3l. Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
' APRIL 25, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason
and Councilman Senn
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Bob Generous, and Scott Harr
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
WEATHER ALERT RADIOS.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to take a moment to encourage resident and business people in Chanhassen to
immediately purchase a weather alert radio. These inexpensive radios with battery back -up sound and alert tone
can provide information whenever the weather service issues a severe weather warning. They can also be taken
with you wherever you go, including to the basement, should you need to take shelter. We cannot always rely
on warning sirens. You may not be within range to hear that. You may have your house closed up because of
bad weather and not be able to hear it. Or there may not be sirens in your specific area. Weather alert radios
are available from electronic stores and electronic departments at department stores. Because the severe weather
season is upon us, and because your safety is important to us, we encourage all business and homes to have a
weather alert radio. If you have any further questions regarding this, please contact our Public Safety
Department at City Hall. If you happen to see this on TV, it's 937 -1900. Punch extension number 3 and you
will get to the operator when you press that operator's button. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Approval of Expenditure for a Design Charette for the Bluff Creek Corridor.
' c. Bluff Creek Estates 5th Addition, Keyland Homes:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development and Plans and Specifications for Bluff Creek Estates 5th Addition, Project 94 -10
d. Resolution #94 -46: Accept Street Improvements in Willow Ridge, Project 91 -14.
L Approval of Bills.
g. City Council Minutes dated April 11, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 6, 1994
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 22, 1994
1 h. Resolution #94.47: Approve Contract Amendment No. 2 to the TH 101 North Leg Realignment Railroad
Improvement Project 88- 22B -1.
Il
n
L
J
1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
i. County Road Funding Agreements:
1) Master Agreement
2) County Road 17, Lyman to Highway 5
3) Galpin Boulevard, Highway 5 to Timberwood
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. STONE CREEK 4TH ADDITION, HANS HAGEN HOMES: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, APPROVE
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to getting to your's Colleen, maybe if I can have Charles make the. There's a correction
that he'd like to have done to this. Charles.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Basically if you turn to your staff report item 1(a)(1). Page
13. Section 10(a). Basically staff, in discussions with the developer, determined that since the comprehensive
storm water management plan has not yet been approved and it's expected to be presented to you probably
sometime in May for approval, that it would be more appropriate to escrow the estimated storm water funding
cost at this time until that plan is adopted and the associated costs recommended in that plan are approved And
as such, staff basically recommends that item 10(a) be revised to read, the applicant shall escrow storm water
trunk fees prior to the final plat as well as provide an off site water quality basin. The trunk fee has been
estimated to be $46,076.00 and shall be adjusted accordingly based on the adopted fee schedule and assessment
methodology. And on staff report item 1(a)(2) of the development contract, page SP-4, Section 8 -2 -1, shall be
replaced with the previous paragraph that I've just recommended be identical in both forms.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Colleen. You had a question.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I'm sorry Kate I didn't' call you today to give you a fore warning on this.
Could you just update me on the problems that we had earlier with the grading.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. We have met with Mr. Hagen and expressed the concerns that we had about grading
and.. engineering department is going to meet with their on site person and do a closer inspection to make sure
that it's in compliance and I think he's under compliance. We are approving a phasing, a grading plan for the
next phase at this time so ... and again we are escrowing for that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. The bigger issue I have is, I'm trying to figure out what we approved and I
should have pulled it from the original approval but it looks like they're calling that little stub street Timberwood
Drive.
Kate Aanenson: It is a cul -de -sac. It looks like a thru street but it is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. It does.
Kate Aanenson: I raised that issue...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It raised a red flag.
2
I
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. With that I would move approval. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will second that. Any other discussion?
3 1
F1
'
n
Kate Aanenson: On the construction plans it is a temporary cul-de -sac but it's not o there and I thought he was
going to put something in his report to that effect... temporary cul -de -sac. A cul -de -sac.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Right, but it's being called Timberwood Drive, because that's what it's labeled.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it is being called Timberwood.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That little cul- de-sac is being called Timberwood Drive?
'
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't recall it having a name at all. I'm really not comfortable calling, I mean
since we went through the long arduous process. I didn't address this but the rest of the Council went through a
'
long arduous process of saying this street is not going to go through. It's separate. I'm uncomfortable calling it
the same name because it gives the impression that it will go through. And also, I think on condition number 6,
well it gets back to it. Saying Timberwood Drive should be constructed 35 feet...so I'm not comfortable
'
approving this unless we change the name of that tiny little cul -de -sac.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that can possibly worked out without any real concern.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I would make a motion to approve.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Oh, excuse me. I've got one more thing. Under the recommendations. Number 2.
It says a sign shall be installed on the barricades at the end of Timberwood Drive and Stone Creek stating that
'
the street will be extended in the future. This is on page 12. Second recommendation. I don't know if we're
just working with an old document here but it seems like it hasn't been updated since ... So was this getting at the
extension that will eventually.
'
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, are you looking at the final?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'm on page 12. Is that the final? I think it is. Condition number 2. Unless
'
that is supposed to be referring to when it eventually goes into the Heritage development or what's currently
being called the Heritage.
Kate Aanenson: ...we could take Timberwood out and...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. With that I would move approval. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will second that. Any other discussion?
3 1
F1
77
II
L
11
1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Final Plat, Development Contract
and Plans and Specifications for Stone Creek 4th Addition, Hans Hagen Homes as amended by the City
Engineer and Councilwoman Dockendorf. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Senn: Just for clarification. That was with Charles' changes?
Mayor Chmiel: To incorporate those changes. That's correct.
E. ACCEPT $1,500.00 DONATION FROM DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS FOR CRIME__
PREVENTION MATERIALS AND BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRAM.
Mayor Chmiel: Scott Harr, would you like to do the honors of.
Scott Harr: Yes I would Mr. Mayor and if the Council in fact accepts this donation, representatives from the
Disabled American Veterans would like to present the check to you as the Mayor. Disabled American Veterans
organization has offered to assist us with our crime prevention program by donating the money tonight that
would be used for two separate programs. One is to purchase material that we use to give away to young people
at school and during the park programs and anywhere that we get an opportunity to interact with them. Crime
Prevention coloring books, pencils, things that carry the crime prevention message. Also we're entering into an
exciting program through the Carver County Sheriff's Department to initiate a new bicycle patrol program that
will be used to access areas not traditionally accessed by squad cars. The parks, the trails, business areas where
officers aren't usually out of their cars and visible and we're doing this program 50/50 with the County and the
DAV has been good enough to help us with this and we certainly appreciate their generosity.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. And maybe it's the time that you would like.
Wayne Blue: Do you want us to come up there?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I'd love to have you come up here. For $1,500.00 I'll walk there.
Wayne Blue: Okay. Mr. Mayor. On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans, about 6,100 members, we'd
like to give you a check for $1,500.00 to start off some new programs and there will more following and we
want to thank the Council here for allowing us to operate over here at the Riveria Club. It sure has been helpful
to us and we hope we can continue to work with the City Council here. As of 1 May I am no longer the
gaming manager ... my new gaming manager will be Mr. Jim Olins there. He's a 49 year veteran of the Disabled
American Veterans and he's school trained and he will be taking over the first of May.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you very much. Appreciate it ... So with that I would move that we move item
number (e) for approval. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept the $1,500.00 donation from Disabled
American Veterans for Crime Prevention Materials and Bicycle Safety Programs. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
4
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING DISCHARGES INTO THE
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, FIRST READING.
'
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Basically this is our ... out of the new ordinance
for regulating discharges into the sanitary sewer system. It also supplies information as to the section program
which will be hopefully undertaken in the next few months citywide with all homes connected to the city sewer
'
system and basically will also provide for ... for non - compliance with the new ordinance. The draft document that
you have here basically is a culmination of all the technical and input from both the building inspection
department and public works staff and we hope we've put together a complete ordinance which will stand on it's
'
own with the new program coming on line so. We're open for questions and comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this
at this time? As I say, the Council chambers is really full, and we appreciate no comments coming back. With
,
that I would ask for a motion to close the public hearings.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
'
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to bring this back to Council. Is there any discussions that anyone would like to have
in regard to this proposal on discharges into the sanitary sewer from the homes, businesses and wherever?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I will take that approval. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
'
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the First Reading of City Code
Amendment to Section 19 -44 prohibiting discharges into the sanitary sewer system. All voted in favor and
,
the motion carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT C OMPUTER AIDED
GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND SUBDIVISIONS.
'
Bob Generous: After the last Council meeting City Council tabled this item requesting that staff come back with
some additional information. The first thing I should note is that we have reviewed the ordinance itself and we
,
believe that the first word in each of those, two words should be deleted. Computer generated, because there are
alternate technologies that can be used to give ... As far as, one of the requests was that we look at what this
ordinance would cost for development to use. We were able to get two companies that do it to provide us with
bid estimates for a proposal, the Byerly's proposal and for the Oak Ponds proposal. The high estimate was
,
$9,000.00 and that was if the company, the contracting company had to do all the work. If they were just
provided with general information. The cost decreased provided that the applicant or the developer can provide
either architectural drawings or if they have a CAD system that they can provide the information off of. That
was as low as $1,200.00 or $1,500.00 ... In the narrative we say $150.00 to tens of thousands of dollars. We saw
an example of a video where a sign was put on an existing building and that was an example of a $150.00 cost
would be. Tens of thousands would be a project such as the high bridge in St. Paul which is $35 to $55 million
'
project and the cost of that was about $35,000.00. So depending on the complexity and the number of views
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
that are required for a project, the price goes up. Tonight we've provided you with ... letters from developers,
Opus Corporation and Lundgren Bros who are opposed to the city moving ahead with this amendment. They
' believe that it will put an undue burden on the development costs. Staff is recommending that we approve the
ordinance for it's fast reading and schedule a second reading for May 9th. If you have any questions, I'd-be
glad to answer them.
' Kate Aanenson: Can I just add one thing? One of the other issues that did come up was who would request this
information and we did discuss it at our joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. At your last
meeting you ... that maybe you should be the ones to require ...the cost but I think the Planning Commission and
certainly the staff feels like we may need to make that request. Or the Planning Commission may want to make
that request in order for them to make an effective review of the project before they send it onto you so we'd
still like you to consider the fact that the staff or the Planning Commission have the opportunity to ask. And we
did put, one of the things that we did talk about at that joint session was also site elevations. So we're giving
'
some—take out the computer generated out of the language we're talking about—artistic renderings or site
elevations so there's three options.
' Mayor Chmiel: What page are you referencing?
Kate Aanenson: The third page.
' Councilman Senn: Is that at the option of the applicant then?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think there's some, leave them the opportunity, whichever they feel like they can do. A
1 lot of them are doing ... but we want to make sure that we've got the language in there that it's ... or it's not
distorted. That's the problem I think we've been having a lot when we see trees at 30 year maturity and that
sort of thing. We want to make sure that it's not distorted.
' Councilman Mason: Is there some sort of avenue. For example, say for whatever staff or Planning Commission
demanded top of the line whatever. Is there any kind of avenue that they could come back and say well I want
to go to the City Council and discuss this? I don't want to have to put out this kind of money for this project?
Roger Knutson. An applicant always has the right to ultimately come here. For example, if Kate said I want
you to do a $10,000.00 graphic and the guy says it's a $200.00 project. That's crazy. The applicant could say, I
won't do it. Send it onto the City Council and denial is denial. But I won't do it. It comes up here and you
can say, Kate. Back down. You don't need that. Sure.
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: I think with those changes it pretty well meets what we talked about except the other night
the computer generated goes, taking those out I think goes a long way towards clarifying that. Basically looking
' at photo composite, artist renderings and site elevations and the key again on site elevations, I really think that
could be a useful tool if we just give it a try and leave it up to the applicant. Then it's really kind of up to them
which one they're going to do to meet it as long as it makes sense to us. Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't see in the ordinance where we address who requires it.
' Kate Aanenson: Well the way it was placed in the ordinance, it's under we attached copies of the ordinance. If
6
t
Ci ty Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
you look at the very back of the attachments. We have subdivision, it says data required. This is part of the
ordinance. You can see there's a long list of things that are required as far as the subdivision application. At
the beginning of that it says, unless waived by the city because of limited size. So when they come in, we
'
normally go through this checklist with them and say these are the things you need to submit in order to meet
the application.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. So it doesn't say specifically Council or staff?
Kate Aanenson: No. You could add the letter (m) under the subdivisions. If you feel like there may be some
specific application where you want...
,
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'm still uncomfortable. This is not a power issue. I just feel that since this is so
it
new, that it should be approved by City Council. It doesn't have to be a long arduous process to bring to us
'
but I guess in order to protect the developer, I think it still should be a decision made by the Council. And
again, it doesn't have to be a formal decision at a meeting. It can just be, I don't know. Something less formal
than that but I still ultimately think the decision should be made here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Roger.
Roger Knutson: Can I make a suggestion? And I rarely put on representing developers.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Me too.
developer I
Roger Knutson: But I would think from the developer's position that that's something, if I were a
would not like. That's going to cost me 2 weeks. The only time the Council can act as a Council is when
you're sitting here. So they would have to, before they went to the Planning Commission. For example if Kate
said we'd like you to do this and the developer... What if it was reversed? The developer doesn't like the
decision of the Planning Commission, the decision of staff to require that. They have the right to forfeit
producing it to, if they want to.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I don't want them to bring, yeah ... I would hate to see Planning Commission
deny it based on, deny an entire proposal based on this issue and then the developer having to bring it to the
Council and act. I like your suggestion I guess is what I'm saying.
,
Roger Knutson: The developer says no, I don't want to produce then he comes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Then we come up without, yeah.
'
Councilman Wing: I think it's important to realize that this is something that doesn't come in at the conceptual
stage or the preliminary stage. It comes in -at the final stage and I think it has to be staff controlled. They're
reviewing it. They're designing it. They're working with it. They're the ones that know if or when it has to
happen and to get to this level without it, that's absurd. You might as well not pass it. For us to say oh, I think
we want this and then start the process over again does nobody any good. It's not mandated. It may be
,
requested. There's a lot of projects in the city that it will be requested on and I'll be at the Planning
Commission meetings making sure we do request it. As a Council member so, I guess I would tend, I'm not as
uncomfortable with it as Colleen I think has indicated. I guess I support staff controlling it because I trust them
to do a fair job and I always, you know the same whiners are here complaining about the same thing. Oh my,
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
it's going to cost me a dime. It doesn't matter about the quality or the city and I remember Bill Morrish sitting
in this very room saying, make your rules and make them hard and then enforce them evenly with everybody.
And if you do that, they'll still come. Everytime we want to do anything that upgrades our quality in this city,
where it's for the city's best interest long term into the future, they're in here whining about the dollar they're
going to spend today and this is one of those that really irritates me. As a matter of fact, I'd love to address
' these letters because they really are self serving and short sighted and.
Mayor Chmiel: What you'd like to do is respond with your written response to them rather than.
' Councilman Wing: Thank you for cutting me off.
Mayor Chmiel: I wasn't trying to do that but I thought it'd be very apropos to do that...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm comfortable with the fact that they have another recourse so.
Councilman Senn: The only other way, or other option. I don't know if it's a good option or not would be to
set a..
Councilman Mason: And that I hesitate because.
Mayor Chmiel: No ... the projects it'd be almost impossible to really do. Because there would be a variation.
Councilman Wing: Could I, I wanted to share these notes last time and I left them at home. I spent a good part
of the day on the phone with our engineering firms and other architectural firms I was aware of and I just real
quickly want to go down these. Just quotes that came in at random. I can supply the names of the companies if
' anybody wants them off the record, but one company said, should expect to do what's asked. This is an
architectural firm. Another one said, they spent about $200.00 for a blueprint or a sketch. When they bring in
these blueprints they're spending about $200.00. They said if you want a full color rendering, they spent about
$1,500.00. We get a lot of computer generated stuff. I mean we're starting to get into big dollars even by
asking for the color rendering. 45% design fees. Well, if you take a multi- million project, and suddenly we're
insisting for $2,000.00 for models or renderings, peanuts. They said that is not an imposition. Within our rights
to ask for more. We're trying to make a difference and we should be proud of that. Another one said, if you're
' coming to Chanhassen this ordinance says, be prepared Most project costs and size justify this request or
ordinance. Dollars? One architectural firm, so what. It's the city's future. This ordinance is going to force
more quality and one of the warnings clearly is a, done at the end. Do not get in to make the mistake of
ordering this early because that is a prohibitive. Ordinance is in the city's best interest. It's going the right
' direction. The main point I want to make here. Cost is high but "falling like a rock" over the next 2 years. The
whole thing within the next 2 years will cost $500.00. The software is generating itself daily.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussions that you would like to have on the graphics and models?
Councilman Wing: I'd move rust reading.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a friendly amendment. Taking out computer generated.
1 a
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well that was assumed.
Councilman Mason: There is a motion on the floor? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Richard made the motion.
Councilman Mason: Okay, with the deletion of computer generated.
Councilman Senn: In those two paragraphs. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? ,
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve first reading of a City Code
Amendment for photocomposite images for Subdivisions and Site Plans, deleting the words, "computer '
generated ". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY UODL AME'NDME'NT 'l0 lfKlNU inn WL' 1LAPIL .VAL11�[il�l.ri ii�iv �.vi�aa uini�t.ai „aaaa
THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT, SECOND AND FINAL READING.
Kate Aanenson: At the last meeting... wetland amendment. What we're doing is coming into compliance with
the Conservation Act and also ... fee structure...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wanting to address this at this time? Okay. Are there any questions that
we have of Kate from.
Councilman Mason: One quick one. The reason we changed the ordinance for septic system setbacks from 150
to 75 was State mandated, is that connect?
Kate Aanenson: Well, they're staying consistent with what we have for the wetland setback and I'm not sure
you're...
Councilman Senn: It's not mandated.
Kate Aanenson: I don't believe it's mandated.
Mayor Chmiel: It can't be more stringent but you can be less stringent.
Councilman Mason: So, can I just get refreshed then? Why we want, or why we're going from 150 to 75?
Kate Aanenson: Because the wetland, you can put a structure within 75 feet but a septic system can be 150.
Roger Knutson: The setback from the ordinary, on a lake—to 75 feet. And the thought was, if that's the '
appropriate distance from a lake. You don't need greater separation from a wetland.
Councilman Mason: Okay. '
9 �
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Boy, I'd go the other way and change our lake one. Didn't we have a variance
' over that just a couple months ago?
Councilman Senn: We had one denied.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Denied.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Over that issue.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds very logical for us to go and be consistent with the 75 feet. If it's 75 foot as Roger
' just said, from the lake. It should be 75 feet from the wetland.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Wouldn't it be just as logical if it's 150 for the wetland, to be 150 for a lake? I
' mean you know.
Mayor Chmiel: That could be but you have to take into consideration, you have to allow a certain amount of
' land for those people to develop their particular properties.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'm just concerned about contamination to the wetland and to our lakes.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well I'm concerned as you are with that but.
Councilman Senn: We went through a lot of discussion on that in Adjustment and Appeals because, I think we
' spent the better part of at least several meetings on the issue and it just, I don't have a real problem with going
back to the 75 feet but I still think we should stick some criteria in there over and above. The State criteria
relates to elevation because I think the State requirements on elevation on totally inadequate. I mean all you
' have to do is basically go 3 feet or whatever it is above the water line of the lake or the wetlands and you
essentially could almost have a septic system sitting on top of it then. And that just doesn't make sense to me.
Because I mean most soils within that, a lot of soils in that close proximity to either a wetland or a lake and
probably wetlands are more susceptible from that standpoint, are not the best soils in the world in the first place.
I know that argument you're going to tell me. If you're starting to go up a steep embankment, you know that's
75 feet off the lake, I mean when you have wonderful soils up there, I mean I don't think there's a problem in
the world. But if you're trying to in effect build right down on the lake or a wetland where portions of your lot
are even below the water line, which does happen. I mean you can't tell me State standards or no State
standards, that there's not going to be some seepage. That's what I'd really like us to look at some type of a
standard that sets some type of elevation removal of the drainfield or the septic system from the water level of
' the lake. Or the wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well considering that the city is pretty well ... sanitary sewer, at least the north half of Lake
Minnewashta area is one example, why, because these are going to become few and fewer, why don't we, if
there are some quirks, why don't we enforce 150 feet? And encourage 150 and why don't we increase the
elevation and so that what is remaining is, impacts the problem is mitigated as much as possible. So the higher
the elevation, the longer the setback, the greater the mitigation of being a problem.
ME
99 4
City Council Meeting -April 25, 1
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: There are lots of situations. If you can envision someone owning 100 acres that's only 1 foot '
above the lake and you're saying potentially he can't build on that property.
Councilman Senn: You could raise it though, could you not? I mean that's what I'm saying. If you set an ,
elevation standard, couldn't you raise an area to a point that it would meet the standard for the drainfield?
Roger Knutson: I shouldn't be opening my mouth because I'm not an expert but I'm quoting some people. One '
of the things they look at when you're looking at a septic system is disturbed soils and if I come in and let's say
I have my 5 acres and you say I have to be 3 feet above or 10 feet above and I come in and I put on, lay in fill.
If you're building, I think your septic system people would tell you that's worthless. That's like it's not even ,
there.
Councilman Senn: But they can meet the State standard that way. See that's what bothers me Roger.
Roger Knutson: But I mean, so say if you're asking for 10 feet above the ordinary high water mark or whatever ,
you number is, I can come in and put in 10 feet of fill. That won't do any good.
Councilman Senn: Well but I understand that but like the one we're talking about on the south end of ,
Minnewashta, they were bringing in 3 feet of soil. Putting in a drainfield that met the state standards and that lot
is sitting right on the wetland.
Roger Knutson: I think the city put, your basement elevation. Your slab's got to be 3 feet above the ordinary
high water mark. Not the septic system. That's my understanding.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Correct.
Kate Aanenson: Your lowest living elevation has to be 3 feet above the OHW.
Roger Knutson: That has nothing to do with the septic system.
Kate Aanenson: They may have done a mound ..certain criteria that they have to meet for the building code. I '
think that's what Roger's eluding to.
Councilman Senn: But the mounding thing on that situation, I remember the numbers I thought pretty ,
specifically came in about 3 feet. They were going to mound it and be able to do it and meet the state standard.
Roger Knutson: Well there's a mound system and there's a design system for the mound. '
Kate Aanenson: Which he'd have to meet.
Roger Knutson: Right. But that has nothing to do with just elevation above the ordinary high water mark.
That's where you have a certain amount of good soil to filter through.
Councilman Senn: That's where I believe the 3 feet was the number that they came into the Appeals Board '
with.
11 1
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
' Roger Knutson: But again, if you're going to say, if you're going to tinker with what the State says what's
needed, then you'd better have some experts here to give us a basis for saying so. Otherwise we're going to get
' an interesting challenge. I'd suggest.
Mayor Chmiel: So after all that.
Councilman Senn: Well we spent a great deal of time on our wetlands protection ordinance and everything else
that's going on. I keep coming back to that one situation because I know there's more of them out there and it
really just keeps bothering me because as soon as we approve this, I know exactly what can happen out on that
piece of land and I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to build there, because they should but to me they
should be able to build there when the sewer system's available to accommodate them to build there. And that's
where I'm having trouble and if it means bringing in the experts and looking at a way to do it and be more
' stringent and maybe be more stringent than the State. You know I mean I hate to say it Roger. I mean I can
remember, I'm going to say 10 years ago when the State standard was totally something different. Now which
they say is the worst thing to do. Because I remember I had a lake home and when they said the lake home,
once you got within so many feet of the lake they said put in a closed system. Well now they say the worst
' thing in the world is to put a closed system in. Yet then, they were saying it was the best thing in the world to
do. So I mean I don't have a real high confidence level in what this month's best way is.
' Roger Knutson: In some technical areas I guess you know, you've got to look at the expertise out there and say
what do the experts say, even though you know in retrospect 20 years from now they might prove it wrong. It's
the best information we have. I guess at some point you've got to go with the recommendation-Just to remind
you, I sent you all correspondence on this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'm not so much concerned about Minnewashta because that's pretty much built but
there's a lot of undeveloped property around lakes in the southern part of the city and before we pleasantly, well
I shouldn't say pleasantly because we have looked at the issue but, I don't know. Just because that's what the
State standard is, this city is full of wetlands and enough water and I'd like to look at this situation a little more
before we reduce the setback.
Councilman Mason: What do you want to look at more? I mean we've been looking at this for quite some time
now. I'm curious. I'm not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we run a danger of contaminating our wetlands with this kind of setback? And
' why not keep it above State standards and what are the, what challenges, what legal challenges would we get if
we do increase it.
' Councilman Mason: Well I think we know what the legal challenges will be.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I know what those ramifications could easily be.
Kate Aanenson: But just, another change ... we used to say 75 feet. Now we've found people are mowing right
to the edge ... put the buffer strip in.
12
City ouncil Meeting - Aril 25, 1994
ty g P
Councilman Mason: I guess that was going to be my next question. And I guess I wish there was somebody
here to ask, and not being able to, you know what is the difference for the septic system, what damage between
leeching into soil at 75 feet or 150 feet? I was at, with those wetlands ordinances and we did all decide in terms
,
of, that the issue is not how close the building is necessarily but how the area immediately around the wetland is
protected. And I, I don't know. 150 feet. 75 feet. You know you go up north and they're really starting to
crack down up there but I know for a fact most septic systems are probably within 30 feet of the lakes. I'm not
saying that's right but I guess if the experts that we have before us now can live with 75 feet, maybe 150 feet is
overkill. I don't know. I really don't. But I guess I'm, I want to go along I guess with what Roger said. At
some point I guess you do need to trust what the experts say.
'
Councilman Senn: What if we got rid of the artificial or the artificiality of 75 feet or 150 feet? Because I mean
really, I mean that's arbitrary. It's pulling a number out of the air. I mean now granted it's in the State thing
but if said basically a condition which had to be achieved as a standard rather than feet. I mean more
,
what you
or less some type of engineering test or whatever that shows that there would be no possibility of leeching into
the lake or the wetland or whatever. You know instead of going maybe the 150 but instead of just going purely
on the 75, go to the 75 but say in addition to that, that's the minimum distance it can be but that's what really
,
determines the distance is going to be where the placement of that system can be proven through proper blab,
blab, blah that it meets these standards and doesn't leech.
Roger Knutson: Say at least 75 feet but on top of that.-the standard is you've got to get clear water or whatever
'
the.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But that, I mean you have to have that to build a septic system anyway. I mean
they won't put one in.
Councilman Senn: No, not under State. Now I'm going back to what we heard again in our discussions but that
wasn't in the State standard. The State standard pure and simply is 75 feet back.
,
Roger Knutson: Oh it's more than that. I
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean 75 feet back and then also basically said there had to be like 3 feet of soil
or something like that to cleanse. I mean yeah, I mean there was some cleansing stuff.
Councilman Wing: We're getting into some technical.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're getting into areas that we don't even have the expertise. '
Councilman Senn: Well that's why I'm asking the question and I've not seen any of the answers but I'm
wondering if somebody could come in and give us the answers.
Councilman Wing: But if Colleen and you have got these questions, and even Mike having sat on SWMP, if ,
you can't feedback from all your expertise on that, it's just too bad that Bonestroo isn't here tonight and they
could just boom, pop this out right now and say good, bad, yes, no. And if that's the case, I have no trouble '
with tabling this until one of those gentlemen could be here to ask those questions. I mean they're good
questions.
13
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
u
1
Mayor Chmiel: I think when you come up where you don't really have a proper setback and total footage,
you're going to run into problems with it because someone then, and I'm not saying all of them will do it but I
think you can get some that might fudge a factor or a figure and by doing that could cause some of those given
problems that we're trying to prevent. And I think by having that proper setback, it's something that we have to
look at to say this is where it is guys and this is where it has to be.
Councilman Senn: But the minimum of 75 would solve.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: ...75 feet and here's what I was ... It's the definition of a failing septic system. A failing septic
system means discharging effluent from the failed leaking system to the ground, and then I'll skip so I can
paraphrase, which is not producing the pure ... it's got to be purified when it comes out. That will work. So even
if you're 75 feet or 7,000 feet, for example if there's water right below the surface of the earth by just a few
inches and this can't work, then you have a failing system and they'll turn it down.
Councilman Senn: How is that determination made?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Roger Knutson: That I can't answer you. The building inspector makes that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, if I could reverse myself. I guess I agree with Mike. I mean this has gone
through the SWMP committee. Diane has looked at it. Enough people have put input into it who know a heck
of a lot more than I do about septic systems that I'm happy to change it I'm satisfied to change it to 75 feet.
Let me put it that way.
Councilman Wing: Well if you're going to be wishy washy, I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Just one question. Was Steve, Kate? I mean was this okay with Steve?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: It was? Because he kind of, I mean when we were talking about that one.
Kate Aanenson: That was a variance in itself. There was a lot of overriding issues that I think you're wrapping
into this but even if you say 75 feet, there is still a lot of hurdles with that process that that development has to
overcome.
Roger Knutson: He might not be able, that applicant for example, might not be able to build a septic system
there. We're dealing on another site totally unrelated. You haven't seen it yet as far as I know, in the city,
14
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994 1
where someone's coming in with decent sized lots but there's been disturbed soils all over those lots for various
reasons and even though they're good sized lots, there's a real concern that you might not be able to put, find a '
septic system area on these big lots and it has nothing to do with 75 feet or—it's just that the soils won't work.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that we have a motion on the floor and a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the second and final reading of ,
the City Code Amendment to bring the Wetland Ordinance into compliance with the Wetland
Conservation Act. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
WETLAND BUFFER MONUMENTATION.
Kate Aanenson: This item was tabled from last meeting. You wanted to get an idea of what the monumentation ,
would look like. There it is. It's brown with white lettering and I put the dimensions on here. It's 3 inches by
24 inches. And it's not on every lot so if you're looking into your rear yard, it could be on one lot corner or the
other. It's on like every other lot. ,
Councilman Mason: Oh it's not on.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd rather see it in orange and charteusse. '
Councilman Wing: Is that a motion? No. I like that.
Kate Aanenson: I think they'll blend in very nicely. '
Councilman Senn: So it's like, you're saying every other lot. ,
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so of your lot, you only have one on your lot.
Councilman Senn: At the most. ,
Kate Aanenson: At the most, yes. And hopefully the intent is that people know enough ... we're going to be
placing these in as indicators of what we will be taken in the proper development contract...We want to put them ,
in ahead of the homes so they don't get graded or pulled out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Can we put a flier with them? I
Kate Aanenson: That's what we're putting with the development contract ... we can work with homeowners and
let them know that that's not to be disturbed and what the purpose is.
Councilwoman Dockendort I was thinking a lot of people don't read their development contracts. ,
Kate Aanenson: No... ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, in a newsletter. That's an excellent idea.
Councilman Mason: That's a cool little logo on top there with the leaf and water.
15 1
y
1
J
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Kate Aanenson: You like that? That's the Storm Water Management.
Councilman Senn: Just think how that would look on a bridge.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that, any other discussion? Hearing none, can I have a motion?
Resolution #94 -48: Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the buffer
monumentation fee of $20.00 with the sign specifications as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1. BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B. PARK ONE
2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION; A SITE_ PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 54,720 SO FT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A KINDERCARE
FACILITY: AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN
IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD
AND STATE HIGHWAY 5; MARCUS DEVELOPMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if we're going to be discussing this, my suggestion would be that you probably remove
yourself from up here and sit down with the rest of the people.
Councilman Senn: I was planning to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'm sure that, well. First of all Don, you have your comment on here. Maybe
you'd like to just address that.
Don Ashworth: Yes Mr. Mayor. This item represented a unique procedural type of a question. The application
was submitted as a combined application. Kindercare along with the expansion for the Press. As the item went
to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission separated and actually took action on the Press portion
but tabled action on Kindercare. You have a copy of a letter from the developer asking that the City Council
consider both items. As we discussed earlier this evening, anyone can approach the City Council in terms of
asking a question. The question I had in my own mind is, legally can the City Council respond to that request,
especially as it deals with Kindercare. Accordingly I asked the City Attorney to prepare an opinion on that item
and I guess I would ask that he either read or paraphrase that at this point in time.
Roger Knutson: City Code, Section 20-44 provides, the City Council cannot take action on a conditional use
permit application until the Planning Commission gives a recommendation on that application or until the
Planning Commission has had that application for 60 days. Based upon that City Code provision, it's my
opinion that this is still at the Planning Commission as far as Kindercare is concerned and it would be
inappropriate for the Council to act on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Being that from your recommendation to what we're doing presently, we cannot
discuss the Kindercare but we could discuss the Press expansion?
Roger Knutson: You can discuss the Press expansion and act on it if you want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Because it was separated within the Planning Commission by itself?
16
17 1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Roger Knutson: Correct. Although I would, it's unusual what the Planning Commission did and I would
suggest that if the applicant does not want you to act on this separately, that would be appropriate as well.
That's up to you and the Council and the applicant.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here for the Press?
,
John Dietrich: Yes. Your Honor and Council. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. It is our intent that this is a
joint application and the Press and Kindercare have entered into it jointly and it is the request that the process
move forward as a joint application.
'
Mayor Chmiel: As a joint application? But you had heard what we discussed presently?
John Dietrich: Yes.
,
Mayor Chmiel: We can either move ahead on the Press segment and discuss that here and if Council determines
the approval of that, that can also be done this evening. But we can't go through as a joint venture with this
because of the tabling that they had done because of the conditional use permit and there has to be a 60 day
period. According to what our requirements are.
John Dietrich: We have no issue with the Press expansion as stated in the staff report and with the conditions of
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So then you'd like us to move and discuss that portion of it at this time? Okay.
Councilman Mason: I'll throw my two cents in right now. I think this was brought in as one package and what
I'm hearing is the action by Planning Commission is highly unusual and I know speed is important here and I
,
understand that but I know the comment I made to our City Manager today on the phone was, if we're not
squeaky clean on how we deal with things, I don't think we can ask anyone else to be squeaky clean either.
And I think we are squeaky clean and I think by on large we demand that. I think some problems have occurred
in the process and I think those problems need to get worked out as soon as possible. And I don't think that this
,
item should be held hostage to that. So my preference here is that this gets dealt with immediately one way or
the other by the Planning Commission. Either approved or denied and the whole package.
'
Mayor Chmiel: As a complete package.
Councilman Mason: And that's what I'm hearing what they want and I would even maybe go so far as to say if
it means a special meeting, so be it. Now maybe I'm over stepping bounds here. If I am then.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if a particular case were as such, this would go back to the Planning Commission a
week from this coming Wednesday, is that correct?
,
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: You already have that scheduled for. Okay. So that is already back to the Planning
Commission at that particular time. But was that for the entirety of the project that you have it?
Kate Aanenson: We're going to give notice. I'm certain of what we have and we wanted to make sure that he
17 1
n
1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
had a slot on, the applicant had a slot on the Planning Commission agenda so we went ahead and just noticed
the application. Just in case. We can always delete it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Yes.
John Dietrich: Mayor and Council members. It would be our request to have the Council act on the approval of
the site plan as it is shown and we would be willing to come back and deal with the conditional use permit at a
later date.
Mayor Chmiel: You're asking us to approve the site plan for the Press in itself?
John Dietrich: For the.
Mayor Chmiel: And the Kindercare? You can't do that. I don't think. Roger.
John Dietrich: It was our opinion that your, that it was, the issue was the conditional use permit according to
your reading.
Roger Knutson: I didn't address.
John Dietrich: We can separate the site plan from the conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: I didn't specifically address the site plan but they tabled the whole, they tabled Kindercare as I
understand their action.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Roger Knutson: If you look at your site plan provision and your zoning ordinance, it doesn't even have a 60
day time limit for them to consider it. It says it goes to the Planning Commission for consideration. After they
make a recommendation it comes here.
Mayor Chmiel: Well then your position right now, and maybe it will be Council's decision to come back with
that. As to tabling this and having it back on the agenda for May 4th. Was that what you said Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Don Ashworth: To the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: To the Planning Commission, right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf And then we get it the following Monday? I mean usually it's 2 1/2 weeks.
Councilman Mason: Well it can get on.
Don Ashworth: The earliest would be May 9th and you'd have the same problem we had with this one. We'd
be pre- publishing it and trying to get out that portion of the Minutes dealing with this item but they have been
twice before the Planning Commission. I think that this is well over a month.
18
I i
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994 1
i 1
Mayor Chmrel: Okay. So 30 days have been basically u sed with that.
Councilman Wing: Well part of the problem, as I've seen sitting at that Planning Commission is they're saying, '
well what are our standards? Well where's Highway 5 study? Well how can staff tell us that these are our
standards and this complies with the standards when we look into it and in fact they don't. I haven't had a
chance to look at the standards so how would I know the standards comply because I haven't had a chance to
make a decision on them yet. So we're looking at an IOP district with an IOP building going up. That makes
sense and good landscaping. But now we're going into a conditional use permit in an IOP with a building that I
don't think makes sense there. Land use I don't have trouble with but Kate I'd like to ask. How many '
proposals do you see.
Councilman Mason: I'm sorry, go ahead.
two regarding
,
Councilman Wing: How many proposals do you see coming before you in the next month or
specifically Highway 5? I mean here's one. Heritage is two. What other ones are coming up? And here's my
premise on this. If I can assume that with the timeframe that we've had on this Highway 5 task force corridor
study and the engineering firm saying you've had it since January. What's going on over there and it's going to
take us a year to bring Bill Morrish back in and educate the Council and complete this process. Could I make
an assumption that Highway 5 might pretty well be developed and the proposals all forward by then? Everybody
trying to get under the clock here and really we don't need this study and we don't even need to go forward on
this. Just let it happen. Because this, when the automotive came in we said moratorium and then we said
moratorium again and staff has talked us out of it twice. That everything's clean. Well all of a sudden we've
got a Kindercare on our entry corner coming in and this expansion and we've got a church coming in and we've
got Heritage coming in, bing, bing, bing and we don't have, this to me has triggered a mandate for a
moratorium. There's no other direction for us to go. We have a lot of time. A lot of work ahead of us. We're
not going to beat the clock and the developers, the landowners are going to be in. And all the time and effort
and tens of thousands of dollars and engineering fees and to say nothing of staff hours and the community effort
is going down the tubes here. I think that's the opinion of more than myself and engineering people that worked
on that study. We're losing it. I'm not going to look at a conditional use permit unless I know what the
standards are. I'm not going to put a Kindercare underneath wires. I'm not going to take what I see as a
medium quality building in the middle of our entryway unless it meets those standards and I have not looked at
the standards yet. I haven't approved the standards and staff can't tell me it meets the standards because they
don't have the standards to work with. And as we looked at the parking lot, it clearly didn't meet the intent of
the Highway 5 task force. So staff isn't even up on what these numbers are so.
Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that?
Councilman Wing: Please.
Kate Aanenson: That ordinance has been codified by the City Attorney and the Planning Commission has
'
recommended approval. We use that in every project that comes in. We'd be happy to attach it to our report so
you can see that we're measuring against it. We are confident this project meets, now there's a gateway
treatment issue but that's a whole separate arena as far as this and it came up at the HRA as to whether or not
that's even on the docket to be considered for a gateway treatment. We've been trying to get these gateway
'
treatments, trying to get them kicked off. The HRA set up a special meeting to try to get this forward but we
have no controls as far as the staff... ordinance. The Planning Commission has approved it. They stayed here
until 2:00 in the morning working through that and recommended approval. It is in that form. It's in your arena
19 1
u
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
and Roger has stated that we can certainly adopt that ordinance separate of adopting the whole Highway 5.
Councilman Wing: I haven't seen it and the people haven't come in here to sell it to us. The people that did it
haven't come in here. How do I know if the setbacks are what we had decided?
Kate Aanenson: Well we have a workshop set up for the City Council on the 18th specifically to go through
' that and the rest of the Highway 5 document but put it on the agenda. We'd be happy to discuss it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I don't, I'm not disagreeing with anything that Richard is saying on this but I don't think
that's the issue here tonight. Before us on item number 6. I think the issue that's before us here right now is
the fact that the Planning Commission separated an issue that it, what I'm understanding from our attorney,
should not have been separated in the first place. And we're, and as I'm reading this right now, we're trying to
figure out how to handle that situation. And it seems to me that situation needs to be dealt with first and then
maybe discuss your other thing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But Richard's point is we're trying to be as expedient as we can and if we do
something, I mean as it goes through Planning Commission and gets back here, we're still not going to be ready
to make a decision. One of us may not be able to make a decision.
Councilman Mason: Well, but I'm going to keep coming back to the fact that it sounds like there was an action
' taken here that if that whole package would have been dealt with separately, one way or, I mean if that whole
package would have been dealt with as a package, we'd be dealing with it one way or the other tonight. And
that's, whether I like it or not, that's what I see as the issue right now and I think we need, first of all I think we
need to resolve that issue. And I'm also going by what Kate is saying, is all this stuff is in place and you're
going by that stuff.
Kate Aanenson: We're trying to ... but it's not technically an ordinance. I mean if we're challenged but I think
' we've had pretty good cooperation. The Planning Commission's denied some. You've denied some that ... are
there yet as far as conceptual as a PUD but we're trying to apply that. We give copies to anybody that comes in
to develop along the corridor.
Councilman Wing: This is a task force recommendation. Until it's gone through Council and we've approved
it.
Kate Aanenson: It's not an ordinance.
Councilman Wing: I don't think you ought to be using it as a guideline because I don't happen to agree with all
of it. I don't think it's stringent enough in a couple areas and I want Bill Morrish and Peter Olin and that group
' to come in and show the Council where we've made some mistakes on landforms and setbacks, etc, etc, etc. I
want the experts in front of the Council in formalizing that document. Right now it's nothing more than a
recommendation and you shouldn't, it shouldn't be used until we've seen it. I'm concerned because the west
end was told to go away and suddenly the east end is in here for a proposal and I don't see the difference except
the sewer and water issue. Why didn't we say go away until we have the study done? Why are we accepting
this one as a proposal? I think that Opus and Ryan ought to simply be called up and said come on back. Doors
' are open. East and west aren't much different in my thinking. I don't know what we're doing here but Mike,
1 20
L
City ouncil Meeting - A 25, 1994
tY g 1�
your point's well taken and I think we should stick with that right now.
Councilman Mason: I'm not saying we won't discuss your issue. '
Councilman Wing: No, no. No, I agree.
Councilman Mason: Alright.
Councilman Wing: I think we need to resolve your concerns. I agree with you.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, we've had some discussion regarding this. I believe you wanted to say something.
John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm with Kindercare. I know we can't get into or ... decide
whether we can get into a discussion about the Kindercare site plan but I just wanted to make a note. And that
is that the Planning Commission tabled our request and the three reasons for tabling the request, which typically
when somebody tables it, you try to address those concerns and come back and see if they'll accept it. We
expressed at the Planning Commission's meeting that we were unable to make any changes in reference to those
three items and that still is our standpoint. So if we were to come back to the next Planning Commission
meeting, we would be resubmitting the same plan. I can't speak for the Planning Commission but if they were
to stay consistent with their comments at the last meeting, I would guess that they would deny our request and
we'd be back in front of the Council asking if that denial could be overturned. So we'd only be looking at a
delay in our project, and I know you can't, if legally you can't hear our request.
Mayor Chmiel: City Code indicates 60 days.
John Finnemore: Legally you can't hear our request but we're not going to make any changes to the site plan.
We're going to go back to the Planning Commission with the exact same site plan and therefore then probably
get denied and be right back here and the problem with that from Kindercare's standpoint is we run a business
that is really tied to the school year. And we've got potentially, if we get the project underway to be open for '
the school year. Now I mean I'm not asking anybody to do something you can't do but that's something to keep
in mind because if we're tabled off to you know a couple meetings from now or whatever, we're going to be
back in front of the Council with the exact same site plan asking for the same thing we are tonight so, if that can
be kept in mind at all. It's basically all we're asking for. '
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Okay. We have had quite of bit of discussion with this. Is there, are you
representing the Press in itself? ,
John Dietrich: Yes I am.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. '
John Dietrich: Just a quick comment. In regards to the Press position that the Press expansion is predicated on
the sale of the property to Kindercare and that it is necessary for both applications.
Mayor Chmiel: When does that option expire?
John Dietrich: I'm not aware of any option... ,.
21. 1
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
' Councilman Wing: I would like us not to get caught up in their time line. We too often times I feel we get
caught up, we feel guilty because we're caught up in their time line. We're going to be here for millenniums. I
think we've got to operate on our time line and there's been too much pressure lately to operate on other time
lines so I just want to make sure we're doing what's best for our city and operating on our time line and not
somebody else's.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, I would then.
Councilman Mason: How's the Mayor feel about all this?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I have on my sheet right now, from the information I received from Roger, and the
information that Don has indicated here, I wrote across my sheet table and send it back to the Planning
Commission, as it should. According to what our ordinance is and the way we have it with the 60 day time
frame and let them come up with a decision. They may even change their mind. And I don't disagree with
Richard in some of the factors of taking the Highway 5 corridor into proper perspectus as we should, and I think
we have. And this is a dual kind of thing as far as the Press is concerned, and I would image that they're
looking for not only usage of their own employees to utilize in this Kindercare center, which I think is a neat
idea. To have something in and adjacent providing that company's going to fill it because then it gives those
parents that opportunity to get back and forth to their kids, even on their lunch hours. Or even have lunches
with them. I see that as a big plus. We should recognize that fact and if the requirements are as such, that the
' entirety of the proposal being brought before us is not yet still in conformance. I think that's where we have to
go with it and that would at least be my, one of my positions. The other one that I've indicated before that is
we can't discuss the Kindercare but we could discuss Press expansion and I just threw that on the table.
Councilman Wing: And they suggested we don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: I have some concerns here and I think I'll just, I think I'd like to be at the Planning
Commission as a resident and express those concerns. I ask you to deal with them accordingly. As far as the
1 standards and where I'd like to see this go. So I would move to table and send it back to Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Any other directions?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, you know obviously this is a tough issue because of all the people involved. I hope
that, and I'm assuming it will be and maybe I'm just saying this for my own hot air. But I'm hoping that this is
being, this whole thing, is being dealt with by everyone both on Council and Commission and everyone else with
how we deal with any other development. And it's, I mean obviously we went through this with an American
Family sign not too long ago that's certainly a little bit different than this but it's difficult but I think we can all
grapple with it and come to a conclusion that is in the best interest of the city.
1 22
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead Bob.
Bob Generous: This ordinance is a method by the city to provide a mechanism for protecting existing trees that
are in the community to provide an objective stand ... or forestation of our land. I've provided an example of how
we envision this process to work. Initially, basically the developer would be putting layers of information down '
for the city. The first one would be a survey of the site which would include some topographical information
and the outlying boundaries of the property. The second one, layer of information would be the significant trees
and those are the trees that are at least 12 inches in diameter. To give us an idea of where the major stands are
located. A third level and the one that we're trying to get to this, would be to outline the canopy cover. The
actual part of the property that is covered with branches and leaves of the tree. From that information we can
calculate the baseline canopy coverage of a piece of property. Say half of the property is covered with leaves
and that they would start out with a baseline of 50% coverage. From that information we developed a table that
23
City ouncil Meeting - Aril 25, 1994
tY g P
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the Preliminary and
'
Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit for the Press and Kindercare to be brought back to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who did not vote, and
the motion carried.
j
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? I don't know, if this is out of order I'm very comfortable with you just stating
such. I'm just wondering if the Council would consider just a slight amendment to our agenda this evening.
Under Council Presentations. I just had some information on Highway 5 I'd like to just put out. I hate to go
home without discussing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, it wasn't on the agenda. No, we'll give you time.
Councilman Wing: And I feel, I'm very comfortable with that statement if you choose to take it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No action would be taken on it anyways so it'd be just something that could be brought.
Okay, we'll move on to item number 7.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION, FIRST READING.
Councilman Wing: Bob, do you have any pictures you could show us because even though I did this, without
,
the pictures I can't read it. I mean I can't put the words into pictures.
Bob Generous: I had a new example that almost does that. If you just hold on a moment.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead. Take your time going but hurry back
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Can we take 5 minutes?
t
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. We'll take about a 5 minute recess.
(There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, go ahead Bob.
Bob Generous: This ordinance is a method by the city to provide a mechanism for protecting existing trees that
are in the community to provide an objective stand ... or forestation of our land. I've provided an example of how
we envision this process to work. Initially, basically the developer would be putting layers of information down '
for the city. The first one would be a survey of the site which would include some topographical information
and the outlying boundaries of the property. The second one, layer of information would be the significant trees
and those are the trees that are at least 12 inches in diameter. To give us an idea of where the major stands are
located. A third level and the one that we're trying to get to this, would be to outline the canopy cover. The
actual part of the property that is covered with branches and leaves of the tree. From that information we can
calculate the baseline canopy coverage of a piece of property. Say half of the property is covered with leaves
and that they would start out with a baseline of 50% coverage. From that information we developed a table that
23
J City Council Meeting April 25, 1994
I
1
1
7
k
says, okay now depending on what your measures is, when you're done developing this property, we would like
to see a certainly percentage of the canopy coverage on the site. Part of that could be provided by the existing
tree canopy. If they can't do it with that, then we have provided a standard for what to plant or the amount of
trees that need to be planted to meet those standards. The effort in this ordinance was to get away from looking
at the individual tree and let's look at the forest and the stands of trees that we have out there because they
provide more benefit than an old tree. Generally. Following that—developed standards for, if they're going to
replace the trees, what tree list they're going to use. The Tree Board provided a list of desirable tree species. It
had originally been intended to be put in the definition section. Following my discussions with some of the
members and with the City Attorney, we decided that it would be more efficient to incorporate it in the existing
tree list. We also developed an idea to provide diversity in the planting of trees. No more than 1/3 of any
species could be used as part of the planning process. This is not to say that they couldn't go down and have
10% of different trees. It provides not only diversity in species but also habitat for native animals. Another
thing that we were trying to get to is that they have to provide some conifers which will provide buffering year
round and also act as a windbreak. A major element of this tree protection ordinance and site plan review is that
developers would be required to develop woodland management plans. As part of this plan they would look at
the existing site and say, if we're planting trees we want to continue the themes that are on there. For instance,
if it's an oak savannah, they would provide those same kind of trees. If it's a maple forest or a big woods type
environment, they would provide that type of planting species. These plans would have to be developed by a
professional landscape person. Either landscape architect or an arborist or an urban forester or someone who can
look at the site conditions and actually come up with trees that have a very good chance of surviving and that
would provide a good scheme as part of the development. In looking at subdivisions, we provided some criteria
for determining how they can meet the ordinance requirements and on page 5 of this you look at realignment of
streets and utilities or lot lines which in essence is necessary would require that they might have to loose some
lots to save the trees. Or go the larger lots. Reduction of street right -of -way widths. Use of private drives.
Things that will reduce the amount of grading and alterations to the environment. Another thing that we're
trying to do is get this earlier in the process. Right now they come in with their development plans and they
already have the lot lines in. What this ordinance requires is they start out with the tree survey. Let's see where
they're located. What is the existing condition of the site? And so if nothing else they're going to have to
develop a philosophy on how they're going to, on how the developer will develop this property looking at the
tree preservation as a specific issue. Once we've worked out an idea or negotiated a development plan, they're
going to have to provide ways of protecting those trees. Right now we're running into the problem of a
development goes in and then the tree fences go up. Well we found out through talking with all the foresters
that if you get those tree fences up earlier, before they start their grading, you'll have a much better chance of
saving the trees that are there. We've gone, one of the books that we were reading in developing this was
the ... There are numerous examples. One is the canopy of the tree. Another one is the 1 12 times that canopy.
We saw one ordinance that was 12 times the diameter of the tree and that seems to have worked and provides a
little bit of relief but it will still get to that protection zone out far enough so you have good survivability of the
tree. Similar to the wetland protection ordinance we're recommending that tree conservation easements be
established as part of the subdivision process. And so one of the requirements would be that a monument or
something along those lines would be provided to let the property owners know in the future that this is a
conservation area which should not be disrupted. Education will also be an important component of that and the
Tree Board and possibly the Environmental Commission, if that comes forward would be a mechanism to bring
that forward. Partly we're looking at providing disincentives for the removal of trees and these are, if they
removed, and initially developing their plan, if they remove trees in excess of what was being required to meet
their goal as far as our matrix, they would have to replace an area 1 12 times the area that they went in excess
of what they're allowed to remove. For instance if they have a 1 acre lot and they were allowed to remove, they
had, at the post development they had to have half an acre of tree coverage. But as part of their development
24
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994 1
they went down to a 1/3 acre of tree coverage. They would have to make that 2/10 of an acre up at 1 1/2 times
that area. And then we have a multiplier. Each tree is worth 1,089 square feet of canopy coverage which was
an evolution in itself. Based on the average canopy coverages is 60 trees per acre will give you 100% canopy. '
This 40 trees was a compromise that the Tree Board worked out that allows you to have sufficiently dense
coverage above what we had requested. Not only to develop the subdivision but... Finally, after you established
a tree conservation area or protection zone, there's an even larger penalty if you did come in and remove that
tree. And it's a significant tree that they show on their survey, we can use 1 1/2 times the caliper inch of the
tree that's removed. However if it's a group of smaller trees that just provided a canopy coverage area, you
would have, it would be 1 1/2 times that area. The caliper coverage would be 2 times the caliper that is
removed. Finally as in the existing ordinance, they would have to provide a financial guarantee for provision of
the landscaping. We then had to provide some definitions for, to match this ordinance. One of the interesting
ones that we came up with was the loss of tree definition to say that if a developer has specific impacts on
existing trees, we're going to tell him that that tree for all practical purposes has been removed and they're going
to replace that. So that's... hopefully it will get rid of a lot of this construction damage that takes place in the...
Councilman Wing: I guess Bob one point here is that the overview of this, instead of that single tree being in
the way, you're allowing for a lot more flexibility so a home can get in or a developer can do his project. It
allows trees to be shifted and moved instead of having to say, well that tree can't go. We have to build around
this one. Pick that one. You're looking at canopy coverage in lieu of this individual tree.
Bob Generous: Exactly and we're looking at saving areas and if they say a tree is outside of that area, that's
good for them and better for the city. But we're not going to get involved in specific siting of a house and
taking out individual trees.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Me fast?
Councilman Mason: Oh sure. i
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Have you got a lot of input from developers on how workable this is? For them.
Bob Generous: Well we haven't on this most recent one. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But the theory of the canopy as opposed to. I
Bob Generous: Yeah. I've had people say I wish that was in place now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh really? '
Bob Generous: Yeah. Because they like the idea that you provide them with these protection areas and then
outside of that, you know if they can save the tree, fine. If not, they're not going to be penalized. As long as
they know up front. But when you go and you have to save this maple and that oak and, but you can take out
the 3 trees in the middle, it's not working and it's very tough for staff to go out there and review it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you have a response to this on Minnesota Valley's questions about easements r
for utilities?
Bob Generous: Ali yes, and as far as, yeah some of them would in effect be unusable and we would, that's
25 ,
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
why we wanted this early in the process and they would be noticed. They're one of the agencies that we sent
out and review the materials to. We would permit, we actually encourage the use of alternate construction
techniques such as borings instead of trenching. Hopefully by getting the trees so early in the process, they'll
start thinking of the extension of the utilities to the individual houses and not just to the lot lines and so we can
look at that issue also. Usually it's at the last minute and then when they get out to the site, it's wherever the
people that are doing the digging are going to put the hole in. So we would come up earlier and say no, maybe
make this line through the next two, the proposed driveway locations.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And does the ordinance require a professional to develop the plan?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're not using city time and expense reviewing it? We're just relying on the
credentials of the developers?
Bob Generous: Well, the intention is to have someone on staff or to do a contract with someone to verify that.
That it is in fact correct. Looked at the lot.
Kate Aanenson: We do, last summer as you recall, we had an urban forester. We talked about that at the joint
meeting possibly looking at having a permanent position. If you look at the way we applied our tree
preservation ... in Stone Creek. That was the fast one. That was one too where we just put a blanket
conservation easement and then we did Lake Susan No. 9. And Trotters Ridge and we found that was an
administrative nightmare because we were up there basically being tree police on every lot and it was very
difficult. But we did have an intern last summer that ... and we will be hiring another intern this summer and we
talked about with you, that's something we see as a possibly a joint sharing...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I like the fact that we do require professionals because it does take some
professionals.
Kate Aanenson: Staff's... qualified to review it. Also someone that's got a degree in urban...
Mayor Chmiel: And I think someone will be coming on board as you mentioned very shortly, next week or
something.
Kate Aanenson: Hopefully.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well, I mean this is extremely thorough. I really appreciate the work of the Tree
Board and the staff on it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think you're right. It took a lot of time and a lot of precautions and really worked it
out well except, just an exception.
' Councilman Mason: There's an exception to every rule Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: I saw two of the recommended species, Black Cherry and Russian Olive as two additional ones
that I think should be maybe eliminated from that list because those Black Cherries really cause a lot of given
problems. They have a lot of shoots that come up through the lawn and just seem to just spawn off from it and
1 26
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
it's not the best tree to have. In fact I talked to someone who sits next to me right here and has one himself and
I
it's a real pain and I must agree with him because they are a real pain because I've seen them as well. And the
other is a Russian Olive. Those kinds of trees are not very conducive to strong winds. The root, the main root
going down does not go down deep enough and in strong winds those things just topple right over plus they're
very prickly kind of a tree unless you want to keep your kids out of them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're ugly to boot.
Councilman Mason: Subjective Councilwoman. Very subjective.
Mayor Chmiel: Those would be the two that I suggest you should just eliminate from that. But it is. It was
very comprehensive put together. Richard.
forester and
Councilman Wing: I would concur with your comments on those two trees. I remember when the
University talked about what they offered, what they didn't offer exceeded what they, anyway. I would agree
with you. I think that this is really, the University and the forester and Tim Erhart and Nancy Mancino and Bob
and staff really put their heads together. This was really an intellectual endeavor. It went way over my head.
Unless the pictures were drawn, I just got lost in the discussion. It was a very intellectual and I think a very
conservative solution to the problem. If we're going to protect the trees at all. This is a pretty comfortable
approach to it.
r
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I have some. Go ahead.
Councilman Mason: Well many of them have been answered. My concern is who does the plan and maybe it
doesn't make a difference. I mean what's the viewpoint of a landscape architect as opposed to an urban
forester? I mean is that an issue that maybe we don't need to touch that one. I don't know. I mean.
Bob Generous: They're all professionals and it's their name that they're putting on that plan. If they do a bad
one, then that gets around and there's a lot of development I think.
Councilman Mason: I really, really like this global approach. Really think that's really good and I know we had
some concerns that were expressed earlier about Highway 5 and this, that and the other thing. Concern about the
direction the City's taking but I think, you know I see something like this that does say that we still want to be
up at the front here and I think this woodland management plan for the remaining timber in this city is right on.
And that's not to say we're not going to lose trees in the process but we have something in place to replace
'
those we lose and maintain what we've got.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Good. Okay Mark.
Councilman Senn: Bob, what if the trees aren't on the list?
Bob Generous: ...make a good argument. If their forester can make a good argument because of soil conditions
,
or hydrology or whatever.
Councilman Senn: I mean I can think of some sites that are loaded with just what I'm going to call weed trees
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
some of which the Mayor mentioned, but foxwood and other things like that. I mean those, is that or not that
part of the equation? I mean I think that should be part of the equation.
Bob Generous: ...that is. Every tree has a value and if it's an existing tree, maybe it's not the most desirable
but it does provide a function and they can count it. They might, as part of their development plan, if they have
to remove some, target those areas.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're saying on the one side it can count if they want it to but if they want to
target it for removal, it's an easier one for removable because it's not on the list?
Bob Generous: Right.
Councilman Senn: Is that the answer to the question? In your number 2 it says prior to submittal of the
development plans. What point do you, I mean what do you really define that as? To me that's fairly vague. Is
that prior to the point that you put any plans in for conceptual approval or is that the point that you're going to.
Bob Generous: Well conceptual is a good place to put in something like this. Even... conjunction with the
preliminary plat. So they've gone out and done this survey and know the location of all these trees and where
these stands are and what they can, because it should be before they submit us with the preliminary plat.
Kate Aanenson: The preliminary plat only goes to the Planning Commission once and they would need that
information in order to make really a quality recommendation on approval of that subdivision based on the
location of the lots and the homes and.. On subdivisions it would have to be preliminary plat. That's generally
the time we would see it. On a site plan, again they generally see a site plan once so you'd have to have it up
front and normally on the list of things that are asked, that's one of the things that we always tell them. If
there's trees on the site, make them aware of it. We always make that requirement that they have to provide a
tree survey. On a PUD, on the concept, that may be a decision that, you know we raised that issue with the
Heritage plat...and that may be something that we prefer a lot more information on before we would make a
decision.
Councilman Senn: Do you know what those costs are?
Kate Aanenson: A tree survey?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Tree survey's required right now.
Councilman Senn: I understand. But it's not required until.
Kate Aanenson: Under preliminary plat. They're required to do a tree survey right now.
Councilman Senn: Oh it is?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
28
I
29 1
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Kate Aanenson: We're just treating it different.
Bob Generous: We're telling them right away that if you submit this preliminary plat without that, we're not
going to accept it.
Kate Aanenson: And basically the Planning Commission has stated this fact. It is on the list of requirements
and they don't want to see a preliminary plat without a tree survey. They can't approve the lots unless they
know what the impact will be to the trees.
having information?
'
Bob Generous: How do you massage those lot lines and roads without that
Councilman Senn: Okay, and then as, anybody may start massaging the sites and the lots and all that, that's
going to change and interrupt the process and they're going to have to basically come back and keep...
Bob Generous: With the original survey though would be the same until they start cutting things done.
Kate Aanenson: Once the tree survey's done, that's fixed. That's a fixed quantity.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So they keep overlaying whatever lot stuff they want on it?
Bob Generous: Yeah, sure.
Kate Aanenson: That's exactly what we did with the Ken Durr subdivision.
,
Bob Generous: Build another layer onto that map. Say well how about this configuration or whether we shift
the roadway over 30 feet or whatever and that's relatively simple and inexpensive to do once you have the data.
Kate Aanenson: If you remember, that's what we did with Lake Susan. We spent a lot of time on Lake Susan
trying to figure out how to save ... trees and we spent a lot of time shifting the road and giving some variances on
lot configurations based on tree preservation so...
Councilman Senn: And this then only in effect deals with new development sites?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Would you please state
your name and your address.
Karen Einess: Mayor and members of Council. My name is Karen Einess. I'm an AssistantProject Manager
,
for the Lundgren Bros Construction and I'm here on behalf of Terry Forbord tonight who was unable to be here.
He has had substantial input throughout this process of helping with this ordinance and he is requesting,
Lundgren Bros is requesting that more time be given to respond to this ordinance and that the proposed
ordinance be tabled at this time in order to respond. And I've prepared a letter from, Terry had submitted a
letter to you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have it, yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well this is a fast reading. He's got a second shot at it.
29 1
A
t
1
1
FJ
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he has time before the next, before it's finally enacted upon. This is the first reading
and it will have the second reading at that particular time. Two weeks down the road, or maybe even 4 so he'll
have an opportunity to provide that information. So with that, I would ask for a motion to approve the first
reading of the landscaping and tree preservation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the fast reading of the
amendment to City Code Subdivision and Site Plan Review sections regarding Landscaping and Tree
Preservation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I have a clarification that we're taking out the Black Cherry and the Russian
Olive, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, you wanted to talk regarding Highway 5.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. I think we're all very much aware of the Highway 5
corridor study and the intensity with which it took off and the strong Council support it's had. After, what was
it? A year and a half of meetings and trying to get this into the code level. I think I went to the Planning
Commission and I could see a problem planning on that group. They're trying to make decisions based on
information they didn't have. They weren't at the meetings. And it became obvious that the wheel would have
to be reinvented but... reinvented here as the policy makers, the ones who will approve the final project. So it is
my opinion in talking with members of the group that the more important engineering groups, Bill Morrish, get
all the information back to the Council in a timely manner and to reinvent this wheel and get the information on
the service roads and the land uses and landforms that would be necessary to ... basically do what was done
originally but in a short form. It could take upwards of close to a year. Based on the current time line we have.
It's simply going to be a lengthy process if you're going to do this right. Now we can shorten that I'm certain
but to have Bill Morrish come in and engineering come in and repeat their stance and their masons for this and
why these decisions were made and to justify the document, it's going to take some time. It's been suggested to
me that we don't have the time. There's a lot of proposals coming in. They're going to accelerate right now.
We simply have to take them. We really don't have much choice. They go to Planning. Yet they go through
the process and then they're here to the Council and we're sort of done. As Kate said, we have the document.
We try to comply with it as close as possible but I think there's some questions as Councilmembers we might
have. So I think that the proposals I've seen at the Planning Commission and are proposed and conceptual,
trouble me. I think that the expansion down on Dell Road and it's possible conditional use permit. I really am
concerned that if we don't impose a moratorium at this time and give us the breathing room and the time we
need to enforce this issue, it's going to fly by us and it's my personal feeling and I think that if we were to bring
Bill Morrish in and bring some of the engineering people in, I think they would concur and Kate, I would ask
you to be part of that process. That this simply could go down the tubes and the development will be in. The
30
l
City ouncil Meeting - A 25 1994
tY g P� ,
proposal will be in before this occurs and we really won't have much point to it so I think all the work and time
and money that has gone into it, deserves a product and I think they deserve it fairly quick. We can't do it with
developmental pressures coming in and I think that the proposal on Dell Road has really expedited my feelings
that we need to get our standards on line and the PUD overlay in place before we do anymore down there
because I'm not convinced it's the direction we want to go. I don't know if it's a fair chance but, so I just
throw that out. I guess I'd maybe suggest Mr. Mayor that this moratorium be issued. This moratorium be on
the next agenda if Council concurs at all. If I'm just a minority here, then there's no sense pursuing it but I
don't think we have time. I think the time we need to go through this process, I don't think we have the time
based on the building pressures and developmental pressures we're going to get now. And I think we're going .
to lose the corridor study unless we in fact impose that moratorium. And I have clearly changed my mind on
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe it should be on the next agenda for discussion. Or action that could be taken.
I'm not sure as to where the rest of the Council is coming from right now. So I think that this should be put on
the agenda for some additional discussions at the later part of that particular agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're discussing this on May 18th, Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Let me just comment on a couple of things Dick said. I agree you have to look at, the
overlay zone is just one component of the document. There's a lot of visionary things in that document. We
had that work session back in January where we were talking about the whole document and all the elements.
The overlay zone is one element that we do have codified. You can respond to. That is only one portion of it.
There's a lot of other visionary things that it talks about. The gateway treatment and a lot of stuff. That's the
stuff that we need to spend some time on and it's a mini Comp Plan amendment that you need to go through
that process ... I don't think we have to go back and recreate the wheel. I think what we need to go back and
catch the vision again because what we've been doing is, we've been looking at the trees and have lost sight of
the whole forest on this project. But I don't think we have to go back, like I say, recapture what we're doing.
We've lost some momentum there but I think that's part of the purpose of...about what we're trying to do. And
again, when I talk about the overlay zone, we're trying to do our best as we get...but there is a lot of other
visionary things in this document that we don't have the tools to implement that say you have to do this. And
that comes with new adopting that document itself as a mini comprehensive plan. You do have the work session
and maybe that's not enough time but hopefully we'll recapture some of the vision and...
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, good. So with that, would you like to see that on the next agenda?
Councilman Wing: I guess I would just move it to see if there's a second and any discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we can't take action on it this evening.
Councilman Wing: No, but only move it to be placed on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: But we could ask or request that it be placed on the agenda for the next time.
Councilman Senn: You can't do that either until it's part of the next agenda.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I guess I don't, I share the concern Richard but I don't see how this is going to take
us a year and a half to finish it up.
31 1
I City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Councilman Wing: Oh no, no, no, no. 3 months. 6 months. Barry's suggesting it's going to take to et �Y 88 8 8 8 � 8 B arry
and Morrish and all the people in with their time schedule, it's going to take.
Councilman Mason: Well I guess I'm not even sure why we need to get those people in.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you looking at it from a cost aspect Michael?
Councilman Mason: Well most everybody on Council was at almost all those meetings. And I mean what's the
' point of, if everyone thinks we need to have these people in to give us a pep talk, that's fine.
Councilman Wing: Just answer questions.
Councilman Mason: Okay, okay. Alight.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to see any more development, any more proposed designed standards until
they're in fact decided on and they're, and I think that the Marcus development down on Dell Road is a bad start
to our entryway. There's a lot of issues there but I'd like to have our corridor study in place before we start
allowing those developments and this one's occurred now. And Mark has twice brought up, and I guess I've
supported or not supported, but we've discussed moratoriums before and we've never gone along with them.
' Now we've got the exact situation occurring that I was told couldn't occur. Shouldn't occur. Won't occur.
And this thing's rolling along and we'll be ahead of it. Well now I think Mark's showing us that we're behind
it and I want to get ahead of it before any more development, any more proposals come in. And I don't see any
' way to do that except a moratorium.
Councilman Senn: Well if you're going to keep using my name I'll start responding if you want me to.
Councilman Wing: Well Mark you have. This is on the record. You have a proposal that.
Councilman Senn: No but Dick you're making comments like I'm showing you the way now that you haven't.
You know you're taking a lot of liberties here. If you want to keep taking them, I'll come back at them, okay?
Councilman Wing: Well come back at them Mark. I'm only saying you brought in a proposal and a...
Councilman Senn: No, I have not.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me pull my prerogative. I don't want any discussions as such. If you'd like to discuss this
at your own convenience, I'll be more than happy to let you do that. But I don't think this is the place to do it.
Councilman Wing: I agree. I'm out of order.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I would like to also maybe make a suggestion. We're having other work sessions
that were going on. Maybe that can even be a discussionary thing at that particular time and also bring
somebody in. Rather than take it upon a Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: One of the questions that relates to Highway 5 Don, I mean haven't we had that on our plate
now since what, April 1st? I mean really the only reason we're delaying discussion of it is our own agendas.
' Okay. I mean the Planning Commission, if I remember right, passed it onto us a month ago or whatever it is,
1 32
J
I
City ouncil Meeting - tY 8 April 25 1994
okay? So I mean it seems to me, the shoe's there. Let's either wear it or let's get off this. You know throw it
away, one way or another but I don't think we need a bunch of people to come in and tell us one way or the
other. I mean I think all that study's been done. I think now the Council needs to start looking at it and
providing some direction rather than more opinions at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what Dick is saying, really Mark is whether we're not, Council may have some
additional questions over and above what was discussed previously and if those questions are there, then that
could be addressed.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Then we should identify the questions. I agree.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know personally we've been so much concentrating on, at least I have. I
mean I've attended all the meetings but recently, last several months, 6 months, have been concentrating on the
frontage roads and I haven't looked at the other issues and I think Kate has hit the nail on the head when she
said we're looking at the trees instead of the forest. And I need to come back to a bigger vision so I for one do
need someone to summarize the entire thing for me.
Kate Aanenson: I think if you recall, when we had the EAW hearing, I think that was specifically focusing on
the road and I think we all kind of tried to get that so we could put that on track based on our funding for
Highway 5 ... from Audubon to Powers. So we realize that you're ... the EAW. But we also had on the agenda the
'
possibility of looking at the ordinance and you felt like maybe we need to go back and look at some of the land
uses. That was a big issue too. I mean we're going to have to do some rezoning for this project. So I think
that was one of the reasons of having Barry. Not all of us kept the vision... There's a lot of changes in the
document that the Planning Commission and the Task Force has recommended. And so we've been, the staff
has been tracking those but we put those out to you when we had that EAW and we put a list of the ongoing
issues that still need to be resolved and the Planning Commission said we want to make these changes. So what
the intent is, after we get your recommendation of that document, and we do the mini comp plan and we go
through that whole hearing process, is we actually change that plan and we have a document so if someone
comes in, not only do we have an ordinance, but we have as well just the guidelines that say this is the vision
that we're trying... I think having Barry there just to answer some of those technical questions. And if you want
to give those ahead of time, of the 15th, I'd be happy to pass those onto him.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion was either next Council meeting or put it on as a work session portion.
'
Councilman Senn: Highway 5's on when now?
Kate Aanenson: We scheduled it for May 18th. Before the Planning Commission on Wednesday. If we take a
couple hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay.
Councilman Wing: Kate can you, let's just say this took a month, or 2 months, maybe 3 months. How many
proposals, can you guess how many are on the table right now and might be there in that number of time? I
mean Planning Commission suggested that there was 4 or 5.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. The one there that we saw on the conceptual... that the Planning Commission tabled last ,
week, is it's large enough to require an EAW. That provides us quite a bit of time. Maybe 3 or 4 months ... For
33 1
r�
J City Council Meeting - April 25, 1994
Opus. They're working on the property. You may see them next summer. They're interesting... environmental.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we can tell them to go away like we did Opus anyway.
Kate Aanenson: Well. Well yes and no. I mean if they meet the standards...
r Mayor Chmiel: That's a real diplomat. Yes and no. Okay. So let's see it back.
1 Councilman Wing: On the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: On the agenda.
Councilman Wing: Because I want to ask why are we allowing any development if this is our priority.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So let's see it back on the agenda. I'd like a motion for adjournment.
Councilman Mason moved Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
34
CHANHASSEN PL ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' APRIL 20, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff
Farmakes, and Ron Nutting
'
MEMBERS R ABSENT: Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Bob
Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B. PARK ONE
2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADD_ ITION, A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION
THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT O
' DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5.
Public Present:
Name Address
Douglas A. Chestnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood, MN 55110
John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt Rd #13410, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Curve
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented part of the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Is that true with, as I remember. Well first of all, I'd love to get a copy of it
because I don't have it. And I obviously went back and referred to the draft that I have.
Aanenson: Right. We have the codified one that you recommended up to the City Council...
Mancino: But it is also the major gateway on the east side into our city and it is also an area
where the University said there should be plantings. Gateway plantings in this area on Dell
Road and this was also in the draft on Figure 6 -1. They have encircled that corner and said,
create significant'landscape element to obtain eastern gateway district. So have we done that?
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20 1994
g g P
' Is that part of this development and has there been some thinking and some creativity on how
that will become part of a gateway? That corner?
' Al -Jaff: They have provided a berm. They have provided a mixture of plantings along the
corner so it would be all of this area. There is quite a bit that you can't do with that corner,
mainly because there are utility boxes all along that corner.
' Mancino: And you have to be able to access utility boxes but it also says to me, even more
importantly, that it needs to be designed well and it also needs to be designed with the
opposite corner because here again you have your gateway entrance. So I would like to see
an overall plan on those two corners on how the gateway entrance to our city is going to be.
I mean look what we're doing for Opus II. We've asked them to wait until we've got the
Highway 5, the western gateway figured out and we want to see a charette on what will
happen there. And I'd like to see one on the eastern side too before we go ahead and
approve developments. I mean again this is the whole gateway to our city.
Scott: I was thinking about the great work that has been done with the city of Eden Prairie.
Because I know the little wooded comer that we have which is kitty corner from the one that
' you're talking about. They initially were planning a strip mall in there and by working and
making them perhaps more sensitive to what our plans are, for that being a gateway to our
city, I don't know whether, I'm sure there was some negotiating that was involved that I'm
' not privy to but they found it acceptable to leave as is. To do something else.
Aanenson: Actually the fact of the matter is, Rottlund was in the market area. They had
' demand and they bought the property out. I mean I don't think there was something that they
felt geez ... I think they always intended to save those trees and we looked at that too. Is the
value. On the south side certainly we looked at, there's a wetland that we recommended
' enhancing ... on the south side. On the north side, yes. I think we talked about the
landscaping berms—as far as the gateway treatment. We specifically talked about the Bill
Morrish one that's proposed near the bridge where the Apple Red -E -Mix is. It's a larger
' statement... more natural and native landscaping there.
' Mancino: But I would also like to see what Morrish says about this eastern one too and see
it as a whole as we enter, and I don't think we've done that and I'd like to take the time and
do it and decide what should go there. So anyway.
r Sharmin Al -Jaff continued her staff report at this point.
' Scott: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions or comments for staff? Dave, do you have any
comments?
2
L
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: I guess engineering's concern, I guess is still with that access circulation through
the daycare, or it appears that the applicants are willing to try a measure here to try and '
manage it from a management position through the Press and I guess while something can be
done in the future, if needed be, that there's that understanding out there that's—parking lot
circulation. ,
Mancino: Have we done that before?
Hempel: We did with the Bank Americana down here on Market Boulevard. They requested I
a full access to Market Boulevard to the northerly, just south of the railroad tracks there and
that seems to be working very well. I
Harberts: Would you consider that the same scope and size though Dave?
'
n . But it did have the potential with the drive
Hempel: It's not the same to that degree, o P
thru bank and so forth...
Harberts: Well with regards to your comment though, from what I read in the report though,
is that shift change. When they have that 298 people all at once or something showing up.
You know some are going, some are coming. Perhaps in the morning again. Are you
comfortable from that angle that the access issues that you have can be resolved like that
given this configuration? I guess my second question is. I read in here that they said that if
it doesn't work, we'll come back. What doesn't work? What's that point? And what
,
happens then? I mean the cement is laid. The asphalt is laid. And I don't know what the
answer is.
,
Hempel: That's a very valid point. It's tough to go back and change something that's
already in concrete out there.
'
Harberts: Would they be willing to redesign it to tear up the asphalt and lay it down if that's
what's determined to make it work? I don't know. I'm not familiar with this type of.
,
Mancino: But that's a measurement. You need, what is it that doesn't work and how do we
determine that and actually have a measurement to measure against.
'
Harberts: And does the city, well yeah. With the access point the city would care but
internally, would the city have any jurisdiction or really care if someone got hit. Hopefully
that won't happen but it certainly is a liability for the company, not for the city. � But, and
these are just questions.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: That's correct. Those right -of -way, yield to the right I guess is the common rules
' of the road type of deal. It's similar to the Market Square across the street. It's a private
parking lot. It's not public right -of -way so it's really not our jurisdiction. We try and
provide recommendations to promote safe orderly traffic flow through these sites. I think the
interest would be on the applicant to change it if they do have a problem as well.
Harberts: With the sidewalk, I like the sidewalk there. Is the sidewalk, will that be a
different material throughout the whole thing? You know I see this shaded thing. Or are
they just, or are we just doing it to show us? Is there going to be like a difference in the
materials used so it defines what that sidewalk is? Are we just going to paint lines down or.
Hempel: I believe it's just going to be a painted crosswalk type of scenario across the
' parking lot.
Harberts: Where the sidewalk crosses those, oh I don't know what those islands are. Are
' there trees in there? So are these people expected to walk through the trees? Walk around
the trees? Or have to walk off of the cemented thing to get around there?
' Hempel: Maybe the applicant could address these questions a little more thoroughly.
Scott: Sure. Why don't we, we'll ... discussion and leave some for the applicant to come up
' and give your name and your address please.
John Dietrich: John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Thanks for the opportunity to address the
' commission. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us to ... brought up at the last
Planning Commission meeting. Also with me tonight is John Finnemore of Kindercare. He
has samples of the Kindercare building that he would like to also present and talk in more
' detail of the Kindercare program. I'd like to just go over some changes that were made to
the site plan and submittal that Sharmin had brought up. First off I'd like to address the issue
of the site plan and the changes that were made specifically were to remove parking along the
' north side of the parking lot. We removed 11 stalls so that we would have a landscaped area
of approximately 27 feet from the curb up to the proposed addition. And also within this
area we're proposing a 4 foot berm to help take the scale of the building height down.
' Secondly we have added the sidewalk between the Kindercare and the Press Incorporated.
The sidewalk islands specifically are 17 feet in width. There's a 5 foot sidewalk through the
center of the island with dropped pedestrian curbs at both ends. And on one side is a 6 foot
planting area that would have trees and on the other side of the sidewalk is a 6 foot planting
area that would have just shrubs in it. So we've balanced trees along on the south side.
' Shrubs on the north side. And then we would anticipate striping of the crosswalk to make
sure to run between the drive aisles. In terms of the landscaping, we have added additional
4
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
landscape and plant materials to the corner. Conifer trees in front of the warehouse
expansion and the trees and ornamental shrubs, deciduous and conifer along the east edge of,
'
excuse me. The west edge of the new parking lot area. We did take the comments, they
identified last time to try and match the existing plant materials that is existing at the Press
and try to incorporate that in and throughout the entire parking lot. In addition we've taken
'
the existing ash trees that are currently out in the site and we're proposing that they be
transplanted up into this area anywhere from about 3 to 4 inch caliper ash trees. So we're
looking to reuse those same plant materials that are out there along the east side of the
,
parking lot and transplant into the rear of the site. So in all toll we are transplanting about 11
trees. 3 to 4 inch caliper and then about another 2 dozen trees, about half deciduous and half
conifer.
'
Scott: John? What would be the age? I see you have, there's a certain canopy indicated by
each of those trees. Just pick, let's say we'll pick the ones that are on the.
'
John Dietrich: We'll pick one here.
'
Scott: Yeah, what's the age of that tree?
John Dietrich: I would say the age of that tree is about a 10 year tree. So that we try to
'
show our plans not at maturity but not right when they go in. Depending on ... The other issue
is the architecture and the building mass of the Press that is proposed, with the warehouse
and the storage facility. We are proposing to utilize vertically scored concrete panels that
,
would match the vertically scored concrete panels above the east side of the facade of the
Press and also build into that facade some type of detailing. Perhaps it's horizontally scored
concrete that would match the front of the Press building so that we would have a change of
,
detail within that facade. That it's proposed that it would all be of the same material but we
could utilize detailing to help break up the scale and tie it into the existing building. It's
'
proposed that we would utilize the same lights that are on the facade. The same downspouts
and the same metal cap as currently is running along the edge of that Press building. We are
looking to, we do not have an architect on board yet but we would anticipate they will be
'
able to show in detail. We would like to put that to our staff so that they would have the
approvals to get that detailing. One sample of how that detailing could be broken up. The
McGlynn building on Audubon Road. If you look at their screened walls. They have
'
horizontal bands and then vertical bands on that concrete. It's a matter of building a form so
that the material that the score patterns are detailed in that—panel.
Mancino: And John that's on the same P lane? So you would have your vertical and your
horizontal on the same plane? There would be no relief coming out where the horizontal?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
John Dietrich: I would say there will be the opportunity for relief of a couple inches.
Mancino: Okay. Okay. Right now where you have it on the front of the building. You have
' the vertical and then you have the horizontal that comes out about 4 feet.
John Dietrich: Yes, that is a canopy.
' Mancino: Okay. So you're not suggesting a full canopy?
John Dietrich: No. We are not suggesting. The canopy is there to provide shade for the
windows and also as a cover for the walkway coming into the...
' Mancino: Okay.
John Dietrich: We did provide one elevation. If you were out on Highway 5 looking north
' from the westbound land. We anticipate this is what you would see. The existing, the
conifer trees here are existing. This is an existing ash tree and with the bituminous trail. The
existing berm that is out there, that we would then continue to the east and ... around the
Kindercare facility. The existing build:.:.: - is here and then this is the proposed addition with
the deciduous trees and running back. ` ` :e proposed addition of the warehouse is back in
' along here and actually begins to die into the berm that is out there along Highway 5. This
was taken at approximately a 2.5 height if you were sitting in a car, this is the elevation that
you would see looking north into that parking lot.
' Scott: That's your 10 year?
' John Dietrich: Those are approximately 10 year tree heads on the proposed tree stand.
Harberts: I have a question with regard to the site plan. I don't know if you're the
' individual. I'm looking at this one. I don't know if you've got a thing there. I just need
some.
7
John Dietrich: I have two copies. I have a landscape plan and then I have the full scale.
Al -Jaffa I can use the overhead.
Harberts: This location right here. You've got 1, 2.
Mancino: Visitor parking.
0
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I
Mancino: Probably will later.
Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of parking spots there, adjacent to the
Kindercare. Is that based on the square footage of the building?
Al -Jaff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance states for every 6 kids you have to 1 space ,
and that's what was provided. The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on
number of individuals that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it '
would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the
parking stalls that they are providing. I
Farmakes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of,
actually kids inside. I
Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Harberts: Where would... someone that perhaps is on crutches or in a wheelchair, how would
they access the sidewalk? Are you expecting them to ... traffic or is there a sidewalk there?
'
Where's the access?
John Dietrich: At this point the ... would be stepping into the line of traffic. I imagine we will
put in a sidewalk when necessary...
Harberts: Does that meet the ADA requirements the way it's shown...? I just, it's just a little
,
difficult. I recently had the experience where I was in a wheelchair for 7 days and with
crutches and it really is an eye opener and I would, my further comments later on would
probably indicate some interest in blocking the access there.
'
John Dietrich: I'm sure the applicant would be willing to put in a sidewalk from this corner
up to here to facilitate the handicapped accessibility ... into the site instead of going into the
'
right -of -way.
Harberts: So that would probably involve curb cuts on the bottom end as well.
,
John Dietrich: Yes. We anticipate this would be one long curb cut. Probably bollarded with
posts with a sign so that you can move right through that drop person scenario. It's fairly flat
'
there so the grade's not any problem.
,
Harberts: Thanks.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I
Mancino: Probably will later.
Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of parking spots there, adjacent to the
Kindercare. Is that based on the square footage of the building?
Al -Jaff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance states for every 6 kids you have to 1 space ,
and that's what was provided. The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on
number of individuals that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it '
would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the
parking stalls that they are providing. I
Farmakes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of,
actually kids inside. I
.1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: How many kids?
Farmakes: ...my question is, is the rationale for 6, is that a recommendation that is.
' Al -Jaffa That's a city ordinance.
Farmakes: I understand that. Do you recall when we got 6, as to the rationale that they used
' for that? Is that a professional recommendation or is that?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's a pretty standard parking ratio. But they exceed that.
' Farmakes: For a daycare?
' Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: I have another parking question. With the addition of the warehouse and the press
' room, are you adding more employees or staying about the same as you are now?
John Dietrich: My understanding is it's more of a warehouse and storage facility. Limited
expansion in production. Limited in terms of employees that will be employed there.
Mancino: So when I went to the parking lot today at 2:00 and there were 78 empty parking
' spaces, and it didn't include visitor parking and it didn't include handicapped parking. I look
at that and I say, you've got a lot of extra parking. Because there were 78 empty ones there
at 2:00 this afternoon. Now is that during the, I would assume that's during your big shift
where you have 200 employees there. The day shift, which would be approximately 7:00 to
3:00, correct?
' John Dietrich: Correct but then, the reason for having the overflow is so when the 3:00 shift
comes in and the 2:00, or the evening shift comes in and the day shift is there, that there is
' enough parking for those two to overlap.
Mancino: Sure. But how much overlap parking will you have? I mean how did you
' determine how much overlap parking to have?
John Dietrich: It was based on basically the total number of employees and trying to
anticipate allowing all.
Mancino: So you're allowing 100% overlap?
8
I.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
John Dietrich: At this point, yes. And I would like to maybe ask Mr. Senn if employee
projection is scheduled to stay the same or expand with the... '
Mark Senn: The easiest way to answer that question is that all of the employees anticipated
,
in the expansion have already been hired and are there. Okay. If you look at actual
employee counts, right now there's basically 252, let's call them warehouse manufacturing
employees and there are 75 office employees. Okay. Of the 252 warehouse manufacturing
,
employees, 124 are first shift, 98 are second shift and 30 are third shift. Okay. The office
employees are all first shift. So basically the parking is not on a 100% fill basis but I mean
it does provide quite a bit of overlap because it basically is necessary because those shifts
,
probably actually are going to overlap by as much to an hour because it's not just a, you
know everything doesn't just shut down and a whole new group come in type of thing.
There's a phase period over an hour that phases in and phases out because with the
'
complications of the press and the press operations, it's not that they just kind of shut the
press down, leave and you know if there's not another person.
,
Mancino: I've had that happen on a job. They just stop. Okay. So that's why you're
saying 100 %. That's why you want the 100 %.
'
Mark Senn: Nancy, one of the reasons you know, like you see all the trucks out in the
parking lot now.
,
Mancino: Yeah, yeah.
,
Mark Senn: Those trucks out in the parking lot right now are basically mostly what's going
to be going inside the new expansion. They've been basically forced to utilize those trucks to
basically accommodate the necessary.
'
Mancino: Storage of paper, etc.
,
Mark Senn: Storage of paper and stuff. Some of it is light sensitive and a whole bunch of
other things but you know essentially the press is going, I think this is essentially public
information. I mean they're a public company. I mean in the last several years the Press has
'
gone from like a $25 million company to a $75 million company and with this expansion,
they do anticipate going to about $100 million. But I mean again, it's not a labor intensive
expansion. It's an efficiency expansion.
'
Mancino: Okay. Well I was just concerned when I saw so many empty stalls at 2:00 in the
afternoon and then I looked across the street at Versatil or Versatil and there must have been
'
9 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
50 or more than that. There must have been 100 empty parking spaces there too at 2:00 in the
afternoon and I was thinking, why isn't there some cross use of all this parking that's
available in that area.
Mark Senn: I don't know what Versatil's situation is but with our's right now, you probably
came an hour too early. If you would have come an hour later, you would have started to
catch the phases. Basically because the phase starts at about 3:00 and runs until 4:00.
Scott: Any other comments or do you have any other comments you'd like to make?
1
John Dietrich: No. I believe that's...
Scott: Okay, great. Since we were talking specifically about the Press, are there any, would
the applicant with the Kindercare portion.
John Finnemore: I've got an exterior color...I'd like to show you.
Scott: Okay, good.
John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm the Division Construction Manager for
Kindercare. What this color board shows is two different brick samples. The upper half
would be the lighter brick and the lower half, the lower row of block, would be the darker
brick. We will, we'll also use those same two colors in the trash enclosure and on the
monument sign base. Our standard sign base typically is a brick base. The picture just really
is, by the sign how many they're showing off the sign itself and not the base. The shingles,
it's called the weather wood look. This is the wood facia and soffit color. It's called Cape
Cod gray. The windows are a bronze and it's a smoked glass. Or the window frames are
bronze and the windows themselves are smoked glass. And that's basically the exterior
colors. There is these columns are also, that is made of a stucco material and that's an off
white. That I didn't have a sample of. As far as your question about the parking. The 6
spots per child, that's a pretty common planning requirement. There's a lot of variations but
1 stall per 6 children is a pretty standard number throughout many parts of the country. In
our experience we find that's even a bit shy of what we would like so we exceed that by like
I think 12 spots on that particular site.
Scott: Questions or comments?
Harberts: The buildings look nice. Great pictures, thank you.
Scott: Good. Thank you very much. There is a public hearing on the schedule for this
10
11 r
'
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20, 1994
g g P
particular item and just a show of hands. Are there any people here who would like to speak
about this particular, actually we have 3 items but in summary. The Press addition and the
'
building of the Kindercare facility. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about that?
We need to open the public hearing anyway so I may have a motion please.
'
ino moved Farmakes seconded too en the public hearing. All voted in favor and
Man c P p
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
'
Scott: Would anyone like to speak about this particular issue? Let the record show that no
one wishes to speak. Oh, yes sir.
'
Richard Wing: I'd just like Nancy and the commission, and particularly staff, to follow up
on your question as to the stand -by status of Opus out on the west entry versus this east
entry. The Council has discussed a moratorium and we're frustrated that we weren't able to
'
get the moratorium on for Abra and Goodyear because they were already proposed but I think
there was an understanding. Staff was clearly directed that there shouldn't be any more
proposals or directions until we had this corridor study and to go further on this. I would like
'
to know if this meets the architectural standards as proposed by the committee and Bill
Morrish. If it's land uses are met. Setbacks are met. Landscaping. I think there's a lot of
questions and I don't want to get into the same problem we had last time saying we can't do
,
anything about it because it's been proposed and it's too late for the moratorium. I think
Council's made it clear that before is done on Highway 5 we get some standards in place in
'
this PUD overlay and it confuses me that staff has time to develop this proposal and bring it
forward but yet we're not completed on the Highway 5 corridor study. So it seems like once
again the cart's ahead of the horse. I'm a little frustrated here. It's been real hard to sit back
'
and listen. I guess Nancy's questions specifically on those issues, ought to be addressed here.
I'd like to know where we're going with this first before we look at this proposal.
'
Scott: Okay. ,Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Seeing no more
interest, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
'
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
'
Scott: Public g hearin is closed. Comments from commissioners. Matt.
Ledvina: Well, I guess the standards for Highway 5, as I understand, that the staff has
'
indicated that overall the applicant has met the requirements of the Highway 5 zoning
overlays. Isn't that correct?
'
11 r
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20, 1994
g g p
Al -Jaffa Correct.
' Ledvina: Okay. The issue as it relates to the gateway, the monument, whatever. The
Y g Y
landscaping or whatever that treatment we want to have on that corner, I think that's a
significant issue.I don't know exactly what would be done there or what the specific plans are.
Aanenson: Can I just bring you up to date on that?
Ledvina: Sure, if you would.
' Aanenson: We certainly realize that's a significant issue. Let me just comment on
Councilman Wing's concerns. The staff has responded to the Highway 5 corridor study. The
Planning Commission's reviewed it. It's in the Council's arena. There's not much more we
' can do at this point. We require, everybody that comes in is given a copy of the overlay
zoning. Even though it's not an ordinance. So legally we can't bind them but we certainly
encourage everyone to follow it. So far we've had good cooperation. As far as the gateway
treatments. We did have HGA looking at that. We spent 3 to 4 months with them trying to
visualize, trying to get them to capture a vision for us that we could do. We identified the
monuments or the gateway that we wanted. One of their proposals came back saving the
' Apple Valley Red -E -Mix as an icon so we obviously were having some problems getting
some visualization. Just in the last month we turned it back over to Hoisington to give us
some visualization. We are working on this issue. Specifically on this site, what we looked
at, that was talked about yes, as a gateway treatment on this site and how it relates to the
trees. Maybe the trees should be our gateway. Maybe it's not an architectural feature.
We've gone all over the map on this. We still haven't come up with a definitive what should
that gateway treatment be. That's a whole other issue that, certainly that's maybe something
that we can incorporate into this. At best on this site, as Sharmin has indicated, there is a
substantial deterrent to this gateway treatment and the fact that you've got utilities and utility
boxes there. I think at best what we could do at this point is, we are still, as I said, working
on the gateway treatment itself. To date. That is something that we are ongoing with. At
best what we could do at this point is to ask the applicant to take escrow for this plan and...
' ask them to leave an easement so if we get something in place, that we can go back in. We
don't know what that's going to be.
Mancino: But I think it's only fair to the applicant that we have some sort of a time line to
know when that's going to be. Whether it's 3 or 4 months.
Aanenson: ...that we know that the outlots next to Target are coming forward and we've got
the same issue there. We've always indicated that that's another on Powers Boulevard. If
' you look in the document, there are specific ones identified as far as gateway treatments.
And the access off of Powers, or off of Highway 5 and other gateways. We know that
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
they're coming in and again, we want to have a gateway treatment in place so when that
particular project comes in we will have something in place. Unfortunately we're having a
,
hard time getting a handle on what should that be. But I think at this site we were trying to
tie into the trees at Eden Prairie site so I think at best we can ask them to hold off an
easement area but still take escrow so we have something in place if we can't finalize them.
'
If we get landscaping to make sure we have something in there to screen the parking.
Obviously
'
Ledvina: Well my question is then, given the layout that we're talking about.
something, even north of the parking lot there, is there enough room to do something
substantial? I see, well let's see. What's the scale? About 100 feet or so.
'
Aanenson: When we looked in the Highway 5 document, really what we talked about is the
cluster it kind of representative of this plan with the clustering of trees. This kind of has that
'
affect. It has a berm with trees. Maybe it needs, they make a statement with sugar maples.
Maybe it's something, I don't know.
'
Mancino: But it should be dealt with on a professional level. I don't think here is the time
to figure that out. We should have a landscape architect do that.
ht.
Aanenson: ... right.
Ledvina: So in order to keep that door open, what would you recommend?
'
Aanenson: That we take some sort of an easement but we still can take this plan. In fact
maybe put a date on there that says we try to get something resolved and then we take in
'
escrow for landscaping what we normally do for the site plans. So we still have a back -up
plans. You get this landscaping plan where you want it if you can't come up with a gateway
treatment. If we find out the gateway treatment doesn't work on there. We haven't done a
'
design on this specific site. That's a fall back position. We've got an approved landscape
plan that you're comfortable with with this site. This was just a concept that we said a
gateway treatment should be considered here. Maybe when we do the design because of the
'
power lines, we find out.
,
Mancino: Well no, I think we'll have one.
Al -Jaffa I would point out though that a traffic signal transformer, and those are difficult to
move. Am I correct Dave?
Hempel: That's correct. 1
13 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: We'd have to go behind that.
Mancino: But also a landscape architect can take some time and design around that
perimeter. I mean that, you know those boxes instead of just putting trees there. They may
come up with a whole other design that uses the boxes in the design and that's what I'd like,
you know to wait and see.
1 Ledvina: Sure.
Mancino: And make sure that the applicant has to follow that design. That landscape design,
whatever it is, and how much of an area it is on that corner. I mean I don't know how big it
will be. I can't say it's going to be 100 feet by 100.
Ledvina: Okay. Well, I certainly would want to keep the door open as it relates to some
special work that the city might want done at that location. As it relates to the circulation, I
also have a hard time with an undefined criteria for intervention as it relates to the potential
' traffic, pedestrian problems there. So I don't know how we can fix that. If you could
suggest some language there. That's the end of my comments.
' Scott: Jeff.
' Farmakes: I don't understand how you figure impervious surface over the playgrounds. Can
you explain that to me? In the photographs I see cement, poured cement in the playground
areas. How's that figured in?
' Al -Jaff: We took the calculations that the applicant has provided. John, did you include the
playground in the impervious surface coverage or not?
John Dietrich: In the hard surface coverage on the playground, we included 2 to 3 as soft
upon that hard surface.
Farmakes: So the photograph that you provided us up here is, the reading area off the
photograph is green space or is?
John Dietrich: Not completely, no.
' John Finnemore: Impervious is sand. Sand and gravel.
Farmakes: I'm trying to come up with how that factors in, I mean from a square footage.
Did a layout for you. I don't see one here but all I see is squares saying totlot, playground,
1 14
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
playground. And I'm assuming that the ones that are named playground and playground,
those are green surfaces?
John Finnemore: The playground areas are, there's roughly, including the building sidewalks,
probably somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of concrete and then the
remainder of it would be grass areas.
Farmakes: So is that square footage factored in when we're looking at impervious surface?
Do we consider that impervious surface?
John Dietrich: To be perfectly honest we considered impervious surface would be 4% of that
building. Only about 6,000 square feet. John's indicating it's 10,000 to 12,000 square feet.
We have about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet more of impervious surface on that site. So that
would probably push that site up from the 54% to probably around 62 %...
Al -Jaff: They can go up to 70% so they are below what ordinance requires.
Farmakes: That was my question. I don't understand in relationship to what we're doing on
Highway 5, why we go from and center to place a parking lot always towards the highway.
Even in this factor where the access to these parking areas are down a service road. Or Dell
Road. It seems like we're putting our best foot forward or what we're capable of doing and
stick forward a parking lot next to the highway. It's just the whole direction of these
proposals, at least for the free standing building. It seems to me almost it should be the other
way around. And again, allows the building to shield the parking area and I know that
there's a train of thought that says gee, they've got to see the parking from the road. I don't
know if I follow that. I don't think that you can see the parking lot also from TH 5 behind
the building. I just think it'd be more pleasant, offer more opportunity to see landscaping.
I'm sure that the applicant can come up with some good reasons why that shouldn't be.
From an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice to see that. I can understand the proposed
expansion of the existing building being figured as to how it fits in in the existing building.
So that's a different problem to deal with. I'm a bit hesitant to say that that expansion
shouldn't match what the existing building is on the exterior. That they should be held to
some other type of building where you get a wing that looks nothing at all like the existing
structure. I don't think that's the purpose of what we were trying to do with the Highway 5
improvements. It seemed to me that what we were trying to do or what we were trying to
hold Opus to is that there would be some visual relief on the entry area off the highway.
And again, I just count up all these parking spots. Even though they're bermed, again it's not
bermed all the way around the road. To the north and south, east and west. Going to the
signage that the applicant was talking about. On the photograph there it is a pylon sign there.
On the sample. I would like to specify that it be a matching architectural structure to the base
15
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
' of that sign. Currently it's up on poles. The applicant mentioned that that's what was their
to do that. That the sign company went ahead and did it as this. I'd like to make sure that
we specify that.
Aanenson: It's in one of the conditions.
Farmakes: Okay. I would.
Mancino: Which number is it?
' Al -Jaffa 2, Site Plan Review.
Farmakes: I would also like to see some landscaping around that sign. It seems to be, there
seems to be a row of trees or a row of bushes showing and then the sign seems to jut out
from it on the end. Trying to create some relief with that. As to Councilman Wing's
' comments on the building. To a certain extent this does incorporate some of the issues as to
the roof line relief. Probably not.
' Mancino: What do you mean by that?
Farmakes: Well, I'm talking about the free standing building.
Mancino: The Kindercare?
Farmakes: The Kindercare. It does have some relief going on and this building is very
similar to the office building proposed up here by Market Square. And it's an attempt I think
' to do some of the things that we talked about with the rooflines and so on. They're quite
linear and they're quite long. There is some relief on the side with how the buildings are
configured to the two wings going out.
I Mancino: Do you think that's a good gateway though?
' Farmakes: No I don't. Do I think it's a good use next to a printing company like that?
Probably. The issue of gateway I think again is two approaches. Either the city buys up all
the property and builds what it wants, or that it tries to incorporate use within, working with
1 the applicants who are going to be building these buildings, to work in what is reasonable to
be required that we get an end result of what we're looking for. And I think a lot of that
would be, not necessarily sticking the parking lots all up and down TH 5. Again, the
applicant probably has some reasons that they would elect to put the road up there. It
probably makes sense with the existing parking lot as it stands. With the adjacent building.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
L
So there are rationales for that. Whether or not they outweigh the interest of the city, I think ,
that that's an important ... I would prefer I guess to see sort of the situation turned around but.
Sort of twisted around in the opposite direction but.
Mancino: Yeah, I understand that.
Farmakes: The feasibility of that in relationship to the traffic patterns and so on, I'm not '
going to make that judgment call on the basis of my vote. I would also like to see more trees
shielding that building. The Kindercare building from the south. If they go with the existing
parking lot, you sort of have that one little island out there. We have an additional 12 spaces '
that they said than what was necessary? I'm still a little confused on the issue of the 6 per
child.
Al -Jaff: It still depends on the number of kids that they will be allowed to have in the '
building. For instance, if they have.
Farmakes: And Y ou base that on square footage? '
Al -Jaffa Exactly. If they have 60 children, not based on square footage. It's based on the '
number of children. If they have 60 children attending this daycare, they have to have 10
spaces. '
Mancino: But the number of children is based on the square footage.
Farmakes: Don't we have a fire code or something that says this much square footage, this '
many children?
Al -Jaffa Yes. Do you know the maximum number? '
John Finnemore: 35 square feet per child. Of totally usable space for children, exclusive of '
bathrooms and kitchens and...
Al -Jaff: So what's the number of children you know. '
John Finnemore: 200 maximum.
Al -Jaffa 200 so. ,
John Finnemore: It's 33. 1
17 '
1
fl
L
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Why do we have 45?
Al -Jaff: So they can have a maximum of 200 children. 33 parking spaces and they have 45
provided. So they have 12 more than what is permitted by State licensing requirements.
Mancino: So does that mean they have to delete 12 spaces?
Al -Jaff: No, they don't have to. Our ordinance basically says, you have to have a minimum
of but it doesn't give you a maximum as long as.
Farmakes: So there's 12 additional spaces.
Al -Jaff: Correct. And they don't exceed the hard surface. coverage so.
Mancino: Yeah but we could still get more open space, green space if you don't have the 12
spaces.
Farmakes: I think the issue that the parking lot does run to the south and we should look at
eliminating some of those parking spots and replacing them with some, an additional tree.
Aanenson: The gateway?
Farmakes: Well there's very little maneuverable room here. There just isn't a lot as to what
to do. I think it's maybe debatable that there isn't additional parking available across the
street. Not that we would place that on another business but these parking spaces in terms of
Kindercare. They are temporary? Temporary parking? What's the average duration of the
parking.
John Finnemore: There's going to be staff parking and temporary parking.
Farmakes: So if somebody comes to pick up their child, what's the normal turn around of
that sequence?
John Finnemore: Transportation texts use about 6 minutes. That's probably a little light. I'd
say it's more like 10 to 15. It's typically closer to 6 in the morning and closer to 10 to 15 at
night. You know parents have to find out what their kid did during the day and have a little,
the ability to spend some more time there. But in the morning of course everybody's in a
hurry to get to work so that's a quicker turn around time there. And with 200 children we
would have approximately 27 or 28 employees. That is at maximum time frame.
18
Planning ommission Meeting - Aril 20, 1994
g g P
Mancino: So 33 would be, yeah. ,
Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay, Nancy. ,
Mancino: I'm going to start with the staff report and start with issue number 2 on page 2 '
which is the zoning ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage and I would like
staff, from a legal point of view, to tell me why the present Press is non - conforming
structure. Correct? '
Aanenson: No. It's the impervious surface. I
Mancino: It's the impervious surface amount.
Aanenson: That is non - conforming. It's not anything to do with the structure or anything. '
It's the impervious surface.
Mancino: Okay, the impervious surface is non - conforming right now. It is 79% and it '
should only be 70 %.
Al -Jaffa Correct. '
Mancino: Okay. So now they're going to take that parcel and they want to expand it and '
add a, add what we see. And they're going to do down in impervious surface to 76.8% but it
still doesn't meet the 70 %. Yet they have more land there. They have Lot 3. So why can't
we make the impervious surface area conforming at this point? Because if they're going in '
and changing and modifying their entire building, their entire structure and isn't this the
opportune time to say, now let's have the impervious surface be conforming? And actually
when I read in the code book, the city code book. Division for non - conforming uses, it says 1
purpose. The purpose of this division is to number 3, to encourage the elimination of non-
conforming uses, lots and structures. So why aren't we doing that here?
City Attorney on that specific issue and the fact of '
Aanenson: Again, the opinion from the ty y p
the matter is, if the expansion meets all the setback requirements ... so what you're looking at '
is just the impervious surface. Okay? So they are lessening that. And what the ordinance
section 20 -72 says, you can't expand unless you're going to lessen or eliminate the non-
conforming. So the City Attorney's opinion, because they are lessening the non - conformity,
that's okay. '
19 1
1
n
1 1
0
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: So you can never change a non - conformity to a conformity as long as they're
lessening? What a, I mean when you have land here that would be available to make it
conforming. Isn't it a higher priority to make things conforming? I mean is it really a higher
priority for our city to make it less conforming?
Aanenson: If you... impervious surface issue. I understand what, normally when you have a
building setback or something like that, because it's the impervious surface.
Mancino: But that's, the green space is important to us. You know it's a value.
Aanenson: I'm not arguing with you philosophically but I'm just saying legally.
understand what you're saying.
Mancino: Is that something we need to change that's in our ordinance? I mean again,
there's land right here. We could do it and it just seems, why wouldn't we? So whether we
can legally or not, I would go on public record saying, I would like this to conform to the
70% impervious surface because we have the land to do it. To take it from a non - conforming
impervious surface to a conforming. Can we make that as a recommendation?
Aanenson: You can always recommend it ... take it up to the City Council and give Roger a
second hit at it.
Mancino: Okay. Next, the issue. The next one on page 2 about the revised landscaping
plan. This is on sheet 4, out of 8. Was this done by a landscape architect?
John Dietrich: Yes it was.
Mancino: It was? Okay. I would like to see some added landscaping on the east side of that
180 foot span that you saw as a press room expansion. In the first 50 feet on this landscape
plan you have 3, let's see. You have 3 Colorado Green Spruces at 8 feet, which will be about
a 5 foot span. So you're covering up to begin with in that 50 foot span, you've got 3 trees.
It will be 15 feet so there's going to be 35 feet of open wall there and one of the things that
we're trying to do is to get some nice plant massings against that entire wall. So I would like
to see many more trees put on that eastern side. And I would like them to be primarily
coniferous with varying heights. Maybe 8. Some 8's and 7's and some 6's. I would also
like to see some added landscaping in the square area. Let's see, how do I do it. In front of
on the south side of the press room expansion and on the east side. This area in here. I
would also like to see 3 more coniferous trees added. Then I would also like to see some
more internal landscaping in the Kindercare parking lot. And if we do eliminate 12 of the
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 '
parking spaces, I think that that will help. Other thinking. I kind of agree with Jeff about
turning the parking lot for the Kindercare on the southern side of the building and pulling the '
playground. I know that Early Beginnings has that on Highway 5. They have the playground
in the front and the parking towards the rear. I think that that would add greatly to the
gateway affect of that corner. So I would like to see the parking lot flip flop on the '
Kindercare. And I would also like to see islands between Kindercare parking and the Press
parking so that you cannot go through one. You cannot use them interchangeably. One's a
parking lot for Kindercare and one's a parking lot for the Press. At some point in the future I '
mean the Kindercare may not be there. It may be something else, 10 or 20 years down the
road so I would like to see the differentiated parking lots. I would also think, and I think
Diane brought this up before, that the people from the Press who take their children to ,
daycare at Kindercare, have some sort of designated or reserve parking lots next to
Kindercare on their side of the parking lot. Those are my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Ron. '
Nutting: I think we've got a much improved structure just with the landscaping additions to
the south and east facing walls. I don't have a problem with Nancy's comments in terms of
adding some additional to the east wall there but I like the looks of the project and I think it's
going to break things up nicely... I would like to see either we tighten up the recommendation '
on the difference between parking lots in terms of the speed bumps. Whether it be islands or
we just put in the islands or the speed bump just to make sure that that isn't left open to
interpretation or definition of what the problem is down the road. As far as the gateway. I
guess if there's some reasonable way via easement to leave open the possibility. Whether it's
in the form of landscaping with trees or signage. I'm not sure we're at a point right here in '
terms of holding up the project for the ultimate definition. What that should be but leaving
some window. I mean the decision may be that that's not, you know other than some trees,
there is no other gateway there. I don't know. I guess I don't have the background through I
the study and ... I think those are my basic comments.
Scott: Okay. Diane. I
Harberts: I would certainly recommend that that sidewalk be added in the handicap
accessible designated spaces to include this suggestion by John about that one long curb cut. ,
I would certainly support flip flopping the parking. Reducing the parking by 12 spaces and
flip flopping it around the other way. I'm not real, I guess I like the designated pedestrian
walkway. I'm not real thrilled and I'm somewhat ignorant with regard to, when you have 1
these islands to receive topsoil, sod and irrigation. And I would just come in and stripe the
asphalt to indicate a pathway. I don't know how that really constitutes a sidewalk versus just
a pathway. I'm certainly not versed into understanding that but I think the comments that I
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
was trying to project at the last commission meeting was to have an identified pathway or
sidewalk that would make it easy. That would certainly be free of obstructions, including
snow, sod, irrigation, things like that. I would certainly support the designated parking with
' regard to people that use Kindercare and parking in that parking lot, I think that would help
just with the overall circulation. I think that's about it.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Just from keeping a tally here. It appears that the Press expansion
probably has, I mean would I be correct in saying that we wouldn't have any cause not to
move the Press expansion on? Well, from what I understand we can send one on and table
the other. Or I'm not saying that that's what we would do.
Farmakes: There are connection points between the two. The parking lots go, they're
' traveled through.
Scott: Well it sounds like we've got, I believe that there should be no direct connection. I
think it's, what we're seeing here is that the majority of the commission would prefer not to
have any ingress or egress inbetween the two lots.
1117
Mancino: So therefore you can separate them.
Scott: Just from looking at where the issues lie, it appears as if the Press expansion has been
pretty well taken care of relative to the suggestions on landscaping and so forth. It looks as
if there's some major. We talk about flip flopping parking lots. I mean I take the Highway 5
task force recommendations very seriously and I think that that's something that should be
strongly considered. It seems like there's some major ... with the Kindercare facility and my
thought perhaps is that we want to entertain moving the Press expansion ahead and tabling
the Kindercare.
Mancino: And seeing the flip flop, etc?
Scott: Yeah. But I wanted to throw that out and kind of get your thoughts. Because we
need to do this as a consensus so. First of all, how many of us want to disconnect those
parking lots?
Mancino: I can do that, yeah.
Farmakes: I'm open to that.
Scott:. That's my concern too. When I see, if in the future. If this. If that. And then since
our vision, we have to be looking at this 10 -20 -30 years down the road. I think we'll end up
22
t
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1,
saving ourselves a lot of grief by not having these two connected.
Nutting: Joe, do we have the ability to hear any thoughts from the developer as to, just some ,
of what we're talking about? I know the public hearing is closed.
Scott: We've closed the public hearing. '
Nutting: We're suddenly going, this is the second meeting and suddenly we say, now let's '
put the parking lot on the other side. As opposed to having addressed that the first time. I
guess I just, before I make any decisions I'd like to at least hear some feedback to what
they're hearing. '
Scott: Sure.
re anything that's prohibiting us at this '
Harberts: Is the p g point, outside of the developer's P
concern though, with regard to how these projects line up and whatever?
What we're doing now is saying that's a right
'
Aanenson: I dust had one question for Dave. a g Y g
turn in and right turn out so when you come out you have to go. How long is that island on
Dell Road so if you want to come back out and get on Highway 5, before you came out '
through the Press parking lot and come around ... do you have any concern with that Dave?
Hempel: It's probably going to function very similar, with or without the curb cut from '
getting access to Kindercare. I could see a lot U turns being done...
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It's the egress I'm worried about. '
Hempel: Right. The egress and you're restricted to a right out only anyway so that isn't I
going to change.
Mancino: So it won't make any difference if it's on the south or north side? Okay. '
Hempel: No, it's just going to keep the short cut more on the Press site.
Harberts: It would what the short cut? '
Hempel: It would delete that or eliminate that through the Press.
Aanenson:. But the people coming out of Kindercare though, have to go all the way back up
and do a U turn. '
23 1
n
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: That's correct. All the way up to, what is it, Dakota and take the frontage road
back, West 78th Street east and back to the Press.
Harberts: And that would be the p.m. or is that a.m. too? I suppose whatever you travel.
Hempel: If you're going to the Press, you would either do a U turn on Highway 5 to go back
north to Dell Road...
Mancino: Did I miss something? I think I did.
Scott: What you're saying here is that if somebody is, if someone is coming in. They're
going west on Highway 5 and make a right turn at Dell Road, can they make a left from Dell
Road into Kindercare? Yes?
Mancino: Sure.
John Dietrich: No.
Scott: No. So they have to go down, why's that?
Hempel: There's parking median islands...
Mancino: Oh, it goes to the whole street. The entire. So that's regardless of wherever it is.
Wherever the parking lot is.
Scott: Is this something that, is there enough stacking to avoid. I mean is this something
that a cut could be made in that median? I'm not doing a traffic study here. I'm just
thinking, if we're talking about making that change so that's the only way. you can get in. If
it's right -in and right -out.
Ledvina: ...or I mean no left turn.
Hempel: I'm not sure ... there's enough room to provide two lanes which you need for a left
turn lane.
Scott: Okay. I got you. So it's the right turn on Dell Road. A U turn down by West 77th.
Farmakes: You're going to have that.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Harberts: Regardless.
Farmakes: Regardless. The primary access has to be off TH 5 anyway so if you turn '
left ... Eden Prairie.
Hempel: If you're a Press employee and you drop your child off at Kindercare and leaving
Kindercare, you even have to go back out onto Highway 5. '
Scott: But if we have reserve parking for Kindercare, for Press employees at Kindercare,
they'll be coming in the back way. Walking and doing that too so. '
Nutting: Will an employee want to park closer to Kindercare or will they want to park closer
to the door? '
Harberts: Kindercare. You're going to pick your kid up. You're going to get off work.
Walk to Kindercare. Pick it up and then get in the car. That's what you're trying to do. ,
Nutting: Will they park closer to the door in the winter time and then drive around?
1 what you're in to do is to eliminate that t '
Harberts: Wel at y trying type of scenario because then
that cuts down circulation within the parking lot which then cuts down the possibility of any
safety issues. So you know, that's what you're trying to achieve here. Is to have them pull '
in once, park and away they go.
Farmakes: Irregardless, they're going to have to take a right to come out... '
Scott: And this could end up being an office building down the road and there'd be no '
reason to have these lots connected anyway so. Okay. Anyway. My comments are, I mean
it seems like the Press expansion is satisfactory in it's existing form to be moved along. I
think there's still some major concerns with the, major questions with the Kindercare. So '
those are the extent of my comments. I'll be asking the difficult question for a motion.
Nutting: Do we have the ability to? I
Scott: You can, yeah. Sure, go ahead.
John Finnemore: Yeah, I'd like to address 3 of those comments. Number one on the parking '
stall requirements. As a company we have a standard ourself that we use roughly 1 stall for
4 children so 200 divided by 4 is 50. So we're slightly below that. Keep in mind, with 45
25 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
' parking spots out there, in the p.m. when we're at capacity we'll have roughly 28 to 30
employees in those parking spots. So say there's 30 employees. That only leaves 15 then for
' the parents to come into which is, I mean it would work but we decrease that to 33 and -all of
a sudden you've got 2 or 3 parking spots open not used by employees. So there's not a
surplus of parking out there. In fact we would typically be looking for 50 -55 parking spots
on a normal layout. We're building the same facility in Woodbury and we have what, 55
there. 55 spots there. As far as flipping the, putting the parking lot in back and the
playground in front. Two things that would prohibit us from doing that. One is the speed of
the traffic out on Route 5 and that's what, 55 mph there. I mean that's what the sign says.
There's no police so I was doing 65 on my way here because I was a little late. A runaway
' car in a situation like that could right into a playground. If the playground was in the front
of the building. We've got, we do have set -ups where the only place left to put the
playground was along a busy road and we put up guardrails and so forth but at 65 mph you
really can't put an adequate barricade that's even remotely attractive to keep a car out.
' That's one issue. A second issue are those overhead power lines there. Those are
transmission lines. They've got, somewhere probably 345 kilobolts going through those.
' There's a big concern these days, mostly with children but just with people in general with
what they call electromagnetic fields, EMF. And there's federal standards on what they
measure the EMF and what's called, the unit is called a milogaust and you, I have a gaust
' meter and what we found is we need to be set back roughly 100 and some feet. Wherever
we're set back from the front of our building is where we're down to a point where that
reading is 2.0 lower so we can have a parking lot out there but we can't have a playground or
' building in an area that has readings that high. There's studies either way. I mean if you go
to a power company they'll tell you that EMF is not a problem. But yet there are studies on
the other end that say that it can promote cancer and other things.
' Mancino: Is this a state regulation?
' John Finnemore: No. It's a federal guideline. It's nothing in the books yet but it's
something that will be someday. Other countries have. Sweden has laws on that. France has
laws and they're all being analyzed. There's major research in this right now. Numerous
' power companies. Everybody's doing research on this issue and the rule of thumb has been
this 2.0 milogaust. That's what we've been going by. We've been using 2.0 and we're
' setting back everything we can from a reading at that point or lower. And we do get that
reading when we go to the front of the building so if we were to put the playground in the
front of the building, we would then exceed that reading. And we can't take that risk and if
actual laws aren't passed that say you can't be in an area that's 2.0 or greater, we can't take
' the risk and the liability of having to close the center. The third issue is the cross over traffic
between the Press and our facility. We would put it in our agreement with the Press that, we
' don't want the cut through traffic anymore than the commission does or staff does so if it
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1,
becomes a problem from our point of view, we're going to address that with the Press and
something will have to be done. Then additionally, in the development agreement between '
Kindercare and the Press and then the City of Chanhassen, we can put something in there that
says, if staff or the commission or whoever determines that it becomes a problem, we can
change the configuration then. '
Mancino: What's your reason for not eliminating it right now so it doesn't become a
problem? '
John Finnemore: Well the access to our facility. We've got a right -in, right -out on Dell
Road. In order to get in, you have to come in and do that U turn which I can't imagine that '
U turn's legal to get into. I mean the majority of the traffic in and out of our center is going
to be from Highway 5. And whether you're going east or west bound, you'd have to do a U
turn around that insurmountable median out there. '
Mancino: But what does that have to do with having an ingress into the Press' parking lot?
John Finnemore: Well because it ... internal drive. If you're coming in this way, you can '
come around here and get in where your only other choice would be to do an illegal U turn
to get in here. That allows... '
Mancino: But that's exactly what we don't want. Okay, never mind.
'
John Finnemore: But then how do we get into our facility, basically. We've got an
insurmountable median from this point to this point.
Mancino: So you actually want to use the Press parking lot as an entry into
Kindercare's '
parking lot? I mean that is your intent? '
John Finnemore: Correct. There's no other way to ... because the people aren't going to be
coming from back here. They're going to be coming from Highway 5. '
Nutting: Do you have any problem putting a speed bump there?
John Finnemore: No. We don't have a problem with that. '
Farmakes: This currently where that intersection is, would that be considered an illegal U '
turn?
Scott: I don't think so because I remember when they were ripping up TH 101, I had to go '
27 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
back there every day to get to where my office building was and I usually.
Farmakes: U turns are permitted unless otherwise posted.
Scott: Yeah, I don't think it's illegal.
John Finnemore: It's not posted.
Scott: So it's not illegal.
Hempel: It's certainly not a desired..., especially at the level or during peak hours—see if
there was maybe some alternative to placing a median cut in for a left turn lane into the site
only but not out of it. That may be a possibility.
Farmakes: If there was a cut in, would it be preferable on either end of the building? North
or south?
Hempel: Further away from the intersection would be preferred.
Scott: For stacking.
Harberts: Dave, with regard to one of the points brought up was regarding the speed of
traffic. As I recall, we've got a lighted intersection there and we've got a lighted intersection
down towards Chanhassen. Wouldn't that greatly reduce the speeds and I'm also looking at
that time of morning. I know when my buses run on the road, to achieve 55 mph with those
amount of stop lights even coming east or going west, I don't know how often and I don't
know if you can answer that. How often that you would be at a speed of 55 mph at that
particular point on Highway 5 given the amount of traffic and the number of traffic lights.
Hempel: Those kind of conditions vary daily. Whether drivers habits and so forth. I guess
that's a pretty tough question.
Harberts: It's almost a traffic... question.
Mancino: But Diane we've got the same thing at our new elementary school. I mean the
new elementary school's on Highway 5. 55 and they have the playgrounds towards the front.
Towards Highway 5. I mean obviously they're set back and there's going to be a chainlink
fence around it but the same kind of conditions happen there. I mean they're.
Harberts: I think to a greater extent there's an opportunity for those, for that speed to be
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
attained at that point rather than at this point.
Mancino: Well there will be a light there though. I mean eventually when the school opens, '
there will be a light. So it's kind of the same. It's the same sort of situation.
1
John Finnemore: But that's really the secondary concern compared to the EMF issue. We
can't jeopardize our liability of having a playground with readings over 2.0. We couldn't as '
a company put a playground out in front of that building.
Harberts: Push the building back. '
Farmakes: On the lot lines, just one quick question. The lot line that we're dealing with '
there. The property owners for those two lots. The lot to the north. I didn't ask this
question. How is the property being plotted? Is that one piece of land or two?
Al -Jaffa Currently it is one lot and one outlot. They are dividing it into three. ,
Aanenson: No. They're reconfiguring. They planning to well. '
Mancino: Total of three.
Aanenson: One outlot so they're replatting them so you'll have one for the Kindercare and '
one still an outlot.
Farmakes: If the city looks at the potential issues for north or south parking lot, would the
city look at an issue when they're looking at gateway or the issue of gateway comes up, is
there the possibility of moving that back and the city acquiring the buffer. '
Mancino: For that front lot.
Farmakes: That front lot or part of that front lot currently where the city has the most '
substantial area for landscaping. Some of the environmental issues that were brought up.
The distance from the power lines and so on to the front of the building. Are we talking 50 '
feet? Are we talking, you know the issues of, I'd like to see a serious response to the issue
that if we did flip it around. We haven't voted yet but I'd like to see a serious response to
how that could be done and address those issues. '
Aanenson: All I can say about the power line issue is the next project's got the same issue. t
Why they want to move the power lines because they have a problem getting FHA financing
29 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
so there is a legitimate issue with the power lines. As far as flipping it ... requiring that.
' Again, we're falling into an area and I know the Council is a little upset about the fact that
we haven't adopted it but it's not in place right now. As far as how much acreage we want
for the Highway 5. The gateway requirements. As far as does the city have the ability to
' purchase that?
Farmakes: I don't know but certainly the city is, Highway 5 is going to be developed by the
time we get this thing approved.. If we don't start, as you said in the beginning here, if we
don't start applying these issues rather than just nodding our shoulders and saying, well I
guess there's nothing we can do about it.
' Aanenson: All I can tell you is I think that's something that if you're interested in, that you
make that proposal to the City Council.
' Farmakes: Well the issues that we've heard here so far and the issue of whether or not it's
north or south. We've heard 26 employees. 28 employees. In fact there's up to 30
i employees now. I've heard ratios of 4 children per parking lot. I've heard 6 children per
parking lot.
' Aanenson: City ordinance is 1 per 6.
Farmakes: Okay, so but I understand that but the applicant came up and when we're talking
about the issues of the parking lot or issues of a buffer, we're looking for some room to
maneuver there and there seems to be very little. So it's sort of either fish or cut bait on this
' thing. Either we're going to line up parking lots all along the highway or we're not. And if
we're not, what are we going to do about it? There has to be some room to maneuver. If
we're talking one parking spot, I don't think that's going to make the grade so.
Al -Jaff: There's also a 30 foot buffer that could be used for green space between the
property line abutting Highway 5 and the parking for the Kindercare. That could be used for
' landscaping and buffering.
John Finnemore: We would like to make—This is a plant full area. There has to be certain
' species underneath the power lines that NSP, if that's the power company, would agree to in
terms of height. Once you're outside of that corridor underneath the power poles, we do have
a 30 foot area and we also have additional green space in our front yard. We would be more
than willing to work with the commission and staff as to finding what that entry element
would be, if in fact this is a selected intersection. But in terms of green space, we have this
30 foot easement. Building setback area that is clearly defined and we would be more than
happy to hold off the landscape plans in that area. Landscaping is, in terms of construction,
1
30
Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
the last element to go in. So I would say there would be an opportunity to work with how
this area really would be defined in terms of visual, in terms of the elements that this '
landscaping, the structural berming, so that we could work with the entry elements and
incorporate them so that there would be that grand entry...
Mancino: Sharmin is there any, I don't know how anybody's going to answer this. But will
the power lines ever go under ground? No? Why? '
John Finnemore: That doesn't change the EMF either. '
Aanenson: They're too high voltage. The cost is.
Mancino: So they burn the soil? I mean I don't know. '
John Finnemore: That doesn't effect the EMF. You have to encase them in about 6 foot
leaded walls in order to.
Mancino: No problem. '
John Finnemore: And you think your power bills are high now.
Mancino: Just wondering. Just wondering. You know you've got to just dig a ditch so I r
just thought I'd ask.
Scott: Is anyone prepared to make a motion? '
Farmakes: I'd like just one quick comment. Staff, I'd like to get a response. I think that the
issue the applicant made in regards to health issues and the city doesn't have anything on
ordinance on that. I would think that you would review the quality of their information. I
would think that that would be pertinent. '
Aanenson: Right. Well that's what I was saying. You've got the same issue on the next
application. The reason why they wanted the power line moved because they cannot secure ,
FHA financing because of the location over the houses. So there are some federal regulations
out there related to...
Nutting: There may be lots of regulations that people just don't know. There's studies on
both sides of the issue and I think until there's something definitive, especially when a
lender... approve things like that. That doesn't give you the answer as to.
31 1
[1
0
L I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: No, but it may tell us that maybe that building should go to the north lot. Maybe
it shouldn't be there.
Mancino: And just move back.
Farmakes: There's a blank lot up above. Maybe that's the place for that particular.
Scott: And the access would be much less complicated too.
Farmakes: One owners owns the entire space. That's the only area to maneuver anyway in
this thing apparently. Is that north lot. And it looks to be somewhat bigger.
Scott: I'll call for a motion again and whenever you're ready.
Mancino: I'll move, with a lot of help. I'll move that we approve, let's see. What am I
going to approve?
Scott: We have three things here.
Mancino: Well I'll do one of them. I'll move that we approve the Site Plan Review for a
54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building. With, as shown on the site plan received
April 13, 1994 subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to
include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the
trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City
Council meeting. Number 3. I should ask Sharmin. Does number 3 refer to the Press also?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. And I'm assuming number 2 is just Kindercare right?
Al -Jaffa That's correct.
Mancino: Okay. So number 3, the applicant shall provide a meandering berm with
landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The
height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with
a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial
guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. I would like
to add to that. That added landscaping, that there be added landscaping to the perimeter of
the Press expansion per my request in coniferous trees. Number 4. The applicant shall enter
into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
32
33 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
securities as required for landscaping. Number 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire
Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. Number 6. The Press addition shall contain some
'
architectural detailing to break the long wall masses, and I would say architectural detailing
with relief. Does staff understand what I mean there? The horizontal with some relief there.
Number 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city
'
standards shall be submitted. Number 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to
incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage
calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
'
approval. Number 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from
the appropriate agencies. Number 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property
line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. Number 12. Does that pertain to
'
the Press?
'
Al -Jaff: No. It would be for Kindercare only.
Mancino: Okay. So omit that. Number 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on
'
the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with
turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive
aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. And I also want to make sure that it's a two
'
way traffic street. Number 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance
to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Number 15. The applicant shall
provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of
'
$5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site
improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo
dated March 25, 1994. Number 17.
'
Harberts: Nancy, could I offer a suggestion on 17?
Mancino: You bet.
Harberts: That the parking configuration for the Press will somehow be in concert with what
'
the approval is given for Kindercare so that they correlate or coordinate or whatever they
need to do.
'
Mancino: That it be self contained?
Harberts: Well, at this point I just wanted to leave it open in terms of the parking. I don't
'
have any problem in saying that it's being self contained but I'm looking more at that
sidewalk and if we need that designated parking. If that's something we find is important.
That's why I'm saying that the parking configuration for the Press will be, I don't know.
,
33 1
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20 1994
g g P
Mancino: Relate to.
Harberts: Or somehow coordinate with. With whatever's approved then for the Kindercare
' so we have that flexibility to influence the Press given what is finally approved then for the
Kindercare. That's what I would suggest.
' Mancino: Okay. That's it. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell
Road, or 77th Street West. Oh I wanted to put a recommendation in about, that I would like
to see the impervious surface of the Press be a conforming permit and be at 70 %. And
' Diane, do you want to add anything about the sidewalk being there? I mean does that need
to be in the recommendation?
' Harberts: Well that's what I want 17 to reflect. Is that we do have that flexibility to go back
and influence things that may need to be included in the Press parking lot because of what
comes out of the Kindercare. So that's what the intent there is to let us have that flexibility
' to go back and have influence over that. And I'll second that motion. And I just want to
clarify. Then does that mean Nancy that we're tabling the second part of that regarding
construction of the Kindercare Daycare Center?
' Mancino: Yeah, that's going to be my second. The next motion. I think that's how you do
it.
' Harberts: Yeah, okay.
' Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for the Press
warehouse expansion. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as
shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions.
' in 1 h screening 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include tras ee g of the Press site and
' show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans
must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting.
' 2. Deleted.
3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south
portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm
shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed
1 34
IL�
Fj',
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees.
These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be
'
added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as
suggested by Nancy Mancino.
,
4.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and
provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping.
'
5.
Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994.
6.
The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up
'
the long wall masses
7.
Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards
shall be submitted.
'
S.
The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking
lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm
'
event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
9.
The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate
'
agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department).
10.
Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the
'
Press is being relocated.
11.
Deleted.
'
12.
Deleted.
'
13.
The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking
lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street
West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle)
,
shall be posted with no parking signs.
14.
The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical
'
industrial driveway apron detail.
,
15.
The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash
'
35
Fj',
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards
disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod.
16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994.
' 17. The arkin configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design
P g � P
approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for
' pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare.
18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street.
19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70 %.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Is there another motion?
' Harberts: I move to table Kindercare Daycare Center. Construction of
' Scott: And is there some direction to the developer?
Harberts: I think based on the discussions, from what my notes are and if anyone's able to
' assist here. I think one of the primary areas was regards to flip flopping the parking and the
playground. I think Jeff brought up a good point though about, if there's a concern with the
electromagnetic fields or whatever, do we push it down? Is that a better place for it? I think
there's some access questions. Traffic questions that relate to that. Signage. I think with
regards to number 2. And I think there was comments with regards to putting around some
additional landscaping there. I think there was also some discussion about cutting the parking
' down 12 spaces. Again, it might be an influencing factor then about flip flopping it as to the
number of parking stalls.
' Mancino: Gateway.
Harberts: The gateway certainly is a big factor in that. And I think that's really what
prompted the flip flopping is I think Jeff commented well is that, do we shrug our shoulders
or do we in a sense start putting some pen to the paper here in terms of what we feel is
important. And I would certainly be interested to see, to start holding. Going forward with
these values I think that have been communicated and addressed very thoroughly by the
Highway 5 corridor group. And here's an opportunity to either leave it go or start walking
' the talk.
1 36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded in summary to table the site plan review for the
Kindercare facility. Is there any discussion?
Harberts: Who seconded that one?
Scott: Ah, she made the motion, you seconded it.
Mancino: No. She made the motion. Second.
Scott: Excuse me. Now it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Site Plan Review for Kindercare Daycare Center. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mancino: I assume that eliminates 2 and 3.
Scott: Yeah, I'd say by virtue of Question. Do we have to approve the replat?
Al -Jaff: Yes you do.
Scott: So that the Press can.
Al -Jaff: Can go forward.
Scott: Okay. May I have a motion please?
Mancino: I'll move that we replat. I move that we approve the preliminary plat to replat Lot
1, Block 1. Do I have to do, do I do the whole thing? I want to approve the Press.
Al -Jaff: Lot 1 expansion but you don't want 2 and 3.
Mancino: Not yet because I mean, you know. That may change.
Scott: Okay. So basically what we need to do is replat Lot 1, Block 1.
Al -Jaff: Well we can process that administratively.
Mancino: Okay.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: This is ... to the outlot.
Scott: Okay, so basically we are going to end up with a preliminary plat to replat Lot 1,
Block 1 into Lot 1 and Outlot A and B? Is that?
Al -Jaff: That would require a plat.
Aanenson: Just one outlot.
Mancino: Just to one outlot, yeah.
Scott: Okay, Outlot A. Okay.
Mancino: That's what I said.
Scott: Was it? Okay, is there a second please?
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the plat as stated. Is there any
discussion?
Harberts: What are we approving?
Mancino: Yeah, there's some discussion here. Jeff, why don't you. Jeff has some
discussion.
Farmakes: If we look at that, both outlots there.
Mancino: They're really 3. What they want. This is really.
Farmakes: So if you're looking at considering the northeast corner of that Lot 3, 2 and 1 for
the Press. If by approving that are we defining the lines where the borders are? Between 2
and 3.
Scott: Or should we just have Lot 1 and Outlot A and Outlot A comprises the, this is very
surveyor's talk here.
Farmakes: 2 and 3.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Everything to the east of the eastern...
Mancino: Well wait. And if we approve it, can we still have 70% impervious surface
because don't they have to add more onto that?
Farmakes: But how are we tying ourselves into the development of the existing lot to the
north with the current Kindercare?
Mancino: But we're leaving those open.
Farmakes: Those are left open?
Scott: Yeah.
Farmakes: So we're not tying ourselves into access to those lots?
Ledvina: No.
Mancino: Access to them?
Farmakes: Well for instance, this goes here and then you've got it going there.
Aanenson: The existing lot line is, you're moving it to the east is all you're doing. For the
Press. The rest of it you're still leaving outlot. That's how it is right now.
Scott: So it's Lot 1, as specified with Outlot A. Is that what we want to say? What's the
right way to say it?
Al -Jaffa Another way of saying it is, Lot 1 and combine Lots 2 and 3 into Oudot A. That's
another.
Mancino: Thank you. And Jeff's question.
Al -Jaff: Or proposed lots.
Mancino: But Jeff's question is, is that there won't be any problem having done this if we
go back and let's say Kindercare goes to the northern side, can we still use the access from
the Press' driveway into Kindercare?
Aanenson: Sure.
39
I
J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Does that answer it for you?
Aanenson: You've got to remember again, all you're doing is moving a property line for the
Press further to the east. And leaving the rest as an outlot...
Hempel: You're approving the common drive is going to serve eventually whatever's over
there.
Scott: And we also need a motion to table the conditional use permit for a licensed daycare.
Ledvina: Did we agree to vote on...
Scott: Yes.
Harberts: I just have a clarification. Kate, Sharmin. On our previous motion did you get
included the sidewalk?
Aanenson: On 17?
Scott: Well we can't really, that's a yes or no. If it's one way or the other, it doesn't matter.
Harberts: Yes we can. We can do anything we want.
Mancino: But yeah, I asked you that. It's in 17.
Harberts: No I'm asking the sidewalk, handicapped accessible. If that was included in those
comments? That was the intent. With the parking configuration then.
Al -7aff: I was going to include parking for the Press be in concert with Kindercare and then
to meet all conditions of ADA requirements?
Harberts: No. No, I don't want it to meet ADA because those are more. That the parking
configuration though included the fact about that sidewalk being added rather than having
wheelchairs and people having to go out into the line of traffic. And I didn't know if we
needed to amend this one because we're still on this one.
Scott: Well we're discussing, I think we understand.
Harberts: But we got the intent.
M
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: We understand what our motion is. Basically that we're going to end up going from
Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and combining Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: That was discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1
and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along
the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1.
b. Delete.
C. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final
plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the
sewer service.
3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city.
4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The
easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement
agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance
agreement acceptable to the City.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed
District, Health Department, etc.
6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt
fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press
is being relocated.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
1
Scott: Okay, can I have a new motion with regard to the Kindercare Site Plan for the
' Kindercare facility?
Mancino: I move that we table conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP
' district.
Scott: Just a question for Kate. Do we have to make a motion to table the site plan for the
' Kindercare facility? Follow up with another motion to table the conditional use permit?
Because we have, these are all specific items within the public hearing and I think we have
to...
Aanenson: You can't do one without the other.
' Scott: Then we need to address the site plan, specifically for the Kindercare facility. Can I
have a motion please?
' Harberts: I'll move it to table.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the site plan review for the Kindercare
facility.
' Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the Site Plan Review for a Kindercare
Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Scott: May I have another motion with regard to the conditional use permit?
Y g P
' Mancino: I move that we table the conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an
IOP district.
Harberts: Second.
' Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Conditional Use Permit #94 -1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: We'll take the Kindercare facility and the conditional use permit, well as soon as they
can bring it back to us. We want to move it on if we can. We'll take a 5 minute break and
' then the next public hearing is regarding the Ryan/HeritageBoisclair development.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 82.6 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED A2 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD INCLUDING 19.3
ACRES FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI- FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES
FOR PONDING AREA AND 7 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 WEST OF AUDUBON AND EAST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARD, CHANHASSEN CORPORATE CENTRE, HIGHWAY 5
PARTNERSHIP, RYAN COMPANIES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, BOISCLAIR
CORPORATION AND RLK ASSOCIATES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Foster
Karen Olson
Robert Boisclair, Boisclair Corp.
Nicholas A. Palaia, Palaia Architects
Liv Homeland
Dennis Dirlam
Kent Carlson
Steve Schwanke
John Dobbs
Jeannene Krone
Richard Frasch
8020 Acorn Lane
8020 Acorn Lane
3005 Ottawa Avenue
11420 Salem Avenue, Young America
8804 Knollwood Dr.
15241 Creekside Court, Eden Prairie
Suite 700, 900 2nd Avenue So, Mpls
922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
645 5th Avenue, Newport
922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
8000 Acorn Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Just a question. The intent, I think this is for edification of perhaps some of the
residents. The intent of a PUD is something where we will do some different things with
densities, and so forth, in order to get something from the developer. Preservation of natural
features, obviously Bluff Creek. Based upon the conditions that, based on the staff report,
what are we getting here?
43
n
7
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Generous: Besides the obvious one, specific treatments of the Bluff Creek corridor. There's
' a potential for the affordable housing component. Initial discussions with the developer were
that they would provide...unit for moderate income.
I Scott: What is, define moderate income?
Generous: I think they used 60% of the median income but I'll let the developer.
' Scott: Yeah, they can tell us about it because.
' Generous: Tell you specifically.
Scott: Yeah, we've heard affordable housing used to define $175,000.00 house. So we'll be
' talking about this. So basically what we maybe need to focus in on is that what perhaps
we're getting is affordable housing, yet to be defined later this evening.
t Generous: Correct.
' Scott: Okay.
Generous: As well as the protection of the tree corridor... consideration for that specifically.
' Scott: Okay, comments?
Aanenson: ...let you be aware that we are working, we do have a tentative charette date set
to try and flush out some issues on it. And that is one of the conditions and the applicant's
aware of that ... but if we go back to the Comp Plan, on this site plan, originally it was all
guided for single family component. What we said is, for a portion of it up in the first
'
segment ... and the school site went in and the comp plan said, this area could then be
industrial. And looking at it, in conversations with the former planning director, maybe it
' seemed palatable that instead of industrial that maybe a high density would be more palatable
than industrial. Maybe, maybe not. We did give a performance base. Maybe industrial is
more palatable to the neighborhood. Maybe the high quality of multi-family ... What we're
' saying at this point, we think there's some merits to some of their ideas but they need to be
further articulated and again this goes back to the conceptual. What we're trying to do at this
point is say you need to go back and refine...
Mancino: Well and I would like to add to that contextually is that I think you also have to
look on the north side of Highway 5 between the Lake Ann Park and Galpin. Because on
' that side of Highway 5 we have, starting at Lake Ann, high density also. Going all the way
1 44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1
to Galpin gives medium density so that will also be on the other side of the street. So we
want to make sure that we don't get kind of a tunnel effect here of high density and high
apartments maybe that, we didn't. '
Aanenson: Well there's an interesting relationship with the school. I think that's something '
you need to examine. And maybe with the multi-family—What we're saying is this plan
doesn't really articulate that. What we would like to see happen, we talked about, originally
the road with this access to the site, with the fixed location... Highway 5 corridor. The '
applicants are saying, since they're not going with industrial, it probably makes more sense to
put the road over to the other side where it serves the industrial, as they show on their site
plan and it provides, that would be the access into the industrial park. So you're not bringing
all that traffic through residential and maybe that's the merit ... What they're doing right now
in conceptual is running some ideas at you ... give them some direction and come back. So
they move the road over ... this is our industrial component over here. We're going to let the '
traffic come through this area and not impact the rest of that. So maybe that makes some
sense. The concern we have with that, and this goes back to the design charette, they also
show moving the power lines. The power lines ... and they've indicated that in order to get '
financing they would move the power lines across the tree corridor and that's something...
Farmakes: Those power lines are pretty substantial too aren't they? '
Aanenson: Correct. t
Scott: Is that a continuation of the same line we were talking about along Highway 5 and
then it cuts across? I think it is. Okay.
Harberts: Bob, is the office warehouse, that whole industrial office area. I don't know if
I've got the terminology correct here. Is that spec buildings or will they have owners or '
tenants or something that will come in, build them to specifications.
Aanenson: What... '
Harberts: And my last question initially here is, what's the opportunity of getting a right -in,
right -out on Highway 5? '
Aanenson: That's also going to be—they have to work at relocating that ... And we feel, even
for the buses coming into the school, they may want to use that looping system also. '
Farmakes: Can you tell me, the power line issue again. It's a little difficult to see the, as I
recall the property, the power lines sort of dissect the property. '
45 1
n ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: The power lines right now run along the back side of Timberwood.
Farmakes: So they basically dissect the...
Aanenson: What they're doing is going to relocate it.
Farmakes: Okay. Now once that goes to the south and gets towards the proposed road.
Aanenson: It will tie back into the existing Timberwood...
Farmakes: So it snakes to the left and then heads across the street?
Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: Okay. If we were considering any other types of development for that property...
would that necessitate also moving the power lines?
Aanenson: No. Originally that's where the road was going to go and that power line would
fall basically where that road alignment's going to go. Industrial I don't think
would... because it's going residential, my understanding is they...
Farmakes: The green space that you were discussing earlier in regards to the configuration.
It looked it came from the southwest up to the northeast.
Generous: ...put in these view corridors or common areas.
Farmakes: I'm wondering again what, if any thought was given to the issue of the Highway
5? It's sort of the same discussion we had with the last applicant.
Aanenson: Certainly they're aware of the standards.
Farmakes: Well as I can see, the buildings are within 50 feet of the property line. Is that
correct? The buildings on the north end.
Aanenson: This is conceptual. I'm not sure it's to scale.
Farmakes: I just scaled it with a pen here.
Generous: I didn't look at that. I just said, yeah. They want to move buildings up here but
we'd make them comply when they got more detailed.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: The right -of -way is 100 feet off of the highway? Refresh my memory.
Hempel: I think it's 150.
Farmakes: 150? So then the scale on this is not correct then. The drawings that we're
looking at. The 150 would be almost 2 inches off of.--to the highway. It's not 2 inches. Is
the applicant here?
Steve Schwanke: Yeah.
Farmakes: Are these drawings done to scale in relationship to the highway?
Jeannene Krone: They're to scale. All it shows is one side of the right -of -way.
Farmakes: I'm looking where it states on, let's see. 4 out of 5, looking at Highway 5. If the
right -of -way shown on Highway 5 is 150 feet, that looks a little out of whack to me. Is this
calculating the distance or eye - balling it ?...so directly, it's shown as half as less or.
Aanenson: We didn't ... the setbacks. What we're looking at, what we're trying to get your
ideas as far as the density and how they lay out and how the grading and the location of
power lines and all that stuff.
Farmakes: I guess, the reason I bring that up is this is, it seems to me once again we've got
a line of buildings right next to the highway. It would be an issue again, I think I made this
point on the Highway 5 committee and I made it again before we voted on it. It's my
opinion that what we're going to get, up and down that highway, is just like the development.
Within 50 feet of the lot line. Whether it's industrial or whether it's medium or high density
housing. You're going to see people trying to maximize their property in relationship to that
highway. Put their buildings and parking lots just as close as they can get them, which seem
to me to be the opposite of what the intent was of 2 years of work on that committee. What
reality or what we can do against that in the face of actual development, I'm not sure. We've
talked about, I was arguing about the issue of Alternative 2 and it seems to me the only way
that the city is going to deal with getting some relief and not having buildings to the edge of
the property lines is to acquire some of that property.
Aanenson: But it's a PUD. You can give it whatever setbacks you want to give it.
Farmakes: I understand that but I'm making that point for the rest of the members on the
commission.
47
7
1
�J
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: So it's important that we discuss setbacks on this.
Farmakes: And to have a drawing that's out of scale in relationship to that is not.
Jeannene Krone: The drawing is not out of scale—northern right -of -way.
Aanenson: It's not to scale...
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I'd like to take a
moment to introduce ourselves. My name is Steve Schwanke. This is Jeannene Krone.
We're with RLK Associates and we're representing the development team for this. As Ms.
Krone mentioned, the drawing is not out of scale. It may not show precisely the area that
you're considering. A couple of things that we want to mention very quickly. There are
some problems with the drawing. We fully acknowledge that, as the staff has indicated in the
staff report. There's not a detailed grading plan. There hasn't been a lot of consideration
given to design. Those are the kind of issues that we haven't specifically attempted to
address here and what we're attempting to address are, are the land uses okay? Can we reach
a consensus on that? Are the densities appropriate and can we reach a consensus on that?
Are the access points appropriate and can we reach a consensus on that? And the other items
that are being brought up, we certainly appreciate, we certainly support and we'll certainly
work with the staff and this body and the City Council overall in reaching a consensus on
those issues. Unfortunately, as part of these drawings here, we haven't given a lot of
consideration to those issues and so we appreciate the issues that are being raised and in the
coming months we'll be happy to work with you on these.
Farmakes: Can I ask you? What is the setback on the northern edge of the property from the
property line?
' Jeannene Krone: We've shown 50 feet but we now know it's 70 feet.
' Farmakes: And the right -of -way is 150 feet? So are we looking at buildings 200 feet from
the center of the highway or are we looking at buildings, are these edge of buildings on the
edge of the right -of -way?
i Jeannene Krone: When the building setback is 70 feet.
' Mancino: That's 70 feet from the edge of the right -of -way.
Jeannene Krone: Our's shows 50 so it'd be 20 feet further that way. Which is what the
Highway 5 corridor study is indicating.
1 48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: I thought that was from the right -of -way.
Mancino: It should be. It's 70 feet from the, not the center line of the highway but where
the right -of -way ends, you need to be another 70 feet.
Jeannene Krone: That's what I'm saying.
Mancino: Okay, thanks.
Farmakes: So if I take 70 and I add it to 150.
Hempel: 75.
Farmakes: To 75?
Mancino: 125 from the center of the highway.
Hempel: Right now the trunk highway 5...
Farmakes: Can you tell me how that
Hempel: Half of that is 75. Plus your 70 foot setback gives you 145 from the center.
Farmakes: 175. I'm on the other side of the highway.
Mancino: Well this is about right.
Farmakes: No. Go to the buildings up here.
Aanenson: The setback is measured from the southern property line. I guess I'm confused
why you're measuring from the center line.
Nutting: These are all issues which we can, these are what will come out from our
direction—for the conceptual plan.
?: Why don't we use, since you're here.
Scott: Just let the applicants, please identify yourselves and then make your presentations and
then we'll ask some specific questions.
49
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Jeannene Krone: My name is Jeannene Krone. I work with RLK Associates. I'm here to
' answer any of your site plan questions. I'll leave it to Steve Schwanke to finish his
presentation.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Again my name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates representing the development team this evening. I have just
a few comments to make regarding the overall site development and then each of the
members of the development team are going to be making a brief presentation. Mr. Chair,
we'll defer to you at that point. If you'd like to have each member of the development team,
while they're here, answer questions from the commission, they would be prepared to do that.
' Or if you'd like to take comments at that time, whatever is most appropriate for what the
Planning Commission has done, we'd be ready to do that. I'm here, just like I say, a couple
of introductory comments and if you could turn that around Jeannene. This is a Chanhassen
Corporate Centre project. It's a project that this group has been working on for some time.
For those of you who have been with the Planning Commission for some time, you've
probably seen it a couple of times in many different forms and shapes. And actually it has
' gone through a rather... evolution process. Again, as Bob is indicating, this is the approximate
site that we are considering this evening that show in the colored areas here. At one time the
site went all the way over, including the school property going south which is now here under
a separate PUD agreement as part of a single family component and included, as you can tell,
a much larger area. We started working with this property nearly 3 years ago and at that
' time it was almost exclusively a commercial industrial site, and of course hence the name of
it, Chanhassen Corporate Centre. That's almost going to the other end of the extreme. Again
in our understanding with what the city is considering and interested in through the Trunk
Highway 5 process, and through a number of conversations that we had with the staff
specifically related to land uses and what the Planning Commission and City Council may be
interested in seeing. So let me just take a moment here to go through some of the thoughts
that we developed and some of the things that actually gave us the land uses that we
proposed here. We are now showing, as Bob indicated, a multi- family land use in this area
here. As recently as 4 or 5 months ago, this was being shown as a commercial and industrial
' piece butting up against what is now the proposed school site. There was great consideration
given that. An office commercial development next to a school site. The principle problem
with that—however has been eluded to, is there are power lines that dissect this property. It's
very difficult to get financing for a multi- family project. In fact it was actually killing the
multi- family potential at that point and of course that's why we were showing the office
commercial. Then the idea of course of moving the power lines, which has now made the
multi- family land use a possibility. Now that again came through a number of months of
work with Paul Krauss, of course while he was, when he was here. And of course the
existing planning staff. So we're currently showing a multi- family use here. This is ... in the
blue area is a rather large ponding site. This is an area that is currently owned by the
50
'J
51 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
development team We are in the midst of conversations right now with the city because this
ponding site is planned to be used for storm water runoff from the school site, and of course
,
you know the development plans for the school site are moving along and we need to
conclude those conversations regarding the ponding areas and some things that we've done on
the school site. This is an item that we've been in conversation on for probably the last 3 or
4 months. Going to the east we're showing again still office commercial land use. Again, I
believe that that's a very appropriate transition moving from the school to the multi- family to
the office commercial and of course in this area here is planned office commercial... and we
'
can literally see from this spot here the loading dock areas of McGlynn's so we built an
office commercial which was most appropriate there. Moving south. Again, this is a multi-
family land use. Again serving as a very appropriate transition to office industrial over in
'
this area here. Of course the single family in this area here which serves as a very fine
transition to the Timberwood area to the west. So that's some of the thoughts that have gone
land use Some of the things that have also gone on,
,
into putting together the general plan.
with respect to this over the last probably 4 to 5 months. We've been working with Barton -
Aschman, the city's consultant regarding this project and the alignment of this road. The
staff report talked about making sure that the grades ... all the land uses here as well as with
the road. It's a very appropriate suggestion and are ready to do that. Have to do it. The
last, like I said, the last few months it's actually been just working with the consultants in
aligning that road and making sure that it both compliments the existing school site here as
'
well as the land uses that are being planned in this area here. I just want to take a couple of
moments and touch on the whole issue of why the PUD. I think Mr. Chair, you raised a very
good point. You know what is in it for the city? Why does it work for the developers and
,
we think this site here works very well to plan it as a planned unit development so a number
of reasons being, as has been indicated, this entire area here and a number of amenities.
'
Bluff Creek probably being the most widely known. It's also a rolling topography in the
area. Some very mature vegetation in clumps throughout the area here, down through this
area here and we believe that the planned unit development process is probably the most
appropriate way to include those amenities. Use them as items that will not only enhance the
property but make them much better development for not only the developers and the city.
Also, the planned unit development process also allows us to comprehensively plan the
,
infrastructure of this area here. Without the planned unit development process, without the
development team that's here before you this evening, it would not be possible for us to
comprehensively put in and align this road, have a special assessment process set up and have
'
complete concurrence on that special assessment process. You have here tonight a
development team that may not be entirely 100% supportive of the special assessments.
There's still some questions regarding those and there's a development team here tonight
who's supporting the extension of that roadway all the way across. Versus on the north side
of Trunk Highway 5 where there's some problems with the extension of the frontage road.
You also are able to comprehensively plan your storm water system in this area here. This
t
51 1
i'
L
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
property here, as I've indicated, still belongs to the development team and yet we're in the
' midst of conversations with the city to provide storm water ponding for the school site there.
So there's a number of reasons for the planned unit development process ... the city also the
development team. With that I'd like to introduce the development team and as I've
indicated Mr. Chair, they've got some specific comments relative to their projects. They're
happy to answer any questions. If you'd like to at the end of the presentation or if you'd like
to wait and take comments from the public and then answer questions at that time. As was
' indicated, Mr. Kent Carlson with Ryan Construction is the principal developer of the office
warehouse project. Mr. Robert Boisclair of Boisclair Corporation is the principal developer
of the multi- family here immediately south of Trunk Highway 5. Mr. John Dobbs of
Heritage Development is the principal developer of multi- family south of the east/west
collector road. Of course you may remember Mr. Dobbs was again also here with Heritage
as, he was also the principal developer of the single family PUD down in this area here. So
' with that, I'd like to have Mr. Carlson come up and say a few words about his specific
development.
Kent Carlson: Thanks Steve. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My
name is Kent Carlson. I'm with Ryan Companies. As Steve indicated we are here tonight to
talk just conceptually a little bit about the 19 -20 acre parcel that we plan on developing,
' which is adjacent to the McGlynn's property. Conceptually we've been working with the city
for 3+ years in the development of this area. As you may know, we also have the
' Chanhassen Business Center which is located on Audubon. We went through the PUD
process a number of years ago so we're familiar with the process and have successfully
completed that in other areas. Worked closely with the staff to come up with this plan. The
1 components of this plan I think fit kind of well with what the guide plan does originally in
1991. It was done with the direction of the previous planning director, Paul Krauss. His
vision of how this area would be developed and we're very pleased to be here...It's taken a
' number of years to put it all together. The area that we're talking about, what we're
envisioning is a high quality project, office warehouse and office development center if you
will where your R & D centers would be. We've shown a proposed road to access Highway
' S. At this point that's just a proposed road. We're not sure how the lots are going to be
designed at that access point. It will be put in at a later date and we intend to probably
dividing the properties into 3 or 4 different sites and build it on, not a speculative basis but
on a basis with anchor tenants or single tenant users of the facility. We think that this area is
going to compliment the existing Chanhassen industrial base and provide some excellent
opportunities for employment for the residents of Chanhassen and also enhance your tax base
as well so. The other thing that you should be aware of again, we're just talking conceptually
this evening and a little bit about what we're trying to do. Each of the plans is going to
come before you again for specific site plan review and go to City Council again for their
' review as well so we'll be working closely with the staff before making any presentations to
52
�I
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20, 1994
g g P
you on a specific project. So with that I'll take questions or if you'd like to hear from others
of us? ,
Mancino: How long do you see this whole project taking? The entire 86 acres?
Well I can only speak really to the component Kent Carlson: y p y that we're addressing and that's P
about the 20 acres of the industrial piece on the east side. The far east side. It's our hope to
have infrastructure in place by late 1995. I think that's probably the earliest we could get '
access to the property to commence development. That's all really market driven. We've
had, quite honestly, marketing teams working in this area for over 3 years and we haven't had
much activity to date. We're seeing a turn around in the market and there's continued
interest in the marketplace so I think we'll see some activity generated but I would not expect
to be fully built up probably for 4 or 5 years. '
Ledvina: Have you evaluated the Highway 5 corridor study overlay requirements? And do
you have any comments as to how that might affect your designs? '
Kent Carlson: Our design standards?
Ledvina: Yes. For this property. For your piece of property there. ,
Kent Carlson: No, I haven't looked at it to see how it's going to impact... I
Scott: Any other comments for the applicant? Okay.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs...and as was mentioned before, I'm the
principal developer of the multi- family site indicated here. I'm also the developer of single
family that is ... having been before you with the single family, we recognize that the wetlands '
having to stay... individual units and design to a very detailed level at this point so that is not
the intent here with us but I would like to address a couple issues from the staff. One of
them is number 16. Buildings should be stepped to reduce the need for grading and follow '
the existing site contours. The particular buildings that we've shown is able to be split, I
don't want to say lengthwise but down the spine so it can be stepped down to follow the
grade contours. Number 18. Minimum 100 foot building setback with the first 50 feet as a
buffer strip. I was very much aware of that and even though I'm aware that the drawings on
there, we overlap that buffer strip. That was not the intent and that was not our conceptual
design so obviously I'm at a loss to—That we can vary building orientation to break up what
is referred to as the barrack. Bob and I had a conversation and talked briefly about this and
Jeannene with RLK and I have begun to have conversations about how we can do that. '
Creating diversity visual as well as trying to create individual neighborhoods. And our intent
53 '
1
Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
would be, as we proceed further along down this road, we'll try to work with that as we came
back for specific applications. Let's see. That we should investigate the use of single loaded
units as a varying number of units per structure on Parcel H. We had done that on a small
parcel that exists right here and I'm not opposed to look ... but the intent was to try to create a
buffer between McGlynn's being industrial to a higher and medium density residential to a
single, very less dense multi- family type unit then to single family and then to large lots... In
terms of the price structure, the higher density would be $70,000.00 to $90,000.00 roughly
' and this would be $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 units so that gives you an idea of what...
affordable housing, at least from our perspective.
' Mancino: Excuse me John. Can you tell me what single loaded units are?
' John Dobbs: I'm sorry. It basically is all the access is from the front and the back yard has
no driveway in it. You walk out ... We're aware that the EAW needs to be addressed. I'm
also aware of the fact that the Bluff Creek charette is under process. In fact I'm part of that
process so, and we have every intention of trying to incorporate that. I've walked the site a
couple times to try to figure out what I would think. What I personally would think a creek
corridor system should be like so I can bring some things to this conversation. I guess I'd
' just like to go back and basically say, that what I'm trying to, what I'd like to ... point of view
is just in general terms say that the land use is something that you are concurrent with and
that the densities are, they are either close to what you're concerned with ... the idea of having
' details done at this point, again specifically into architectural types, grading types, planting
design, that's not the consideration. Do you have any questions?
' Scott: Well there was a comment in the staff report about the power line and the impact that
that would have on, what is it FHA financing for the multi- family proposed up above. Is
there going to be any impact on the multi- family south based upon the existing alignment or
' the proposed alignment of that power line from a financial standpoint?
John Dobbs: I do not believe so. For us, the power line is here and the access road is next
to that. Then the entire pod, if you look at your drawing so to speak, is off to the far side of
that. We're far enough away and we're also talking about a different kind of unit that's a
little bit higher in price depending on where FHA is at that time.
Scott: You'd probably go conventional?
John Dobbs: I'm sorry.
I Scott: You're probably be financed conventionally?
54
Planning ommission Meeting - Aril 20, 1994
g g P
John Dobbs: Well it's right on the border and I guess I'm not as familiar with FHA
regulations as ... but $100,000.00- $120,000.00 units are...
Farmakes: Can you answer me the definition that you gave affordable housing as. Is that
your definition? The government's definition? Or municipal, state and federal? ...well we've
had the word thrown around.
Aanenson: It's a metropolitan consideration. ,
Mancino: Is that $70,000.00 to $90,000.00? Is that affordable housing? '
Aanenson: I think it would pass...
Farmakes: Are you using the medium house in the 95 central communities or what? ,
John Dobbs: I guess I'd. '
Farmakes: What is affordable housing? Is it defined as a dollar amount in the metropolitan
area?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's how, yes. There's a formula for that, correct and it's based on the
whole metro area because affordable housing in Chanhassen is... ,
Farmakes: So do we have any miracle amount for that? Dollar?
Aanenson: I don't know off hand but yes there are. '
Mancino: That would be good to know. I
Scott: Well that's a good point because we're using the PUD process. The holy grail we are,
one of the holy grail that we seek and probably the only one that's not environmentally
related is affordable housing and I won't get into that discussion right now. But if you are
utilizing the PUD process and dangling affordable housing as a trade -off for some other
things, which is wonderful, we have to know precisely what that definition is and then we in '
our mind, as people who represent the public's interest, to be able to say, to make that
decision. Whether it's appropriate or not. So I just wanted to restate that. It's very serious
but as I said before, we had one developer who's come in here and they call a $175,000.00 r
home affordable. So please take that very seriously and it will make things possibly
smoother for you. I
55 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
i__1
��
John Dobbs: I understand Mr. Chair and in doing single family further down, I'm aware of
' what happens with single family detached housing. I believe that unlike, that perhaps this
does provide a more unique alternative because... those units and if you have the opportunity,
places you can go look at them, between $70,000.00 and $90,000.00 depending on whether
' it's an end unit or middle unit of the individual. And I can honestly give you a place that
you can go look at comparable, one sided walkout type units and those are $100,000.00 to
$125,000.00 depending on the view. I think that that does make a nice addition to
' Chanhassen... the terms of maybe affordable housing isn't correct but it is definitely, living in
a $75,000.00 house myself..
Ll
Scott: Any other comments? If you have additional comments, please continue. Okay.
Great. Thanks John.
Bob Boisclair: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Bob
Boisclair with Boisclair Corporation. I'm also in a joint venture in the property with the land
group represented tonight by Liv Homeland ... We can answer and respond to any questions
after my short presentation. First of all I accept the challenge to bring forward a project that
meets your vision of excellence in this particular... multi- family density in 27 1/2 acres of..
We agree that the, our proposals... comprehensive study and the Highway 5 corridor and also
with the school being residential next to the school. I think that's very compatible. Bluff
Creek linear park that's proposed that's going to abut both our east and west boundaries. We
think that our proposed multi- family is very user friendly with respect to use of the park and
accomplishes the use of that particular park as opposed to the alternative being office
warehouse where you're facing a blank brick walls or whatever... activity in the park. The
density, as indicated, is 300 units on 27 1/2 acres. We allocated certain acres for the
townhouses. We do so by suggesting 20 acres is allocated to the townhouses...8 units per
acre which conforms to your low end medium density. And as far as the apartments are
concerned... density of about 18 1/2 on 7 1/2 acres. We think, I'm not sure but we believe
that your delightful building that you built about 2 years ago just north of the Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre is about the same density. I'm not sure but I think that's correct just walking
their site. So you get the feel of comparability for density with respect to this proposal. We
do propose some affordable housing with respect to both for sale and also rental. And in
deference to any suggestions of staff, we're also looking at breaking up the building. Initially
we proposed one large single building and we already have a design that shows two. We
have a preliminary sketch to share with you ... Our primary location, we suggest a private entry
there that's roughly 300 feet away from the one that's proposed south of us at the Heritage
development and our development would be ... but again it's not an issue of major concern.
We would accommodate the desire that proves to be the most acceptable from studies. We
have an interest to have our own water retention for our surface drainage... plans to centralize
that in a location here. We'd like to do our own site. That does two things. One, it provides
56
57 1
Meeting - Aril 20
Planning Commission g p , 1994
our own site amenity. We've got our own pond. And according to initial impressions from
Bonestroo Associates, that would enhance the absorption factors of the overall drainage
'
system there as well. We know it's not in concert with the initial desire of the staff's report.
Again, we offer this as an idea for a suggestion for study. We think it can be a ... feature as it
buffers the inner part as well and ... there's two buildings. We're also studying three as well...
,
The most significant issue for us of course is the power line relocation... it's absolutely
impossible to find a residential property with a power line, as you ... feature to that site,
acknowledge that they ... on it's most prominent bluff and as most developers do, they use
,
what's most prominently featured. I'm being facetious now, we might want to consider
Power Line Villas, so to speak had we retained it, assuming it can be financed. And my
intent there is only in a facetious manner. We know that we can't build it that way. It's just
'
that we cannot accept that condition. It just ... even though there's no proven case of electrical
magnetic transmissions that they would experience but it is a major concern for finance
lenders. And the proposed ... as well as the features of the office warehouse site. The eastern
'
border of the Bluff Creek area would run right down the middle and we would discreetly
locate that power line between our building, which would be about 45 feet tall. A 3 story
apartment building, and the ... office warehouse is about 30 feet. So we would tend to hide it
'
by that relocation effort instead of making it the most prominent feature of our site.
not
,
Scott: Have you had any discussions with the utility, with NSP to determine whether or
the layout for the power line as proposed is something that they would recommend or they
would do?
,
Bob Boisclair: We've had preliminary discussions with them and they'd be supportive of
relocation if there was concurrence at the city level here.
'
Scott: Okay.
'
Bob Boisclair: And we do have concurrence with our east property side owner and he'll
support the, assure me that the new easement, proposed easement ... I guess at this point I've
pretty well concluded my initial comments here and will...
,
Scott: Okay, good. Any questions or comments? Thank you sir. Is there anybody from the
development team that would like to speak?
'
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. This does conclude the formal
part of our presentation. I would like to ask consideration for one last amendment to the
'
conditions tonight. I overlooked this when I was initially up here. Condition number 22
relating to the density. The condition reads, the applicant needs to reduce the gross and net
densities. And we would request that the Planning Commission use one of those as a
57 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
standard... We prefer gross. For us it gets to be a little more complicated if we just know
what we're, what ball we're trying to hit. We're trying to get the gross density or we're
trying to get the net density and if we had one criteria to work with, it'd be much easier for
us to work with. Again, we prefer gross density and any questions regarding that we'd be
' happy to answer those. So your consideration of that would be appreciated.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Harberts: I have one before g ou o into the public hearing. Mr. Chair, I'd like to request
Y P g
permission to excuse myself. My agency is in exploratory discussions with one of the firms
represented on the development team and until I have an opportunity to discuss with staff
what limitations may occur, or that we need to be aware of because of the exploratory
discussions that are going on right now, I think it may be best that I excuse myself from any
further discussion here as a Planning Commissioner.
Scott: Thank you commissioner.
Harberts: Is that ayes?
' Scott: Yes. Good. Any other, this is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion if I
could to open the public hearing.
' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
' Scott: This is the point in time where members from the public can address the, members of
the public can address the Planning Commission. Please identify yourself.
Mancino: You just had something to say and you wanted to get out there.
' Scott: Please identify yourself ma'am.
Diane Harberts: I'm Diane Harberts. I'm the Administrator for Southwest Metro Transit and
I welcome the opportunity to provide some initial comments on this conceptual plan that's
being proposed. My recommendation from Southwest Metro Transit is to request that the
commission consider adding condition 25 and I would suggest that that would include that the
applicant and city staff work with Southwest Metro Transit to look at the application of
transit to this project. You can really request that when you look at the land use with multi-
, family with high density. You can do an industrial component. These are each very high
priorities in terms of the application of transit. And I think we have an exceptional
58
P,
59
r�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
opportunity to bring into this development a service, a community service that will benefit
both from an overall development as well as have a very long and very positive impact for
,
the community and this project. So I would just strongly recommend that the commission
consider adding condition number 25 and incorporate public transit into development and
Southwest Metro Transit would be very happy to sit down with city staff and the applicant to
'
see the best way to integrate transit into this entire development.
Scott: Do have kind of a more specific idea?
'
Diane Harberts: I do.
'
Scott: That can be had.
Diane Harberts: It's got to be a general application.
,
Scott: Yeah just a general. Park and ride or reverse commute?
'
Diane Harberts: No. Some of the applications that I look at, since this is being considered
for affordable housing, these are typically priority areas where public transit needs to be a
component. With industrial and warehouse, which is being proposed, is a priority project in
,
terms of success rate as well for reverse commute. With regard to the density and where this
is located in the corridor both on the south side and on the north side, it's going to generate a
lot of people that would find public transit very conducive so there may be an opportunity to
'
for instance put a major transfer station, park and ride location or just even having access off
of this frontage road that he has proposed for bus stops. When you're looking at that many
'
people, these are very high priority areas and public transit has worked well in other
applications of this nature.
Yes
,
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
sir.
Richard Frasch: Hi. My name is Richard Frasch and I live at 8000 Acorn Lane which
is...right about here. And I realize that there is an east/west kind of...but I'd also like to point
out that I think there should be a more south transition. I'm talking about that Stone Creek to
our neighborhood in through here and one of the concerns that I have, we have an
opportunity to do something different than say Eden Prairie did and not have a bunch of
barracks or apartment buildings and actually have some nice single family homes. I think it'd
be nice right here. It is a nice rolling topography and it would tie in nicely with the school.
Tie in nicely with our neighborhood and I think would be a much better impression from the
highway. People coming through Chanhassen. And that's a concern that I have. And when
59
r�
' Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
you have very high density here and essentially have 200 neighbors, which isn't a problem
' but I think that it makes more sense from my standpoint to have single family homes here
because I think we have a much better vision for people to coming through the Highway 5
corridor.
1 Scott: Good, thank you sir. Yes sir.
' Mark Foster: Hi. My name's Mark Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen,
Minnesota. Just a couple of comments at this late hour. Just an overall comment that I don't
think this is a quality development. Just looking at it, it doesn't take you very long to see
' right away that something doesn't look right. You're looking at a large, high density multi-
family development right next to a very large lot residential neighborhood and it just is not
compatible, I don't think...I agree with my neighbor Richard Frasch. We need to have a
north/south transition there. I think one thing that we should explore looking at is instead of
the multi- family housing, is single family. Continuing the single family development from
the south. It makes sense near a school. It's ideal. It is very valuable property for single
family residential. An alternative to that is, I think the developer has expressed an interest in
seeing office and industrial. Office warehouse development... and continue that instead of the
multi- family. I'd much prefer that. I don't want to look out my back window and see Army
barracks. I pay a lot of property taxes and this is ... I've been here about 4 years in this
development and the initial proposal, I was here for all the comprehensive planning meetings
and the MUSA plannings were single family residential. I still think that makes sense. But if
not, I would prefer office warehouse.
' Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak or ask questions? Okay, seeing
none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I Nutting: Well we're talking conception.
Scott: The camera is zooming in on you as we speak.
Nutting: I'm looking at the staff recommendations and I also listened to Jeff's earlier
comments and I think you know that we have to, the Highway 5 corridor recommendations
' has to be applied in this process. Whether that means residential's appropriate versus
commercial on that speck lot where the 300 unit multi- family is proposed, I don't fully
have a thought process to that yet. If I understand the conceptual process though, I don't'
have a problem with moving forward but as to necessary conditions and directions of the
.1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 '
developer. Whether it's, we feel the densities are appropriate and the uses are appropriate. I
personally don't have my thoughts laid out yet in terms of what is appropriate or not. I'm
certain to develop those after more discussion I guess.
Farmakes: I don't like this proposal. There's several things that I don't like about it. Being '
constructive I guess I'll start out with number one. I don't like the concept of the
warehousing and C, D, E and F. They look like 4 chairs brought up to the table. I realize
this is conceptual but in looking at the size and square feet of these buildings and the '
surrounding property, again it seems as if, if you're going to put 4 cars in a warehouse or in a
garage, this is what would fill them up with very little room to be enough to open the door.
Getting back to my other comment. Is the right -of -way from the highway, and I keep on ,
coming back to this. Nobody wants to talk about this because it's a conceptual issue but
getting back to the issue of the right -of -way. You're saying that it is 75 plus 150? Is that
what we're looking at for this development? '
Hempel: The total Highway 5 right -of -way that exists out there today is 150 foot wide
corridor.
Farmakes: And is the setback 75 feet on top of that?
Aanenson: No. It's 70.
Farmakes: It's 70. So it's 70 feet on top of that?
Aanenson: No. No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. You're overlaying two issues. One is
the 150 feet of right -of -way. What they're showing on there is the southern property limits
and from that they're showing approximately a 50 foot setback. The Highway 5 zone
specifies 70. They're 20 feet too close.
Farmakes: Alright. But on the distance that he's talking about on the right -of -way. The
setback that you're talking about is from the property line, correct? From the property line to
the highway then is 170 feet?
Hempel: The property line and the right -of -way line is the same line. The center of
Highway 5 is approximately 75 feet north of their right -of -way line here. The north property
line of this development. Their building is proposed on this plan to go 50 feet south of that
right -of -way line so a total of 125 feet. Kate is saying, is the Highway 5 is then 75 feet '
setback from that right -of -way line. Then adding the 75 feet to the center of the highway is
145 feet.
61 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
I
Farmakes: Okay. So at the plan that I'm looking at here, the setback, the way they're
showing the property line, the setback is correct? Or it's off?
Aanenson: Where they're showing the property line.
Farmakes: Where they're showing the property line and consequently the setback.
' Aanenson: The same. The setback line, they're not showing a setback line. They're
showing buildings on the property.
Farmakes: Well they've got a little dot, dot, dotted line.
Generous: That would be a 50 foot setback.
' Farmakes: Okay. So that is incorrect then?
Generous: Correct. They would have to be another 20 feet for construction.
Mancino: Or you can add even more since it's a PUD.
Farmakes: Well yeah, that's what I was getting to but I wanted to clarify that first. In
talking about, I won't reiterate what I talked about earlier about this issue of finding a way to
help buffer TH 5. A developer wants to maximize out the property. Fill it up with as much
buildings as they can. I would rather see industrial carried over on this property, on B.
' Unless a way can be worked out to come up with single family housing. What I see
happening here, on both north and south, there's going to be a wall of medium -high density
housing and if there's any way that we can avoid that. Any way that we can come up with a
' way not to achieve that. Achieve what's been done in other communities. As you drive
along 169 in Eden Prairie where you get just sort of you can see exactly where the setback
line is. You can see exactly where the fronts of those buildings are and they're all the same.
And again, there's got to be a more imaginative way to do that.
Mancino: What do you think would be a good setback? Do you have a number that you're
' thinking of from the right -of -way back? Instead of 70, making it 100. 125.
Farmakes: Well since it's a PUD, yeah. I would like to see enough so that a landscape
architect can come up with something creative rather than one row of trees, which is some of
what we see. In fact a lot of what we see in this plan. And I feel frustrated because I know
what the objectives are that we worked on, and a lot of that, to me, to come up with
something that is viable, you need enough room to come up with some massing. Similar to
1
62
63 1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
what Morrish did on his drawings where you've got more than one tree in a line. And there's
a counter balance happening to that. You have a developer who wants to maximize out that
'
property and somewhere there's got to be a way to go with that. I would rather see that the
power lines remain where it is and see that property dissected and become industrial property.
That'd be my first choice. Again, the second choice would be to find a way to work out
,
single family. I understand the rationale for moving the power line then if that's the
direction. I'm not sure how the rest of you feel on that. I'm not opposed to moving that line
but that would be my second choice. I feel that there's just too much confined here. It's too
,
much of a need to create problem and when I hear issues of affordable housing, I'm still very
uncomfortable discussing issues of affordable housing when I don't know what affordable
housing is. I don't who's criteria we're using and I'm not against it. But again, I'd like to
hear a definition or two. So far all I've heard you use is imaginative and I'd like to hear
some finite. If we have goals as a city, we should have them targeted. A dollar amount, an
income amount. Qualifications quantifying. We're not doing any of that. We're using it as
1
a sort of a crutch. When we talk about it every time that we've got an apartment building
going up. And we're not achieving anything with that. It's just a smoke screen. We're not
talking facts and it seems to me if you have a problem, you come up with facts, target that
you're going to shoot for and come up with a factual way to achieve that in our process here.
That's it.
Mancino: Well I ditto that ... on affordable housing and I'd also like to say that I'd like to see
some affordable housing that isn't multi- family. I'd like to see affordable housing single
to and next to a school also. And
family for families with children and that are next a creek
it can be single family zero lot line. To me that works perfect between the boulevard and
Highway 5 just east of the school. In that area. You could put single family zero lot lines
and then go into industrial. It is, what's in B right now is too dense. How much of it Bob, I
,
know it's in the report, did you talk with the developer about, that would be affordable
housing? Wasn't it 20 %?
,
Generous: Well they had mentioned 20 %...
in H
Mancino: Okay. And I would like to see 20% to 30 -35 %. I can also see that used the
area, single family zero lot line also. And again, some creativity to the design here. It is, it
looks like barracks and just absolutely no way. The other thing about this conceptual plan
,
that doesn't have at all, is anything to do with, I really don't want to see another conceptual
plan that doesn't address natural resources. Here we've got steep slopes. We have ravines.
We have massing of trees and yet the houses or the multi- family is just plopped. I have no
'
idea, no conceptual idea of how the natural resources are going to be addressed. I have it in
writing but I certainly don't see it on any site plan. So what goes from here to there is not
the same and I want to see this reflect this. Conceptually because I don't have a clue what
63 1
1
1
C
L
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
they're going to do for natural resources. I would also, with the, when we go, if we go to
single family, zero lot line. That gets us into medium density. I would like to see some open
space. Amenities for those houses that are there. It looks like every sort of, you know there's
very little green space, amenities for this high of a density. And basically I'd like to table it
and bring it back with some of those conceptually thoughts addressed.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: I'm just going to go through the alphabet here. I think we had some individuals
here from Timberwood concerned about transition and I can definitely see their concerns but I
also want to point out that as it relates to the multi- family that goes in B, we have somewhat
of a buffer that's being provided with the proposed ponding area and then also you'll have a
roadway on the other side of that. That will provide some buffer between these large lot
areas. So I can certainly see your concerns there but I think there has been consideration to
that buffering concern. The issue with the multi- family, we talked about the setbacks that we
were concerned with from Highway 5 and I see most of this development, for the 27 1/2 acre
parcel, be pretty much north to south. And essentially you have 4 buildings there that work
against that right -of -way. Also, there's a significant tree stand associated with the east ridge
of Bluff Creek there, which also. I mean you don't drive down and you're going to see this
5 miles away or whatever. A mile away. Because you have this kind of room created by
the trees, it won't be as distinct as a visual an impact as you might think. And there's also
other things we can do with staggering the setbacks of those buildings, etc. Landscaping,
berming. I don't know. I don't necessarily think that that's a real important or substantial
issue as it relates to going from single family to multi, or from multi- family to single family.
I think you can have the same effect either way. I would agree though that the density here
is too large or too high. And I think that these, there needs to be more open space and green
space. I don't know whether or not that's appropriate to go to a single family because it
seems that this represents a good transition from the industrial parcels, C thru F to the multi-
family to the school. So I don't know. Maybe the single family.
Mancino: Well zero lot lines really...
Ledvina: Yeah. Well maybe the single family's are lot line type of approach as something
that's a happy medium there. So I don't know exactly how to look at that. I guess I could
support either type of development. Going to the C thru F portion. I had a question for staff.
When we talk about 60% of hard surface coverage as a maximum, does that relate to the net
area or is that the gross area? Buildable or the total area of the lot?
Aanenson: It's to the gross.
M
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1
Mancino: Not parking lot? ,
Ledvina: Well the parking areas aren't calculated. They say how many parking stalls are
available but in any event they can't exceed the 60% maximum hard surface coverage so. ,
Aanenson: Again on a conceptual plan ... ultimate density. Obviously things evolve and you
know the wetlands are established and other things and if they can't make that, then they
65 '
Ledvina: So that relates to the gross. Okay. Because, well if we don't have, or if we've got
the Bluff Creek right -of -way in that, we're going to be.
Aanenson: You take out the roads—and the wetlands then after that you look at what the
impervious surface is.
'
Ledvina: No I'm asking. You're saying 60 %. What is that based on? Is that based on the
buildable area or is that based on the actual area of the lot? The boundaries of the lot.
Aanenson: Yeah, it should be the lot area.
Ledvina: Okay. So if there's a 5 acre lot and there's a 2 acre wetland, we're looking at 5
acres as the basis for impervious surface? For calculating the 60 %, is that correct? Okay.
it, do
So are we dealing, if we've got a 5 acre lot, there's a 2 acre wetland on we calculate
'
the impervious surface on the basis of 5 acres or 3 acres?
Aanenson: 3 acres.
Ledvina: 3 acres? Okay. So it's essentially the net area or the buildable area.
Aanenson: Yeah, you take the wetlands and the roads out.
Ledvina: Okay. I didn't mean to belabor that but. Okay. Well in that instance you know,
,
when we look at that and we have 60% as our standard. Buildings represent roughly 30 -35 %.
I don't know, it seems to me that those standards are, they look larger on these parcels than
they normally do and I don't know, are these drawn to scale? Are the buildings drawn to
'
scale on the lots? Okay. But they do look larger. I agree with your comment Jeff but I
don't know that it's anything, exceeds anything that we've allowed in the past in that area so.
,
Jeannene Krone: And those areas were just the building areas.
,
Ledvina: Okay.
Mancino: Not parking lot? ,
Ledvina: Well the parking areas aren't calculated. They say how many parking stalls are
available but in any event they can't exceed the 60% maximum hard surface coverage so. ,
Aanenson: Again on a conceptual plan ... ultimate density. Obviously things evolve and you
know the wetlands are established and other things and if they can't make that, then they
65 '
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
don't get that.
Ledvina: Right. Then the buildings would shrink, right. And while we're talking about what
we're looking at, in terms of gross or net. I think we should, we really should be evaluating
things on the basis of net areas. I think that's important because, especially as we're looking
at the Bluff Creek corridor. If we've got 100 foot setback there, that will change things quite
a bit. Okay.
7eannene Krone: I need to clarify if it is 60% or 70 %?
Ledvina: Well I looked on the staff report on page 3. It says in the second indented
paragraph toward the bottom. The last sentence of that paragraph says maximum hard surface
coverage shall not exceed 60 %. So I don't know if this is, does this relate to a Highway 5
standard?
Aanenson: No. What it should be is for industrial it's 70 %.
Generous: Well this is from the Comp Plan. If industrial goes west of the east fringe of
Bluff Creek, then they use the 60 %. That's what that number was from.
Ledvina: Okay. So does it apply here or should it be 70 %?
Generous: Not for multi - family.
Ledvina: Okay.
Aanenson: ...50.
Ledvina: So 50, okay.
Mancino: But it can be anything with PUD.
Aanenson: Well that's the PUD I'm giving you. It's something you can negotiate certainly.
Give them higher on one end if you balance the whole site.
Ledvina: Well at any rate. I think that that is a, it's certainly Parcel C thru F are reasonable
applications of land use there. Other than that I would support the recommendations that
were identified in the staff report, and I had a question regarding the EAW. Can you expand
on that in terms of why that's being undertaken? I know that we have Bluff Creek as the
central feature. Why haven't we done this in the past?
W.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1
Generous: Because the scope of this project exceeds the theshhold for a mandatory EAW
based on state guidelines. And those are based on your square footage and total...
Aanenson: And the qualifications the city has.
Ledvina: Okay. So we're tripping a mandatory? '
Generous: Yeah, they tripped it. They're about twice as high.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess as far as the power lines, I don't really have a significant problem
with the proposal to relocate them but I would like to see that, if that option is pursued, that ,
consideration be made regarding the affect that that would have on utilization of the Bluff
Creek corridor as a linear park. So I think obviously you've got the lines cross that at a
diagonal affecting, well what, 400 feet of the corridor so I think that would be a significant
taking. That's the extent of my comments.
Mancino: But wouldn't that affect again the creek, because you'd have to have poles going I
up and you'd have to, you know you may be in that 100 feet on each side or etc. So it
would affect the creek a little bit wouldn't it? '
Ledvina: Well I think the, if you look at the orientation or the layout here. It would seem
possible to locate those poles outside of the 100 foot setback on each side. But I don't know
that for a fact but I would see that that would be possible. But again, to have the power lines
crossing the creek. I don't know visually how that would be or what other affects there
might be. And I'm sure that would be part of the EAW evaluations. '
Scott: I'll forego my comments and ask for a motion.
Nutting: Can I just ask for a clarification on number 22, Kate? The gross and net density to '
meet the medium density standards. What are those standards?
Aanenson: What we're saying, the applicant asked that they be given the interpretation for
the gross. We've always gone with net and right now to get the high density it's 8 to 16 and
they're over that. If they stay within medium density is 4 to 8. We don't want to change the
way we've always interpreted it...gross and net. We've always gone with the net and if you
are to get them, get the interpretation of that, we'd just as soon stay with the higher density
which is the 8 and 16. So that's what they're asking for is to be in that range. '
Nutting: What's the calculation for the 4 to 8?
67 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
1
Aanenson: That's medium density, the 4 to 8.
I Nutting: Okay. Number of units.
Aanenson: So you know, depending on ... but we always use the net to figure out whether or
not and that's what they were asking for. They'd rather go with the gross so...
1 Mancino: I have a question kind of for the group, commission. I'm not comfortable just
seeing this one more time. You know preliminary plat and then passing it on. I mean there's
so much here that I think needs to be reworked that I would like to see it tabled conceptually
and come back after taking staff's recommendations and then adding a few of our own.
Scott: Anything that we send onto the Planning Commission, or the City Council, we own
and I don't own this yet. It's got a lot of work. I would support your thought to table.
Mancino: So I'd like to move to table the conceptual plan and I'd like to see it again and I
would like to take. Make sure that they come back using staff's recommendations and I think
that Bob wanted us to eliminate number 11 and he wanted us to add, incorporate elements of
the Bluff Creek design charette but I don't think that's going to be on the next review. I
think that's going to be on the preliminary site review. And 18 reads, again from what Bob
said, that from Bluff Creek to a minimum of 100 foot building setback. 25 has to do with
Southwest Metro Transit. That we make sure that the applicant and the city staff work with
them. Other suggestions that were made, you might want to add to the recommendations.
Farmakes: We talked about significant environmental features adjacent to the property.
Mancino: Well I would like to see how the natural resources are going to be handled and
that means placement of structures. What the grading's going to be like.
Aanenson:. I understand the direction you're going but this gets back to the intent of the
concept plan. Really we're going into the preliminary aspect. I understand you're not
comfortable with what you've seen so far but let's go back to the concept plan and what the
intent is. I'm reading this straight out of the ordinance. To give you the overall gross and
net density. Give you the lot sizes and width. It doesn't talk about the setting of buildings
on that. It talks about general locations. The extent of the public and common open space.
The general type of land uses ... what the purpose is is not to incur a lot of cost. What they're
trying to do is to flush out whether or not you feel, is this appropriate. I understand that
there's uncomfortableness based on whether this should be medium and maybe you want to
see some other versions. Maybe you want to look at some other things but I think when you
1 start asking a lot of those specific things, then we're going out of the concept level. Or
68
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 1
maybe just.
Mancino: Then do you never bring in natural resources at the concept level when topography
and that should be addressed?
Aanenson: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, how do we keep it at a concept level
without kicking into, they don't even know what this, if they're going to do all this, spend all
this and then you're going to go back and say, well we don't even want to see, now we want
to see all industrial. I'm just saying, maybe there could be some other, maybe the applicant... ,
Mancino: So then you're saying, just address land use? '
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Mancino: Then you're saying just address primarily land use issues? ■
Aanenson: Well no, I think there's some other factors that we need to make some of this, to
make ... to make this palatable. There are other issues to address but I'm saying how do you
bridge those so I think we're going beyond. And again this conceptual is not binding. I
think you have to keep that in mind too. I think what we're asking is for you to give them
marching orders. Say you know, we want to see this.
Nutting: No residential. Residential. Industrial...
Aanenson: It's not binding. If they come back...
Scott: But why waste then tune. I know what the ordinance say s and I take that as, this is
the stuff that you really have to take a look at. The thing is that we obviously take what
we're doing here extremely seriously and it's a reflection on us as a body, irrespective of
whether it's conceptual or not, what gets passed onto the City Council. And I think it's
extremely important at the conceptual stage, when things are the least expensive for the ,
developer and the city, that we give them as specific a direction as possible so that when we
go to the next phase, they've collected significantly more information on what the
expectations are than if we say, okay this looks pretty good but we didn't tell them about the
25 things that we think need serious work. And all of a sudden they start getting more
people involved on their end and spend a lot more money and then we go, oh. Well you
know these 20 things we didn't talk about and give you any direction about, well here it
comes. I don't think it's fair to them and I don't think it's fair to the people who we
represent.
69 ,
t
Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 20, 1994
g g P
Aanenson: I don't think that's what I said.
Scott: No. I was just saying, that's where I'm coming from.
J g
Aanenson: What I'm saying is, somewhere we've got to separate concept from preliminary
because they're two different processes.
Farmakes: But if you're looking at concept or preliminary, if you're going to make any
judgment, you based it on what you get. If you're talking about significant other issues of
say for instance there's a stand of tree adjacent to the property. If we don't know what that
is in relationship for instance to the school site. Although we've reviewed it, I don't see how
it is in comparison to what they're proposing along that sight line. It would help if there was
significant tree stands outside of their property line to see what that is in relationship when
we're talking about concept.
Aanenson: Right, and those are the issues that we've tried to start, you know we've
identified a lot of them. Those are the ones that we need to tag along and give them with
their marching orders to say these are the things that need to be further evolved as it goes
through the process.
Farmakes: Well in looking at the plans though, they don't delineate that. They're not telling
' us that.
Nutting: I've asked this question once before tonight and I forget what the answer but do we
1 have any way to have this come back more than once? Is next time the only shot we have to
look at it?
1 Mancino: No, because we're going to see Kindercare another time too. We just table it and
it keeps coming back and back.
Nutting: Okay. So your comment about you don't want to see the preliminary next time and
send it onto Council. At that point I guess, what I'm trying to do. I'm trying, I'm struggling
myself with conceptual. I'm new to this commission so I'm still trying to filter things
through but we have to give them some direction. We have to tell them whether or not
residential or office industrial space. We talked about densities. We talked about what the
land uses will even be and I mean if we go and tell them that it's not residential, it may not,
the same development team, the same development's not going to exist conceivably.
Mancino: Yes but if they come back and they do medium density residential, it looks like
this again, that isn't going to work either.
1 70
Nutting: Yeah. I'm just trying to summarize... 1
Scott: Well the motion that's on the floor is to table the conceptual plan and then issue
directions to the development team subject to the staff report and any additional comments
that we've made, and that's. Has it been seconded? I'm sorry, I forgot.
Ledvina: No.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that the
conceptual planned unit development be tabled. We've had discussion so I'd like to, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Excuse me.
71 ,
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Nutting: Fine, but we have the ability to give them that direction.
back
Farmakes: But it's more complicated than that. If you look at this, they could come
and say with B, and if the density was lower and there was more green space around, I
believe probably the majority of the people on here would pass it. The problem with that is,
is that they may not be able to develop that property with that in mind and make a profit.
And if they can't do that, then you have to look at other issues. If that's not viable, if we
can't buy that, then the issues of industrial development or office development or village type
single family or any of that type of things, those are other issues that are viable. But that's
really up to the applicant to come back with those solutions. I can review this plan based on
what it is and give my comments on it but I don't know if it's my, it's not my directive to sit
up here and solve that problem for them. I think that it's been verbalized what the problems
are here and I'm not sure if we should be taking the pencil out and drawing in exactly what
that is. It seems to me that it is a land use issue to start out with and that's really nothing to
do with the developer. Or the applicant. The issue is what we think belongs there in a
general use. Now we have a master plan sitting there and we're familiar with the
development that goes around it but it's, to me I don't think we should be doing that.
Scott: Well we have a motion on the floor.
Nutting: What is our direction to them at this point?
Mancino: For land use. Is that your question?
'
Nutting: Yeah. I'm just trying to summarize... 1
Scott: Well the motion that's on the floor is to table the conceptual plan and then issue
directions to the development team subject to the staff report and any additional comments
that we've made, and that's. Has it been seconded? I'm sorry, I forgot.
Ledvina: No.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that the
conceptual planned unit development be tabled. We've had discussion so I'd like to, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Excuse me.
71 ,
11
I
Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Aye, but I do have a thing about discussion.
Scott: . Okay, then let's open. Oka
Y P Y
Mancino: Can we open it for discussion for a minute. I'm getting back to land use, because
I see that on 17 it says, the multi- family apartment building should be separated into three or
more structures to reduce the mass of the proposed building and to lessen the visual impact of
the building from Highway 5. I got the impression from the commissioners up here that they
wanted to see, I think Jeff wanted to see industrial office on B. I got from Ron and I guess
Jeff and Matt, or Joe and Matt that you wanted to see maybe medium density on B?
Ledvina: That's acceptable to me.
Mancino: Medium density? Is that what you wanted to see on B which was north of the
access boulevard?
Nutting: I can go with medium density or the industrial. I mean that's...
Scott: I didn't make any specific comments on it but from a transition standpoint, I think that
medium density works well for me. You're talking about the transition from the industrial to
the medium, or multi- family to the school out there?
' Mancino: Yes. Okay. Then let's take out 17 and put in something about C and B. The
land use in B being either or?
Ledvina: I'm fine with that.
Mancino: Be either multi- family, medium density?
Scott: Because there was a comment from, I believe from Mr. Boisclair that if the power
line, in effect if the city doesn't pay for the movement of the power line, the multi- family
development, in his opinion, is not financially viable. So that would, in their mind, that
would flip the switch where it becomes industrial. Or commercial so.
Mancino: So what do we want to do about that?
Scott: So is it, you're talking specifically about condition number 17 relative to the motion to
table?
Mancino: Yeah.
72
Plannin g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Let's leave it open. I mean that's a decision and it's probably something that's going
to be based, at least according to what I've read, has all to do with whether the city pays for
the relocation of the power line.
Mancino: Okay, so that staff works with the developer on Site B and give options of office
industrial or medium densities.
Aanenson: You want us to do that? '
Mancino: Yep. Is everybody okay with that change? That the staff will work with the
developer on Site B to look at either medium multi - family density or office industrial.
Scott: Sure. Any additional discussion? ,
Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission table conceptual PUD
#92 -1 to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD including
19.3 acres of Office/Industrial, 52.9 acres for multi- family; 3.4 acres for stormwater
ponding and 7.0 acres for road right -of -way subject to the issues outlined by the ,
Planning Commission to be addressed by the applicant. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Scott: The public hearing number 2 has been tabled, and the reason for that is the, there's
about 24 -25 conditions that need to be reworked. If you'd like to make a comment or two,
you're certainly welcome to.
Steve Schwanke: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My only
comment is that your ordinance requires specific things. ...going above and beyond that.
Scott: There's 24 of them in the staff report.
Steve Schwanke: Absolutely and we're happy to meet most of those conditions.
Scott: Then we'd like to see it come back.
Steve Schwanke: May I speak?
hearing Scott: Go ahead. This is not a public h e g but g o ahead.
Steve Schwanke: Thank you. Again, we've been working with the staff on this project for a I
73 '
1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
number of months. Actually more generally for 3 to 4 years. We're happy to continue
working with the staff on it and working with you on the conditions that were part of the
staff report tonight, which we've indicated on several occasions we don't have a problem
with. In fact we're happy to continue working on those conditions and we're prepared to do
that for the next 5, 6, 7 months as we go through more detailed parts of this plan. And as a
moment to digress here, to distinguish between what would be a concept plan and as we get
into more detail preliminary plat plans, let me say what works very well and what helps the
development process, the development team specifically, is if we can reach consensus on
specific land uses. Specific access points and specific transportation routes. That then allows
us to go on and provide the additional detail that you're looking for. We have no problems
providing that detail. In fact we're happy to do that. We're happy to do that as part of the
preliminary plat process as required as part of your code and we're happy to come back again
and again, as part of the code requires to do that during the preliminary plat process. Your
code doesn't require that here. And so we're happy to provide you with the landscaping plan
and if it doesn't meet your standards, we're happy to revise it. We're happy to provide you
with the grading plan. If it doesn't meet your standards, we're happy to change that and
we're happy to delineate the environmentally sensitive areas, as Mr. Dobbs mentioned, we're
working with the staff on the Bluff Creek charette and we've been doing it for a couple
months. We're going to continue doing that and we're happy to do that. All we want to
point out tonight is, that we need to reach some type of consensus on the land uses and on
the access points and on the densities, as required as part of your code. Those items that you
want us to go into further detail later on again-is required as part of your code, we're happy
to do that.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF CREATING.A "CONSENT AGENDA" FOR ITEMS
SUCH AS TIF DISTRICTS.
Aanenson: The open discussion item that you had. Todd's requesting, I think he'll be before
you ... I don't know if you really want to call it a Consent Agenda. I think you may want to
have some discussion... but I think what he's asking is that normally our public hearings go
first and then he's requesting that he has an opportunity at such time...
Scott: That's fine.
Aanenson: I believe he's scheduled one for the next meeting.
Scott: Yeah, from a consent agenda, I can see it. It works extremely well at the City
74
n ,
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20 , 1994
Council because there will be maybe 10 or 15 items that are extremely straight forward and
that makes a lot of sense. And then the capability exists to pull items off where there's '
questions. The comment here, and I thought maybe a better example could be used but I saw
using this for items that do not necessarily warrant discussions, such as TIF district
modifications.
Aanenson: ...pretty much everything that comes, I don't think we really have—so I think
what we're asking is that you allow those...
Scott: Yeah, and do it early because those ... just like the Council.
Mancino: Can we stop for a second and ... concept plan one minute?
Nutting: Yeah, I'd like to talk about it a little bit more than one minute.
Mancino: Okay, here is from the Highway 5 task force guide. Land use. Policy.
Conceptual development plans will be prepared for critical sites within the corridor. These
will be adopted with the corridor plans to serve as guides for preparing and reviewing
development proposals in the future. Conceptual development plans will be utilized to refine
allowable uses, provide input into access, grading, building materials and orientation and
insure that other plan elements such as environmental protection and pedestrian access are
incorporated.
Aanenson: What I'm saying is, in the charette process, we can't flush out all the
environmental stuff because that's a big question ... part of the EA document is to weed them
out in 3 to 4 months. So I guess what we're saying is that, what we're looking for at this
point is what is the appropriate land use. First you've got to decide what it is. Then you
decide how it's going to walk and talk. Okay. So what we're trying to ... is it appropriate to '
have industrial? Is it appropriate to have high density?
Mancino: But.
Aanenson: But I understand, you've got to have some...
Mancino: You can't do one without the other sometimes.
Aanenson: Well right.
Mancino: You've got to see how they fit. I
75 1
Planning ommission Meeting - Aril 20, 1994
g g P
Aanenson: ...if it's palatable, it works. Right. So it helps to bring in site renderings. It
helps to bring a lot of those other things. I agree. But to go and do a complete grading plan
and then come back and say, well now we've decided it all be industrial. I mean that's, it's a
1 fine balancing line.
Ledvina: Well just to respond to that. You don't have to have a complete grading plan.
You can go on 10 foot contours and do something like that in a very rough sketch type of
way.
Farmakes: And it doesn't need to be an environmental review like that. I mean is this a
significant stand of trees, or if there's a significant investment on the part of the city adjacent
to the property, certainly indicating where that is ... doesn't hurt anyone.
Aanenson: No. I'm not arguing that either. I'm not arguing tabling it because you want
more information. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you need to give them
direction on their type of land uses.
Scott: We did.
Aanenson: And all the items that have been coming before the Planning Commission, for
some reason, they're all getting tabled. Somehow we're doing too much design work here or
we're not doing something ahead of time. I don't know, we need to. This is part of the
reason why I'm having Roger come next week, and specifically just talk about, I wrote down
some things ... would be talking about.
' Mancino: But Kate.
Aanenson: One obviously is the concept. One is the Highway 5 overlay zone and the
moratorium issue. How does that work? What is the responsibility for updating the... Oh,
settling applications. That was a question that you asked me Joe. When one person comes in
and you've got two specific projects, one developer. Can you separate those that want to go
forward and hold one back, just like we did tonight with Kindercare ... There is a time factor.
You've got so much time to pass there —and I just want to make sure that we're not crossing
the boundaries here. I think there's some questions that you can ask him ... this is just an
opportunity for you to ask specific questions about some of that stuff too.
Farmakes: But why. Somehow I'm sitting here and I'm getting the feeling that I'm sort of
being asked to approve something because there's a time issue involved.
i Aanenson: No, I don't have any problem with tabling. What I'm talking about, if you need
76
H
n Meeting - Aril 20 ,
Planning Commissio g p , 1994
more time, fine. What I'm talking about is the depth of that information.
Farmakes: But see, that's the quality m uali of decision then. If I don't feel that I can make the
y
decision based on the information that's been provided to me, I'm going to table it or vote
against it. I'm supposed to be representing the community here and in my opinion the stuff
I've seen and I've voted against, or voted to table here, has been medium to poor quality.
That's been adjacent to TH 5 and I've spent the last couple of years working with a group of
people to try and change that and.
Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with—tabling.
Mancino: Well then maybe at the staff level, do we need higher quality there when it gets to
you guys? ,
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying.
Mancino: Then that's what we need to do.
Aanenson: That was ... the application thing. That was at our last meeting and that's
something else we can ask him about. If the information isn't there at the application stage,
then we just don't put it on the agenda and that's something else we need to talk about too.
Because that goes back to now all of a sudden we're requiring final landscaping plans, which
we've never done on subdivisions before. And some of those sort of issues.
Scott: With this particular, the thing that, and I chatted with you a little bit about. When I '
take a look at this and you guys have a lot of expertise and I go through here and I read this
and I hear, you know barracks and hide this and this, that and the other thing. A whole
bunch of conditions and I just go yeah, this really has a lot of problems. And then I see, but
all this starts out with, the Planning Commission shall recommend conceptual approval, and
I'm going now wait a minute. Here's this thing that's totally shredded by staff, and rightfully
so, and then it's the recommendation to move it on. And I know that you guys have more
work than you can handle and less people than you need but personally I'm not going to be
put into a position where I'm going to let something that is substandard based upon city staff,
and I don't care to see a landscaping plan but the thing is, when I read a really nicely, well
put together boiler plate from a developer that talks about environmental sensitivity, blah,
blah, blah, blah and then you see somebody gets out with the stamp and goes ... they're not
walking the talk and it's like yeah. The development agreement is the ultimate definition of
what's really going to happen and everything that's come before that doesn't mean squat.
But anything that we send as a Planning Commission to the City Council we own. Has got
our thumb print on it. We don't want to waste their time with it. And we take this job very
77 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
1
seriously so yeah, I mean it would drive me crazy if I had been sitting on a piece of property
for 3 or 4 years and it comes in front of the Planning Commission when perhaps someone
might have intimated that it's going to go forward. I don't care what sort of deals were
made. I don't care what sort of promises were made. The talk has got to be walked and the
buck stops here. But then it also starts here. Someone gives us a quality piece, we rave
about it and we send it on so darn fast it makes your head spin. So anyway, my personal
comments but I would say that a majority of what I've said is also agreed upon by the other
members of the commission.
Aanenson: Can I get clarification on what the motion was? You want us to meet with
' them...
Mancino: Or what you feel would be the best. I mean also from a staff position. As far as,
again. I mean when I look at the topography, etc, maybe medium density, multi- family
would be the best. You know maybe industrial would. I couldn't tell from that at all. A lot
of it has to do with how the topography, we are trying to and it very explicitedly says in here,
that we are trying to keep the natural topography and to minimize grading. So how can I
tell?
r
r
Aanenson: ...staff go back and match topography. Now I always felt that, you know the
industrial with the performance... standards would be more palatable. I think the neighbors
feel that... indicated that maybe high density may be more palatable than the industrial so.
But, on the other hand, if you can make the high density work, maybe you buffer it, maybe
you cluster it. Maybe that works too. I don't know. I agree. There's ... high density but.
Farmakes: But in general, when you look at a PUD when it comes in and this is typically
what I've used as criteria when we look at this, and 110 oked at say for instance the industrial
section that was basically quartered and halved. Square quartered and there were 4 buildings
in there with a 50 foot strip of lawn around it. I don't see where giving a PUD, what the
city's gaining from any of that. You know granted, it's a conceptual.
Aanenson: Okay, first we're talking about the use. Then we've got to go back and the next
step ... now you've got to have these setbacks. Now you've got to have this landscaping. Now
you've got to have this type of architecture. That comes with the next step.
Mancino: But the land use and the topography go hand in hand.
Farmakes: And if you're looking for the possibilities for the property.
Aanenson: ...development standards and land use too.
78
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: Even if it's conceptual, I still believe that it should incorporate some of the
criteria that we use for giving out a PUD. And meet the Highway 5 issue and I didn't see
any of that. So it might have been there under a rug somewhere but you know, I didn't see
that. ,
Scott: That was kind of open discussion on new business. But how about.
Aanenson: But we will meet a little early next time too. Probably have dinner and talk. If '
you've got questions for Roger ...he'll probably talk for a little bit of time and then he'll be
available for any questions you might have.
Scott: Old business please.
Aanenson: Let me tell you what happened at City Council. r
Scott: Why don't I do the approval of Minutes. I
APPROVAL OF M INUTES:
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission '
meeting dated April 6, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: Wendy's and the retail office were both approved by City Council ... They did ,
request, specifically Councilman Wing, that they do additional landscaping... around the side
that faces Highway 5. A variance was given to the Byerly's sign. On the monument, you
had recommended taking out the 24 hours and giving them a monument. They gave up on '
that monument. They will have a monument identifying the retail center and one pylon sign
but that additional monument, and the 24 hours.
Farmakes: What about the east wall? What's the situation with that?
Aanenson It's going to say Byerly's period. No Open 24 Hours. No subsequent monument
signs.
Mancino: Is it as big?
Aanenson: Excuse me. It's a pylon sign. '
79 1
0
1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: 18 foot on the east side?
' Aanenson: No.
' Mancino: On the front. Now is the Byerly's on the east side, the same size as the Byerly's
on the south side? It's huge. It's not proportional to the east side wall really. That City
Council.
Aanenson: The City Council approved the amendment to the wetland ordinance for
compliance in the Wetland Conservation Act. They approved a fee increase for wetland
alteration permits. They tabled action regarding the buffer monumentation ... They tabled
action on the Heritage concept plan ... City Council tabled the amendment to require computer
aided graphics. They got into a lot of discussion when would be appropriate to ask for that.
Who should ask for it and what we're doing is putting an issue paper together. What we've
done is, we've always felt, and I know there's concern about that and I attached those, what
' the requirements are ... we also felt that that would be something. Now maybe if we feel like
we didn't need it but it gets to you and you're saying Kate, there's no way we can determine
this and then you tell the developer we're going to table it until we get it. That's the purpose
' of that. Council was concerned that maybe that ... maybe they should be the ones to
authorize ... so what we're doing is putting an issues paper together. Trying to put a list
together of vendors. Possible other options. One was getting a site elevation proposed or
building elevation. What we're trying to do is. see how the proposed development sights with
the surrounding property. I mean that's... In subdivisions ... maybe you don't need them but
sometimes there's subdivision applications that it's appropriate. You want to see what's the
' amount of grading and what's the views from the surrounding properties. That it's not... and
we've got some significant, even on this property ... and what are the impacts. So anyway, that
will go back to Council with some issues that they've asked us to look at. But hopefully
'
we'll ... find an appropriate tool that will help us in addressing some of these ... because granted,
it is hard. It's hard for us to visualize it based on building elevations or just for perspectives.
Scott: I think it'd really help too is if we can see something that says okay, this is a
$5,000.00 computer whatever and this is the $300.00 thing that Mark was talking about. Just
so we know that if you use terminology, this is what it entails because our intention is to
assist us in making the best recommendations without causing any undue expense.
Aanenson: And we sometimes need it ourselves to give you a recommendation.
have e opportunity to require that should we need it if
Scott: Yeah but we need to a e th pp ty eq you
y
haven't.
1 80
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: I concur completely and ... we feel we should have the option too... I
Scott: Well they're just a rubber stamp for the Planning Commission anyway.
Aanenson: And then the last item...just to talk about specific questions we have about the
process. There's no hidden agenda with that at all. I just thought it'd be a good opportunity
to give a little...
Mancino: Yeah, I think that will be great but I would still like to soon, because I don't think
we've come to a conclusion here about conceptual approval. I would still like to, as a
commission, sit down. Not only look at it from the logiticis standpoint but from what's good
for our community and what we should be doing as leaders in our community and decide
how we want to look at conceptual plans and decide that as a commission and be pro -active
'
and do it now. In fact I'd like to set up a work session to do that. I'll come early on a
Wednesday. I'll come any other night and spend 2 -2 1/2 hours but I would like somebody to
facilitate it and have an agenda and a good facilitator. You know a third person. Maybe
'
somebody not even in the city. A professional. Maybe Barry Warner. I mean I'm just
giving up names here but somebody kind of outside to give us a look at it also and help us
get to a consensus. That and I would also like to make sure on landscape plans, if we're
,
going to see them, I want to see real stuff. I mean if it's going to, if somebody's going to do
a landscape plan and show it in front of us, then I can't, and then they say well this isn't
really the final one. I say well then why did we see it? Because if, you know is everything
else about the site plan real or not? You know the landscape plan should be too and it should
be done by a professional and we should be looking at something that somebody spent some
time on. That somebody's designed well and it should be done with the rest of the
t
development. And I don't look at the rest of the development and say boy, is that building,
is that real? Is that the real size building? Is it really 64,530 square feet? I mean everything
that we see I want it to be, come to us quality and done. Somebody's thought about it. I
'
don't want to see just an engineer put a tree here, here and there and then call it a landscape
plan.
Scott: And then if we need to recommend changes to the existing ordinance, we do.
Because we have to have the people on the receiving end of the process have to know, just
like we had talked a little bit about, here's the checklist. These are the 17 ... city staff has to
have by such and such a date if you want to get on the Planning Commission agenda. And if
they can make it, great. If they can't, let them go 2 more weeks.
'
Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, there also, since we serve at the direction of City Council.
Perhaps City Council would like to let us know how they would prefer us to address this
issue since they are seeing everything that we're voting on. I agree with what you've said
,
81
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
but I do feel responsible that we are serving at the direction of the City Council so if they
' think otherwise, I'd like to know about it and we can all consider our actions then. But I
agree. I think that I should, and everyone else here should, when they vote on something,
there should be a time consideration involved. Obviously from a practical standpoint that's
an important thing to develop there and the issue of looking at interest rates going up, as
they are now and the City has a targeted service time that they turn something around and get
it before our commission. But Chanhassen's been here for 3 billion years. What goes up
now along that highway is going to be up there for 50 to 100 years. And it would seem to
me that when we're talking about, I've got to be on next week or Charlie came here and said
you know, 14 days. I've got to have it or I'm losing millions of dollars. Well, those are the
realities of development.
' Mancino: And we came in on Saturday and met that request.
Farmakes: But there are times when we're not going to be able to do that. Does that mean
' well, we'll go ahead and vote for it even though we don't support it.
Scott: And you have to make the judgment call based upon what you know about the person
who's making the statement about the time table. You know there's a character call too
which is a gray area.
Farmakes: Well and if there's a finite amount of time that we can deal with these issues and
do them responsibly and quality wise, then maybe that has to be set back.
Scott: Is there anything else that we need to be? Would anyone like to make a motion to
adjourn?
' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
i Prepared by Nann Opheim
82
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
' APRIL 14, 1994
' COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Eldon Berkland, Bill Bernhjelm, Brian
Beniek, Dave Johnson, Greg Weber
' COUNCIL PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Richard Wing, Colleen Dockendorf, Mike Mason,
Mark Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENT: Jim McMahon, Fire Chief
Bob Moore, 1st Assistant Chief
Rick Rice, Records & Training Coordinator
Chairperson Dave Johnson opened the meeting at 7 P.M.
Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to approve the 3/10/94
minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
Chief McMahon and Assistant Chiefs Moore and Wing commended Firefighter Rick Rice on
his outstanding contributions to the Fire Department. Mayor Chmiel presented Rick with a
Public Safety Certificate of Appreciation for this recognition.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Commissioner irefi hter Beniek presented the Channel 5 video of the Chanhassen Fire
� g
' Department.
Three firefighters were recently hired and have started Firefighter I training.
Discussion followed on a southern location for an additional station.
Chief McMahon and Assistant Chief Wing discussed the need for future planning in the
vehicle replacement plan for the Fire Department.
I BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Building Official Kirchman discussed the increase in the number of inspections and permits
for 1994 over 1993. A temporary inspector is being considered to help out.
CC SC Meeting
g
April 14, 1994
' Page 2
' PUBLIC SAFETY
Director Harr spoke of his role as enforcer, not a formulator of City Codes.
' The proposed county -wide curfew is being reconsidered after additional review by law
enforcement agencies in Carver County.
' Director Harr presented the proposed shooting/hunting ordinance and map which is ready for
City Council approval. Commissioner Berkland commented on the easier to read proposed
' ordinance changes. Discussion was held on several sections the Commission would like
reviewed for easier wording.
' Commissioner Berkland motioned, Commissioner Johnson seconded, to approve the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning firearms with the
above corrections. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
Director Harr commented on the enthusiastic response from the many public safety agencies
that will be represented at the Open House on June 9, 1994.
' Director Harr spoke of the history search which evolved from the law enforcement costs
update requested by Councilmember Wing. Discussion followed and Councilmember
' Dockendorf suggested an article in The Villager on this subject.
Deputy Tim Koehler has enthusiastically developed the deputy bike patrol program, and will
have a booth at the Open House. A donation from the Disabled American Veterans will aid
the program and Chanhassen and Carver County will share the remaining costs.
Public Safety Commission/Department Goals were discussed by Director Harr.
Director Harr spoke of the severe weather training session that was held on April 13 for city
employees. Weather alert radio purchase was discussed, and newspaper and newsletter
articles will inform the public of necessary emergency information. A booth at the Open
' House regarding weather alert radios /severe weather information was suggested.
Commissioner Berkland discussed the possibility of requesting public gathering places such as
schools, churches, and businesses to use weather alert radios.. Director Harr will draft an
' ordinance regarding this issue.
A question arose regarding the left turn arrow at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and
West 78th Street. Director Harr will direct the question to the Engineering Department.
4
r
CC/PSC Meeting
April 14, 1994
Page 3
Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded to adjourn the meeting. I
All voted in favor and the motion passed.