit...more feet of parking. Or some ratio that's smaller than that. Go ahead. Ken Adolf: Well I was just going to say. I think some of that area's taken up with creek setbacks and so forth... It's not that you have 58,000 square feet more of parking. You've got some more parking but you probably... Councilman Berquist: All right, sorry. Go ahead. Ken Adolf: The point being that as far as the tax impact, basing it on 108,000 we feel is.. .not appropriate because... Mayor Mancino: But that's using the primary zone. Bob Generous: Yeah, that would...assuming a...with a perfect world that... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Ken Adolf: And of any site, this is.. . probably this site because of the restrictions on the site. Next I'd like to address the siting of the church. The church on the previous plan was an L shaped structure, single level. Staff, one of the items in the staff report recommended looking at a two level church structure and that's what this is. As I said it walks out to... walks out to the north. The layout works very nice. The parking is... with at grade access for the upper level. I'm not sure how it would work to shift the church to the south. The structure to the south. It, in my mind, would eliminate the ability to do a walkout on the lower level. As Liv indicated, the design plan... items in the staff recommendations, the 30 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 first few items... some of the items were just standard items. The applicant is agreeing to essentially all of those items. One of the exceptions is a requirement that the applicant coordinate the storm sewer. . . As I said before, we previously had another storm water pond in this area and it was recommended that we consolidate that, which we have done. By doing that we now need to utilize all of the storage volume that's available in this pond just for the on site needs so there really isn't any storage volume available... Further we believe that it's really MnDOT's responsibility to do the coordination and contact the property owners if they need to acquire some property for their own ponding needs. With that I'll pass this onto the Family of Christ Lutheran Church representatives. I'm not sure if Jim Sulerud is going to start. Jim Sulerud: Hi. I'm Jim Sulerud and we're pleased finally to be before you. I'm on the Building Committee of Family of Christ Lutheran Church and we want to be respectful of both your time but also your interest to know what we're about. In that regard, first of all you'll hear from Pastor Nate Castens about who are church is and some of our history. Following that you'll hear from SMSQ, Steve Edwins, our architect and he can get into some more detail. It sounds like there's some staff concern about where the church is on the site. And then following that we can, I'll be glad to have with you a discussion about some of our siting issues. Where we looked. Other places. Concerns about how does a church fit here. What our past couple of years of history on that issue has been. Nate. Nate Castens: Good evening. I'm Nate Castens. I'm a resident of this community on North Erie Avenue and one of the Pastors of Family of Christ Lutheran Church. I'm pleased to be here, not to introduce our church to you but to really bring you up to date on where we are, and think that it could be helpful in our conversation to do some talking with you specifically about our relationship in the community. In reference to our being corporate citizens in the city of Chanhassen and I'll really begin by doing some conversation about our background and our history. We started in 1980 on Easter Sunday. Our first worship service being in historic Old St. Hubert's church. 9 years after that and 9 years ago, we moved into our current building on Lake Drive East on Christmas Eve. In the last 5 years, really in the last 7 or 8 years we have been growing considerably as a congregation but in the last 5 years in particular our membership has grown by 46%. Our average weekend worship attendance is around 500. Every year for the past 3 or 4 years we've seen an increase of children's enrollment in programs of25 to 30% which has pushed us on Wednesday night programs to using some of the facilities of the recently vacated old St. Hubert's gymnasium and school. So we're trying to do two sites at the present time. When we project ourselves into the future, there are a couple of different ways to talk about projections and the one that you see is the one that I feel best about using which is briefly stated, if we're doing our job as a good congregation, if we're meeting the needs of our community and the needs of the people of our church, we will continue to grow as a congregation. And any good church in Chanhassen will continue to grow is if we have the facilities, the parking, the elbow room that we feel is necessary to allow our church as a corporate citizen of this community the options for us to be able to respond in ways that meet needs of the community and our religious community. Not knowing what's ahead, we would like to be able to have options. The space, the parking, the elbow room necessary to provide us with a variety of options. Another way oflooking at projections is to talk about numbers. Two years ago when we were deeply into the study of whether to relocate or not, this is 1996 figures. Five years from then would be 2001, isn't it? We were thinking, 3 years from now at any rate. Our attendance would be somewhere between 1,000 or 1,500 people on a weekend conceivably given facilities, and our children's enrollment somewhere around 500 to 750 children in our programs. Family of Christ's mission is first and foremost certainly to be a Christian church. To be a church of, a place of worship, education and programming. A place for the families of our religious community to be together in Christian worship and service. And not incidentally for a place for residents, new residents and others to put down roots of faith and friendship. We see this all the time, as other churches do in our community. As new residents arrive, 31 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 one of the places that many new residents look for relationships and for roots of stability is a Christian congregation. We think that benefits a community considerably. There are several key words or phrases that we use in our congregation, our church life. Children and families certainly a part of that. We're not overlooking our ministry and mission to people my age. Almost empty nesters, but if you look at our community, our school district and our church, clearly children and families are part of the primary mission that we have. Music is another key word for us at Family of Christ. Little known fact. A too closely guarded secret is the fact that in Chanhassen, Family of Christ Lutheran Church has the largest, regularly scheduled contemporary worship music program of any Lutheran church within a 10 mile radius. That includes St. Andrews in Eden Prairie. Mt. Calvary in Excelsior and a whole variety of others. Our regular Sunday morning, 11 :00 worship music program for contemporary music is bigger than any others around. We don't really say that a whole lot and maybe we should. Service to others is also something that we have historically used as a key phrase in our church life. I'll say some more about that in a few minutes. But we also, historically have budgeted 3% of our weekend worship offerings to designate to local social service and church run social service agencies. Non church agencies that we've contributed to in the past, and always entertained contributing presently, would include Southern Valley Alliance for Battered Women. Carver County Big Brothers and Big Sisters. There's an Edendale Camp for Disabled Children. My indication is that we do not simply focus on church activities or church run facilities but others as well. We think that churches are more than simply religious institutions in a community that have a discreet impact only on it's own membership. Churches also are community citizens and along with specific agencies consciously partner in promoting and supporting the well being of the neighborhoods and the communities that we serve. As such I believe that churches and the well being of churches has a direct impact on the well being and on public, the well being of public life and even on issues of public money and taxation. Family of Christ Lutheran does not believe that we need to duplicate the good quality programs that school districts and other social or community agencies do, but as a community citizens with that relationship written right into our church mission statement, we think it's real important for us to support these community agencies and school. For 18 years Family of Christ has been a quiet and substantial citizen in our community, beginning from day one when we began at a crucial time in it's preservation. We began a daily use and maintenance of old, historic Old St. Hubert's church in Chanhassen. They're renting that facility and on a daily and a weekly and a monthly and a yearly basis were maintaining it. Were providing the utilities for it. Were paying rental payments. At a time in the community's life and in that building's life when there was some fair uncertainty about it's viability as a historic structure. Pastor and leaders from Family of Christ were instrumental, along with some people at St. Hubert's, in beginning and also making certain ofit's continuing the now 19 year tradition of the community ecumenical Thanksgiving service that we have. Family of Christ sponsors and we hold in our building, we have video tape for, or have rebroadcast a couple of times the, on the cable access channel, the City Council candidates election forum. We like providing this for the community at an evening time when people who are working may be able to attend or be able to see this on their televisions. We are a polling place. We have 18 year history of, ifnot weekly, certainly monthly food donations to PROP as well as some considerable cash contributions and volunteer participation. Family of Christ presently is host to at least one of one site in Chanhassen of District 112's ECFE. Early Childhood Family Education program. Right now it's a 3 full day program. For a couple of years it was a couple of days and two evenings until we had to tell ECFE we need the evening space. And during these years we did not charge the taxpayers of District 112 any cost at all for any occupancy. Rental, snow removal, garbage removal, utilities, insurance, upkeep, any of that. I certainly acknowledge there's benefit to Family of Christ for having ECFE in our building. There's clearly a benefit to District 112 taxpayers to have ECFE in our building. I've been a resource occasionally to Scott Harr and Chanhassen Public Safety. Particularly in talking about disaster preparedness in our community and coordinating that with professional clergy and other non-public services. And with the fire department as well a couple of times in talking with them about stress related and work related issues for fire fighters. Family of Christ 32 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 hosts multiple groups. You see the list there. Sometimes it's on Tuesday evenings I believe we have three Brownie groups meeting. Not always on the same evening but multiple groups, none of which we charge for use of our building in any way. AA makes a token contribution of $1 0.00 a month and that's I believe the only income that we receive from any of these community groups. In closing I just would, I would say that churches are not the only source for volunteers and for the care and feeding of volunteers in a community. But for people offaith, and in Minnesota that's a considerable portion of the population. For people of faith, churches are one of the important sources for volunteers, coaches, civic volunteers of a variety of sorts. Not only a source but the encouragement of and the care, the feeding, the nourishment and the renewal, which is critically necessary. Thanks. I'll turn this over to Steve Edwins, our architect. Mayor Mancino: How long have you been pastor there? Nate Castens: I've been pastor since day one. I've been a member of this community for 22 or 23 years. Steve Edwins: It's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the church. My name is Steve Edwins from SMSQ Architects in Northfield. I'm going to align this drawing a little bit. And we've been doing the master planning work and the building design work for Family of Christ over the last year or more and I'd like to just talk briefly about the way the building, as it's been planned and designed, responds to the forces on the site. This has been dealt with in the larger scale of the whole site, up till this time by Ken Adolf. Very ably. We have had a struggle with this little hill, shoulder of the site simply because of all the forces that kind of collide in this one spot. We have, first of all topology that is, if you can see here. The topology of this shoulder kind of coming down to a narrow point by Bluff Creek. High at this side. Low at this side. Where a building is located, compared to a driveway at Coulter Boulevard is about a 16 foot climb up to the building. The road that will be the extension of Stone Creek will go from about 35 feet up to a total of 50 feet. From 930 to 950 at that side. So it's a hilly area and we want to take advantage as best we can of the topology and the views that the church will have and the views that people will have of the church. Along the guidelines that the city has set out. So we've placed the building high on the site, up here with a loop road that connects from the new Stone Creek extension, which allows people to find the church easily when they come off of Highway 5 or from driving west on Coulter. They'll find this location handy. We need to have a long, kind of drop off zone. There's not enough room on the site for really a turn around so we're proposing kind of a long drop off area because it's very important for parents to drop off kids and people to pick up people who are leaving a service and starting at the next service. In fact we don't quite have enough room for that on the site as it stands right now but this will work. And the parking is on the south side in our view because we really want the entrance to the church to be on the sunny side, the south side and use the building kind of like an agricultural shelter belt that protects the farmhouse from the north winds and from the cold. It really works best in our climate to have entrances to churches facing towards the south, as well as for other buildings. We've been in church business for about 49 years. I've been designing churches for 20 years and the difficulties we find of having north facing entrances are huge in our kind of climate. As far as being hospitable and gracious and friendly to people who are coming to church. In this case, with the parking sloping down towards Coulter, there's a natural way in which because of the topology the parking is going to be somewhat hidden from Coulter, and certainly hidden from Highway 5. Yet it presents kind of where the front door is quite easily and visibly to people either driving on Coulter or who might turn up Stone Creek Drive towards the main part of the development. Now the building is also designed so that it can grow. The core will contain the first worship area which will become the future fellowship hall, offices, restrooms and education. With the entry here, the concept will be to allow the building to grow this direction, toward the east for it's assembly spaces. We're not sure how big the final assembly space might be but that makes sense to have that on the high part of the land. It will be the tallest part of the 33 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 building and it will be centered then in a way that access from parking on all sides makes a lot of sense in the long run. Running this way from the gathering space that's right in the middle of the building will be offices. Offices facing south where people can see where to go for help and where the staff can kind of monitor the building and people who are coming and going. And behind on this side and to the west would be really education. And the church is going to start offby having a place for small kids. A child care effort that actually will benefit the whole site because where the preschool and daycare possibilities on site, it really is an advantage to everyone in the development. This part of the building grows this direction as education grows. And it could easily be a two story extension where the topology goes downhill. On the east side we don't necessarily need to have something underneath the assembly space in a basement level. So it takes advantage of the site in that respect. We've kept everything under possible construction behind the 100 foot setback discussed for the Bluff Creek corridor. That line is approximately here on this drawing so that even parking, a small amount of parking that we envision and the future phase of the church would not encroach into that line at all. The smaller, shorter parts of the building would be towards this end again and the taller parts climbing the hill up this way. For people viewing the site from the walkway, the trail that's going to be basically on the west side of Bluff Creek, looking across the pond and looking across towards the east, they'll be able to see kind of through the building to the site and it will not have a big impact in that respect. The concept is true with what is turning out to be the concept for the whole site of having kind of a village of buildings rather than having lots of large buildings on the site. That you can kind of see through and in-between to take advantage of the topology. This drawing also illustrates some of our responses to the needs for good landscaping, especially on the Bluff Creek side of the building. The rest of it doesn't show up in this drawing yet, with a concept of using wetlands, plantings around where the retention pond would be. Using kind of approved plant materials of native grasses and things along the whole Bluff Creek area and the trees, both canopy trees of the old growth forest type, because there's a real reforestation project going on along Bluff Creek, as well as ornamental trees for screening and shrubbery for screening of parking. The main parking here is very close to the front door and as shown in the more up to date drawing that Ken presented, parking on the east side is available to the other parts of the site. We do want to have a small amount of parking low on the site that is connected to the other parking which will be, facilitate the children and families using the building in the long run and this is also a place where people from the public generally can come to the Bluff Creek area and enjoy the setting without it being a very large parking lot. This parking lot would follow the contours and the creek bed as much as possible. So that in a nutshell is kind of the reasoning for the building being placed as it has been on the site and if there are questions that come up, I'm sure I can fill in some more details as those do. We're very concerned about . ~ollowing the guidelines for the kind of tree planting in the islands and the whole parking area so that we have a well landscaped, well lighted, well defined parking area and we've made a shot at doing that in, on a really very tight conditions of slope in this part of the site. Mayor Mancino: Steve, you said you've been designing churches for 20 years. What other churches have you designed? In the area. Steve Edwins: Well let's see. We're working right now in the northern suburbs, in Brooklyn Park with St. Gerards Catholic Church. We're working with Emanuel east of here in Eden Prairie. Normandale Lutheran on Highway 100 is one of our projects. We've worked on St. John's Lutheran downtown. Or south Nicollet. We're working with Mary Mother of the Church in Burnsville. We have about 15 church projects in different stages of development right now. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. 34 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Jim Sulerud: Back to me. I'm Jim Sulerud again. What I'd like to do is just step through rather quickly some of the concerns that have come to us, some directly and some indirectly, with regard to how is the choice made. How might a choice be made by the city or city staff to locate a church where there might otherwise have been some other revenue producing development. Obviously we as the church look at it 180 degrees different and I'll kind of step that, step through some of that for you. I think it comes to answer the same questions and maybe the same outcome. Let's see where we are here. Here we're identifying what our considerations have been. These are the headings for our, for the next pieces that I'll talk about but first of all it's how much growing room will we need as a congregation. That was our first, our first question that we came up with. You're maybe familiar with our present site. We're located just to the east here behind the Legion fields. A little obscure right now. Maybe for people driving by on Highway 5. We were on what was originally going to be Highway 101 when we bought our property. Highway 101 was going to travel right by and it was, we were going to be at a major intersection of Highway 5 and 101. Well that didn't happen. We also, a siting decision at that time had to do with available sewer and water. First of all, getting back to where we are today. Our site right now is 7,300 square feet on about 3 Yz acres ofland. If you drive by the site you'll see that it's not fully developed. Our present site could accommodate up to maybe 19,000 square feet, so we could be a little bit more than double the size. Our current programming, our current programming, looking at what the present members of our congregation have stated for needs, would develop a site plan for about 20 to 25,000 square feet of construction. So that would outstrip the needs on the site. That would be for our present need, what our congregation right now would like to see built. What we're going to actually afford to build will not be, we don't expect to be at that, but the current expectations for current programming, based on what the congregation would like to see, would call for more than what our site would offer. On our site plans, looking ahead at those nebulous numbers in the future, we're looking ahead at trying to accommodate 60,000 square feet so well beyond what the present site would provide. Next we looked at, the question was can we stay where we are. Obviously it might be most prudent to add on and so we even went beyond the consideration of our current land. We looked across the street at buying property in the retail area across the street. Area that's recently been considered for the auto dealerships. That of course would be taking more dollars off the tax rolls but we looked at that as being maybe shared parking as well, so that could let us grow a little bit more on our site. We also looked at purchasing of adjacent residential property, and I think we included in your material just a sketch of what properties those might be. We identified between 14 and 26 homes that would have to be acquired to meet an acreage that would be similar to what we might be looking for with shared parking. The current market cost on that would be about 2 Yz to 4 million dollars and current taxes to the city of those, of the larger number of residents, the 26 residences would be $15,000.00 annually. As you can imagine, acquisition by a congregation moving into a neighborhood to the east, and expecting to acquire 14 to 26 homes would be kind of a major undertaking with a lot of disruption, both to that neighborhood and probably not even feasible. But that's just to give a flavor to the size of the acquisition that we'd be talking about. Even if we were to consider shared parking across the street in the commercial area. So we left that as a consideration and we identified some goals that we had as we looked at other sites. This dating back 2 and 3 years ago. We were looking for a site that had visibility to Highway 5. We consider ourselves to be a congregation that serves Chanhassen. Also serves some Eden Prairie residents and some Chaska. We looked to the west, probably not locating beyond Galpin. Looked to, but certainly to the east ofTH 101. I'm sorry, to the west ofTH 101, but not to the west of Galpin. Churches, similar churches shouldn't locate on top of each other, and certainly we wanted to be in, stay in our Chanhassen market area. Again we wanted room for 60,000 square feet of building, which we interpreted variously over this time as being 8 to 15 plus acres. Maybe up to as many 20 if we didn't have the shared parking possibilities. Another thing that was critical to us two years ago, and certainly is critical today is that we had to look at properties that had infrastructure development that matched up with our time table. We couldn't be buying property, expecting to construct and build well before the public improvements were 35 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 coming through. Some members of our congregation have raised that question about why do we buy what we've got? Shouldn't we have thought further in the future? Well, that's as far as sewer and water went those days. In fact we waited a little while for that. Not everywhere in the community but I mean we couldn't have considered where we are now certainly. And we looked to areas that would have a residential character, or an institutional neighbors. That would be our preferences. We didn't set out to look in industrial and commercial areas for locating our church. Our siting experiences. City staff early was helpful to us in identifying property owners as well as potential sites that they felt might be suitable, residential and otherwise. Both Kate and Bob have been with us through this whole process and have been very helpful. Back in '95, middle of '95 Bob had a list that was made available to us and to others where some of these sites, because I think he was getting many questions, daily from churches, where do we go? Identifying 8 to 10 parcels back then and we pursued not only those but the count came up to be 27 parcels that we looked at. Some of them very marginally suitable. I think south, looking at the intersection of what would be TH 101 and 212, when that might happen. Going to the west, to the southwest, at the south end of Audubon. Where that adjoins Lyman. Looking at it even farther west there, is an industrial piece that backs up against the wetland. It's farther west on Lyman. Heading north, looking even in the, at TH 41. Corners ofTH 41 and Highway 5. Even though that was beyond where we wanted to be. And then all the way back east on the Highway 5 corridor to our present site. Looking at, talking to the residential developers, the commercial developers, all property owners and back then two years ago we got a lot of no, we're not interested. Or no, we're not interested in a church. Or we're already far along, too far along. We've got a townhouse development planned. But what we did find was that the Land Group site matched up with our timing. They weren't too far along and yet they were making plans for the inclusion of, expected to support the Coulter Boulevard petitioning and north/south road and so forth. So that became a first choice for us back then and it has remained that, even though since because of our time delays and some difficulties, we have gone back into the marketplace and made inquiries. But we have focused in on that site. Looking at some tax implications here and these are obviously there are going to be some stretches here but also some real type of numbers. You can see my first one here, I've quickly done some scratching out and inserting some other numbers but because things keep changing. I'm suggesting here that if we follow on Ken Adolfs suggestion that we put a 42,000 square foot facility on that site, it might be, if it's a basic office warehouse, it might be a million and a half structure. The City, or the County indicates that on a comparable building currently constructed in the city, they have these ratios worked out so that that would generate about $15,000.00 of city taxes on the property. So those are city dollars I'm using here. My earlier number there was for a smaller size square foot building because as you saw the placement that Ken Adolf suggested, it intruded further to the west on the site and I expect that that wouldn't even be a feasible one in our proposal but as I previously suggested, if we acquired all of those other properties to the east of where we were, that would remove about $15,000.00 of city taxes again for those 26 parcels. And then here's a conjecture. My third point there is to say that if we were to acquire a free standing 15 to 20 acre site, in a new residential setting that might otherwise be occupied by 52 $160,000.00 homes, that would generate an estimated $39,000.00 in city taxes again. Taxes to the city. So that puts that, puts some dollar figures. I know that we can bat those around considerably but it isn't hundreds of thousands and it isn't a million per year. It's, but it still offsets some. My sort of a last point is kind of a restatement of some of the things that Nate was talking about. Is that it may be a little bit different but unlike city, county properties and so forth, churches pay for their land and pay for the development of their sites without taxpayer dollars. So we're not, it's not a parallel to a public use coming in and looking back to the taxpayer to fund the development and the construction. And yet for the most part it's a very public benefit. And then piggy backing on Nate's comments. Churches not only, in this community provide millions of dollars annually that primarily fund the facilities and salaries. There's a large revenue stream that flows through these congregations and they're primarily for two things. For the buildings, as Nate's talked about. They're very public buildings and they're for salaries 36 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 for staff people who are in the business of providing a very public benefit. Beyond that you can extrapolate thousands and thousands of volunteer hours that are fostered by these facilities. So all of this in contrast to the lost revenue, it's maybe a bargain purchase. Reminds me that I missed one other point in this presentation was that in initially going to the city staff, we asked the question about are there locations that have been identified for congregations? Church sitings and that hasn't been a practice of the city. There's been a more broad siting issues that have been use types that have been identified but there hasn't been an identification that well here's where we'd like to see a church or here's where we'd like to see a church. And so we didn't have that as a benefit to go from. So anyway that's kind ofa potpourri of who the church is and what we've been about for 2 years or more and, or 18 years. And we've been pleased to work with Land Group. They've been patient with us. We've been patient with them but I think just as equally the staff has been patient with us as well so I guess we're all ready to respond to questions. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Liv Homeland: I'm going to make this brief. I think everybody's losing it at this point. We really appreciate all your attention and concern. I just wanted to make a little recap on a couple of items that are very important to us. In going through, you know talking about the site concerns. One consideration is that first and foremost this is concept approval and we do have, there are 34 items that have been recommended to go with that, which is unusual at this stage of the development, but we are in agreement with 32 of those 32 and I just want to be very specific, since we revised our plan and did that, just want to be very specific about the two that we are not in agreement with. And the one of those is, we definitely want to retain the right-in, right-out access and the road going through the site, which was previously approved but when we went through the Planning Commission we had put that on hold and said we wanted to retain the right. We weren't sure we going to use it or not. We are now using it and I want that very clear that we do want to use and stay with that right-in and right-out and with the road that we had previously been approved. So I want that very clear. That is item number 27 in your staff report. And the second item that is very important to us. It's, the way it is worded in there, I think it makes some sense but that's item number 21 and this is in regard to our working with MnDot and that was addressed at some extent by Ken Adolf. I just wanted you to note which item that was. And we're perfectly willing to work with MnDot but we don't want to be the ones that have to approach them. They should approach us. We don't want to be responsible for doing something. You know if they have any issues, let them come to us and let the city staff deal with us on those issues. Or the city deal with us. We don't want to have to be the ones to do their work for them in any way, shape or form. So we have a concern there. The other item that we wanted, when we're talking about uses, the third. We had talked about, we are now working with the clinic. There's a whole list of uses that the staff has put together and a clinic is one of those included uses and allowed uses for the site. One that is not on there is a financial institution such as a bank and we do have a user we're working with that would like to be an anchor tenant. Be a tenant in the office building in the northeast comer so bank is one that we want to add. That's a very specific add if you will. Because we are going so much office and you know increasing the density of the site, the other item that we, other use that we would request would be the use of a restaurant within the site, and that is another one that we'd like to have you look at and consider. Beyond that I think the other items are ones that we would certainly deal with and you've heard from the church and all the people involved so if you have any questions, I think we'd like, we're all available at this point for questions on your part. If there are any issues that you would have for questions. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? 37 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: I just wanted to clarify the approval that you, took place at some point in time, the right-in/right-out. When was that? Liv Homeland: That was last year for the, it was to extend Stone Creek Boulevard all the way from Coulter. It goes up to Coulter now. Coming from the south to Coulter and extended from there to the Highway 5. The MnDot approved right-in/right-out has been there as long as we've had the property. That was there prior to our acquiring the property. Mayor Mancino: But it's not approved... Kate Aanenson: We looked at, and Charles can add. Stone Creek was always intended to go.. . north/south to go onto Highway 5. When Coulter was being designed, Charles.. .and they decided at that point, we said you have to decide now. Once Highway 5 gets built.. .our recommendation was to have that right-in/right-out to take a lot of traffic offof Audubon. Going past the...straight out and get onto TH 5 at a future date. Liv Homeland: The only reason there's some confusion on it was because a plan for the Planning Commission, we were trying to show office warehouse and so we at that point requested, we want to reserve the right to come back to that right-in/right-out and Kate and staff said, well either take it now or don't, or forget it you know kind of thing and we said well we can't afford to forget it and we, if we're not going to do the office warehouse, which was right in the middle of where the road would be. We couldn't fit it onto the site otherwise, and there were topography concerns. We couldn't use the roadway through. Therefore we went back to there and said okay, fine. We'll just stay with it the way it is and that's what we're asking for is to stay with it the way it is. But item number 27 in there doesn't, you know says that differently and that's why I noted that. We want to stay with the roadway running through the site north and south. Councilman Berquist: Is the others.. .27 you talk about... Liv Homeland: Yeah, right. Kate Aanenson: It refers to the other set of plans. Councilman Berquist: Say that again? Kate Aanenson: It refers to the other set of plans. Liv Homeland: The office warehouse plan with one big building in the front, which is not the one that we're asking for approval on tonight. Kate Aanenson: Maybe you can let Charles comment on where.. .design plans for Highway 5... Charles Folch: That's correct. The opportune time is now. The property has had a field access for a period of time. MnDot, as a part of their improvements to Trunk Highway 5 to a four lane facility is willing to allow a right-in/right-out condition to stay. Initially stay at that particular access. In order to close it they would have to purchase that right from the property owner but they have said for a couple of years now that they would be willing to allow a right-in/right-out controlled access. At this time MnDot has their design plans at about 30%. Anita and I have met with them back in late November, early December and the issue of this access point did come up again. From MnDOT's standpoint it is, they'd 38 City Council Meeting - January 12,1998 like to know where officially you know draw the line. Where does the access point be? There is a range, if you will, of distance where this access point could be adjusted based on highway design standards and at this point, I think they have the most possibly of just leaving it off their plans until they know exactly where the property owner would like to have the access point. If it fits within that criteria of allowable sight distances and things like that. I don't think MnDot has a problem with keeping a right-in/right-out access or adjusting it slightly if necessary. Mayor Mancino: Has there been a traffic study for the right-in/right-out? Charles Fo1ch: There's not been a specific traffic study, no. But MnDot is comfortable to allow that condition to occur with. Mayor Mancino: Without doing a traffic study on a road that is at service level F at this point? Charles Fo1ch: That's correct, with a right-in/right-out condition. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Comments from commissioners. This is a conceptual approval and what that means is obviously we're conceptually approving if we choose to do so. It doesn't hold us to, when we come back and see a sight plan, we can certainly change.. .at that point. But I think we want to give good direction to the applicant. I think obviously one of the major questions, and we have dealt with this before. Can you hear me? Excuse me. And we have dealt with this before is when we've had commercial industrial zoning planned and we are very concerned about our tax base as a community, as you know. Will we rezone it for something else? We have, I'm not sure we have done that in the past, have we Kate? Have we looked at commercial industrial? When we've had a request for rezoning. Taking it off the commercial industrial zoning. Kate Aanenson: The commercial... Mayor Mancino: It was on residential so it has less of a fiscal impact on the tax base being from residential. And Jehovah Witness. What percentage of that commercial industrial area was rezoned for, is that rezoned institutional? Or was it rezoned? Kate Aanenson: No. It was intended to allow a church on. ..lot. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Which was approximately how much? Kate Aanenson: .. .60. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it was like a 2 Yz acre. Mayor Mancino: And as we look at this, has staff looked at this to flip flop. If we're losing some CI tax base here, can we gain it somewhere else? Kate Aanenson: A good point was brought up and that was that.. .Iook at providing... update of the comprehensive plan we have done, have looked at other uses. As was in... putting studies together quite a while ago, properties that were available. Fortunately.. .assembled and held for development... The comprehensive plan in 1991 didn't.. . specifically. 39 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Specifically for institutional. Kate Aanenson: Well, which we...update the comprehensive plan. We have an opportunity where we think makes sense based on a collector. There's certain criteria...uses or criteria... That's what we looked at. . . but there wasn't a lot of. . . Mayor Mancino: There weren't a lot? I know that the Highway 5 corridor stipulated some as institutional. TH 5 and 41 etc. Kate Aanenson: .. . although it's a lot smaller size. I think when we looked at institutional I think maybe we have smaller scale type lots.. . starting to look at 90 and 100 acres. Churches now are looking at lots... Those institutional that we gave were all under... Mayor Mancino: Okay. But this is, of the approximately 27 acres, this is on, this will take up 8 acres. Correct, which means about what, 30% of the entire CI. Now and that includes the shared parking. Kate Aanenson: Right, well and that's some of the concern we still have. We understand the design concept of south facing and taking consideration of the views but we still have concerns how that works with circulation of the shared parking. Mayor Mancino: That's my concern too. Kate Aanenson: .. .church, typically it's the highway concentration, Sunday across the road is a less concern than the office people crossing that road. There's some issues there, we want to see how that... cross access. See if there's some... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Have we performed tax... Kate Aanenson: We have.. .it's such a nebulous...I think you have to look at the...It can be very... . <;:ouncilman Senn: Well let me term it another way then. How many square feet, I've heard several numbers and several... In terms of the church parcel, square feet do you have? Bob Generous: Well the 42 would be a legitimate number. The 108, assuming the entire site... Councilman Senn: So we have a big difference between 42 and 108. Give me what's real and... Bob Generous: What's real. Probably about... Mayor Mancino: Probably a what? Kate Aanenson: Whole area of .2. Bob Generous: .2 which is... Mayor Mancino: And you would still be able to get parking that's required? 40 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Okay, and if you use, if you do use the same ratio basically that is talking about a 60/40, then you're looking roughly around 3.2.. . You're looking at roughly $192,000.00 in taxes. Mayor Mancino: Is that city taxes or is that overall, total taxes? I mean out of that 192, 17% is city taxes so what is that? 19 plus 30. Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, well I don't want to delve into that because I think that's a separate issue. I want to analyze it purely on the basis of city taxes. I think we have.. .that's okay. I mean the effects are much bigger. ..large portion but that doesn't lessen the tax impact. Kate Aanenson: But see then you get into a whole other gray area Mark which we could have gone through that whole.. .it gets very complex and we're.. .and Bob and I started going down that path. We've done that before. All we do is get more confused. I think you have to go back to the argument... Mayor Mancino: Well that's the good part about protecting the CI because not only do you get the taxes but you don't have the other impacts on school and other services that you use, and I'm just trying to think, is there. I mean you have a double whammy. So I'mjust wondering, if there is, I have two big questions. Number one, is there another area in the city where we can pick up more CI if we lose it? Secondly, as we have other churches that may want to be expanded in our city, you know, we have to decide right now because obviously churches would like Highway 5 exposure. It is where we have our commercial industrial... tax base so saying yes to one, what does that mean if other churches want to expand or come into other CI areas in our city? And we know that there may be a few other so that is my concern also. Because we only have so much land. Kate Aanenson: Right. And we... Mayor Mancino: CI and much is, and please don't anybody get me wrong. I mean there is a tremendous value that you give to the community. There is, everyone of us feels that. We also have to be very practical about the financial impact. Jim Sulerud: Maybe two things that would particularly relate here because we're an existing user. We will be leaving a facility which means that if another church user comes in, they will not be looking for an alternate site to place a church. So I mean the net of our making a move has less of an impact. Secondly, you would have the opportunity, probably, to have a conceptual plan for the neighborhood that we're leaving to say we have retail, commercial to the north. Let's have retail commercial where the church is leaving. Or some other intermediate higher use that would be a public private and generate some taxes. Mayor Mancino: I would like to think so but in reality, as you know, it's very, very hard to. Yeah you would have World War III in that neighborhood. Jim Sulerud: But there is that trade off. We're not a net, causing a net loss in the same way. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn, you were saying. 41 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: To me the overall and very difficult issue is precisely what you were talking about. Essentially land use designations.. .or at least to an extent it does. I thought a lot about this one before coming in tonight and didn't come in with it resolved, okay but I'm still unresolved basically. To me that's going to be key to deciding whether this thing makes sense or not. It seems to me like the plan.. .coming together. I think it's got a ways to go. I share the concern, whoever it was that raised it over the orientation of the shared parking. Of the shared parking. And the orientation which is now laid out... counter productive to that but again I mean this is so.. . concept, right? So I'm assuming they'll work. So I guess, I don't know. I still think deal with the other issues. You know I'd really like to give you and answer on it tonight. But I'd be fibbing I guess because I'm not sure how... Mayor Mancino: So what would you need, or do you even know, what would you need to resolve that? Councilman Senn: Well, coming into tonight I tried to look at all the.. .ofthe residential parcels available. Tried to look at effectively what we had in relationship to CI and the overall tax base, both now and well into the future. I guess I can't really think, at least from my perspective, over the last 4 or 5 years. ..an issue that remains.. .not be quite as important as this one as it relates to the... where we're going and sort of how we're going to get there. Again, I don't want to downplay anything at all about the group because the...in relation to the church couldn't be a better group of people and a more involved group in the city and everything else. It definitely makes it harder to come to that conclusion. Because my first tendency when this all started out was just simply to say I can't see it. I'm not going to say it's that strong anymore. At the same time I certainly haven't come to the point where I'm.. .saying I think it's something we should even look at at this point. Mayor Mancino: I'll come back to you on that. ...that Liv wanted us to respond to. The whole issue of the CI and the tax base. It's a hard one. Councilman Mason: Well I personally agree with Kate on that one. I think that one's a real slippery slope. I don't, I'm going to back track. I've been sitting here for over 7 years and this presentation was the most thorough, thoughtful and intelligent presentation I've come across here and I do want to thank you all for that. You made me think of some things I would not have thought of. It's clear in my mind that we're dealing with a, a very special issue here and we're also dealing with a group of people that I think are very aware of those issues and are doing everything they can to. ..and mitigate those issues. And thank you for coming with all of this in mind. I want to talk briefly Mayor about what you said about a precedence we're setting here. You know if this happens, then that will have to happen. I'll tell you what my problem is with that. Every time I, as everyone knows here, I basically don't believe in voting for variances because I maintain it sets precedence. Now every time I say that, at least two people on this Council say, we look at each one of these on an individual basis. Now with that said about variances, for heavens sake I would certainly hope, and I know it is, looked at the same way when a situation like this comes down the pike. So I personally, I don't agree with that argument. Mayor Mancino: ...if another church came and wanted to go... Councilman Senn: If!, in my mind, if! thought it didn't help the City and it didn't fit with what we have going on, absolutely. That's what I'm here for and I hope that's what we're all here for. I wrestled with tax implications. All of that. I say here are the gains. Here are the losses... I think in my personal feeling is, in the long run, for the city, as far as yes we might marginally, city and school district, might lose some revenues. As I look at this proposal. As I look at the recommendations that staff said, you know we need this, this, this and this for it to work and even for conceptual approval, the group came 42 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 back and said, okay. This is how we'll handle this. This is how we'll handle that. In terms of conceptual, and I hope everyone understands that this is conceptual. Not preliminary. It's not final. The whole thing could blow up if this gets approved and go down the tubes. Having said all of that, the concept of this to me I think would look very good on Highway 5. I think it would overall benefit the city of Chanhassen. I understand some of the concerns staff still has. I also understand, I'm hearing everyone saying, I think we can work this out. Now I also understand we're going to lose some CI property on this. I'm also understanding, it sounds like we can gain some back in some other areas as we redo the comp plan. ...1 mean am I? Mayor Mancino: Can you respond to that? If we do lose some here, can, are there other areas where we can pick it up? Kate Aanenson: Well we've provided other places where we see industrial zones in place. I'm not sure... but we've also provided opportunities for institutional... Mayor Mancino: So are you saying as we go..., are you saying that as we go to look at the comprehensive plan that we're working on, and I'd like to hear other Council members respond to that. This. That where we have designated institutional is only where institutional can go? That again we would not, this would not come up again? Kate Aanenson: This same issue came up with Eckankar.. .my understanding. .. .is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: I believe that's how... Mayor Mancino: Well then let me say it this way. So that as we look at. Kate Aanenson: ... industrial zone. You have to right to exclude it in the industrial or commercial. Not a residential. Mayor Mancino: But not a residential. So as we're looking at the revised comprehensive plan, we will be very proactive and say that churches that are locating are in institutional or residential. Kate Aanenson: Residential. Which is where we try to stir people...and that's what I'm saying. They went through that exercise and were unable. The properties that we have that are available in residential.. . Mayor Mancino: Well Sojourn's piece on TH 5. They've got a big sign up. Kate Aanenson: It doesn't work. I could go through all the.. . Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're saying we still may end up here again? Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. I mean it's going to happen. Someone's going to always come back and request it, but you have to remember...when we did the Bluff Creek, we went through that. We revisit them. Councilman Mason: So having said all of that, I like the concept. I think it's a good concept. Again, I think it was very well thought out. I think both, on all sides of the table have worked long and hard at this. My only, my concern when I heard bank and restaurant. Those are definitely some issues that, I'm 43 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 only speaking for myself on this one but those, I would see those are possible, potential sticking points. Which we could certainly go into now or at a later point but conceptually I. Mayor Mancino: No, I think those are... Councilman Mason: Well sure. I mean for me, one of the issues that we continue to have the concern that we want downtown remain downtown ofChanhassen. And then certainly in the seven years that I've been here, and I think since everyone's been here, we tried really hard to maintain some limits as to what downtown is and I would think we'd need quite a discussion as to whether we feel that expanding the size of downtown. Whether we want people to think that downtown goes that far. Again, I'm not saying I'm opposed to that at this point, but they're definitely, quite honestly I see bank and restaurant as perhaps bigger impact to the city than whether a church goes there. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I look at this project as one in which we need to minimize affects of a non-profit going on CI land... whether or not. Given what I know about the Family of Christ looking for land and approaching landowners.. .and various people about the.. .locating on their space and given criteria that they wanted to achieve or remain within in terms of land price. For land, for locations. This is one of the very few sites that made any sense. This project, the way I look at it anyway, tends to drive the rest of the first phase. So for that reason alone, I mean that's one reason to take a serious look at a lot. I do have concerns, assuming that...said what I said and I'm in favor of the project conceptually. I'm going to try and cut to the quick. I've got lots of notes. I could talk about a lot of stuff but everybody's getting pooped, including me. The parking as it currently lays out, would seem to benefit the church. I don't see necessarily that it benefits the office warehouse as much as I would like it to. And maybe I'm wrong because I'm just looking at the numbers and parking spaces that we have... They seem to be well in keeping with the normal structures of that size so there's really not any benefit to the church, but there's not any benefit to the office warehouse. I'd like to see more of a benefit there. When I first saw the north south road, after looking at the other ones that was dated back in October, I was aghast to see the north south road. I thought the last thing we need is another access into and off ofTH 5. I have a right- in, what amounts to a right-in, right out off of TH 5, although it's supposed to be both ways. And right-in and right-out is dangerous as the dickens and it's not going to get any better. .. .get widen, I don't see it improving. On the other hand, I certainly see the discussion points regarding accessibility to the area. I certainly see the discussion points regarding the office warehouse to access TH 5 and not.. .Coulter and go by the school. As to whether or not I'm in favor of that north/south road, I don't know. I've got to be convinced one way or another a little bit more on that. The north/south road obviously makes the two uses that you've got on the northwest and northeast quadrants at the intersection. Without the north/south road, those uses disappear. I, like Mike though, I concur with Mike that, and yet I'm reluctant to add any sort of commercial along that area. That far west on TH 5. So it'd be, ifI was to pick a building like over in Eden Prairie, the... bank building by Eden Prairie Center. 30,000 square foot. They take up about 10. Liv Homeland made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on the tape. Councilman Berquist: Not a bank first and ancillary tenant second. Okay. Well that would be more. Councilman Senn: With drive thru I assume? Liv Homeland: I would say... 44 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Berquist: Anyway. The overall theme is that I'm not of a mind to allow a commercial retail sort of flavoring along this area of Highway 5. What is some of the other. Well I also want to compliment the presenters. It was wonderfully presented.. .Nate, you did a great job. Development did a great job. Particularly impressed with the way...discussion that occurred. Let's see, what else did I want to talk about? I've already said the important things. Oh, I know what I wanted to ask. This is an EDA, right? Within an Economic Development Area? So for how many years every dollar they pay in taxes does the district...? Don Ashworth: This is a 9 and 11 year district. The district exists for 9 years. It will exist for 11 years and pay... Councilman Berquist: So if I use the average numbers that we were, somebody said $180,000.00. Somebody else said $49,000.00. That's going to be anywhere from $125 to $270,000.00 using... Let's say $180,000.00.. .that within that district. The other question I had, the north/south road. Who's ticket is this? Liv Homeland... Councilman Berquist: Is that a negotiable point of discussion? .. . approval. Liv Homeland... Councilman Berquist: That value that I believe this discussion has from our perspective, ... would this be the last thing that's coming up as well all know, right? I think it's making us look at what we want and given the use, given the acreage, and all the other stuff, I don't know what would make more sense but I can tell, we've got an 80 acre. ..non-profit for land use. Kate Aanenson: 40. Councilman Berquist: I heard 80... Maybe 100. And churches, religious organizations, congregations, I'm all for them. Let me take that back. What a silly thing to say. But it's just... It gets us looking at something that we've got to look at. One of my ideas all along has impact to the school system. Well do we partner with the county and with the school district. Perhaps write down residential land and.. .put these things, put the non-profits on residential. That's kinds of questions. Yes, it is all nebulous. There must be, I mean we cannot be the first community to be thinking this. There's got to be other communities in the United States that have gone through exactly the same exercises. Mayor Mancino: Well there's no question that we know that the impact on residential is much easier for the community. There's no question if a non-profit were to locate on residential. Residential hardly pays for itself in a tax structure, and that when it is on CI where the class rates are much higher and there isn't the use of school, etc. and Nate and everyone here knows what District 112, how our schools are growing and needing every tax dollar they can get. And hopefully in places where they also don't have more kids. They get the fiscal part of it and yet not to, don't have the kids. It's obviously beneficial to them. We all know that so that goes actually without saying. Councilman Senn, you didn't make any remarks on the request for bank, restaurant, PUD nor did you make any remarks on the shared parking or the north/south road. Would you like to make those at this time? 45 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: Well I did make a comment on the shared parking. Saying that I thought the orientation of the parking. Mayor Mancino: That's true, thank you. Councilman Senn: .. .As far as the other two issues go, I don't know. As far as the restaurant and bank goes, I guess you're asking the person that asked both of those be deleted from the Gateway project as far as potential users... it was allowed there. I guess that puts me back up in the air... As far as the north/ south road goes, the new one... I don't know what. ..are in relationship.. .access. If you basically go back to our plan, give consideration as to what's going on Coulter and what's going down by the school and stuff, that is our plan.. .that's basically a major frontage road servicing all the... And it becomes also the... to accomplish that plan and install the road so if we're going to do with that, stick with it, I first off... Mayor Mancino: Well I'll make a few comments and hopefully I'm not too redundant. Let me bring up the first one being uses, as far as.. . permitted uses and Liv, recommendation that we add restaurant and banking. I would like to make sure that we don't get retail in this area. I don't want to take away from our downtown. I think the banking is real, what it is a financial, is retail banking. So I conceptually would not be in favor of adding a restaurant. And again, the retaiL.. in this area. Number two. The shared parking, I agree with staff and with other council's suggestion. If the shared parking concept is to work, that it certainly doesn't look like it benefits the entire PUD and the other office buildings on the east side. That the shared parking would need to be moved and that would be so that it is in closer proximity to the office buildings. And I would also like to see conceptually within that shared parking, making sure that it is pedestrian friendly in it and out of it. To the office building. To the employees. To the people that are going to be working or visiting those office buildings so that they can get from this, which will be a fairly big shared parking area, to the places that they need to do in a certain fashion. Third, on the north/south access to Highway 5. I do also share the concerns of the councilmembers about Highway 5 and access onto TH 5. I know a right-out only. I'm very concerned. I would like to see a traffic study on that. Differences and have. .. You have a highway this is already at service level F and putting in more accesses seems contradictory to helping the congestion on TH 5. Four, the whole basis or one of the ideas, one of the foundations for me to approve a church in an industrial complex would be that it is very clear, and is very stated up front.. . about the shared parking. That there is, and I don't know if it's a legal contract but I want it to be very, very clear what this shared parking lot is. How it's to be used. etc. Roger Knutson: That'd be part of the PUD agreement, if it reaches that point. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So I would want to have very clear language on it. And I would be concerned, and I just have a concern for Nate about, as the congregation grows, etc., will it in fact be able to stay shared parking? I mean will you have users there that will want to be there during the day when the offices are supposed to be using that parking. Does that make sense? I mean I don't want to have this great plan and it doesn't work for you and it doesn't work for the other users in the PUD. And you're coming to us and saying you know we need more parking now. Nate Castens: How much parking would we have immediately adjacent to the church? Couple hundred. I can't imagine a use, through the week on a regular basis would require more than 200 cars. We're talking about a preschool. It's been never suggested to have an elementary school or a high school. That'd be an entirely different ballgame. I can't imagine, although I talked about options, I can't conceive of an option that would require more parking than 200 immediately adjacent to our church. 46 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 We're very interested in the shared parking too because we definitely want shared parking on weekends and on Wednesday nights as close and accessible to the church as possible. So we fully endorse making it pedestrian friendly as shared and we fully would expect that this would be a legal easement on both users' parts. Kate Aanenson: Nancy, maybe we could cover that too as part of the PUD agreement. Certainly any change in use would require approved parking. . . Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just want that real detailed, drilled down so everybody is very clear what that means. The other part is, I also want to make sure that the rest of the PUD has a certain square footage of commercial industrial. Ifwe are, we will in fact, the tax base will be there to make up for the non-profit site. And it won't completely, I understand that but what I'm looking on this conceptual plan of200,000 square feet CI. And so what I want to make sure if we get different site plans that come in. They do add up to a certain square footage so that we keep that constant. And that would be a condition of approval for it. Liv. Liv Homeland: Just kind of a brief comment. We have increased the square footage a lot and one of the ways we've done that, frankly is by putting that road through there because it makes it work for us for office. And those two go together. When we were looking at office warehouse, it was a lot less critical because they could come in from Coulter. It was a little bit different of the visibility but if we're going to do the heavy duty office along the front, and there is certainly the possible. Right now they're showing for topography purposes, as two story buildings. There's certainly the possibility of making a three story building, you know that kind of thing. Right now they're shown on two levels, parking on both sides. You know to use that topography that drops off so significantly. There is also the potential, this is why it's so critical for us to have these users because if we have the clinic going in there, you know the clinic to some degree will drive it's size and we're going to be to some degree dependent on that. It's our intention to do a larger building than what they need so we can put other multi tenants in there as well. This also is the reason we wanted to do the small financial user in this other building because it puts an anchor tenant in there and gives us the ability to you know start developing that. Ifwe can do office on these two, we would very, very much look at taking these office warehouse buildings and doing office there as well. And doing you know office down through this whole site. We are working with another user, builder that would consider doing small buildings, you know office buildings of 30,000, 20,000, that kind of thing, through this whole site and increase the density even higher. And to give us that. As far as the right-in/right-out goes too on the access point. First of all, the right-in right now, the way it would be now versus when the highway's redesigned are two different issues. That's, you know you're going to have a different traffic flow when you've got your widened highway. All this traffic goes on Galpin or it goes on Audubon that would otherwise can hear. It's all still going to go onto the highway so it's just a question of does it flow more easily you know onto the highway when these people are sitting at the light and flows onto it in that point. So I think we can certainly do a traffic study to address your concern and I think that we have talked with traffic people, you know previously when we were looking at this before so we have had done that. So we are very open. It is our desire to get as much density as we can on here. I guess that's the point. We would also put in place, we've already been talking with the church extensively about putting in place a parking contract in essence, or with the, running with the parcels, where everyone would have to abide by those rules. That there may, each user may have some small portion of private parking right next to it's door. I mean the pastor may need a spot and a few people may have almost invariably they want something right in front of their door that's a few minor spots that are always there. Even if they come in on a Sunday morning and the church is in session, that they have a place you know, a couple people have a place to go. But other than that, there will be cross over parking throughout and we are showing, we can also work with moving the road one 47 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 way or the other. We've been trying to put it where it is because of the power line. We're losing space because of the power line no matter what we do. So we have to work around that but we can swing the road a little bit one way or the other to make some of that parking fall on the other side of the road instead of on the church's side. The church has moved it's orientation you know quite a few times already and they have some ability to put some extra parking spaces along the side of their building that could be used for that northern side of the site as well. So we certainly are willing to address those Issues. Mayor Mancino: Okay. .. .density and keep tax base of Cion there to shared parking. Let it work with the PUD. Also keep the church here. See if we can make it all work and be a benefit to the community. But there are definite things that I think still need to be worked on. I don't want to see it come back before I would approve a PUD. Was that clear enough? Councilman Berquist: I understand you. Mayor Mancino: Other councilmembers? Councilman Mason: This is conceptual. Mayor Mancino: Well I just want to make sure I am for staff and I am for the applicant. Are there any questions.. . from staff for us? Kate Aanenson: No, I think we've got pretty good direction. Councilman Berquist: Question for...given our concern about...is it within our right to be able to restrict a use within a building? For instance, I don't know if you're looking at a copy of what. .. Let's say we have a 50,000 square foot building. We wanted to, we didn't want to, well there's a clinic that wants to go in here. We have clinics downtown. There's an interest by perspective, protecting those clinics...is it possible for a body like us to put limitations on.. . limitations on specific properties? Roger Knutson: The short answer is yes.. . short answer. There might be some enforcement issues. Kate Aanenson: Well they're requesting a PUD sO...that's how the staff approaches it. We didn't recommend.. . Roger Knutson: And the concept that you're really talking about, identified in certain land uses you wanted to be in the downtown area. You want a viable downtown area. You don't want them to start.. . your downtown. . . that kind of goes to the heart of planning. If you've got... basic planning. . . Mayor Mancino: And every time you want...I just have a couple other things that I just wrote down to make it real clear, or I had staff help me write down and that is. Just under parking I said comprehensive pedestrian walkways shall be provided between them and within all parking lots. The buildings and the public sidewalk and trail system. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas. Permanent cross access easements and a joint parking facility shall be protected by the record instrument acceptable to the city. Under landscaping and landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards shall be incorporated as part of the pedestrian walkway system within the parking lot areas. This may require larger landscaped islands, peninsulas and boulevards. And I just put under miscellaneous to make sure the CI base there is, the developer leaves and commits to provide the minimum of 200,000 48 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 square feet of commercial industrial office warehouse uses within the Bluff Creek Corporate Center. So with that do we need, for conceptual agreement. Don Ashworth: Roger and I were talking.. .require four fifths. Discussing the potential for a motion... approving subject to the applicant meeting the... Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we were just talking. I know concept requires a public hearing and concept does require a majority... Roger Knutson: Four fifths. I looked. Kate Aanenson: We've written it all down. I think we're pretty comfortable... Don Ashworth: .. .applicant approving it subject to the applicant... Mayor Mancino: Gosh, I've got a list here I think of all my concerns and... May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: Move concept approval with the Minutes of this meeting being used as the criteria to go back to the applicant and staff... Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Mancino: I love that. Yes. Roger Knutson: I don't know if! should interject too much. Just to point out procedurally where you're at. Four of you... the motion was made and seconded. If that fails, to reconsider, someone who voted on the prevailing side much move to hear it at the following meeting. Councilman Mason: That voted on the prevailing side? Roger Knutson: Right. Don Ashworth: .. .again, he can go... Roger Knutson: Effectively, yes. There are court decisions. Councilman Berquist: Well you know what my motion is, it's predicated, we all made comments. Whether I vote no or Mark votes no or Mike or Nancy, it makes no difference. But my motion is to take the comments that were made and put something together that is amenable for all of us. Hopefully. Councilman Senn: Well it sounds like we can do that without a motion. I mean if that's. Councilman Berquist: That's what Kate's saying. Kate Aanenson: I didn't go with... Mayor Mancino: Legally Roger. 49 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Roger Knutson: To advance to the next step, which is preliminary approval, you have to officially get by this step. So they can't. Mayor Mancino: So we have to vote on the motion? Roger Knutson: At some point. I mean you could give staff direction to work on it and bring it back but at some point you're going to have to vote up or down concept approval. It wouldn't necessarily have to be tonight but at some point. Mayor Mancino: Well even ifit's voted down, they'd come back with another concept anyway. Roger Knutson: Well ifit's voted down and there's no motion to reconsider, that's the way it was, you'd have to start back from ground one. Back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: I'll be gone the next meeting... Councilman Berquist: .. .motion to table it and. Mayor Mancino: And come back with a new concept plan. Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: You're looking at as part of the PUD right now. Councilman Berquist: I don't think it will hold you up from a timing point. It's only going to hold you really up with is formal approval process... Kate Aanenson: I don't think the Planning Commission would approve the preliminary PUD without Council approving the concept. We'll figure that out. Mayor Mancino: We'll figure that out. That's fine. Councilman Mason: We should withdraw the second then? Roger Knutson: Or vote. Councilman Berquist: Motion stands. Councilman Mason: So does the second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Concept PUD #97-2, noting the discussion outlined in the Minutes and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit site coverage and impervious surface calculations for each lot and the overall site. 2. Staff recommends that the church commit to provide approximately 160 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. 50 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 3. Staffreconunends that the amount of parking and impervious surface on Lots 2 and 3 be reduced. 4. Staff believes that a V-shaped building on the northerly portion of the property would be more appropriate to address pedestrian circulation to the proposed warehouse as well as address the sight lines for the truck loading facility. Staff would reconunend that the building orientation be primarily toward Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard, especially for Lots I and 2, rather than the orientation shown on the concept plan. This would require the building on Lot 1 to be reoriented 90 to 180 degrees and the building on Lot 2 to be reoriented 90 degrees. Staff would also suggest that the church investigate a walkout type facility, similar to that used for the St. Hubert Catholic Community in Villages on the Ponds, to help reduce site grading. To improve the layout, staff suggests to design a parking lot on both sides of the building and add sidewalks. 5. Staff strongly recommends all 34 boulevard trees be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. 6. Additional landscape islands are required in the parking lots; a minimum of one island for each 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area. 7. The loading docks of the southern warehouse building are visible from Coulter Boulevard and require evergreen plantings to screen the area. 8. Visibility of the expansive parking lots from Highway 5 should be limited as much as possible. 9. The applicant shall incorporate increased evergreen plantings and berms to obstruct sight lines into the parking areas. 10. Plantings along Bluff Creek and the proposed storm water pond should be chosen based on wildlife food and/or cover value. Proposed overstory and ornamental trees could be a choice of quaking aspen, amur maple, willows, black cherry, serviceberry, swamp white oak, or aborvitae while proposed shrubs could include highbush cranberry, winterberry, elders, sumac, and red-osier dogwood. City staff shall approve final landscape schedule. 11. In lieu of parkland dedication and public trail development, the city shall collect full park and trail dedication fees for this development. In the event that the applicant deems the dedication of the "creek" outlots into public domain desirable, the Park & Recreation Commission would review this offer. But, again, no park fee credits would be granted. 12. The applicant is required to plan private internal trail connectors from their site to the surrounding public trail system, thus maximizing their benefit of the recreation system already in place. 13. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 ft. trail easement over the trail segment located in the southeast comer of the site that lays outside the Coulter Boulevard right-of-way. 14. The development shall maintain the natural vegetation and landscape where it still exists, intensify the proposed landscape plan along the creek to improve the buffer and to keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet with a 50 foot buffer area. 51 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 15. This area has been identified by the Bluff Creek Management Plan, as a candidate for floodplain forest restoration. The applicant shall incorporate some element of forest restoration in the landscape plan along both branches of bluff creek. 16. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 17. The applicant's engineer should review the possibility of connecting into the City's existing storm sewer in Coulter Boulevard from the southerly drainage pond or combining the pond with the proposed storm water basin north of the church. If the developer desires to construct the southerly pond, the City shall not be responsible for maintenance and the developer shall not receive credit against their SWMP fees. 18. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4: 1 overall or 3: 1 with a 10: 1 bench at the normal water elevation. 19. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall incorporate temporary sediment basins to address site runoff during the grading operations. 20. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations and drainage maps including pre- and post-development conditions for a lO-year and 100-year storm event will also be required by City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 21. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in coordinating the storm drainage system from Trunk Highway 5 into the proposed stormwater basin north of the church site. The applicant may be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees as a result of pond oversizing and pipe extension. 22. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 23. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. 24. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. 25. Public streets shall be incorporated to provide access to all three lots. A 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac shall be incorporated into the site plan. The private street shall be constructed to a 9-ton design. 26. All parking lot drive aisles adjacent to 90 degree parking shall be a minimum of 26-feet wide pursuant to City Code. Drive aisle configurations near the intersection of Lots 1, 2 and 3 lot line shall be reconfigured to minimize drive aisle points onto main street. 52 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 27. The developer's right for a future right-in/right-out access to Trunk Highway 5 shall be extinguished upon final platting unless the developer negotiates with MnDOT to transfer the right-in/right-out access to the adjacent property to the east. 28. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the streets. 29. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 30. Install post indicator valve on fire water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. 31. An additional fire hydrant will be required near the church main entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant. 32. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Sect. 10-502. 33. "No parking" fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within jurisdiction when any portion of the facility, or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building, is located more than ISO feet from apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. When access roads cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, non negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 (b). Note: As building plans become available we will review the plan to determine if standpipes are required in any portion of the building due to the fact that we cannot achieve 150 foot access of all portions of the building." All voted in favor and the motion carried. (After discussion regarding Councilman Senn's first vote to abstain.) Councilman Senn: I'm abstaining. Roger Knutson: The motion fails. If you abstain the motion fails unless you abstain because of a conflict of interest. You need four votes. 53 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 Councilman Senn: Why is that? Mayor Mancino: I thought a vote of silence is a yes. Roger Knutson: That's not an abstention. That's not the same thing. Saying silence, your vote is recorded as approval. If you formally abstain without a conflict of interest, you don't get the required four fifths vote. What the Supreme Court. Councilman Senn: Roger, you have to explain these things before hand. Roger Knutson: What the Supreme Court has said. Mayor Mancino: Why don't you ask to retake the vote. Roger Knutson: When someone abstains because of a conflict of interest, the size of the Council is seen to be reduced by that vote or that person so we no longer have a five person Council. We have a four person Council. Councilman Senn: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I have a clarification of your motion? Your motion was just to outline the Minutes criteria and come back? It wasn't for concept? The motion was not for concept approval. Roger Knutson: I thought it was. Councilman Senn: Yes it was. Kate Aanenson: We needed that clarification. Mayor Mancino: Yes it was. It was. Councilman Senn: Either that or I misheard it. I took it to be Council. Kate Aanenson: I thought he restated it. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn? Councilman Senn: Yeah, I say let's go for another vote but I'm going to make a statement when the vote's done. Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's fine. Can you do that? Why don't you make the statement and then we'll go for another vote. Councilman Senn: Okay I will but... Roger Knutson: That's fine. Councilman Senn: You know again, conceptually as I stated, I have no problems with what the church group's presenting. In my mind I have a very difficult time with a decision to simply take a piece of CI 54 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 property, which could normally produce somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000.00 of property taxes, and turn it into zero. And with the realization that the existing site will remain as zero. Okay. And with the realization that, we've been through this before. We keep talking about it but there's still no understanding as to overall net effect and where this all comes out in the end. Okay. I do not take that decision lightly. I am not prepared to make that decision tonight, okay. But I will vote yes on this because I'm not going to let, what I consider sometimes to be an idiotic procedural rule to govern over how many people need to be here and vote on this or that or whatever, okay. You three are obviously very comfortable with that decision and are prepared to charge ahead but I am not. Okay. But I will accept that the three of you are and I will change my vote to yes to allow this to go forward on that basis, but I'm not, you know again, I'm not comfortable with it. I'm prepared to say yes.. .decision at this time. Councilman Berquist: I just want to say that I understand, I think I truly understand where you're coming from and after... the conversation that we had a few times in the past, every time we get a little closer to getting some things worked out. I look at this as an issue of stewardship. There are many different forms of stewardship. Not only financial. Am I completely comfortable with this? No. But there's a lot of things in life that I end up doing and going ahead with that I'm not really comfortable with. Am I comfortable enough to grant it tacit approval? Yes. Therein lies the reason for my motion. Councilman Senn: Well, I understand that Steve but I also am not convinced there isn't a residential property where this could sit on. Maybe it's not right on Highway 5, but I look at what staff has given us ...I don't know. Again, I don't think we have enough information at this point to make that. ...ifwe do or we don't. All we've done is evaluated a site that somebody has made an application on. Limit your discussion and you limit your purview of.. .and kind of lose track of the rest of it. So I will, I don't know if you have to revote but I'll change my vote. Roger Knutson: Mayor, that would be sufficient. Councilman Senn has changed his vote to a yes, therefore the motion passes. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Roger. Everybody understand that? Good. Good. I want to take one more second in this discussion to say, what I would like to do is to have a discussion as a Council, and all of us. If this does come up again, as far as could.. .the way Mark has quantified and there's no question, to quantify numbers and tax base. It's much easier to do that than some of the social and.. . from non profit but what I'd like to do is to talk about in CI property, is there a percentage, and over percentage that cannot be non-profit? I mean this may happen again. At a certain point do we say, and I don't know how hard and fast... that over 10% in any CI zoned property, that we will absolutely not allow over 15% to ever go non taxes. You know into a non-tax producing. Can we do that Roger? Roger Knutson: We had this discussion a while back. The short answer is no. Mayor Mancino: Oh. Well forget everything... Roger Knutson: You can kind of get there. You can restrict uses but, like churches you can keep churches out of certain districts and you can keep this kind of use out of the district and that kind of use out of a certain district but when you talk about non-profit. Kate Aanenson: That includes group homes. Roger Knutson: That's not a use. That's a tax status. I think my last example was, I may be a, the only one that comes to mind. I may be a publishing house. I manufacture books. Whether it's on the payroll 55 City Council Meeting - January 12, 1998 or, whether it's on the tax rolls or not, it may just happen to be based upon who owns the dam thing. If the church owns it, it may not be on the tax roll. And if it's privately owned, and a profit corporation, it would. The use is the same inside except for, who happens to own it. That's not a use issue. You can control the use issue so you can look at the non-traditional non-profit type uses and put it that way. This couldn't have an ordinance that says not more than 15% non-profit because that's not a... Mayor Mancino: Okay. So if we knew we were going to have the balance of financial strength...and spiritual strength in our community. So we get to balance those two all the time and they're not mutually exclusive. Councilman Berquist: Do you remember the wordage we used in.. . Gateway? Mark... words in a development contract, as 1 recall, that was.. . gave Council the ability to look at any non taxing... Councilman Senn: No, we weren't able to do that. We talked about it. Mayor Mancino: Because of what Roger just said, yeah. Kate Aanenson: No. We restricted the percentage of commercial. What could be in there. Councilman Senn: Another one of those back door... Mayor Mancino: Well, 1 think we're ready for, is everybody ready to go ahead? CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE 1998 POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN AND 1998 GOALS. Mayor Mancino: Somebody's going to have to explain to me what all this means. Councilman Senn: Could 1, given the hour, etc. A lot of the issues, you know a number of issues have been addressed that were raised with last year's classification plan but 1 would really rather see this put on a work session and go through it in detail and talk about some of the issues in it versus doing that tonight. I don't know how the rest of the Council feels about that. We did provide a fair amount of correction last year to what we'd like to see and the issues we would like to have addressed and like I say, a good attempt's been made to do some of that and I would really like to challenge and talk about it in depth and detail and I think if we start doing that tonight. . . Don Ashworth: Well what would Council think... Mayor Mancino: I had just written the next work session, which is a holiday. I will be back for the. Councilman Mason: There will be a work session that day anyway. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, so I will be back for the first work session in February, which is what? February 1st or 2nd? Yeah. ...and I would do this and I'll be here. Ifwe...to February 2nd. We have nothing on our work session for that anyway. But if we do put it on the February 2nd work session, I want to make sure that the questions that Councilmen have and Councilmember Senn said he had some and I have a few, that we give them to you prior to the work session so you can be prepared at the work session to answer those specific questions and we just don't keep coming up with new ones. That we frame some 56 f,"'..'i'O,-< ~ ~ ~ \, .l OF T"'" Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 December 1, 1997 Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DEe 1 ~~ -;.....'17 lo..Jvl Dear Robert Generous: SUBJECT: Bluff Creek Corporate Center Preliminary Plat Review P97-125 South of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 at Coulter Boulevard/Stone Creek Drive Chanhassen, Carver County C.S. 1002 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Bluff Creek Corporate Center preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We do not find the plat acceptable for further development until the following issues are resolved: It appears that the proposed office/warehouse building in the northeast corner of the site may be within Mn/DOT construction limits for the TH 5 expansion project and may also interfere with a proposed city street. See enclosed Preliminary Plan for location of Mn/DOT construction limits. It is in the city's best interest to work with Mn/DOT to ensure that adequate right of way is reserved to accommodate the TH 5 project. Drainage provisions must also be coordinated with this project. The above issues must be resolved through coordination with our Transportation Planning and Consultant Design Sections. Evan Green, of our Transportation Planning Section, may be contacted at 582-1303 and Cheri Olson, of our Consultant Design Section, may be contacted at 582-1285. Once the above issues have been resolved, we find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments: Any costs associated with moving of existing power poles and rerouting of power lines will be the responsibility of the project proposer, the city or both. Mn/DOT right of way appears to be adequately identified by the plat. Our Surveys Section has not verified the accuracy of the property boundaries in the field. An equal opportunity employer Robert Generous December 1, 1997 page two Stormwater drainage from the proposed site does not appear to flow to TH 5 right of way. A MnlDOT drainage permit may be required if this condition changes or the development otherwise alters patterns or runoff affecting TH 5. The Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers may also need to review this plan. To preserve highway safety and capacity, we request that the plat dedicate control over access to the highway to the public. Questions regarding right of way documentation may be directed to Marv Martin of our Right of Way Section at 582-1635. Please forward a copy of the final plat to Marv Martin at the above address. Any use of or work within MnlDOT right of way will require an approved MnlDOT permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Permits Section may be contacted 582-1443 for further information regarding the permit process. Please contact me at 582-1383 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, d~'d~ Lisa Christianson Transportation PlannerlLocal Government Liaison c: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer '::.; ~ ~/ ./ _/ z 5 tl r ([ <f. Z - 2 _\ ill IT. tl ::: ;~ " o g OOO"iS;-.!.- , ..... U ::J ~ III Z o u '-~ -.:.. ~ ,... i:::IS.O==~ ..j -L~J/:= l~'..-:' l,' -/,~? :5/Y ,- .:<: -, /P .... ,,:::::/''")/ w Z ...J S \". -. \J z w U ..... w w c:: ..... III ,.. ..... V"l ~_u ;? w 5 ..... w c:: o '" c:: < III 2 o III II < C. @ '. r-. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36- 1994. J. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #47-1998. (Copy Enclosed.) k. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come in to the building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40-1995. 8. ConCUlTent with the building pelmit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 9. Revise plans to introduce a different pitched element on the buildings. 10. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. II. Enter into a cross parking/access a!:,rreements. 12. The applicant shall officially withdraw the site plan for CSM Phase II Building 2. 13. Meet with the Building Official to discuss building plans." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND GROUP. INC. AND BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD. PRELIMINARY PUD AND PLAT APPROVAL FOR 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND FOR AN OFFICE-INDUSTRIAL PROJECT WHICH WOULD PERMIT A CHURCH/INSTITUTIONAL USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE ON 27.3 ACRES. BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Sidney: Could you put that conceptual plan back up there? I don't think we saw that. I just wanted to see... And where is Highway 5? II Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Generous: Highway 5 is on the north. Highway 5. They had one entrance into this project with the parking lot area in the middle with views from highway parking lot. The church building... to the west. Additional parking wasn't very convenient to the site... Joyce: That was a private street before then? Generous: That's what they were proposing. Staff had recommended that at least to the, where the property line... Joyce: Bob, I was noticing on the Stone Creek Drive now, do they only have sidewalks on the east side of the street? Generous: That's the current proposal, yes. Joyce: Okay, so there's no sidewalks on the west p0l1ion. Peterson: ... talk about preserving the desirable site characteristics and in the findings section I looked at the applicant has shown some interest in protecting the natural features of the site. Kind of a nondescript statement. I'm wondering whether we.. .maintain the environment. Generous: And actually if you look at the design parameters, you will be preserving the natural area which is on the east. ..church facility, we are preserving some topography. The building's set down as we move from Highway 5 so we do have... And they have committed to doing the natural plantings. Using natural materials so. Peterson: In summary of rezoning to PUD...reduced impervious surface. I assume that that is regarding just the PUD because it was previously zoned A2. We certainly wouldn't be reducing the impervious surface by... Generous: That's con'ect and the savings are in the reduced parking spaces that the individual office and industrial office users would normally provide on that. Peterson: Assuming that we will rezone it... Generous: Right. As part of the development. Peterson: One other question.. .ask the question, look at the...is there for the church. I'm assuming that would require a substantial amount of additional parking if the expansion were to occur. ..spread that out to multiple commercial sites. Office sites. I didn't see where that was really written in there. On street parking would be a permitted or not be... Generous: I don't believe we were looking at that. We were looking at the cross access and parking arrangements because of expansion. Peterson: .. .natural expansion would be to the northern... 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Generous: Well it's mostly worked, it's immediately to the east there.. .circulation system that we're looking at...it's almost like an intersection on... Peterson: Last question.. .seemingly have three monument signs of some sort for the church. What is the, I didn't think three was the number for this type of development but... Generous: Well it's based on street frontage and.. .providing Outlot B would be dedicated to the City. However, they would be... Peterson: ... five signs for a relatively small development. Other questions? Burton: When I looked at the proposal summary and.. . requesting that the City pennit banks and restaurants and I did go back and read the City Council Minutes and it appeared to me that they were opposed to that. My question is, if we approve this as recommended by the staff, does that include then that their request for the restaurant be approved? Generous: No. You would have to amend the design standards on page II and 12 where you go pennitted uses...specifically include that. ...ancillary use if they wanted to... It'd be fine ifit's only a percentage of a building... BUl10n: I discussed this with you briefly ahead of time but can you discuss how this development complies with the Bluff Creek overlay and what that... Generous: ... wildlife con'idoL Blackowiak: Excuse me Bob, could you turn that upside down so that north is on the top for us? That's the way I'm looking at it, thanks. Generous: Drawn in here are the line that we were looking at for the setback or for the corridor line...was prohibiting future... They can still get the design... So the idea is to get wildlife... Burton: Okay, and then I guess, am I right there's about 100 yards setback. Generous: Feet. Burton: I'm sorry, 100 feet setback with that buffer zone off of it... Generous: This.. .area would be about 150 feet. 100 feet from the edge of the wetland. Burton: And if we strictly enforced the Bluff Creek overlay, where would that run? Generous: It runs a little bit farther to the east on the southern portion. It drops down and then basically follows what we've proposed. The primary corridor... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Burton: I have one other question... 200,000 square feet of commercial industrial there and I just looked at the buildings and did my own math and I came up with 183. Is that right? Generous: Yes. However what they're looking at is they've increased the value of the use by going from office warehouse to more office space. So that's where they've, the revenue analysis came in that the numbers wash out. Bm10n: That's all I have. Blackowiak: I just want to clarify something that I talked to you a little bit earlier about Bob, was that the primary corridor. I mean it talked a little bit in here about the intent of the Bluff Creek study and as I read it the intent was to keep development back out of the primary corridor totally. As the plan stands right now, the church and future addition and future parking are in the primary corridor. Generous: Well as they propose it but we're saying the setback is such. We're establishing the setback at that. We're creating a significant corridor. It might not jive exactly as a plan as the map was drawn but we think we have created adequate space... I really left that up to Phil Elkin, the Water Resource Coordinator. Are we trading a significant space. Blackowiak: Right. I'm not only concerned about that but I'm also concerned about the 300 foot setback. I mean we decided, or it was decided at the time the study was completed that 300 feet was the setback that we should use and we're 100 feet at some places and I understand that you would not allow the future addition on the west or the future...because it wouldn't be within the setback or buffer that it's proposed, but as I said before, when they first came before us this is the first test case for Bluff Creek. Do we cave in right away? Or do we say, yes. We have an overlay district. We have a study. We are going to stand behind it and we are going to enforce the intent of the study which was 300 foot setback. Generous: Well however if you look at what the primary con'idor is shown on in the Bluff Creek study, it's not 300 feet. It meanders. Some places are more critical than others. Blackowiak: No, I understand that but then why did the study say 300 feet? That's what I'm curious about. Generous: I don't know. That was just a number that came out. Blackowiak: That was the number. Okay. Generous: I know that Kate wasn't for going with that specific standard because there are some areas that 300 feet might not be enough in some areas and then in others it might be too much. We can create what we want to create within Bluff Creek in that area. And in this instance we believe we're creating a viable natural area, or the developer will when they... vegetation. Blackowiak: Okay. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: Bob, and I don't mean to keep on harping on this Bluff Creek but is this presented anywhere in the conditions? I know that you presented it in the proposal but 1 don't see it as a part of the conditions because this obviously would have to as part of the, or a suggestion from the city that it be part of a condition of this proposal, right? Generous: Right. Joyce: Is it in any of these conditions? Ijust want to make sure that I'm not missing anything here. Generous: Well it isn't that, you're requiring them to comply with the design standards which will become an appendix to the development contract and that has a specific condition. The first part is primary landscaping in that area and revegetation and that's the first and second condition. Or the second condition that those revisions would make the, incorporate the Bluff Creek. Joyce: I guess I'm trying to give them direction. Obviously that's what they're looking for, right? Generous: Right. Joyce: Okay. My last question is, we looked at the west side. Now what's going on with the east side? Is that also primary bluff corridor? Generous: No. It wasn't identified as such in the study. It is part of the Bluff Creek overlay district. Joyce: I guess what I'm asking, are you holding that up to the same standard as the west side where you want 100 foot setback? Are you suggesting? Generous: Well we've incorporated the 100 feet from the east branch with the 50 foot buffer area. Joyce: I'm looking on this plan and the northeast comer of this is all 80 foot, right? Generous: Well we did agree that because of the way the creek curved in that, that we would let them drop down there. Joyce: So you're comfortable with the 80 foot setback there? Generous: Our real concern is we want them to continue the vegetation to the south where the natural vegetation ends. We'd like to see that planting area expand. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Joyce: I'll listen for a while. I'mjust a little confused. Well I guess my understanding is we're okay on the east side but on the west side you're saying that this whole future addition of the church is really not going to. Generous: It's not going to be where they located it. It will be moved. Joyce: Right, and that's where you're going to concentrate all the reforestation down by the church? Generous: No. That will have minimal forestation. This will be more prairie plantings in here due to the... Joyce: Okay, but then once again you're going away from this 100 foot to the 80 foot. Generous: ... usable space on the west... Joyce: I guess where I'm confused is I didn't, I'm looking at the 80 foot setback and I didn't see anywhere on the proposal where it was addressed and that's where my confusion lies. So Phil has looked at this and your staff has looked at this. Generous: Yes. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yeah... Bob, that office building. Are we holding the applicant... Generous: Well it's not specifically as part of the design. The preliminary site plan. That's what they're showing us. We allow up to four story. ...should exceed the numbers that they show, the users that they get. Sidney: By square footage... Generous: Yeah, based on the square footages and the breakdown between the office warehouse and the office user. . . Sidney: So as they're showing it now we have a certain level of comfort and they actually could increase it... Generous: Correct. Peterson: Other questions? This is a public hearing, can I have a motion and a second to open the same please. Joyce: Does the applicant. .. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Peterson: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. Liv Homeland: My name is Liv Homeland from Land Group Inc. and we're the ones that are proposing the development on this site. Kind of, I can see there was some confusion as to what we have done or not done and the landscape plan that you see, the colored one that each one of you has a copy of is the, is a revised landscape plan after we got all the comments from staff. In other words, we submitted the preliminary landscape plan with our submission with this whole packet and they came back with a number of recommendations and comments so we immediately tumed around and revised that plan. So this is the much upgraded version if you will, and we have larger scaled plans here too for any of you that wish to have them. Bob has a whole bunch of them there as well so we have gone the extra mile, if you will, to do what staff has directed us to do and to get that landscaping up there. We are providing along the drive in the center considerably more trees than are required and we have some concem about overstory trees because of the fact that there's a power line running along that area. But certainly along the creek area there's a much expanded prairie grass planting. There's, we've responded to concems about linear plantings and we've put groupings of trees. We've expanded the area of all that so we've done a lot since the previous plan, even as of about a week or two ago. We have also, as you can see, revised the plan from the last significantly from the time that you saw the plan. And we appreciate being able to be here again and show you what we've done. We are pleased with the progress that we've made and in working with the staff and working through this process. The plan, the progress in the plans and the changes reflect the comments that we've heard from you as Planning Commission members, from the Council and from staff so we've taken all of these comments and addressed them individually and addressed in group and tried to come to the point that we felt that we accomplished what needed to be done. We still do have a couple of minor issues. We were talking about the conditions just a minute ago and since you guys were on that, of the 26 conditions that are mentioned there, most of them are virtually, we're just fine the way they are. There's a couple of minor tweaking items that I'm going to mention to you that we have some concems with but ce11ainly in the first, in number I it's just a minor tweaking. We're actually showing 153 parking stalls rather than 160 but they're using the approximate number anyway. We do have in the landscape plan, we do have an issue with the creek area and we need to address that. We'll address that further. And we also had to be sure that you know that on these overstory trees, there is that power line and we couldn't get in some cases, you simply can't put that large a tree in that location. Number 7. ..issue and that is a major issue for the church that is locating on the site. We had worked very hard, we've already pulled from the plan that you saw the last time we were here, the church significantly pulled it's buildings back out of that creek area so the plan that you see now already shows a large change from that. That previous plan and we are also, as you move the church, if you move it to the east, you're also then having to move the road to the east to accommodate the church moving that direction. If you do that, that defeats the purpose of having moved the road to the west in the first place because Council specifically wanted to see the road moved to the west to provide more parking on the office and office warehouse side of the street. Well by moving that to the west we've reduced the size of the church site if you look at, in your staff report there is a plan that shows that we've reduced it by over an acre in size so the size of that church site has dropped significantly. And the amount of parking that we can provide on the other side of the street has 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 increased. And it also then is able to, by doing so, you're able to do larger buildings on the site and the Council obviously, their purpose in doing this was to increase the number of square footage that's on there and thereby the tax base that is possible to get on there so that's the issue we've been dealing with. I do have with the creek area one other issue. The setback that we're showing, that we're talking about now is from the center of, the way that it shows the City has it is from the ponding area that has been created... Our property line runs through here.. .so that's where our property line is. We originally had asked, were asked to, you know to have the sewer and water, the sewer lines run down the creek area. Redid the creek area and around the sewer line up to that area, and in the process of doing so took away all the natural vegetation that was there. Completely changed that portion of the creek. What was there of the creek before is not there now. And the, our site also was agricultural which means that it was farmed. There was none of the creek there and then from there it's where the topography drops down to the creek. But the pond that is on the site was created by the city. We did not create that pond nor did we know it was going to be there. It's kind oflike after the fact it's there. I've gone through our infom1ation and I can't find anywhere that we were ever notified the pond was going to be on our property. And the pond takes about 2/3 of an acre of our site so we've already lost 2/3 of an acre and now we are told that our setback is going to be from the edge of that pond, rather than from our property line. And we have an issue with that because we feel it should be 100 feet from the prope11y line, not from the pond area that was created on our site. And there's no reason for it either. I mean that's the other issue. We see the creek area as an asset and we have gone to quite a length in providing the type of plantings that were required and revising our plans and going through the process to do that. We are also making an effort and willing to rebuild it that over time you've got some of the reforestation that goes on. You know all the concems that have been requested of us, we've addressed and we've in many cases more than met them. We have other team members here tonight that will help address and answer questions that are specific to various aspects ofthe project. Our architect is Ron Krank ofKKE and Ron will speak in a minute. Ken Adolf and Marshal Breman of Schoell & Madson are our project engineers and the Family of Christ Church is represented by their architect, Steve Edwins of SMSQ. And at this point I'll tum the presentation over to Ron Krank ofKKE. Ron Krank: Well as Liv has told you, my name is Ron Krank and I'm with KKE Architects and our firm has been involved in the planning of this project for a couple years now since Liv first met with us to start planning it. And what's interesting is at that time the only user that we knew of was Family of Christ Lutheran Church and as we, I went through the planning process with them we knew the market was fairly strong for office warehouse buildings and office showroom buildings such as CSM Corporation has been building and proposing and we planned the project accordingly. At that time we really didn't know exactly how those buildings would layout on the site in terms of actual use because of the focus really was on the church but as we went through the process and then as we designed the initial plan which you saw, which is this plan which we haven't focused.. .earlier plan. You might recall we had an office warehouse complex of 153,000 square feet and there was a fairly extensive area of parking to the west of the building. It was a plan which we believed could work. Not a lot of detail to it but it could work and as you might recall, we had two large loading areas and service areas to the east of both the office warehouse buildings. Concurrent with the submittal and subsequent to it we received, as you know, 34 staff comments on the layout pertaining to the building layout sizes, configuration, use, 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 landscaping and so forth and then we also had your comments after the presentation. We responded in a letter to the city I believe on January 7th of this year responding to those 34 conditions which subsequently we have incorporated into the new plan that you see. What's also happened is that the market has changed, as CSM has indicated to you. There's an office building market of smaller office users and we found that that's happening with our site in particular as well. So that was fortuitous in that the opportunity for that to come here to this site, allowed us to increase the size of the buildings to 183,000 square feet from 153. It allowed us to have office buildings which are proposed now at two story and it allows us to create more of a campus atmosphere and campus layout with smaller parking lots and smaller buildings and less massing. So just by way of ... there are a number of changes that we made to...in terms of how the site's laid out. We have the two office buildings. This is proposed as a 22,000 square footprint, 44,000 square feet and given the topography, we're envisioning it might be one story at the upper level entry. A retaining wall on this side and then two stories on the south side so it gives us an opportunity to reduce the massing while still having a 44,000 square foot building. This building may wind up as a two story building.. .don't work. There's going to be a separation and change in parking lot. But this configuration, as opposed to the prior one, allows us to really create a campus with buildings and smaller parking lots throughout as opposed to a larger parking lot. We've also added a trail system to this site which allows people to come. .. to a trail to the site, continuing on a sidewalk south of the site. And if you look at the sidewalk throughout the plan you'll see that you can go from any building to any other building on the site and... trail system throughout the site. So even though there may not be a sidewalk on both sides, you can get across. You can find a way through the whole campus and... that with the two story office building and these changes we've made, we've got a much more attractive project. We believe the image from both Coulter Boulevard and Highway 5 will be stronger and a better scale. From Coulter Boulevard for example if someone would drive on the road, they'd see a point of the building...in both directions, not parallel to the road. That's more pleasing. Gives a chance for more vegetation on the side of the building. And also with the taller buildings that are...the massing would be used to give better view con'idor sheds into the site. We had nan"owed the... Of course the opportunity to put office buildings on Highway 5 with windows that are different scale, different proportion, we think is a much more advantageous than a high office showroom, office warehouse building with many narrow bands... So really given all the " comments we've had from staff, from the Planning, Council and the market, we think that we have a greatly improved plan... valuable addition. What I'd like to do now is tum the presentation over Schoell & Madson. Have him address the... Peterson: Before you move on. You spoke of the trail system and you can clearly see it on the west side. Walk me through your, you spoke of it interacting with the rest of the west side. I'm at a loss as to where it goes when it stops on Stone Creek Drive. Ron Krank: Let me take through the sidewalks and walkway. You can come across Coulter and walkway. ..across to the sidewalk.. .cross over in front of this building. Cross over so along all the buildings... Peterson: Where is staff recommending that you put the sidewalk that you haven't already, that you're requesting? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. It was actually from engineering. Engineering is concerned about all the pedestrian crossing points proposed and we were going to take careful evaluation as the site plans come in to look at, does it make sense to put sidewalks on both sides for maybe the mid section of the development where you do have all the pedestrian traffic going and we'll be certainly working with the applicant to find safe crossings and also address the additional sidewalks. Peterson: Right now we don't necessarily need to specifically address that point? Hempel: I don't believe you do. It is covered in the conditions of approval. Peterson: Thank you. Ken Adolf: Good evening. My name is Ken Adolfwith Schoell & Madson. We're project engineers. I'll be primarily addressing the corridor issue on the west side of the site. RefelTing to the drawing and this drawing has a number of different colors.. .distinguish all of these. The solid blue line near the west plat boundary is the center line of the creek as it existed before this area was... The green line, the edge of the wetland that was delineated, and again, that was prior to this... The blue dashed line is, those really describe the existing conditions. The orange dashed line is the creek corridor that's defined in the Bluff Creek management. The point of all this is to indicate that based on the existing flood plain, the wetlands, the vegetation and the hydrant soils, the actual creek corridor is relatively narrow in this area... The corridor line as defined in the study actually goes over the top of the hill here with... Then as you move north the corridor is actually narrower than what the flood plain.. .so we've concluded that the COlTidor was just something that was kind of sketched on a fairly large scale plan. It didn't necessari ly relate directly to... What we proposed and it's been discussed is that we just utilize the 100 foot setback from the original creek center line.. .criteria that was used for the townhomes at Creekside which was just southeast of the church property. And that is represented by this maroon.. .and what I have done here is actually dashed in where we're going around the flood plain area and of course that's where. ..is proposed. What has been suggested in the staff report is to measure the creek setback from the edge of the existing pond which is kind of a compromise between these two. It does have a significant impact on the site plan for the church. Again, the blue line is the center line of the original creek. The red line is the 100 foot. The dash line is the 100 foot setback from the edge of the pond. The solid line is the 100 foot setback from the edge of the. .. indicated there was 2/3 of an acre loss from... One of the items was very important to the Council, City Council and especially for the Mayor was to get building square footage as high as possible and I imagine if you get it up to... You really had to try pretty hard to get the building square footage in there that the City Council was interested in and obviously pushing... pushing the church to the east... that is presently being used to provide parking stalls which the net result is that the building square footage has to decrease. That's really the only issue that I'll address in detail and be available for questions. Brooks: Are those 15 parking stalls, those future parking stalls absolutely necessary? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Ken Adolf: I'd like...better addressed by Steve Edwins who is the architect for the church. Steve Edwins: Hi there. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Steve Edwins from SMSQ Architects in Northfield, Minnesota. We're a small firm that has specialized in church design for almost 50 years and we've also accomplished quite a bit of work on college campuses, including St. Olaf and Carleton and Concordia College in Moorehead and other campuses. And my specialty in the firm is with church design and with historic preservation work. I think the place we need to maybe start our presentation on the church's part of the site is why the church likes this site. Why we have located the building precisely in this location on the site and what it's benefits are to the community and how the site benefits the church being here. The church likes this site and we like this site because of it's visibility. Because it acts as a buffer between the school area and the recreation area and the more commercial aspects of the PUD site. It's an ideal site for a church because of it's visibility and in turn it's access. Membership to the Family of Christ comes from all over the community. This takes some transportation off of interior streets of residential neighborhoods because typically churches are located in residential zones as a pel111itted use. It's also a place that is accessible for the community uses the building because a church has quite a few outreach programs. Community meetings. People who use the building during the week, etc. and they now, in fact are limited because of their location, because of their parking. They have a lot of the outreach programs for the community that they really would like to be having. They're also planning a child care program as part of the church plan so that's a benefit for people generally in the community. It wouldn't be just exclusively for members. It may be a benefit for the people working on the site or using the school near the site, etc. There's also an advantage in this combined use obviously because of the time shift of parking. The church is going to be using it's facilities and the parking mostly in the evenings and on weekends and the other users of the site tend not to do that. It also has some fringe benefits that go along with that kind of style of use like the fact that there are more eyes on the site. You have people using the site. There are more eyes on the trail system. There are more eyes that can contribute to safety in the whole region because of the church being there. And in some ways I think we're trying to plan this and it relates to that lower parking area in fact that one of the members asked about. Is kind of donating the parking access so if people want to immediately get to the Bluff Creek area, as citizens can find easy parking to do that. By the location, maybe Ken can I use . . one of your drawings again of the. I'd like to take you on a little bit more of a tour of what the site is like and why we have designed things the way we have. I might best start with just touring once again the topological features of this really difficult part of the site. On one hand it has this little shoulder ofland as a great benefit because it's lower than Highway 5. It can be seen from Highway 5 from up here by cars going in both directions, especially headed east. The cars can see across this clearing and they see the church. It's diminutive because it's lower. It's not right out in people's faces. It's also because this is a relatively small section of site, it might be the hardest to develop for other uses. It's a shoulder ofland, as I said before, that really is quite nan-ow. Being a peninsula. And you can see by the way the contours are that we're talking about a change from even Coulter Boulevard up to the top of your 15-16 feet, which is two stories of a building. Now the intention of using this site is to keep this rolling kind of character on all sides as much intact as possible. What we're really doing is we're taking some of the fill that's in this area and shifting it to the front, and a little bit of this to the front to make the parking slope towards Coulter and to actually make the viewpoint of the creek area a little bit stronger from 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 these angles of view from Coulter Boulevard. We're doing that, both for that reason but of course to make the parking and building work together on the site. Let me kind of center the site under the camera. Can you zoom in more closely onjust the church site? Okay. Make it big. Okay. Terrific. So what happens is with the church on this part of the site, it was talked about the fact that we can have an entry on one level and we can have a walkout lower level on the back. We have to keep the building up quite high to do that because if we have a basement level, we really have to have that above the water level of the retention pond. This is at 933, at it's maximum height. Our lowest floor would then be 2 feet above that. Just 2 feet above that highest water level at 935 and then the top floor of the building would be 12 feet higher. 947. The road in this area is about 930 so we're up about 17 feet from here to here. That's one reason we have to really carefully climb up the hill so to speak to get to that point. In other words, just taking enough dirt away from this comer of the shoulder to accomplish that. We are also positioning the building so that it's relatively kind of small in scale in it's different elements. We have a center element. We have a future, maybe bigger element at this end. A future element at this end and they're separated slightly by bridging or by pedestrian ways so that the church will not be a monolithic, huge looking complex but kind of have a smaller, residential scale to it. We think that fits the nature of the Bluff Creek corridor area. Now the reason for it growing in two directions, why we need to have growth areas in both directions is the schematic for the building is that we need to grow this way for the future worship needs. We're not building the final worship space for the church yet, because the church is growing quickly and they're not sure how big that's going to be. They can't afford to make a big place of worship right now. But that plugs on this side of the church. They'll worship for the immediate future in a large fellowship hall space and then the rest of this is offices and education on two levels and we would need to expand or have space to expand this direction to increase the educational aspect of the building. It's best for that to be at that end of the building because it needs light on both levels if you're going to have education and child care facilities. And those are the parts of the building that would enjoy the view to our advantage. Whereas the worship center doesn't really need to have a lot of good view outside. Fm1hemlOre, even though this parking in this area is planned for it's eventual size, the benefit of having the worship center at this end as part of the final scheme is that that is more centered in a wider range, wider radius of parking so that we have quite a few parking spaces within like a 400 foot walk of the front door of the church or even a little back door of the church here. Including parking in this area and this area, etc. Now one of the dilemmas in this design was that the design guidelines for the PUD were that all buildings should be closely attached to streets within 50 to 100 feet. I believe the rule was. We actually are violating that rule and staff has consented not easily, that because we need to gain parking here. Because this is the best place for the church in terms of using it's two level nature. Because the church really should have it's front door facing the south in our weather. Nobody likes front doors that are icy all winter because they're in the shadows. We need to have the front door in the south side of the building. Or maybe the east side of the building. So this lot slopes gently to the south. But even the edge of the lot is up about 10 feet above the Coulter Boulevard so it's naturally buffered from visibility along Coulter, which is one of your objectives. If you see from the planting scheme that we have evergreens, conifer trees spaced with lower lying shrubs. That's part of the buffering of this. It doesn't really need to have additional benning of any kind because of it's elevation change. On the other hand we wanted to not overdo large scale plantings in this area because we think it's important for people along Coulter to have a good 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 view corridor of this natural area so that they don't just pop on it because it's quite narrow there and then suddenly it's over. It seems like a better way to accentuate that part of the site. So as we move further west the site is planned to have, right next to the ponding area, to have prairie grasses planted and where we can we are planning to start an overs tory of trees that are from the Big Woods era of trees. The classic hardwoods of the Big Woods. Including in the parking area and near the building. We don't have all of that landscaping finalized yet because we haven't even designed the building yet, nor finalized the site plan for the church. This is really for a PUD purposes. The other issue that I might bring up is that if we need to slide the building further east, we need to have this amount of footprint on the site for the building's future expansion. Part of the development agreement is that the church needs to at least hit 40,000 square feet of possible square footage as a footprint. Some of that being on two stories. They want to be able to eventually have higher square footage possibly, and I think the consequences of that move east is, and the building was earlier fUl1her east, is that we probably would have to eliminate this parking. Excuse me, have to eliminate this parking. Because basically if you take this whole footprint and slide it east, whatever is required by the corridor requirements, if they are changed on us, means that something has to give on this side. We've already moved the road this way west to place more parking on the commercial side of the street, which has great advantages. We're not sure what else can be given up on this side to accomplish it. The one reason for that and the linear nature of the building is the site is so cramped from north to south, from here to here.. .north and south or we simply don't have anyplace to park near the front door of the building. So we've kind of reached a point where we think it's hard to do better on this site than we have proposed and planned at this point. Now to take you a little bit on a further walk of the site or as has been mentioned by Ron and others, I think the net effect of all of this is that for those enjoying the Bluff Creek area, there's quite a bit of view opportunity through the complex of buildings into this campus. As was pointed out earlier, you've got a retention pond that in a sense is what people see, not parking, before they see the church from Highway 5. For people on the trail system they can look across, up through lower vegetation and then see canopy trees on the hill. They won't be able to really see cars up here because they're really quite a ways above the bluff, unless they're way over on the other side by the school, which is quite a ways away. Similarly walking along this area in terms of enjoying nature along the ponds, there isn't buildings proposed to cut off their view except just the end of the building. And again the parking itselfis going to be quite high and they'll see the road ramping up to the church that way. Now the parking we proposed on the west side was to make access easier in the future to the lower level of the education unit, which is probably the lower unit would probably be a daycare center part of the church and that's really advantageous for parents to be able to drop off their kids and zoom out again. We don't need to have it be a large lot and we wanted to have it shaped to deal with the contours in the land and be as environmentally sensitive as possible so there's room for negotiation of course on the way that actually gets designed but we think there's also the advantage, as I said before, that people who are coming down to enjoy the pond or the natural area, will naturally head to that little parking lot so they're close to the creek area. As explained before, we're really hesitant and I think we'll find it almost impossible to make this design work if this driveway has to move further east. We have this as a typical grade now of between 6 and 8, around 8%. 7 to 8% going up this hill to get from the lower Coulter Boulevard up to the front door and we don't know how to get up to that required height without this length of road or it will be a road people aren't going to use in the winter time. And the last point I 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 might make is that the intention here is to have as much planting in this whole area as overstory in the parking area and even in the front of the building as we can afford in the short term and then add to it in the long term to really bring back the kind of canopy of trees that you're interested in on the site. The last thing I might mention is that it is important for the church's identification to have some kind of signage out identified with Highway 5 and along Coulter Boulevard. We simply would hope that people are reasonable about the height of this signage because right now it's down in a hole from the highway. We're not sure what is the proper specification for that at this point because MnDOT hasn't quite designed necessarily the elevation of Highway 5 yet and I think it would be a disadvantage to have a sign requirement that ends up with the sign being down into a sink hole. So that's kind of a variable that needs to be worked out in the long run. Okay, questions that you may have. Brooks: Yeah, I'm still haven't been told why you need 15 parking spaces right there, especially ifit'sjust for parents to nm their children in and out of the daycare. I mean I think, I'm son'y I think you could do that with 3 spaces and signs that say you know 15 minutes. I've seen places that do that. You know they put up signs that say 15 minute parking only for the daycare and you can run in and out. 15 is awfully, it's an awfully big area. It's excess parking and I'm not a big, I'm proponent as minimal on that stuff and. I understand this is Minnesota and we don't want kids outside for long because I have two little people too but I think you could get to your purposes with a much smaller parking space. Steve Edwins: Well we can certainly cooperate with staff and try to work that out as we design the site. I think 3 is probably too little because of the number of people who are coming and going and we also have to deal with a way to turn around the car to get back out again in that area so. Brooks: ...3 or 4 where they run their children in and out. Steve Edwins: And then handicap access space in the same location. Joyce: My, well just a consideration or a question. If you move the whole thing to the east into that parking, you'd be eliminating about what, 24 parking spots right? Steve Edwins: I don't have the parking count here right in front of me but that's probably about right. Joyce: I see 36 parking stalls here on the east parking lot just east of the future worship center. Steve Edwins: Yes, that's the one I pointed out. Joyce: Right. If you move this whole building to the east, you could probably save a third of those I suppose and keep your 15 future parking stalls. I'm asking you as an architect, is that possible? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Steve Edwins: Oh I think it's possible to slide the building east if we take out that north/south lane of parking. Maybe I should point to that again so that we're talking about the same element. This parking right here. Joyce: What I'm saying is, our concern here is the Bluff Creek overlay as the city has proposed it would virtually eliminate these 15 parking spots on the west side, correct? Steve Edwins: That's right. Joyce: And then 2/3 of the building as well, of the future on the west side. The future expansion on the west. Steve Edwins: That's right. Joyce: If you moved it to the east, and I don't have the eye for it but I'mjust wondering, could you save everything on the west, eliminate the parking on the east and you've lost 20 parking spots and we're all happy. Steve Edwins: We haven't studied that carefully but I would assume we could put a few parking spaces still on the west. Joyce: My fellow commissioner down there and I are in agreement. I'm not a big parking proponent. I don't see any reason why we have to accommodate automobiles as much as we do. Steve Edwins: I understand that. It'd be nice to have a few access points to that lower level, just for the convenience of dropping off kids. As we move the building further east we also, we're trying to keep that shoulder ofland there. We are then carving away more of the hill. Ifwe put parking further east at the lower level, and I think it would be less sensitive to the topology than we are being now. So we just have to watch how far we go with that or we'll get to a point where we're carving away more of the hill to provide access to the lower level than fighting the hill. Joyce: That's a good point. Ijust, I'm.... Steve Edwins: .. .it's a good question. Brooks: But if you move it east, I mean then you have people with kids that need to get them to the building, then the front entrance, you can just run. You could put spaces for the moms with their kids and the dads with their kids right by the front door. I know that's how it's done at the Jewish Community Center in St. Louis Park. The closest parking space is to the front door are for 15 minute drop off daycare. There's four of them and for the elderly and then everybody else parks back. And that, you know that way you still have, I mean the moms don't have to enter, and the dads, don't have to enter at the lower level. They can enter at the front level and walk down the stairs. I've done that with two kids. A lot of people can do that with two kids. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Steve Edwins: .. .most people are going to use the main front door. We're just trying to make it extra convenience to have some access point at the lower level and some parking to help for the lower level access. Peterson: Bob can you spend a couple minutes summarizing, we've talked a lot about where we're at but this new design and as you interpret it, how is it interfering with the current Bluff Creek setback? Talk about it again and just kind of summarize what the issues are, just so we're all on the same page. Generous: We believe it encroaches into the appropriate area approximately 50 feet. As they show their design for the westward expansion. We believe the drive aisle can be realigned and the building shifted to the east and they could still meet their requirement and we could create a significant view shed, wildlife corridor, revegetated area. Peterson: Well said. Other questions of the applicant? Steve Edwins: Thank you. Peterson: Let's try this again. This is an item open for a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second please'? Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward now and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Matt, do you want to take a stab at this one first? Burton: Sure. I'm really struggling with this. I do like the plan. The development. I think everything makes sense. I like the layout. I really have no problems with anything except for the Bluff Creek overlay and I've been up here reading and trying to figure this out. It seems to me that even if we approve this, and I could be wrong and somebody who knows please tell me, but I think even if we approve this, it's still within the Bluff Creek overlay zone and it's still going to be subject to that zone without obtaining an ordinance, excuse me, a variance. Now I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me. And if! am wrong, and by us approving this, we're overriding the overlay zone. Then I'm not sure that I'm comfortable in doing that. I haven't been that familiar with this because I wasn't part of the Planning Commission when that went through but I've been reading a bit up here and trying to figure this out. It does seem to me that this would clearly violate that and I don't know if there's a good reason to do that. This was an important issue very recently. I think this is the first case in which that zoning ordinance is being applied, or impacted. So at this point I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do that. I think that the building could be moved. I think this could be restructured to comply with the overlay so at this 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 point... to try to see that that is enforced. I'm not really sure how this, how our approval of this will impact that. Peterson.. . Burton: Yeah, if we're approving a PUD, it seems to me that we have to address the Bluff Creek issue and I think there's a need for a variance. Maybe I'm wrong. Peterson: ... saying that you don't want the variance or you want the building to be moved 50 feet so it's...? Burton: I would like to see the building moved 50 feet so... Ifit's not moved, then I don't... Peterson: ... when it comes back so I guess what they're looking for now is to get your direction as to how you... But1on: I'm struggling with it. I'm not in favor of it. Peterson:. .. Blackowiak: I agree. Do you have any clarification Bob, at all about this because that's why we requested a copy of the ordinance because it specifically states, where is it here. Section 21- 1469(a). Natural habitat areas within the primary zone and within 300 feet of Bluff Creek shall be preserved as permanent open space. That's what the ordinance states. Now, if we go and try to approve a PUD that is in direct contradiction to this ordinance, are we going to be in trouble? Burton: I think it should be subject to the ordinance. Blackowiak: Right. That's what I'm thinking. Doesn't the ordinance supersede? Generous: Well it's like granting a variance. Blackowiak: Well that's, exactly. Generous: That 300, I wasn't aware that that 300 foot was in there. Blackowiak: Specifically stated. That's why we wanted the copy was to make sure. Generous: You can, in essence yes. You would be approving a variance then if you went with the proposed setback established in the design criteria. However, it would not, the design criteria would require them to move the building. And that parking lot. Joyce: . ..guideline though isn't it Bob? Generous: That was my understanding in how we looked at it. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Peterson: .. . offer to Council that we can recommend that... Ken Adolf: Our position is that, I think what the ordinance says is that the natural habitat area and... want to get beyond 50 feet of where the creek was or where the edge of the pond is right now, it's really... Blackowiak: And I guess that's not what I'm struggling with. I mean I understand what you're saying that that's agriculture and it might be degraded but I'm struggling with the fact that the ordinance specifically states, be preserved as permanent open space. That's where I'm coming from. Based on ordinance, what do we as a Planning Commission do? That's my question. And although it's maybe in not great shape right now in terms of it's natural state, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't improve it or strive to make it better. I mean simply because it's bad, doesn't mean we can just write it off totally because I think that it could be a very nice area. That is again my major cone em is the Bluff Creek study because we went through this. This is the first time it's been applied to a development since it's been, you know I don't know when the ordinance was officially signed. December I guess but so this is actually the first case and I just worry about deviating from what was recommended right off the bat. It kind of sets a bad precedent in my mind. But I understand what staff is saying regarding the edge of the pond as the edge mark for any measurements. And I could, I guess I'm waffling. I could go either way on that. But I'm just very uncomfortable with the current location of the church. The rest of the PUD looks fine. I like the idea of the two story. I like the idea of the shared parking. I think that overall it's a good plan but this specific piece is problematic. I certainly think that the building could be shifted to the east. I don't see that that is a problem. I don't think that even if the building was shifted to the east that the drive aisle would have to be moved, based on the maps that we were shown. I think that could stay as is. I do not see the need for any westem expansion whatsoever encroaching, even further into that corridor area. I would certainly encourage any expansion to reach the east and if we have to lose the parking directly to the east of the proposed expansion, so be it. Again, I really don't know what to do about this ordinance. Ifwe need to incorporate a variance or what the deal is and I'm going to kind ofleave that up but those are my thoughts. Peterson: Okay, Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with the other Alison. We do have an ordinance and we did go through a lot of trouble to get that ordinance in place. And the first thing we plan to do with that ordinance is sort of go with a variance. It looks like that we can move the building to the east and give up parking and that may be architecturally some more creative things could be done, or thought through to save the amount of space. Obviously as I said before, I don't think we need those 15 extra spaces at the westem end. I think we can lose that. I think a church should go on that property. I would like to see a church on that property. I hate to lose the whole concept. I think it's just a matter of compromise. The rest of the PUD, I have no problem with. I'm a little concemed about the amount of parking that may be seen from Trunk Highway 5 but it says in the report that there should be enough buffer. And I think that about sums it up. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 Sidney: I've got a few comments. I guess in looking at this I agree with staffs recommendations. I know a number of people in the, from Phil Elkin to planning staff have looked at this, about the Bluff Creek setbacks and I see their analysis where we would want to have the building moved to the east and enhancing the Bluff Creek area is really part of the reason why we'd want a PUD. And I see this as something that provides the benefit to the city and provides a natural area, transition area between the school and the church. Overall I think the applicant has done a wonderful job in enhancing the overall plan, especially from the last plan. And the only spot where I see the concern, like the other commissioners, is in this area where the church is and I'd like to see the setback maintained like staff has recommended. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: First off I'd like to say this is a much better design than the last time. I was always in favor of the mixed usage. I thought it was a good concept and I think you've done a nice job with it. I also appreciate the applicant working with the city to add more value to the project so that the coordination of the office space would offset some of what the church is happening with the tax situation. Looking at this Bluff Creek overlay and I think you have to bear with us. This is really the first time it's come in front of us in this form but my understanding of the Bluff Creek overlay was that the 300 foot setback was a guideline and if you went and took the Bluff Creek overlay at face value, you couldn't do this project at all because you'd be cutting off most of the developable land. What I think staff has done is said listen. We are trying to preserve this small portion down in the southwest comer where the church is proposed for the reforestation. But otherwise I mean the Bluff Creek, we might as well throw out the Bluff Creek overlay. I mean you've got an 80 foot setback over here and you've got mostly a 100 foot setback over here so it's really, we're taking direction from staff and from Phil as far as how they feel comf011able with how the Bluff Creek ordinance is being applied here in this particular instance. In that regard, I do agree with staff. My feeling is that what we're doing here is we're trying to protect as best we possibly can a resource that we feel strongly in and I think the applicant is basically fighting over some parking spaces versus maybe arranging it differently. I know that there was some consideration with the grading and the elevations but I personally think that you could live with abiding by this 150 foot creek setback in the lower southwest comer. So my feeling is strongly that we push the church over. We allow the rest of the proposal to be at 100 foot setbacks up on top and 80 foot on the side. I go along with the staff on that. And that we eliminate some of this parking on the east side and work the church in there and maybe we could save some of those future parking stalls for the future addition over there as we explained. That's my feeling. One last thing is, I'm a big proponent, I'm an opponent of parking and proponent of sidewalks I guess and there's some talk about the campus effect here and when a campus, usually pedestrians and pedestrians need places to walk. And I see not enough sidewalks, or a limited amount of sidewalks around the place where you'd want the most pedestrian friendly atmosphere which is around the church, after discussing it. Community outreach and the daycares and stuff like that. You don't have a sidewalk connecting Coulter up along Stone Creek so I would definitely be in favor of having a sidewalk on both sides of that avenue, particularly after we did the traffic study and it showed that Stone Creek Drive could be a fairly busy thoroughfare with all these extra crossovers and things like that, I think we're going to need sidewalks on both sides of it. So if we're going to put a Stone Creek and you're going to 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 have a right in and right out and have traffic coming back and forth, I think we need sidewalks on both sides of this Stone Creek. Particularly around the church. And that's all I have to say. Peterson: My thoughts are not that dissimilar. I concur with fellow commissioners in that overall with the plan presented tonight, it's certainly much more inviting as it relates to parking and presentation as it relates to the views from Highway 5. I'm very pleased with the PUD as it's been augmented. As it relates to the setback, I too feel that the 300 feet is more of a guideline and that should be treated as such. And in turn you know I will look to staffs recommendation and agree with theirs that it should be moved to the east to, move approximately 50 feet to... reasonable and true to the site and I think that can be done by working with staff in some reasonable fashion. I too also, I too feel as though the sidewalks are critical to the success of the PUD. That we're striving for in all the PUDs that we've done recently and will hopefully continue to do, is to have them more pedestrian friendly and sidewalks is certainly conducive to that. So all and all I like the project a lot. It's just a matter of the Bluff Creek setback being the issue and I certainly think that can be worked out with some time with staff and better understanding or some tweaking to where the church site is. So with that, may I have a motion and a second please. I'll ask again, may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: Okay, I'll make a motion. I recommend, or Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval ofPUD #97-2, including the wetland alteration permit to fill the small wetland located in the north portion of the site, the wetland conditional use pennit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the conditions 1 through 27. Number I amended to 153 parking stalls. Approximately. And I'd like to add a condition 27 that we adhere to the staff's interpretation of the Bluff Creek overlay as presented in the proposal by the staff. Peterson: Is there a second? (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Joyce: ... I'm trying to say and I'm open to a friendly amendment, and that we change that amendment. I'm just trying to put in the structure that the Bluff Creek overlay has to be adhered to as presented by the interpretation of the staff. .. they have to abide by that. Brooks: I'm sorry, what if the staff interprets the overlay is different from the ordinance? Joyce: The whole project.. .the whole project doesn't conform to the ordinance. In their proposal here it says, keep setbacks from the creek at a minimum of 100 feet. .. Whatever the staff deems as necessary. Peterson: We are not changing what your conditions are. We're adhering, or basically reaffirming that we're going to stand behind staff recommendations. Generous: That's my interpretation. It might be even easier, must comply with the design standards established as part of the PUD which incorporate our interpretation. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 Peterson: The point is well made that... Brooks: Say your number 27 again please. Joyce: What'd I say Bob? That the... Brooks: .. .or do you want to say ordinance? The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the city, by the planning staff. Blackowiak: Specifically 100 foot setbacks with a 50 foot buffer area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements. Peterson: Are you comfortable with that friendly amendment? Joyce: I'm comfortable with anything at this point. Yes. I'm comfortable with that friendly amendment. Peterson: So with that we have a motion. Do we have a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of pun #97-2, including the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill the small wetland located in the northern portion of the site and Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain, subject to the following conditions: I. The church facility shall commit to provide approximately 153 parking stalls for the industrial office users of the property. In addition, the office and industrial site shall provide parking facilities for the church. A document acceptable to the city, protecting the joint use of the parking facilities, shall be recorded. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: . The developer shall add understory trees to the landscaping along Highway 5. . The developer shall add native overs tory trees to the proposed plantings with the Bluff Creek corridor. Recommended species can be found in the Bluff Creek Management Plan. . All Amur maples shall be removed from the Bluff Creek planting plan and replaced with an understory species recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 . All landscape islands shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. If islands do not meet minimum width, aeration tubes will be required. . The developer shall revise the landscape plan to include overstory boulevard trees every 30' along Stone Creek Drive. If 30' is not possible because of lighting or access points, the closest spacing will be accepted (i.e. 40 feet, etc.). . Additional native overstory trees and shrubs selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan shall incorporated into the landscaping around the proposed pond and western parking lots between the church and the building fronting Highway 5. 3. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. The developer shall dedicate to the City an easement for trail purposes, 20-foot wide over all existing and proposed trail segments. 4. The proposed industrial development of 19.33 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge ofS89,556 and a water quantity fee of$84,279. The developer will be eligible for credit to the water quality fee based on stormwater treatment designs. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 5. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transfonner boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 6. All 34 boulevard trees along Coulter Boulevard shall be preserved and guaranteed by the applicant. Where trees need to be removed for entrances, they must be replaced elsewhere along Coulter Boulevard. Protective tree fencing shall be installed around all boulevard trees prior to any grading activity. No landscaping or berming shall be placed within Stone Creek Drive right-of-way. 7. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City 8. All ponding basin side slopes shall be 4: I overall or 3: I with a 10: I bench at the nonnal water elevation. Consideration for maintenance access shall also be incorporated into the design. 9. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 final plat consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. 10. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee utility and street construction as well as the final plat conditions of approval. II. The proposed wet tap on the watermain near the trail in the southeasterly corner of the site shall be relocated to avoid interference with the existing trail. 12. The City's standards for boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated in the public portion of the street improvements. 13. The developer shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding amendment to the existing floor plain boundary. The developer will be responsible for providing FEMA the necessary documentation to have the Federal Flood Plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions. 14. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading and access to the site to be compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans. In addition, the developer shall coordinate the adjustment, relocation, and cost of the power lines with MnDOT. 15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat public drainage and utility easements over the existing and proposed utilities and drainageways (creeks). 16. No building shall be pern1itted to encroach upon drainage or utility easements or impede access to perfonn maintenance functions to the utility system. 17. Individual driveway access points as well as sidewalks/crosswalks along Stone Creek Drive shall be re-evaluated with the individual site plans. There are numerous access points onto Stone Creek Drive which staff believes can be reduced and spaced further apart to improve and minimize turning movements into the site. It may also be appropriate to construct sidewalks on both sides of Stone Creek Drive to direct pedestrian traffic to a safe crossing point along Stone Creek Drive. 18. Depending on MnDOT's construction schedule and phasing of this project, the right-inlright- out access onto Trunk Highway 5 may have to be constructed by the developer. Security and/or language in the development contract will be required to guarantee construction of the right-in/right-out access and right turn lanes on Trunk Highway 5. 19. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan needs to be revised in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control fence needs to be added throughout the site. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to the wetlands, creeks at the base of slopes in areas exceeding 3: 1 slopes. The plans should also include temporary 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 1998 sediment basins to accommodate site runoff during the grading operation. Additional erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the pond once the pond has been constructed. 20. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 21. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 22. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the developer $20 per sign. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the developer $20 per sign. The developer shall verify the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these signs before the utilities are accepted. 23. The developer shall provide detailed stonn sewer calculations for 1 a-year and lOa-year stonn events and provide ponding calculations for stomnvater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The developer shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for lOa-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 24. The developer will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concun-ent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 25. The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer." 27. The applicant shall comply with the Bluff Creek ordinance as interpreted by the planning staff, specifically 100 foot setbacks with a 50 foot buffer area and the edge of the pond along the existing wetland be used for measurements. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April I, 1998 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: So I think you sense where we're at with the Bluff Creek area... REVIEW PARK PLANS FOR BANDIMERE COMMUNITY PARK AND CITY CENTER PARK. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. (Due to the poor quality of the recording, the following conversation between the commission and staff was not able to be heard on the tape.) A motion was made and seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan #98-6 for a Bandimere Community Park, site plan prepared by Brauer & Associates, dated March 18, 1998, subject to the following conditions: I. The planting plan be revised as follows: . Plant an additional 9 canopy trees in the north parking area . Construct an additional landscape island for each row of parking and plant 7 canopy trees. . Plant an additional 15 canopy trees, 30 understory trees and 46 shrubs along Hwy. 101. . Plant an additional 17 shrubs on the eastern park near Kiowa Trail. . Plant an additional 4 canopy trees and II shrubs in the north parking area. . Plant an additional 2 canopy trees and 5 shrubs west of the open soccer field area. . Plant an additional 5 canopy trees, 8 understory trees and 13 shrubs north the open soccer field area. . Plant an additional 4 canopy trees, 8 understory trees and 11 shrubs along the eastern portion of the open soccer field area. 2. A separate sign permit must be submitted and approved. 3. Existing trees shall be protected by tree fencing during construction. 4. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and fonnal approval. 5. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 35