Loading...
PC 1994 01 19CHANI-IASSEN PLANNING COMM~SION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 1994 Chairman Scott caUcd thc meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESEt: Nancy Mancino, left Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Matt Scott and Diane Harberts STAFF PRF.~ENT: Paul Krauss, PlAnning Director and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 5 CORRIBOR STIJ'DY AND EAW FOR Ting NORTH AccEss BOULEVARD AIJ(3NMENT ANALYS~. THE PROPOSED H~GHWAY 5 OVERLAY ORDINANCE WII.L ~I.SO BE REVieWED AT THI~ HE&I~ING. THK ORDINANCE ESTARLISIIF~ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE GOAIJ OF THE PLAN. TIIF~E RECOMMENDATIONS AND FIN~INGS WllJ~ BE FORWARDED TO TIIE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DECISION. Public Present: N~me Address__~ Peu~r 01in Frank Clcmmcns Joyce Levine Roger Schmidt Paul Paulson Strvc Schwauke lohn Dobbs lames Unruh Barry Warner Deborah Porter Lee & Pat Kcrber Charles & Susan Markert Caroline Watson Don Honcck Jim Paulet Lisa & Ray Notermann Colleen Dockemtorf Mike Mason Betty & Larry VanDeVcire Camiros, Chicago, IL Callli_ros, ~V[inneapol~ 8301 Galpin BlvcL 3160 West 92nd Sueet, Omska RLK Associate, 922 Mainsueet, Hopkins Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D, Little Canada Barton-Aschman Assoc Barton-Aschman Assoc DataServ, Inc. DataServ, Inc. DamServ, Inc. 2061 Oakwood Ridge 829 Wooahi]! 4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 199~ Nm Adare Terry Forbord Jay Dolejsi Michele Foster John Uban Brad Johnson Robert L. Hoffinan Peter Beck Lundgren Bros. 6961 Chapaxral Lane Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Mpls. DSU/Cmteway 7425 Frontier Trail Larldn; Hoffman, Daly & Lindgreo 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report along with the planning consultants, Barry Warner, John Unruh _and Deborah Porter from Barton-Aschman to outline the work that has been done on the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North Highway 5 Access Boulevard and the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zone. Omirman Scott then called the public hearing to order and opened up the floor for public comment. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Ten3' Forbord. I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata, Minnesota. If it's okay, I'll use the visuals that are provided to you from the consultants. Some of you may know that Lundgren Bros has approximatr, ly a 200 acre neighborhood community not very far north of Highway 5, locate! between Caalpin Bird and Highway 41. It's been commonly refen~l W, through the preliminary plat process as the John.~m/Dolej~er and Song property. Now as a part of that land holding, Lundgren Bros has an interest in a piece of property that comes down to and abuts and is contiguous to Highway 5. And that pwpeny is the property that I'm depicting with my poinl~:r here. Scott: Could you do that again please? Terry Forbord: It's commonly known as the Jay Dolejsi property, which you probably will recognize the mune Dolejsi as it was a pert of our preliminary plat approval. One of them anyway. Lundgren Bros obviously has an interest in whet you're all talking about in regards to this property. I'm going to talk to you specific~y about the road and the lend use. We have volunteered to participate in this process and unfommately our patfidpation was not accept~l. But being now that the formal public heatings have start~ before the Planning Commission, I'm here to share our feelings with you. I know, I'm a little confluw, cl in that thc land use that's described in this document and on thc exhibits and thc color are a little different than what I hcar people talk about. It's our undcrsmndin~ from looking on thc colored map here that thc land use in this general area was to be medium and high density. Planning Conunission Meeting - January 19, 199/ However Commissioner Mancino I believe was talking about some of this area being single family. I'd like W tell you as a provider of housing, I would love to be able to share with you that that should be residential single family housing, because that's what I do. But from a planning perspective, these would be horrendous parcels of property to locate detached single family, private ownership hou_sing in this particular area. And the reason is because the topography in that area is generally high where Alternative #1 is and it lowers down to Highway 5 approximately I'm guessing 60 to 65 feet. And I don't know very many people that are going to buy homes at the price that hom~ §o for in Chanhasscn and have them abutting Highway 5. At least for detached single family type of homes. And because of the elevation, it's §oing to be very difficult to berm that and even if yotc..on top of that berm, you're not going to be able to screen the impact of either the view or certainly provi_'din§ the.., for the sound of the highway UaiY~ in general. So from purely a planning standpoint, I believe that these areas that would be just north of the highway should be either multi-family ownership or rental or apartment buildings or something along that line. Now, let me just ediwrialize a little bit about why I believe that. Before the task force was commenced with it's undertaking on the project, I think that it was clear that the City Council mentioned where they were concerned about what it would look like, not only when it was built but 20 years from now. If you put low priced, and that's what would be there. I mean I don't know how you achieve that with the land prices in Chanhassen but if they were less expendve homes, you're not §oin§ to end up seeinE what I believe that the dty hopes to see in that con/dor... within the highway. So I think you sho~ld just think about that before you make any decisions. Now again I'm a little confused whether it is given to medium density or high density or single family because I've got some conflicting informstion. As it relates to the roadway alternatives, I believe that Alternative #1 generally is the appropriate location. I'm just talking from a layout and if you're familiar with the site and you've spent any time out there. However I do believe that probably, and I know this is general and it's not cast in concrete. At least that's my understsndln§. I believe that it's probably a little more appropriate to move that road maybe 100 yards south. I don't understand why it needs to §o through the trees. I think you could bring that out into the open a little bit. The way I look at that, when I look at a transition zone from highway to higher density to lower density, I use that road as part of the buffer. That road actually bcco~ a tran~tion zone in itself between lower density housing and higher density housing so, and given that there's a stand of trees that's kind of goes in this general area, I believe thi~ road could be actually coming down to the south here and it creat~ an area of an upland area, kind of like a penin~da, that protrudes out into that wetland area. So for the record I want~xt to enter those comments and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those either today or at a later date. Thank you. Scott: Terry, let me just ask you a quick question~ From my recollection you're thc first land owner or land owner rcpresen~vc that has preferred Alternative #1 even though it Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 pretty much cuts your property in half. And could you give us some comments on that. because it's a buffering? Is it because you'd have to build one throu~ there anyway to service the parcel? Terry Forbord: No. I don't like collector mm:Is ever going through our property because they create problems but they also can be a necessity. I look at it like I say from a land use. I always give every piece of property that I'm developing the would I live there test. Or if I did live there, how would I want it to be. I nm it through that test myself. So I mean whether I was living in a townhome or an ap~t or single family dwelling, how would I put them on this property given the physical constraints that exist around and on the property,' how would I do it? So when I look at this, I resliTed that it would probably maim some_ sense to have that collector road there. So where would_ you put it where it would have the least impact on the site. It will provide for a reasonable layout of the land to accommodate the various uses. Now again from my perspective I think there should be more than one use on that site because I don't thinlr this portion is good for single family detached private ownership housing. Who'd want to live there? One of us have to do that test when you make that decision. But I think it's a great site for apamnents or rental housing, and that's not a bad thing, lust because they're rental or aparm~nts doesn't mean it's bad. They certaifily do a very good job with those types of housing products. Scott: Paul that's, I mean according to this, that's medium den~ty south of, okay. Terry Forbord: In the exhibit I see, I believe it's medium and I'm not sure if it's high because these two colors are so close. Scott: There's really only one high density area, as far as I understand it and that is the area that is just to the east of Powers Boulevard. Correct? Are there any other high density areas? That's the only one that L okay. So basically what we have is we have medium density south of Altmamfive #1 and then we have low density or RSF, reaidential single family up above, so. So you concur with, okay. Farmakes: I think some of the confusion came from what Nancy mentioned. Rather than list it as residential it said single fianily. Aanenson: Right. If you read the supporting text that follows it, it mentions that that was one of...smmnary of the recommendations... Terry Forbord: As it relates to that text, under potential uses in the second paragraph, should that be west instead of east? I was a little confused. Multi-family residen~ appropriate for along Highway 5, blah, blah, blah, uses east of Galpin. Should that be west? Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Farmakes: It's both. Terry Forbord: Or both, east and west. That's what I was. Aanenson: Yeah. It's both. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Thank you very much. Scott: Okay, thanks Terry. Anyone else? Jim Paulet: Planing Commission- My name is Jim Paulet. I'm the facih'ty's manager at DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East which is the far east end of the project. We're not even on the map here. Southeast corner of the far east of the project. We are the new owners of that site. We recently purchased that sil~ from Sunlink; which is the real estate arm of our parent company. And our plan at this time, we currently have 315 employees there. We've been there since 1988. And our plan st this time is to move an additional 350 employees from F. Aen Prairie to Chanhassen in 1996. And at this time, I have a letter with me that I guess is addressed to Paul Krauss. We met with Paul y~y and Todd Ger~t and at this time we'd like to express our opposition to the spprovsl of the Highway 5 corridor use study until we have had a chance to conduct our own land use study. We believe that it's possible that some of the restrictions, the setback restrictions, the design restrictions, could greatly impact thc devclopability or salability of our land. And until we have a chance to do our own study, we just don't feel we're in a position to approve this plan, or we would like to see this plan approved. So we're just asking for time to conduct our own land use study. We are brand new owners of the land and we inlm~d to commence our study as soon as possible, which they're looking already f~r architectural engineering firm to do that for us. Thank you. Any questions? Mancino: What property? Jim Paulet: This would be the former CPT site. Scott: Is that the Sunlink that was right on the corner of Dell Road and Highway 57 Harberts: East side? Krauss: This entire site right here. Jim Paulet: Approximately 55 acres of land. Planning Commission Meeting- January 19, 19o~ Farmakes: Are you opposed necessarily to a particular or you're not sure at this time whether you are or aren't? So you can study the issue. Jim Paulet: ...until we've had a chance to do our own study. Scott: And of thc 350 employees, are you going to be moving out of, you have a facility in Eden Prairie? You'll be moving out of that and closing that facility or whatever and relocating atl of your employees? Jim Paulet: Our current lease m'minates in 1996. The inumtion at this time is to move those individuals or those employees to the Chanhassen site. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for .Fun? Okay, thank you. Michele Foster: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michele Foster. I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I'll be brief this evening. I know that we had talk~ about the Opus Corporation propa~ at Highway 5 and 41 many times before. This month celebrates the 2 year anniversary of our getting involved with this property and we hope we're starting to make some progress on developing...in what happens to this property. I know that at one of your last meetings John Uban of the firm of DSU presented to you some of the land use changes that are now considering and acumlly are now proposing for the property which are summarized both in a previous meeting and by Kate Aanenson of your staff. I will not go into detai~ Those are summarized here in this letter and in order to respect your agenda this evening I won't go into those in great detail What I'd like to direct your attention to spec4fically is on page 3 which is our specific request regarding the...some of which may be more appropri~ for the City Council but several of which are obviously appropriate this ev_ening. Our first request, probably one of those is more appropriately directed to the City Council but we are asking that the City explore all possible sources of State and Federal funding for _this south access road which as I understand, would also benefit the north access road and we only ask to be treated equally as far as that roM. Our second request is with respect to the land use plan. We have obviously a number of objections to the land use plan as it's currently proposed in the task force study but the task force study did prompt us and our consultants to make a number of modifications to our land use plan, which as I mentioned before have been summatiz~ for you. That would basically result in the IOP classification being retained for all of the property with the exception of the one multi-family site on the west side of TH 41. We ~hinir that that addresses a number of concerns that were addressed by the Highway 5 task force, by the Arboretum, by a number of the interest groups that have looked at our property and we would strongly request that the land use plan, as we are now proposing it, be incorporated into the final recommendations in the study. Our third request has to do with the parks and open Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 space issue and I can maybe clarify a little bit the question that was raised about that. We had originally proposed in our concept plan for the pack a significant passive park area that would be dedicated as a part of the planning process~ A good part of that property is wetland area but another significant area is also upland and wooded and would provide for a very nice passive park As we understand it, the Park and Recreation Commission is now in conc~ce with that proposal and again that is something that evolved throughout _this process and we would request that the final recommendation by the Planning Commi~4ion incorporate the passive park element of the Gateway Business Park. The fourth item that we would draw your attention to are a couple of the dedgn s~mdards that are included within the overlay district. The setback in the task force report is reconvne_ntling to use 70 feet and we would reque~ that that be reduced to 50 feet. We feel that a 50 foot setback is more than adequate in combination with the variety of other components of the overlay dis~ that are also being incorporated such as no parking on the Highway 5 side. The request and the desire for high design standards. We think a 70 foot setback is excessive and we would request that it be recomn~nded to be 50. And the other objective that we have, and is really a more subjective standard is the requirement for si..~,ni~cant visual relief be/nE provided for industrial b~ildings. We understand what the objective of the design standard is but we also need to respect the fact that iudustrial programs have certain functional requirements that may not always be able to be met through steps in the bnildin§ or archilxx:'mral corrm,, ouents of the building and we think that this needs to be at least mod_iB~ or tailored so that we can provide architectmal relief through a variety of different com?onents but not uecessar/ly through stepping of the b~__ildin§ or major elements of the bnilrling being...The fif~ item is, I believe a little bit of reservation because it isn't perfectly clear to us what irr~ ortance this particular element of the task force study has but our fifth recommen_dn_tion or request has to do with Figure 8.21 in the task force study which is referred to as the parcel site analysis. There are numerous architectural dedgn objectives stated for the property that we are involved in and we feel very strongly thnt should all of these be required of this development, there will be a si~tmit%ant taking of the property. There are requests and I go inw this earlier in the letter but we are provi_'din§ a number of or meeting a number of those objectives already in the plan that we've proposed for the park but if we need to provide new...provide major view corridors, resource con~ors, wetland preservation, there's just so many objectives that if you actually look at that particular figure in the task force report, you get dramatic impacts on the developabllity of this propa~y. So all we ask is that there be some clarification that these objectives for the property have to take inw consideration the economic viabih'ty of being able to develop this property in a reasonable manner, and that perhaps not all of the multitude objectives that are being stated for this property can be met simultaneously. So with that I'll conclude my comments. I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. John Uban is also here this evening from DSU. Cel'tai~y our most important objective have to do with the land use component for this pwperty and we hope you'H take our reque~ under consideration. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 199~ Mancino: A question I guess I have of Paul Number one...is the city at this time exploring possible State and Federal funding for the south access road7 Krauss: No, we have not. When we ori~nilly entered into discussions with MnDot on this, they expressed a desire to work with us on the north side. Not only because of the continuity between Highway 41 and 101. The south side road we think is irr~. or'rant and necessary but it's discontinuous because it's broken into//or 6 segments. So MnDot initially expressed on behalf of themselves and...the desire to work with us on the north side. Now in fact that north side in cooperation needs to become problematic because they're pn~shing they're construction horizons so far away that it's inevitable that we're going to need parts of the road prior to thcir ability w...Thcre arc some things that we've been ~ing with Opus and Michcle and I and that has more to do with establishment of a tax increment district and devoting some of those funds to offsetting some of the development costs. We need to further those discussions. It's not clear exactly yet what would be funded by those tax increment proceeds. But that's probably the only source of revenue... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. Conrad: A quick one Paul The sketch from Opus that we saw last week and the road alignments there. Because you worked with Opus, or they responded to some of our concerns in the previous meeting. I'm not sure if the concern with the road is a response to a previous plan or is concerned as we kind of saw it last week and as our plan states. Maybe that's confusing what I just said. Aanenson: No, I think they're two separate issues. I think they're just co~ about the cost of putting that whole segment of road project and participation on the north segment. Krauss: Relative to the other design issues? Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: These things don't, I mean we're not working in vacuums. These are kind of ongoing processes. The plans, the concept plans that are in the Highway/5 plans are just that. I mean they are not hard and fast. Thou shalt design your project this way. Their goals, design goals that we wanted to adhere w, we could take a look to see if, in light of the most recent proposal which we have, they're uncomfor~ble with, that we should go back and tinker with thac But again it's a concept and I think we decided at our last meeting when John Uban gave his presentation that we believe that we went inw _this process about a year ago now with 14-15 outsts___ntling design items on this project and we seem to have resolved the wide share of them with their revised plan. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19o~ Conrad: I came out of that meeting last we~ ~inking that the nart~south road alignment seemed to start fitting together much better. I didn't hear any concerns from Opus about how that was fitting. I didn't hear any concern with the east/west at that point in time SO I'm really kind of, I'm not sure. I hear one, ar I read something that you're very concerned about it and I hear Paul saying that we can tinir_er with it a little biC Now I don't know what the issue is. Obviously it's a plan and things are going to change but based on the skewh that we saw a week ago, I didn't go away from that meeting thinking things were out of whack. Michelc Foster: What we think we are here this ev~ing talking about though is the o~.dal document that's in front of you that is at divergence with where the process has evolved to...and all that we are asking is that we have a problem with what is in the official study that is being considered this evening and we would like to have incorp~~ in the most recent processes that we have gone through because you're right. Today we're in a much ~fferent place even than when the task force report was done. So we're just ~king that it be brought to you. Conrad: I understand. Krauss: You know it may be beneficial but I think this is a concern that's going to occur whenever we did one of these things and we did 7 ar 8 of them, that when we look on-_well where Chapter 8 starts where we go into a description of what the development concepts are, that we make clear that these are just that. Conceptual studies not meant for co~on purposes and...express concerns and issues that we have...is one way of deal~g with that. Relative to Opus' specific concerns, we could go back and tinker with those. We said that the 100%...everybody's in agreement with it, I suppose you could... For example, the road that they proposed is kind of an amalgamum of what we're proposing here and what they had originally proposed and I think it work.~ better than either one of those two original suggestions so, I think that's a normal process. Scott: What kind of dialogue7 It was interesting I think when Mr. Uban showed the eastern side of their project and moved the boulevard and said, oh by the way the people/rom Centex can just move their bnildings over here. I was taken aback by that but I assume that there has been some dialogue inbetween city staff, Centex and Opus or is this just another example of well we don't really care too much about our neighbor over here. We're just going to stick it h~re. What's the process? Krauss: Pan of our job is to make sure that the pieces fit together. Scott: Okay, because that didn't' fit. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Well, we raised the, but it didn't fit but in our conversations with Opus, we thought that it was a better proposal for everybody and Centex would have seen...but a point in fact, we received notice last week that Centex is not going forward with that project anyway. Scott So it doesn't ma~. Aanenson: So the next person we can then commun/cate thaL Scott Okay. So then basically that road is going to be set b~ the Opus development. Okay. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Lee Kerber: Members of the P]snning Commission, my name is Lee Kerber and I have several questions. One of them is, why don't we get our map upgraded here so it's proper? You're about 45 feet off and it goes fight back to the creek line back here. I brought it to someone's attention a few years ago...well, if it takes as long to change the map, it takes that long to mn me out of town, I'll be happy. By that time I'll probably be dead anyway. I'm one of the few original natives of Chanhassen. I don't know if there's anyone else in the room here that was bom in this area or not. I'm quite concerned about why you're staying this far away from Highway 5 and then all of a sudden you get fight back next to it here with that frontage road. You've got 145 feet between the highway right-of-way and my gardens and then you've got 20-30 feet of garden. You've got another 20-30 feet of house, and then you plan to come fight on the north edge of my house. I particularly don't see any reason why that's necessary. Also, at the present time if you brought a frontage road up to your park property, your park driveway, that would msire a lot of sense. The~'$ a lot of ~ having problems getting in and out of the park every day throughout the summer. If you put your frontage road up to the park property, you would eliminate a lot of the possibility that they could take the frontage road and go up to CR 17. They'd have no problems getting across. It'd msire a lot more sense in my opinion to do it that way. Then another question. What's the time frame when they thinir about going all the way out to Highway 417 Does anyone know? Does anyone have any kind of an idea what I'm supposed to prepare for? Krauss: Yeah, that's a real valid concern and any time you're looking at buying somebody's house for something like thi~, it's obviously where the road...is a big issue. Two years ago when we starlr, d this, MnDot was telling us that they had the money to go ahead with this thing in 2-3 years. They now ~ us it's 6 years and what's leading, what thi, is leon_ding us to believe is that certainly between Powers and Galpin this is going to, it has to be a project that is done by the city in conjunction with whoever develops property. $o I can't give you a definitive date. Probably until, what we've been talking about in-house is the road needs to be built up to the park entrance 2 years ago. That needs to be done fight away. Other stretches of it are going to be contingent upon when development occurs~ I think at your last 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 meeting you heard that there's one development proposal in the near offing on the Conway property that is coming into this area from the west. And potentially a golf course or something else, a golf course with something else inbetween. We're doing the same thing on the south side. The road's being built in pieces as development occurs. One of the issues that's going to have to be brought up to the City Council, and I don't have an answer for this but it is a concern. We're having the same question on Highway 101 where the ultimate alignment for improving Highway 101 south of Highway 5 seems to need to take 2 houses. Is that we need to go to the City Council and say these people have legitim~ concerns here. You can't hoid somebody hostage for some nnlimited period of time without knowledge of how this is going to come about. If the city's going to define a roadway corridor, then we have some kind of an obligation to work with the ~ owner to fry to say if you're looking for an early buyout, maybe we can arrange something. If the road's going to be built on a delayed timeframe, they need to know what it is. I don't have a good answer for that right now but it is something we need to carry forward to the City Council Lee Kerber: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I could live with being between the highway property and my house. It could be ~ It could go next to the highway along here instead of taking the old house where I was born. You're not just taking my home. You're not just _miring a place I built to live in for a little while. I was bom on that ~. You're taking my whole life away as far as a place, it's not just a house. It's home. If you can come back next to the highway here, why can't you do it here. Mancino: Mr. IC~ber, can I see your solution? Lee Kerber: Pardon? Mancino: I couldn't see you. I couldn't see what you were pointing to. Could you show me what you are suggesting? Lee Kerber: This piece fight here, the red property is mine. And you could come down here through your tree farm. Those trees are going to be replanted anyway. AIl along here you're talking about all kinds of trees. Save the trees. I've got trees that are 25-30 feet in tall and there's some of them this big in diameter. You're going to have to cut them down if you go through my house. The tree farm over here, those are little trees that are an inch and a half, two inches in diameter. They're going to be moved anyway. I think that's something that could be considered. Krauss: There is a design reason for that but there's also potentially an issue that needs to be looked at. This was raised with thc task force. The reason the road has to bump up over there is if there's going to be an intersection of Audubon Road, for safety sake you need to 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 offset it from Highway 5. We've done the same thing with 78th Street which is where we just kinked it up and moved it back away from Highway 5. There are those on the task force who question whether or not you need the north leg of that intersection of Audubon. If in fact this connection is necessary at all That if Audubon Road stays the way it is today as a 3 way intersection, there would not be the need/rom a design standpoint to bnmp that road up to the north. This was the recommendation of the task force I think was to keep it like this but that was cermidy an issue that I ~ being ~ and something the Planning Commission members counted on. Now James, is there anything...that you wanted to add to that? James Unruh: You said it. You said it just right Paul. The only oth~ comment Paul that you'd want to make is that the new lanes of Highway 5 are going to be north of the existing lanes as well. So you'd be squeezing 2 more lanes of Highway 5 on the north side of the lanes and then a frontage road. So it would still gets awfully fight but what you just said Paul about Audubon Road is right. It needs to be ~ed whether we really do need an inlm'secfion there or not. Lee K~ber: Well, if you delay it for about 10 years I might be gone anyway. Scott: I kind of wonder too then if we have d~velopment, I think that the Gorra ~ and some other property, how would, with no ~ onto Highway 5, because I know MnDot is... to add any more access points so we'd still end up in a situation where you'd have to get out somehow. Krauss: You're §oing to have into'sections onto Galpin and Powers which will be the signalized intersections on Highway 5. That's probably sufficient to handle what's going to happen. Then after all, I mean we also questioned on the south side. When MnDot first laid out this highway 20 years ago it all went through corn and soybean fields and they said okay, you can have intersections inbetween every major street that have in Chantm.sse~ In today's world, looking at a town of 35,000 people at some point in time, we didn't think that that was all that good an idea. That we wanted to eliminate some of those and there's been concerns raised by any number, by the City Council on down about the number of ~ signals that would result. As an ouWome of that, this entire area. Here's the school site over here and here's McGlynn. This entire area basically is going to be served off of that access boulevard down here. This is going to be a right-in/right-out only. If that. Onto Highway 5. And that serves, I would suspect, as much if not more development than would occur between the park Scott: And isn't the inlm'section of Gatpin and Highway 5 planned to be signalized in '94? h advance of the school opening? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, in advance of the school. Mancino: They could use it now. Scott: Okay. Conrad: Let me, I want to track something for Mr. Kerber here. Paul, basically what you just said was, there's a reason to put a road through to the park. The rest of this ~ will, the roadway will go in when developed. Krauss: When development occurs, yes. But development is ocouring so fast that. Conrad: Well I think, I'm trying to relate that to Mr. Ker~. There's not a plan to come in and put this road in that we're doing other than maybe to thc park. Where you live, somebody's going to have to come in and buy the, not the city. Lee Kerber: You mean I can negotiate with them? I'd prefer that. Krauss: You know, I agree with you and I hope it would turn out that way but there may be a need. If everyfl~g occurs west of Mr. Ka/xr's Nroperty, there may be a public neexi to finish that road and make the connection through there. And if that's the case, then the city would have to become involved. Otherwise we'd prefer to wait for development to do it as well Fsrmakes: Irregardless, this is still the blueprint. Krauss: Yes. Conrad: I guess for you to know what we're saying is, we're going to, we have some preferences so when something happens there, whether you develop it or somebody buys the land from you or to the wcst, they're going to have to have a mad and we're going to say where we'd like that road to go. We're saying that right now so people can anticipate that but we're not putting that in at thc cunent time. Lee Kerber: Well I've developed the way I want it. I spent 35 years doing it. I just completed about a year and a half ago putting heat in my shop. The reason I didn't do it sooner, I spend the money after I get it and I've got it the way I want it now. Where do I go from here? Then I'm sitting on the fence, don't know which way I'm going to fall off. If you're my age, I don't have time to develop another place. It took me 35 years to get where I am after I had the house built and I don't know ff I've got 35 weeks or 35 months. It's 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 kind of a touchy situation as far as I'm concerned. Scott: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Cmn-a. I've got the 140 acres to the south and southwest of Lake Ann. Harberts: Could you show us please on the map? Mike Gorra: This piece here. I think most of you have heard what I've had to say before so I'll keep I brief. Just keep this for the record. I look at that plan of that road there and to me it just doesn't look right. You've got two roads. One you've already got there. It's either 4 lanes now or it will be 4 lanes in the near future and that's Highway 5. And a very short distance to the north, not a half a mile~ not two miles you've got this frontage mad. They're both going to the same place. The frontage road, it's going to be expensive. I can't see where it's going to serve any useful purpose except maybe to collect more stop si~on.~ It's going to be, you're going to have to put two bridges down there because you've got two creeks to cross~ They're not going to be cheap. And it's going to be ~ve. You're going to go through people's homes and you're going to go through undeveloped property and you're going to go through businesses. For what purpose? What's that road going to do that Highway 5 can't do and Highway 5. can do it better. There's not going to be as many stop signs on Highway 5. It's going to be 55 mph. With that frontage road, it's going to be even without stop signs, it's not going to be 55 mph. And if Chanhassen follows through to the true to course, they're going to have a stop sign every 200-300 feet anyway. You're going to have about 28 to 35 stop si~o~, on that mile and a half road. And who's going to take that road? Wouldn't they just rather drop down'to Highway 5 and coast into Chauhassen on a 55 mph road than go 15 or average 15-20 re?h? Not only that but you're going to, by putting that road through there, you're going to pre-detaur/ne what idnd of development you're going to have there. It's a classic exatnple of putting the can before the horse. Any intelligent developer or development would want to take into consideration what you're going to do there first and then ~ where the roads are going to go. I don't know if anybody here has ever built a home, but maybe someone has bought a lot to build a home on. Is the first thing that you did was to put your driveway through the center of the lot and then go to the architect and say hey, design me a home for this lot? Or did you go to him and say, put the home in the best place and then decide where the driveway's going to be? Well that's what you're doing here only a much bigger, more ~ve scale. I kind of agree with what Mr. Kerber says that if you want a road to your park, that's fine~ That's not going to disturb any of the property to the west I know it will probably take a lot of ua/ftc off of Highway 5 of people going to and from the park. As far as the rest of the propert~ to the west, they have access to CR 117. That's why CR 117 was put there years ago. The State 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 puts roads every so often for collector streets and then they let the development decide where the rest of the roads will go. If they wanted roads through there, they would put roads every half a block or every half a mile. As far as I'm concerned, I already talked with the State a year ago and their representative, I think it was Evan Green said that they had already planned to stub access from Audubon Road into my pwpe~ so I wouldn't have to won'y about access to Highway 5. I have been working on a development for my ~ for 2 1/2 to 3 years now and I thinlc you saw the plan last time I was up here. It was a golf course and I don't think I have to tell you what a road lhrough the center of a golf course could do. You just wouldn't be able to build a golf course with something like that there. And even if I didn't build a golf course, and I decided to put other types of development in there, I am a developer. I did purchase most of this pr~ 20 years ago just for that purpose but I held it out of construction just because I thought it was a pretty nice, unique piece of property being that it's on the lake and it has a little ~ running through it and has access to Highway 5. I thought it deserved a lilfle mare than a boiler plate type development that you can find in Richfield or even Fridley. Multiply next to the highway and then maybe a couple...and then getting single family farther away from the highway closer to the lake. I think something else could be done with this property that would best serve the developer and the city both. And I think that would most likely be a golf course at this time. I know you _mlired about mapping this road through so future developers would have an idea of where you want this road but I don't think that's going to do any good in my case because I can't imagine any development that I would put on this 140 acres that would utilize the road going fight through the center of it. And the only reason why is because if I develop this property, I want it to be a success. I guess that's about all I have to say. Mancino: Mike, might I add a comment on land use. You said that you could see it as a golf course. What other land use designation were you thinking about? For instance, single family north of the access boulevard and multi-family south? Mike Gorra: Well that's the land use I didn't want to see. Mancino: Okay, what did you want to see? Mike C-om: I want to see it one chunk of property without a road running through it so whatever I decided I could detmnine where the access, where the roads would be ~ I decided what would go in there. For example, even a higher end single family developuumt, an estate type single family development, you wouldn't want a road rtmning right through that. That's just one exa~le. But no ma__n:er_ what, like I said before, I've been a developer for 30 years and I've always stayed away from a piece of property that had a heavily travefled road on both sides of it because it's been my experience that anything that's been developed inbetween two heavily traveled streets or wads or highways, has always been somewhat of a 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 199~ second ram type development. The land usually sells cheaper. It's usually a commewial or an industrial type development and that would ~ire away the flexibility if anybody, myself or if I did sell the property, take away the flexibility of determining what would go on that piece of property and Chanhassen would ultimately suffer too. If you don't have the flexib~ty on a piece that big. Especially when it's fight on Highway 5. Everybody leaving the Wwn or coming into the town will see what's on that property. What would you rather have them see a nice green golf course or a road running through it with multiple dwellings and induggial on one side and low end single family housing on the other side. That's the choice we have to make. It's as simple as that. Once you put a road through a piece of property, the flexibility's gone. Sco~ Any questions for Mr. Corm? Thank you. Yes sir. Morris Conway. Morris Conway, 4952 Fremont...I wasn't going to talk this morning, or this evening but I just agree with everything ~ has to say. And just on the point of view of roads. I think that there was a vision, as I went to stnne of the early ~gs, about the road coming in and maintaining a sense of what Chanhassen, or I rememb~ seeing photos of Oovnan villages you know and coming into a village and the g~y concept. And I think that's a noble position- When L you know in loo_idng at, just tnidng a step back and looking at other visions. You know I remember going after some trips to Italy let's say and you come to these beautL~ towns and you thinb what a wonderful city. You know you lake your bikes fight in and you have this beautiful city. And then I go to Minn¢_.m~olis and I cross this moat of Into'state 94 and it's like it chops the city right in half. You know there's no walking sense that we've got a city here. Well you're putting a road, as I see it, you're going to create little islands here. You know you're going to create these medium and high density islands between Highway 5 and this other road. And I just don't, I think you're going to be creating the types of things that I was ~idng Brad Johnson there, what is that like Cedar Riverside. You know in Minneapolis there you've got these areas where you've got these inta'secfing highway areas. You're isohting people inW these high fragmented, urbanized areas and then it's not a, I think that you can create bad situations and I think having people, creating a situation where you're going to force people to live within this band between these two roads, is going to be a mistake. And I don't see any really good reason for it. I just wanl~l to speak to that. And I think it's a very important time for you guys to really sit here too and say, does it make sense. To step back and really decide, for you to decide, does it make sense as opposed to just go along with the process. Farmakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live? Morris Conway: Yeah, I'm fight next to Mike. Oh, on this map as far as where I live. I do own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Morris Conway right here. But I didn't intend to 16 Planning Commission Meeting- January 19, 19~ speak, as I say. And I've talked with different people as far as what would work out betier in terms of development or not and I don't know what will sell better or worse in terms of development. Whether high density will sell better or worse, but I do think some things strike me as being dumb and part of this strikes me as being dumb. I just don't like to see dumb things done. John Pryzmus: I just want, my name is John Pryzmus and I have the property here on Gal~ Boulevard that's the driving range and miniature golf course. And I guess I don't understand, I mentioned it at the task force ~g that this property all can be developed without these roads. You've got a major intersection that's going to come in here that can service _this and this. My parcel and Larry VanDcVcirc's can both be serviced from CR 117. As Mike said, he don't need this road for his development here and so what you're creating is really, an expensive, expensive road that we're all going to have to pay for as taxpayers. And besides that, the City of Chan just spent like $2 1/2 million to put in a park right over here on this corner. Now you want to take and tear out my park that I put in and paid for myself with no qualms. Don't worry about the money it's going to cost you. lust put a road through there. Design it and I don't know that anybody ever came to my ~ and took soft tests. I don't rernem~ ever shutting it down. Down through here you'll find a...that comes down into a low area. If you're saving my parcel, would do if you ever did put a road in. But there's really no need other than coming to Lake Ann to, for any of this road to ever be done to develop the north side. Like Mike said, when I do sell that property some day, it can be serviced from CR 117. There's no problem The same with Larry VanDeVelre's. You're cutting his property right in half and making it in'actically useless. It just don't make sense at all. Thank you. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Morris Conway as a developer for his parcel and as I've mentioned in the past, I live at 7245 Frontier Trail. We are in thc process of developing his parcel and _miring both your input relative to this plan and also in our feelings as to what should go there and then taking it W, I guess one step farther than the fellow over on the east side of wwn~ We've taken it to professional engineers that have advised us as to how to develop the site, which I have with me. But before I go into that, I have two other concerns as a resident of Chanhassen. I know that in your proposed plan of the Ward property and at least the, what I'll call the triangle area, it's not recommended to be 100% retaiL We would be concerned about that as a retail developer in town because we feel that to have success~ retail you need additional massing to amact more people so that our businesses are successful and we certainly object.Ward's but object to that as a developer of other parcels in town. We feel we're short on retail land. Secondly, I concur that we do need a way to get to the pad~, because we have a baseball program that I sponsor here. There probably is a reason Paul and I'm not going w, but like Park Drive was not the major interchange as I always thought it was §oing to be and probably the distances, we should 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have...which would solve the problem for Mr. Kerber. We do need access to that. I doubt very much that people are going to enjoy driving over to CR 117, which is a fairly si?i~icant turn now to stop there and try to mm. Or all the way out to G-alp~ to get into the park. So maybe Audubon is the best choice but you're going to make it significantly rlifficult to get there but I do agree that that intm~h~nge today should be closed because it is dangerous. Relative to Mr. Conway's property, we hope to be in, and that is located as I guess he pointed out, fight here. We hope to be back to you soon with the development for that parcel and as we mentioned last meeting, we're trying to deal with sort of a moving target with a tirnc line that says we'd like to come in and get this all donc with this year. Recognizing that you will be in thc process and thc City Council will be in the process of trying to determine exactly what you're going to do. We perceive there probably is a need for a collector road, certainly out of our property and over to Galpin. Inevitably we need a collector mad someplace. We have a golf course proposed currently, or at least in the planning stages ~§ to our neighbor, to the east and so that limits our sit~ as far as road systems within there. Mike has assured me that he's very serious about developing the golf course and at the minimum, I know if that would not work, he is oriented towards an executive kind of home, which we do not have in Chanhassen other than on the lakes, and that would be I would guess in the $400,000.00 to $600,0(O.00, sort of estat~ type of house. I think that's how he perceives that, as I listen to you, that's how he perceives that development to proceed. Given the fact that that is not there and we can...thinidng about doing, we presented that to the planners and we have come up with basically a system of handling that and the only reason this affects you is that we do not want to have to deal with the Hennessy property at this _time in our own plan because that would require the city taking it. In other words, if you came in and said we had to put a mad in and the mad went nowhere, then you'd have to purchase the Hennessy property, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me at this time because he's quite happy with that. By the way, we have checked with all the landowners in our area. The Hennessy's, the VanDeVeire's, and Gorra and they ail idntt of agree that this plan would be acceptable to them. I'm sure it's acceptable to Rottlund who's to the north because it happens to connect directly and looks just ~ what they're doing to the north of us. Now the issues then are what? WelL..aitemat~ #1 which is coming through about right here and require that, it's very deftmrlling how today, or at least until you take the Hennessy property and agree that Gorra can't build his golf course, we should put a main road through the center of this property. Mainly because it's just difficult to develop. ~dly I'm talking, I won't say it's going to look like Cedar Riverside over here if we do it that way but in talking to developers, there's a very big concern about splitting communities and types of housing by a road. And by using the Alternate g2 up here, that would be sort of devastating. Secondly, I have heard that you are trying to seek government, or State assistance for the development of the service road, and if I recall correctly the reason that they were willing to give you assistance is that that mad, for a year or two, would be Highway 5. Right? And they were going to close Highway $ and then use this road. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Sunuary 19, 1994 Krauss: Let's be clear on this Brad. The reason they were willin~ to pm'pm in ~ ii it eliminated a series of ~ points onto Highway ~. That's their long range purpose. It also supported loc, al trips without going onto Hi,way ~. They also thou~t yes. ff t~y could put mainline traffic onto it say for a period of a year, year and a half, they could substantially cut, I think cut in half the time it took to build the highway. And for all of those of you who have lived through Highway 5 conslruction and it drags on for year after year afl~ year, that may be worth a short term direction. Brad $ohuson: Yes, and that was proposed to the HRA I don't know who flmded your study but they approved that based upon that was going to take and co--on was going to start this year. We're now being told that's, and I had no problem with that at the time because that seemed logical There was nothing there. We're not being told that that particular situation will not happen for 6 years, maybe the year 2000 or so but as highways go, at that time I think they will have fairly, at least I know Lundgren's will be developed. You're just going to have development over there and basically it's a fairly good threat to say to somebody that we're going to put a mad through the middle of all these properties and that, by the way, in order for us to fund it so maybe...and I underswod the reason that the Highway S, the State was willing to fund that was for that purpose and I was at a number of the meetings when Mr. Ashworth, when he prepared the stalmnents like that and it was presented in that way and that was the idea and I think we all went along with that. So I'm going to say that I don't think this road will ever be used as an aim-hate for Highway S if there's any development here in the next 5 to 10 years, because the neighbors will be in here you know, then we'll have neighbors. Right now we don't. What we have done on our proposal is recommend if you're going to have a corridor, and if you're going to map _this corridor, we'll go along with it if it's on the south side. And with our current plan we would use Aim-hate C to cross, our planners have said this is the proper plac~ to cross it. To cross Bluff Creek and they've used the road through VanDeVelre's pwperty and ultima~¥ as our access point for...road on the south portion of the ~. So the only major changes that we need to see, then we'd be willing to dedicate the normal amount of roadway that we would be required to if you mapped it so it would cost you nothing. If we just stayed down in Sis area. We have gone north a ~ bit so that we can cross at this point which is the same point I think that they were crosshg. What happens is we don't necess~'ily represent VanDeVelre's but this is one way that that could be acco~lished. And we end up with then, zoning or a proposed use as you have recommended. We have high d_en~ity here but a minimum of high density. There's only been about, of rental property, maybe 2.2 acres developed in the city of ~ since I've lived here. We currently have under development another 8 acres of high density. It's just not a high absorption kind of thing. I don't think you need a lot of it but we'd be comfortable with about 4 acres here and we'd anticipate that would be developed over the next 5 to 10 years. But that is about as soon as that could be done, and about the time the road would go throu~ And then the rest would 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 be medium density and then homes here that would go onto the proposed golf course. If there's no proposed golf course, we're very comfortable if Mr. Gtm'a was to develop a high class development over there. So our recommendation t~ you is that you amend the recommendation of the task force. Select if possible Alternate ~2. Stay with crossing at C with a minor deviation at that point because we have au adequate buffer. And we too agree with the folks from Lundgren. That is you cannot put single family homes on a highway. With this type of road coming through here, this is a two family home developer. Medium density and the prices are $150-$200,000.00 per unit. He would feel comfortable but he would not build up against the highway...aud that's where we're at. We're willing to cooperate. We're willing to work with the process. Come back with a road that you know that would fit whatever you, and dedicate our nomml required width for your use. All we're asking is a minor modification of the plan for Alternate g2 and thus the e 'hmination of your recommendation or to vote against the recommendation of the other people on Allmmste #1. I think that works much better with Mr. Gorra because that leaves him to have the ability to develop his site that he wants. In the case of Mr. Kerber, you're going to have to deal with Audubon sometime I guess down the line. But certainly not until Mr. Gorra gets around to developing or there's a real problem with Lake Ann. Any questions? As I said, we'll be in with this plan sometime in February. We're m~re than happy to work with it and we don't have a cost evaluation... Robert Hoffman: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Robert Ho~ 1500 Northweslmm Financial Center. I'm here this evening on behalf of two ~ owners. One, Dr. Conway who was up here a couple minutes ago Illld thell Fleet Farm. ~qills Fleet Farm. And I'm going to just review briefly some of the issues as it relates to both the Conway and the Mill, Fleet Farm properties. And then specifi~y discuss a couple of aspects with Fleet Fartn, because you've already heard from Brad and the doct~ as to the specifics on his piece of propa'ty. When Paul Krauss made his introduction, he categadz~ the plan as a forward thinking concept. And I wou~ld certainly agree with him. The consultants you've had working on it, whether it's Bill Morrish or Joyce Levine or Barry Warner, all certainly have reputations of forward thinking in this melropolitan area and other parts of the country and I've worked with most of them over the years on a number of projects. With most forward thinidng concepts, at least it's been my experience that you cau achieve most of your objectives but probably have to do some modifications as to what may come from the initial concept that the forward thinkers come up with. And in the two cases of the property owners that we represent, they're really o,idng for some modifications. And you've heard discussions on Dr. Conway and that is a preference for the south line in order to better develop that partic~dRr piece of pwperty. As I listen thi~ evening, I know you certainly were aware of the considerably restraints that a planner must deal with. But those are also the considerable restraints the pmpmy owner must deal with. And whether they are landscaping or topography or wetlands or tree cover, or colors of buildings or use of malm'ials Planning Commi~ion Meeting - January 19, 1994 or setbacks or traffic considem~ns, they all start to impact the abih~ to develop a piece of property in the way the city would like to have it developed, or the way the property owners would like to have it developed. And neither of us arc free today to do just what we'd like to do. That's the system. And as 1 listen to the si?it%ant list of collstr~ints over the past year that have been addressed, I'd ask you to then think of the property owner also with those similar constraints and then at least in the case of the two that I'm talking about, asking for some modifications in order to assist them on the development. I noted that in, I think it was James' presentation, in suggesting the location of the access boulevard as it related to the park. It was pushed as close to TH 5 as possible to preserve the park. I didn't hear that same co~t as it relal~.xi to several of the private property owners. And that pedmps was a serious consideration but I've heard several property owners suggest a movement of that to preserve their pwpeny uses and I heard that being a very significant factor for a public use. But I didn't hear that, at least as yet, as to a private use. As you proceed with the pwspect of actually building a road, which has been described by Barry as the most ttifficult task of locating it and Paul indicating that the funds are not readily available, and then looldng at piecemeal development because that's what you will get as you work with individual property owners. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described, the economic aspects of that particular forward thinking concept. And as you proceed with the suggestion that perhaps now, that perhaps maybe Federal and State funding may not be available, for as available as you would like them, that the property owners will then bear the cost of that development. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described as access for sub-regional and regional trips on the access boulevards. As corr,, ared to just serving the abutting property owners and therefore again I would suggest that if you can look at some compromise, if you can find the property owners who will say yes. I will preserve the wetlands~ Yes, I will preserve the trees. Yes, I'll work within that topography. Yes, I will dedicate land for this fight-of-way. In fact maybe pay far it. If you move it in a way that I can now develop my prope~ in order to afford those, that that is something at least I would suggest the city look at. Because as you're talking about access boulevards, or sub-regional trips, you're not talking about, at least in Minnesota as yet, facih'ties that the property owner has to pay for. Those are cow_m_~mity wide or region wide issues. That the commnnity or the region pays for. But not the immediate property owners. The immediate property owner is required, at least currently under law, to pay for that part of the roadway that the cturent property owner causes in the capacity to be needed. Not boulevards or trails or landsc~g, that is not absolutely needed. Those are all de. air~ from the standpoint that you get the economics of it. I think you're going to be faced with that so again I'm suggesting that, if at all possible, if you can work out this system which is definitely forward thinking, and you don't have a ready source of funds to do it in one fell swoop, then perhaps working with some of these property owners, and'in particular the two that we represent, would help facih'tate that. Specifically then as to the Mills Fleet Farm piece of pwper~, which is on State Highways 41 and 5. As you know they acquired that several years ago. They first of 21 Planning Commission Meeting - 1anuary 19, 19o~ all have asked and will continue to ask for a land use different than is proposed. The land uses proposed is neighborhood commercial, medium or higher density and then single family density as you go to the north. Obviously Mills Fleet Farm would like to build a Mille Fleet Farm facility at that particular intersection. I think earlier the discussion of big box uses was discussed and as Mg box uses like to be near higher arm'iah, and TH 5 and TH 41 are two of the higher use arterials that you have at least in the city. Therefore, as to a use, land use, we have in the past where we continue to request that the land use be considered for a IV[ills Fleet Farm facility. And the pm-vious, not previous but the two studies, the Highway corridor land use study on page 33, Figure 5.1 and the ~nvironmental Assessment boulevard document on Figure 6.1 appeared to put this roadway either on or very close to the northern edge of Fleet Farnt And when we asked then for the legal description of that right-of-way, it showed this configuration which was basically through the middle. Therefore the preliminary study documents suggested that roadway be on the north edge of the...and so apart from the land use, Mills Fleet Farm would cel~_ inly accept a northerly dexignation or location of that particular roadway. Or a southerly designation of that roadway. But the problem it's going virtually right through the middle. And as I listen to Tcwy Forbard discus~ng with you the inability from a marketing sense, to have single family next to high density arterial, then again I wonder from a land use when you have an existing hi~ use arterial with TH 41 and the suggestion is that single family be the land use next to that. So our request is, from these two property owners. One is to consider the modit%ation of the location of the roadways. You haven't either of them say they're opposed to the roadway. I think both of them have indical~! that they would, certainly Mills Fleet Farm is interested in preserving the wetlands. Is interested in preserving the wetlands if it can develop the property in a reasonable way and is interested in paying it's fair share for such a facility. I think Dr. Conway has indicated the same. If it's located so they can develop their property. If you have any questions I'd be pleased to answer them. Mancino: I just have a real quick on~ I want to make sure I'm tracking with you Mr. Hoffman. You said that Mill.s Fleet Farm was fine with the northern mute. Robert Hoffman: The northern route that was shown on the previous two studies. Not the northern route that is now Alternative #1. Mancino: Okay. Robert Hoffinan: That's why I made reference to the three, at least I'll call them concepl~ designs of the roadway, seem to hug the northern edge of the property. Mancino: Even more than thc one that we are seeing right now as Alternative #17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19o~ Robert Hoffrnan: Yes, that's correct Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay, we're going to take about a S minute break. We can all probably use it and we'll reconvene, well let's reconvene at 10:00 sharp. (There was a short break at this point in the meeting.) Scott: We'll reconvene the Planning Commission. Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum s_nd also a member of the team that worked'on this plan. There's been a lot of comments about the plan and I would like to say we think it's pretty good, as coming from the team and I think there's some good recommendations. I think one of the things that we saw when we looked at thi, was the fact that there was an opportunity to get away from the old sumdard of putting thc frontage wad, and there's a need for a frontagc road right along the side of Highway 5, on either side, creating a huge swath of pavement. Thc idea was to move it back a ways so that you've seen in some places that ~ some pieces of land which aren't really very buildable~ So the idea again then was to move it over further to make parcels of land and I think we've got 500 to 700 feet of land between the frontage road or what we hope would become a city street rather than just a frontage road and create another main, continuation of main street in C~. So there's buildable parcels between there. Exactly types of land use, I think the planners were in some agreement and we agreed with them that it could be a higher density use but single family would probably be the best use in that. I think that we did try to look at ali the uses there and in fact if you looked at that road, in.~tead of cutting these parcels in haft that is serving them, it is a different point of view and it makes those parcels of land very developable. Perhaps a goff course obviously would not wozk but then we don't know whether that's going to happen or not. But I think we asked the same question. Is that goff course going in there, and since you don't know, this would be a better location for a roadway. I think my only concern I would have with the plan is that some question came up about the Arboretum as being a buffer and I would like to say that we feel that the buffer is a cultural, education and research institution. It's not a buffer but perhaps does need a bit of buffering. We have a national and perhaps international reputation and we are very concerned about devel~t in our city at this point in time. As I've expressed at various points throughout this process. I think the reputation of the 30 acres on the west side of Highway 5 that we suggested be a residential use, is a little easier on us than the industrial coramerdal use. But I did want to get up and say that a lot of time went in. A lot of thivking. We did listen to all the folks that are he~ tonight and u/ed to make some judgrmmts that we felt would fit the town as well as the developers as they came through. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanum'y 19, 1994 Scott: Any comments for Peter? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the Planning Cornmi~on? Susan Markert: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commi~on. I would like to really question. Scott: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record please? Susan MarkerC Oh, Susan Marlmrc 9461 Haz~tine Boulevard. I'm wondering, I heard the gentlemen speak about the Fleet Farm and how he wished that the city would take into consideration all the restraints and so on and the placement of the road specifically. But you know he's saying that for certain things that you know if you could kind of loosen up on but when we're getting right down to the nitty gritty, when we're talking about the overlay. The standards. The building standards that were set forth. I'm looidng through here piece by piece and I'm really not seeing very much and I don't see where you can get hardly anything that the building, that I've seen the Fleet Farm put up, would meet. Okay, I m they want, and I'll just go throu~ here as quick as I can. They want you know parking lots along Highway 5 so people eau see parking lots that you know look li~ there's a nice viable business there. The architectural style, it's what I would consider, from what I've seen of the Fleet Farm store so far, it's totally incompatible with what we've set forth for the other buildings and developrnents that we have in ~ And ~ing to this each building shall contain one or more pitched roof dements. I've never seen, I don't think, a pitched roof element there. They'd have to change that. And there are not to be any exposed cement or cinder blocks. I believe they might use that. Fabricated metal or pole construction structures. I believe that that's someflfing that might pertain to that extefior...but that's a possibility. Experimental materials possible. A solid wall relieved by architectural detailing. That isn't for sure. The rnalnfials and construction methods used for one aspect or a portion...significant lower in quality. You know I can just keep going on. Also with the fencing, that it says screening of service yards and I think it might be like the lumber yards that... The screening of servi~ yards. You know you can't have a chain lklked fence and I did specifically hear them mention that they would buffer our house from them by you know volunteering to put the road right at the very, you know where it just abuts our ~, which I believe they already have an 80 foot easement built into that. And they were going to put up a chain link fence that would buffer us from thenm Mancino: Susan, could you point to where your property is. Susan MarkerC We're fight here. And this is you know where the proposed northerly route would go but from what I could get from the gentleman that was spe~___ ldng for the Fleet Farm, he was asking that we would move this road right up here because I've already heard this... Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 before. You know. That way that can give them more room to build and then they might even want to designate Ibis property fight here as a natural, that wetland or pond or whatever. Which would move that building you know closer to our property and toudly disrupt the look of, we planned the entire road, which I believe was a good plan. The northerly route because it's very scenic and I've walked it with Nancy. And we took the _time and it was very well done. It's very beautiful back there and we did not want, you know like a service road. So according to the plan, it looks nice but then when you get the comer of TH 5 and TH 41, I think that they're wishing that that road would just kind of like go right up there and just ruin everything you know basically that we've planned and I would have an absolute total objection to that. That if that's what they would want to do, then we would not wish to live there or do our homc occupation there any longer and that's the whole thing. You know with...but I really don't want to see that. As a person that lives there, I enjoy it and we're there because we like it. We preserve things. We take care of things. People that are absentee landowners have a totally different view. I like, I've used the word basmraizing the comer and I just kind of think that that might be what happen, what could happen to it if Chanhas~n doesn't really hold to the design standards that were set forth. Because I believe that we're you know a very high class community and that we should keep going forward with the plan that we've developed and I guess that's all I have to say. Sco~ Good. Any questions or comments7 Good, thanks. Would anybody else like to speak7 Yes sir. Larry V~nDeVeire: Hi. I'm Lan'y VanDeVeire and I own the property on the northeast comer of Highway 5 and Galpin. Right here, and I'd just like to make a comment for the record that, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that if all the landowners have been listened to throughout this process, the only landowner that would be getting what they want is the city through the Lake Ann paw.& And like I say, correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the people that have been here, and have either objected to or suggested changes in the way the road ali~mwnent is planned. And I guess if that's list~_ ing to the landowners, then I don't know. I'm rni~ing something. If there's any type of input because there's quite a few of us. And like I say, the only landowner that im't objecting the city thamelves I think. Scott: Well Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros was thc first person who spoke was in favor of the alignment and asked us some questions about zoning and so forth. He's probably the only one that I've heard from that was in favor of it. Larry VanDeVeire: But he still suggested some changes. Scott: Hc had a little Mt of a, he was a little bit confused as to what the colors rneaut because the difference between medium den,ity and low density. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Larry VanDeVelm: Wasn't he suggesting that it be pulled south towards the road though? Scott: No. Mancino: No. Conrad: A little bit. Mancino: 100 feet south. Larry VanDeVeire: Well, 100 feet would be pretty significant on my pr~. Maybe not on his but 100 feet is 100 feet. Harberts: Larry, can you outline how much is your property? Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. 13 acre~ Harberts: Okay, thanks. Larry VanDeVeire: And I guess what I'm getting at is he eluded to, I don't know how developable some of the properties are, and I'd just like to stale for the record that I have my concerns also as far as how it's going to be developed. What it's going to look like all the way through. I guess a propa~ that I think of that isn't the same fight across from the high school in Minnetonka. Right across from Minn_~onka High SchooL There's a non-developed piece of property there that it splits off into a Y and you can call it, it's been for sale from time to time. I don't know what could be put there. Right now it's natural but I don't know if that looks, is attractive either. Mandno: Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from. If I know your ~. It doesn't matter, in fact if we tak~ the pre~ route, the recommendation the Highway 5 task force made, unless the road, access boulevard goes through your property, less roadway goes through your property if we take the recommendation from the Highway 5 task force. Larry VanDeVe~: I guess my concern is the supposed inflexibility of the road where Teary Forbord was..xight now you have it going through the tree line and I'm not so sure that's good for me or good for the city of Chaxdumse~ Mancino: $o how would you change it7 26 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Larry Vsnr)eVeire: I don't know. I'm just suggesting that I'd ~ some flexibility and that there should be some flexibility through this acc, ording to development rather than stamp the road in place and then say now, try to make something fit. I just don't know that that's the way it should be done. And I realize that something has to be done as far as gnlellng it but I still think there should bc some flexibility allowed and still meeting what you people want too. And I guess like I say, and I think, I forget who said it but oh, it was ~ I think with thc driveway. No one builds a house around a driveway and that's basically what you're looking at here. Trying to make stuff fit with what's left and that's why I suggested the properW across from FAen Prairie High School I don't know what they're going to do with that. It's for sale from time to time but nothing, you know it's a pie shaped lot and it isn't real wide and not that this is what this will mm into but I do think that you limit what can be done with it when you all at once you set restri~ons. And then again with the wider setb~, all of the other restraints that Chanhass~n would like to see, it further limits what can be used. I guess that's it. Thank you. Scott: Would anybody else like to address the commission? Peter Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'd just like to briefly reiterate the request I mude at the workshop last weci~ That the Commission adopt the recommendation of the task force and guide the Nckankar facih'ty partion of the Ec~ntrur property for institutional uses. As I mentioned, the Tem?le is one integrated site. It will never be subdivided or sold or built inW any multiple fsmily residential use so we request the addifion...And I don't intend to belabor the point any more...answer any questions and to address that issue in greater detail. Scott: Okay. Go ahead Sue. Susan Markerta Susan Markert speaking again. As I sat down I realized, people, any time there's a change people get afraid and this is real obscure. You know you see a road coming through our town. And for 2 years I've dreaded the thought and I've, you know I've actually gotten sick over it when I'd have to come to these meetings and try to make a conscientious decision for the city. And it became a process where I kind of becatme desensitized to it but I'm still very sensitive. So as a landowner, I can speak from both sides. As a landowner I would prel'cr not to have any roads and have the rolling hills and all the beauty forever. As a person that came up here to plan for the development of Chanhassen, I say that we defini~y need a plan and this is what has been implemented and we're not putting the cart before the horse. We're not putting the driveway in before the house. We're putting a plan so there can be good development developed off the plan. If there was no road and we allow people to put their driveways in and whatever they wanted to do, we'd have amish mogh and the31 we'd have like a can of worms that nobody would_ know what the heck was going on. It Planing Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 certainly wouldn't follow any plan whatsoever so what I'm saying is I reslly do believe we need the road. I would love to you know go down this road without getting onto Highway because I was one of the biggest complainers of trying to make a left onto Highway 5 out of TH 41 with people getting very angry before they did have that turn lane. And also, if we did not have that road in there, I have gone to Galpin Boulevard. I had left something at ABC Daycare Center, which is I think what is it, Lake Drive or something? Scott: Yeah. Susan Markert: It should only be like a minute away but you know like at night when the waffic was coming, it took me 15 minutes to go down to Galpin Blvd and make a turn to come back to get to ABC Daycare Center to get what I needed to get so you know. Somehow if we would have had this road I believe I could have done that quicker and much more safely. So I do believe that we need the road no m_a_tter what a lot of other people ~ It's just, it's progress and that's what you're paying for and it's bet~ to have a plan than not to have a plan. That's just the way it is. Scott: Good. Thank you Susan. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. $ohn Dobbs: Good evening. My name is $ohn Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development Company. I would like to speak just briefly to page 7 of the memorandum handed out this evening, and specifically to the following land use issues still need to be resolved. The fifth one down, that Heritage Development West. · Harberts: Wait, wait, wait. Where are you? Scott We've got to get there. Conrad: Page 7 of the staff report. Harberts: Thank you. John Dobbs: Fifth one down. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek, south of frontage road, multi-family should be considered as an option with induslriaL I would like to say that I would like to concur that we would like that as an option very much. We cmrently, we are the owners of the resid~ property south of the frontage road east of Galpin. Next to Timberwood Estates. We also own, and I believe this comment speaks to a piece of ~ that we own on the east side of Bluff Creek We cummtly I think McGlynn Bakery is there and also to the north it's proposed to be industrial. We are proposing and we are very 28 Plaoning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 19o,14 lrntatively scheduled on February 2nd to bring in a multi-family and single family detached concept for your approval and I'd just like to say that we believe that it is a transition zone between existing industrial and what will be single family detached residential. I reco~eni,e that there are a number of issues assodai~ with this particular piece of property in that there's the Bluff Creek corridor and industrial on one side and residential on the other and that transition needs to be dealt with sensitively and we are in the process of looking at a variety of options to do that. But as it's slated on this plan and...we'd like to see that. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing no other members of the public who arc intcrcst~ in add.w, ssing thc Planning Commission. Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to ckme the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carri~ The public hearing was closed. Scott: Because of thc complex nature of what we have to deal with, I'm certainly open for suggestions but it appears that thc least controversial thing we have to do is to pass the EA document onto the City Council. Arc you? Aanenson: Except part of that is to select an alirmafive of thc road. Scotc Okay. I guess I'd be open for suggestions as to how we can, perhaps in_stead of having general comments on everything from the Planning Commission at the same time, perhaps focus on specific piexe~ Now what those specific pieces are and in the order which it seems like the land use kind of drives the alternative for the access boulevard. Conrad: What are we recomm_~_ding for passage here? Scott: Well, according to thc staff report we've got ~hc EA document, which has thc. Let's see thc EA document has got the alternative associated with it. And then thc corridor study has got land usc and thc architecttmd standards. Farmake,s: Arc we going to do all three or arc we going to separate them7 Scott: I'm just trying to think so we can perhaps focus. I don't know, maybe we can't focus on one particular aspect Do you want to go at this as just making gcncra] cmnmcnts? Harberts: Well I have a question. What's the degre of the corom_ ission here to look at some of these issues in which thc commission is not in concurrence with the task force recommendations as outlined on page 7? Do we need to have some kind of basis? Do we 29 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 want to have son~ kind of basis of concun~co7 Sc, om In my mind that'd be probably the easiest thing to get start~ on because it is pretty concrete. Mancino: Yeah. And we've had some more input tonight so may~ we will come to some resolution of some of the areas that we weren't before. Makes you look at those again. Scott: Because these are basically all land use. Harberts: Well, except it's going to impact development in the furore of Chart. Scott: Well why don't we start with the first topic with regard to how large should the commercial zoning extend, which I guess is do we have our central lmsiness district, a retail district cross Highway 5 to the south7 Mancino: Which specifically is the Ward property. Scom Ward property, right. Krauss: Which and Brad was talking about...not recommended. What the plan showed was the possibility for commercial along the first, I think about 20-25 acres. Aanenson: Predeveloped. Mancino: Actually that is in Figure in your chapU~r 8. Figure 8.13-8.1~-8.15. Scott: Perhaps the philosophical question is you know, do we believe that you need to have retail across Highway .S from what is known as our cenu~ Imsiness district7 Fro'makes: Is this open discussion7 Scott: Yeah. I think we can have open discussion. Farmakes: My feelings about it, again I think we discussed this in the study group. I'm open to extending retail. I don't see a compelling reason. I am told from a mar~ standpoint that it would help. I think Brad made the comment that more retail development is good for all retail, although the last retail development that we had in here he wasn't in concunence with that. We rely are looking at two issues it seems to me. One is do we serve Chanha~en with retail Or do we look outside of that to the sub-region issue? And if so, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - Janum~ 19, 1994 how much additional space do we look at? I'm not sure that there's a cOrelli/rig reason outside the half a million square feet that you said for retail space that we need to expand that. I think it's important that it would be in the central district. That we don't have a bunch of malls going off all over in our commnnlty. I don't see any compelling reason not to bring it down below the hi,way but I'm not sure we need the additional service. I haven't seen any information in our study group that has compelling, that says that we deflni~ly need that other than to have a developer come forward and say that we need more retail property. They happen to be in the business of doing, developing retail property so that would make sense that they would say that but I'm not sure the community needs that. Scott: Okay, so your position is, you could go either way but you were not presented with a compelling reason why. Farmakes: I'm looking for a compelling reason that would serve the community good. Scott: Okay. Alright. Personally I don't see that need eitl~r, and I've always been a proponent of a very concentrated central business ~ I will continue to oppose, as tnost of us would, any sort of major retail development anywhere outside of the central tm~ine~ district. And I would look very carefiffiy at any son of strip mall save a neighborhood business in an area that was fairly heavily developed. So I don't see a need for retail space south of Highway 5 either. Anybody else like to comment on that? Conrad: But then you do think that ot~-we space is essential? Scott: Well, having. Conrad: Which we have a fair amount of so. Scott: Well, you know having just expanded our business and looking for office space, there is, you know I haven't and I've checked into the bu/ldings. I don't sense that there's a lot of vacant office space in Wwn. I don't have any statistics but if it's anything like our rental, we have about a less than a 5% rental property vacancy right now in ~ from an apartment standpoint and my sense is that the office space is fairly tight as well. But I personally don't see the need to go across the highway with retail. Conrad: That's not what I've heard but you and I are not experts in the business. Scott: No... 31 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Conrad: $o I won't even push that. It's a matter of, it's son of a gut feel Right now I don't know but I thini~ we need retail space. We're out of it, period. It's like, it's a decision. And I'm not sure that you know, I made some points the last time. Or now that we've got the traffic, should we do something to convert that traffic into remfl sales. We don't really have thc land to really do that so the verbiage and the time we spend on this fight now is probably not worth a whole lot. We don't have much and unless we'd be committed to really getting out of the downtown area, I don't think we have a chance to really tap into the, it's really a resource. A traffic resources coming to Byerly's and Target. We really won't utilize maybe as much as we can. And I think the city of Chanhassen, the residents that I've tallmd to, they're comfortable with thac On the other hand, on thc flip, side of that coin, I see that the downtown doesn't have any more area for retail and therefore the Ward property looks to me to be the right place to put any kind of retail splice. Mancino: What do you mean there isn't any more retail area? What about behind the Frontier? There's that whole vacant land that a huge retail development could go back there. It could also go where the bowling alley is at this point. Conrad: I guess a little bit of it, yeah. Mancino: I think there's a lot of space there for retail Conrad: I think you could pick that up but a finite, there's a limited amount. You know how many people do we have in Chan fight now, 12,0007 And what nrc we going to grow to, 35? Mancino: 35, yeah. Conrad: That's triple. And I'm saying as we grow, there's probably different needs that we may need in 5 years and really you've got one parcel behind the Dinner Theatre that's owned by one person. They can develop it the way they want and I guess I'd like to have some flexibility in town to think that maybe we have some other pamels. Sooner or later it's going to, there's a ]JmiL You know we're limiting retail in (~lhasse~ ~qlem you see red and that's iL There ain't going to be no more al/d I think that's fine. I think that's what I've been around for is to make sure that we keep it in one place. But I'm just saying, right now it appears to me in a gut feel that we need retail space just to satisfy maybe some of the needs of the residents that could be here the next 20 years. As we sell out in C~amhassen and I'd like to have that opportunity to do that. Farmakes: What I question with that kind of thing, and I agree with almost everything that you said. But what I question is, is how many liquor stares do we need? How many mail box type operations do we need and how many, when you transcend into soft goods retail and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 you come into stores that are selling clothes, we don't support that type of foot mfli% and destination, thc specialty type shops, h's more of a service to a suburban community and how many duplications do we have? Conrad: Well let me just throw that back. And they're good queslions. How many places do you have to put a restaurant in Chanhassen? How many restauran~ do we have? How many do we need? Probably more than we do today. Probably is such a nice supporting feature to a population of 35,000. Where are we going to put them? Mancino: 2127 Fatmakes: Actually per capita we probably have thc largest restaurant space in the United States I would guess, short of Conrad: But that's just one. You put remunnts in phw.~ like what I'm talking about. That's where, and where do they go? They could go behind the Dinner Theatre but that's one spot. Farmakes: Two of them over by Target. Conrad: Yeah. My guess would be, and I'm not an expert in the field but if you have 35,000 people, you don't have enough space to put a restaurant. A couple more that might give us a variety of options other than some fast food you know. And maybe that's what we're going to get anyway after we program some mare space. We may end up getting more fast food. Sco~ So you're for expanding the retail south of Highway Conrad: Yep. Scott: Okay. Scott: Should I start down here ~ince you... Mancino: Well I don't know. I like having, I mean the unique part of Chanhassen to me fight now is that we have a cenualize, xt downtown. Centralized retail right there and I lilce_ that. I mean I can go shopping anywhere, but I can't get a sense of community any other place. And I like it in one area. I can go to malls anyplace, anywhere, anytime and I still 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 199~ don't get a downtown feel like I get wh~ I go to Chin and I'd ~ to keep that. So I would not like to see the retail go over across. I'd ~ to ~ it over here. Scorn Okay. Ledvina: I would also be in favor of main~g it north of Highway 5. I think if it is located in that area, that that fragments what we call the downtown. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I think I'm torm I think you can stand on either side of thi~ issue. I guess looking at it broadly, 1 like everything on the north side because it would I guess hopefully induce more of a higher concentration that pedestrian orieated type of development that everybody in Chanhassen seems to want. But on the other hand I certainly support competition and when you have that free enterprise, the competition, it's good for the community. I guess I'm concerned about are we just envisioning like another strip mall in Im'm~ of if something happens on the Ward pmpa'ty or would there be something of desire for the community in tm'ms of retail. I guess my biggest concern is, do we have 3 more dry cleaners or something like that or will we get something in there that actually will benefit the community? I like you know just myself as a resident, I certainly like to run down to the corner store or whatever and pick up whalever I need. So I guess L I have mixed feelings in terms of one way or the other because I think there's issues on both, there's support on both .~des. I don't, you know when you look at the fact that the Ward's is probably the last piece of opportunity and if staff has the, oh I don't know what you'd call it. It's not really the conlrol but has the opportunity perhaps to in a sense put something in there or help ensure something goes in there that's going to benefit the community rather than just be another fourth liquor store or dry cleaners, I would certainly be in favor of seeing that Ward's property develop in that way. Mancino: But we have no comrol over that. We can't tell you what in .5 years is going, you know how that's going to change hands. Harbel'tS: I don't know that, yeah. Scott: Is that part of the Rosemount TIF district or does that stop at TH 1017 Krauss: It's part of thc downtown TIF district. So is Rosemount and... Harberts: So would you say you have that opportunity to...? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: In the next few years you do have the ability to...financial support. Sco~ Th~'s un~l '977 Krauss: Well, it's until 2001 I th~nk_ 2000. But the program has been to do 3 years of increment and you know it's 1994 right now so as time goes on, there's less ability to do something. But in terms of tools, that's the whole purpose of this exercise. The plan you're looking at, the ordinance is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you that you get a...book store or something like that. But then again, you're not going to have,..I think it's inevitable that if you provide a little more opportunity, you're going to get a little better mix. Exactly what that mix is going to, there's no way I can tell you and we don't operate in an environment... Sco~ Well I know we're talking we're going to be building a pedes~ bridge across Highway 5. If you think about why people would want to cross Highway 5, they're probably not going to have as much of a need to do that if, our central business district and the services and so forth is the draw to pull people across Highway 5, why would we stick more retail down here which would k/nd of short circuit the reason that they would use the bridge. Harberts: Which way are they crossing? North to south or south to north? Scott: Probably coming from a residential area into the central business district I would think. Rather than going from residen~ to CBD and back again. But I don't know. I don't know if I could be convinced otherwise like that. But by my scientific calculations here we've got 2 who are leaning strongly wwards adding more retail south of Highway 5 and 4 who are quite strongly leaning the opposite directly so do we need more discussion on this particular item7 Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's a mix. Aanenson: It's a mix, fight. What we're saying is do you want to take commewial that's already... Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you don't want retail, you've got to take it out. Mancino: So it'd just be o/fice~stitutional without retail Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Now is that office retail or... Mancino: What's high ~ech industrial? Krauss: ...high tech industrial kind of walks like an office building, talks like an office building but if you go inside it could be warehouse and manufactudng...high l~h buildings, you know along 494 in Minnetonlra that...Pond project on one side and. Scott: There's Baker Industrial Park. Mancino: Those arc high tcch buildings? buss: Those are high tech buildings. They're glass fronts. They look like offices from the street frontage and a lot of them are 70-80% office but the inlm'ic~s are flexible. And there's loading docks...in the back. Mancino: ...and that would come under office, high tech industrial? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: lust think Nancy how nice a retail center this could be. Where you have wetlands and you have some character that we're striving for in downtown that everybody wants but is not really there. Here's an area that might just be something with some character. Farmakes: Well the issue of office, where we say office, use it as a word for a zone. I always get a little cross eyed at that. The issue of the two developments that we have down here that are offi~ the bottom floors are retail Would that use then be acceptable in this if it's office? Krauss: I don't think so but it depends on how you do it. The Comp Plan, thc '91 Comp Plan actually has one area, it's on thc Ward property that's shown only for office uses. Solely for office uses which I suppose ~ that it would be zoned office institutional is the only use that can go there. In that disuict that's all you can do. Then again if somebody came in as a PUD, which the last 25% of the uses could be something else, it is possible to get a mix. I agree with you and I know, I remember the conversation very well with Brad where the line gets real blunT. Are these retail buildings or are they oW:we buildings? I think you can be more specific than that. But agsin,.. Scotl: Well if we, I'm just kind of looking across old Highway 101 from that are~ If we're talking about putting some sort of a hotel, park and ride kind of a complex over there, it is 36 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 conceivable he said we're going to have, it looks like that hotel development will probably be a little bit more substantial than Country Suil~s, maybe7 Yes? No? M~ght there be small retail associated with that project? I suppose anything's possible but I'm just thinking. Krauss: That's a project that hasn't coalesced yet. We're still working on that. If it did happen in it's current inchon, there's already a little strip mall there right now, and it providcs a nice mix. The only other additional retail that was thought of is a rcstauxmt, frcc standing or attached in conjunction with the hotel/motel. Scott: Okay. Well, on this particular issue do we go with the staff recommendation or do we remove commercial, which I would understand, would we remove retail? If we remove commercial desi~stion from here, that remains retail? Aanenson: Except as Paul mentioned, if they came forw~ with a PUD. Scott: With a PUD it could be 2,5% but th~m that would give us the opportunity to look at the plan in it's entirety and if we felt at that point in time that some small retail would be appropriate, maybe that's the bottom linc. Maybe we remove the ~ segrmmt of this but if it ha~s to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoev~ happens to be on the Phmning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that? Mancino: Works for me. Scott: Works for you? Ledvina: That's acceptable for me. Scott: Matt. What do you think Diane? Harberts: Yeah, it works for me. I think that enables more of an influence by thc city and community. Scott: Okay. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: No. Scott It stinks. It still stinirs. Conrad: Yeah, you know. My position would be, I'd really like to see some nice retail go in 37 Pl~ning Commission Meeting - Snnuary 19, 1994 Scorn What's nice retail? Conrad: Well we've got to get moving along but we don't have a lot of control on that. I just, really my bottom line is, I don't think you can afford to take ~ out of, we need some retail space and I'm not convinc~l we need the other space that you're zoning it for. That's really my bottom line. Scott: AlrighC Are we. Farmak~: Is that property in or out of the T[F district7 Krauss: It's in and it was included, at least pan of it. Farmakes: So the odds are we would probably be seeing the PUD no matlm- what anyway on this particular piece of pro~7 Krauss: Again, if somelt~g happened... Harba'ts: Ladd, are you maybe hedging that you'd rather see most of _this retail mi:her than the office? Conrad: I like the mixed use and I'd like to see a real nice. To t~ll you the truth, I'd like to see a real nice retail shopping center there. Harbens: Versus high Itch office? Conrad: But what are the chances that, the chances are minimal that we'd get it so. Scott: Yeah, on 7 acres. I mean if we went with a 25% PUD, we would get probably 4 or 5 acres of retail. Let's say 4 acres of retail versus 7 acres, which is obviously about 75% more. Mancino: Ladd, you could just as easily get a discount store there. Sco~ Can you get big box retail on 7 acres? Conrad: Can you? Scott: That's, we don't want. I mean I don't want that. Target's 107 38 Planning Commission Meeting- San,~ry 19, 1994 Krauss: Target's on lO...wc'll have to check. Sco~ Yeah, so I mean so it's conceivable. Personally I don't want to see these big box retails but. Mancino: K-Mart. Wal-Mart. $cot~ I don't want it. I don't want that there. Conrad: ~ust a clarification though. Based on the current zoning, a discount store could go. Or based on the map that we looked at, a discount store could go in. Krauss: You're right. Conrad: And maybe it's better what you're doing. Scott: Okay, are you okay7 Mancino: We're all in agreement. Scott: Anyway, so we're done with the Ward property. Harberts: What about the Fleet Farm7 Mancino: It's not a very clear recommendation so the City Council knows. Farmakes: Well, which one are we on right now7 Scott: Still the first item. So anyway. Basically what they're, the zoning that we're going to recommend is all office. We call it office, IOP. Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Office institutional and that is, in the vernacular of planningese that is what? OI7 Krauss: That would be one of the zones in the appropriate. Scott: Yeah, and what would you call it70I, ~ industrial7 39 Planning CommJ~ion Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Office institutionaL Sc, om Okay. ~ institutional. TMt's for the whole thing. Farmakes: How long does that remain in TIF by the way? Is it the end of the decade? Does TIF nm out, is it 2000? Conrad: 2001. Krauss: There's also an industrial. Mancino: Just office institutional. Not office industrial institutional. Krauss: Oh, if you consider changing two things. Mancino: Well there was never office industrial on here. Scott: Yeah, because we've got office institutionaL Krauss: That's one with the stripes. Mancino: Oh, I'm looking again at this site plan. Scott: Well, because I'm looking at I think maybe the same thing. At least ac, cording to this Figure 8.14. The 7 acre parcel was retail office, high tech industr~ and what we want this whole thing m be is office institutional Two di~t things, right? Mancino: Yes. Pink and blue. Scott: So we nailed down our recomtmmd~on is that we want to see the entire pmpe~, the land use office institutional Aanenson: You're eliminating the high tech type, smaller footprint industrial? That was one of the uses... Harberts: I think, it was my unclersmnding the only thing we're doing is removing commercial out of the staff recommendation. Am I right on that? Scott: Okay, so we're removing commercial. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Did you get that? Krauss: You wanted to clarify in the te~xt to say that Scott: No commewial zoning on the Ward pmtm'ty. Krauss: No, that's not what you said though. As a part of a PUD it coold_ possibly have Mancino: That's tree. Farmakes: ...have to say that is that a PUD allows for... Aanenson: If you turn to page 21 in the document and it talks about... Scott: Which docum~t? Aanenson: It says it's the Ward property. Scorn Okay. Scott: Yep. Aanenson: We're eliminating retail co~ but we're saying office indusu~ and add institutional. And then you say PUD...msy be considered under a PUD. Scott: Would we agree with that7 Why don't you restate that? That was good. Aanenson: Okay. Under the potential use...thc first one will be retail commercial. Scott: So we strike that. Aancnson: Strike that out. Scott: Okay, that's out of there. 41 Plann/ng Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Aanenson: ResidentiaL..and office indusUialfmstitutionaL Scot~ Okay, because it does mention institutional in the text but you want to have it all office industfialfmsfitufional. Aanenson: Right. And then say commercial may be permitted under the PUD. May be considered. Scott: Yeah, may be considered. Yep, that's hnportant May be considered. Okay. Is everybody clear on what we've done? Farmakes: We're eliminating industrial Scott: Ah no. We're eliminating, for a potential use retail and commercial It's going to be all office indusuialfmstitutional and commcrdal may be consida~ as part of a PUD. Not to exceed 25% but I guess that's the PUD ordinance so. Okay. Have we finished that item to everyone's satisfaction? I'll say yes. Farmakes: Yes. Mancino: Yes. Scott: Okay. What about the Opus? Mancino: I have some notes. Scott Oh okay. These issues affect the option for commercial zoning on the Ward property. Which I understand, and the VanDeVeire. Okay, let's talk about that. Mancino: What are we talking about? Scott: How does this affect the option for VanDeVeire7 Aancnson: These are the other commercial pieces that you're looking at. This portion of Fleet Farm and the question that we talked about, potentially including in a park. And thc other one is the VanDeVeire piece which...so that ties back into...and if there should be some ancillary to service the ncighborhood. And support cornmerdaL Scott: Let's talk about for VanDeVe~. Right now we have what? Let me see with the Song/Carlson property and some of the Lundgren developments, if we add all that sudf Plalmirlg Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, together with the existing people living in that azea, we're looking at.400-500 single family houses. I'm just trying to get an idea. Mancino: No. 200 Lundgren. Krauss: If you're looking at a service area for neighborhood commercial, add the 144 homes in the Hans Hagen and the 70 homes im..but they're not turning the same comer. So I think_., we think that's where your Irade ia Scott: So we have the same question on that property. Is that something that, I guess Diane, how do you see that particular comer? Do you see that as a general commercial or something like a neighborhood business k-ina of...? Mancino: ...is that what it is? Farmakes: Is that the property? Harberts: Is that what he has ond then he has that commcrdal? What's this commercial proposed as neighborhood or...something else? Krauss: At this particular time... Conrad: I think it should stay neighborhood. Scott: Neighborhood commercial? Conrad: Yes. Scott: What is the zoning classification on that? Neighborhood. Haffoerts: That's what that represents now. Krauss: Actually we've shown it as a mix. Neighborhood commerce, medium family residential and I believe... Mancino: ...I don't have a big deal with the way and I ~ the three suggestions. The medium density, multi-family, the neighborhood commercial and I think we even said on the task force open space. You know it's across from the school It's surrounded by the Bluff Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Creek corridor, which I think is an amenity to that whole area, and so I think it's i .m1~rmnt where we do have that corridor amenity there, that we do have families living around it that can use it and not to put either in.stitutional right up to this wonderful nature trail and corridor that people don't use it, or to put a lot of commemial around it. Because I think that homeowners and family members will use it so much more. So that's kind of my concern and I know we're just getting started to work on the Bluff Creek corridor so I'm concerned about that. I'm also a little concerned about having commercial across the street from a school but it also serves neighborhoods in that area too. So I don't have a big concern either way. Farw~ire_~: That's one of the properties that I thought, at least next to the creek there that I thought that the city should try and acquire some of that. Thc devcloprnent that I saw up here tonight goes right up to the limited borders of that creek and if it is a multi, I don't think you're going to see much of that creek from the highway. To be honest with you. I'm fine with some limited commercial, neighborhood commemiaZ I guess from a planning standpoint, I guess any of these other uses that were listed are also fine. I do think though that that's another one of the areas that does have some wooded areas or it's adjacent to wooded areas. That we should uy and preserve thac Scott: So do we have a consensus on neighborhood business, multi-family, open space. So there would be no change there. Okay. Are we okay with that? No change on the VanDeVeire? Okay. Okay, how about the westerly piece of the Fleet Farm site adjacent to the limited access road? I was going to ask, what page is that on? We've got these great maps here. Harberts: It's got to be on TH 41 there where the TH 41 and TH 5. Aanenmn: On page 48 of this. Ledvina: Can you point out what's done on the wes~ly pan of that? Mancino: Look to your 8.7 and 8.8. Aanenson: Easterly. Is that the one we're looking at tying with the park? As we stated, we're not sure that that will be a full intersection at that...We're having Opus doing a traffw study and stated that that may just be a free right only. It may not be a full intersection. Harbens: So, that would make a difference. Scott: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting- Sanuary 19, 1994 Harberts: Well when we went out there and drove it, if this is what ~ with the road system. I don't know, I thought I kind of liked it. Mancino: Which part? Farmakes: Like it is7 Harberts: Yeah. At least from what I've seen. Mancino: You can't have that west city road go up north7 Haxberts: Well with the development or potenti~ development there, with those access. Mancino: I think this northern pan between Gal~ and TH 41, and I said it earlier to Ladd, absolutely gorgeous land. I mean it's got these wonderful wetlands and you look up north there, just beautiful, beautiful land and wiling hill~ Farmakes: I'm fine with the uses being proposed for those two smaller parcels. Obviously I'm not for the Mills section. Conrad: Would you be though if there's not a road Farmakes: For large scale co~? Aanenson: Look at the development p~ We're looking at really three 3 to 5 acre parcels on either side of that road. I think the reason that got mised...go back and look at the sit~ analysis, and in the development design that was done for both parcels, covnmerdal was never mentioned on the easterly portion or evolved from this plan... Farmakes: What I see here on thc map is 3 acres to the east that says offwe institutional and then 2.5 acres to the west that says alternative land uses. ~ institutional, neighborhood retaiL Those are thc two parcels that we're discus~ng right now? Or are you expanding that out to the entire area7 Aanenson: I was looking at... Krauss: Well yeah, you've got 3 questions on there. Two of which we raised in here and one which was raised in the... Farmakes: Right. I'm just wondering what, you know are we going to discuss them as a Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19~ group or are we going to discuss thcm each as a, it seems to me that they're, from my standpoint anyway, a couple of those uses are fine. And some of the altemative uses that were being discussed by Mr. Hoffrrmn hcre...that's a different animal. Scott: Well the size of the parcels obviously could change depending upon if that west city street actually become~ a furl intersection and the street goes up and intersects with the access boulevard. Because then we'd have what, a fairly large parcel. Aanenson: It'd still be just a free fight to get in there and then come back out. And then ff you wanted to proceed, a free fight to get onto the fronta§c road and then come back out on TH 41, but that may not be a full intersection is what I'm saying. Sco~ But whether or not that street's there will have a lot to do with what happens on that property. Farmakes: Sure. But that might be 10 years from now. Scott: So do we have any, do we want to guide that far something else or are we comfortable with the? Ledvina: That's okay. Harberts: I think generally it was okay. The issue is going to surround with the, what type of inlm~ction, if any, as I understand it. Will the city be able to consider? They won't have that information at the time this is moved ahead so it's just one of those transition pieces. Is that correct7 Or thi~ goes ahead until that traffic study's completed. Krauss: You know the traffic study is going to tell us whether or not Opus needs an access out onto Highway 5 at that point. Whether or not that should be signalized. It's not going to tell us whether or not we need the north leg. It's the same kind of a thing I was talking about on Audubon. Resli,tically this mad is peff~y adequate to service that entire area without that intersection on the north side. Scott: Yeah. That's so close to TH 41. I can scc whcrc thc traf~ study of ingress and egress from the development but not for that other... Krauss: Whereas Opus needs it from a traffic standpoint..Js to their probably benefit by not having it. You're not chopping up parcels. You're keeping neighborhoods together. Planing Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Scott: Well maybe we should consider, at least cons/der it as a contiguous piece of 7 to 8 acres...and look at it that way. So how does that, does that change anybody's thoughts as to the applicability of the zone guiding on it7 Harberts: I guess I don't, I'm not against what you're saying ~Ioe. I'd like to, let's just leave the road system in until the traffic study's done. Krauss: Maybe there should be some language in there because the only reason why there was a co~al use in there is because there may be an intemection. No intersection, there's no reason for a commercial use there. Mancino: So then having an alternative if there isn't a road, I won~ld go ahead and continue the multi-family. Aanenson: Or the park option. Scott: Okay. So okay. So if there's no extension. So if then if there's no extra,on of the west city street, then it's multi-fanfily park? If there is an extension, then it's neighbo~ood business? What's the second piece here really? Harberts: Well I was under the hnpresdon that ff there is no road extension, that the commercial element is just removed as an option. Scott: Which would make sense. Harberts: Thc other option is park. Krauss: The...would be like a church site. Harberts: Right. The other option would be a park and then was there a _third option for that piece? No, guess not. Aanenson: Multi-family. Hadm-ts: Multi-family, so there's three options. Scott: I think we're through now with the first piece. Opus site should be left IOP except for the most northerly portion. Get your maps out. The most northerly portion west of Highway 41 which shall be left medium family residential That's up against the 10 acre Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19~ parcel that's a single family home? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Now where's medium family again? Aanenson: It's fight here. Mancino: The piece behind? Aancnson: All of this will be zoned 1OP. And we've always stated that commewial will not be permitted at this comer. That commewial under a PUD, if they have 25% and if they were to put it in...down in this corner and not on this side of the street. And the PUD would guide this to be office type uses...dcsign, thc lighting be corr~.~b~ with the acreage. Scott: And then multi-farnily woold abut the 10 acre parcel Aanenson: Where the wetland is adjacent to the house? Scott: Yeah. That kind of, the wetland kind of bisects that paw~ Let me ask a question. It says the PAD. Aanenson: That should say PUD. Scott: That's kind of what I thought. Another acronym I didn't know. Okay. Vfnat do we feel about that? Conrad: It's perfect Mancino: Not for me. Scott: It doesn't work for you? Mancino: I would still like to see all the, the land that touches the Arboretum multi-family. I went and looked at a land use map and looked through thc city and looked at our city parks and what kind of land use was around you know Lake .a, nn; Meadow Green Park, Caeenwood Shores Park. You know all of our parks are surronnded, except for Lake Susan Park, but most of our parks we have tried w, at least from what I can see that predecessor's have done, Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 have tried to put them in those green spaces in single family or multi-family areas. Scott: From my big packet, that's a park deficie~oy thing. Mancino: And I think that's done for a reason~ I think that there are green spaces. If you look at that map that's up in front of us, besides Lake Ann Park, if it weren't for the Arboretum, there wouldn't be a lot of big chunks of green open space. And I'm very concerned about what we do around those big green open spaces. To preserve them. To keep them as a place where people want to go and wslir and see vegetation, etc. And so I would like to see medium family surrounding the Arboretum. Scott: Well isn't the trailhead for the Chash trail system is actually right across from what is now...as lOP, fight7 And if we brought multi-family all the way down, that might make. Mancino: Which is what they've done in Chaska, and what abuts the Arboretum in Chaska is single family. Scott: Yes. Along with the road coming in. Now con'ect me if I'm wrong. Everybody... that actually the folks at the Arboretum would prefer industrial office because of the activity being predominantly 8:00 to 5:00 and nothing going on on the weei~nds and so forth when there'd be people at the Arboretum versus multi-family. The times that the multi-family are going to be the most active would be when the Arboretum's most active? Krauss: I ailed with Peter Olin on that after our last meeting. No, that is not his position. I think it was the position of the people, the residents in the area, who are Chaska resident.. Aanenson: That's what Peter Olin spoke tonight... Scott: Yeah, I heard that and that didn't make sense to me. Aanenson: Just to go back to the park issue. One of the most succesdul pad~ we have in the city is in an industrial park and I think Todd's preference is, is his ~ to have the park Scott: Lake Susan? Aanenson: Lake Susan is a good example and for scheduling and then the tm/ftc. It works better than trying to impact things on the neighbors who are concerned about lighting and traffic through the neighborhood and it's been very succesduL That's why he was pushing so hard to get it into the Opus site. Where it benefits both large industrial users where they 49 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 have a place to go on their lunch hour, ~ work or. .. organized activities. Sco~ Do the customers or does Todd think his customers for Lake ,4,nn; or Lake Susan Park, is there a lot of activity from the leagues from Rosemount, Roberts? Krauss: A tremendous amount Scott: Okay, so his view is that it's something that kind of suddenly dawned on me is that this could be basically you're putting the park where your customers arc. For organized. Their vision of the park is active, scheduled type stuff where we tend to lean more towards the passive, wetland. Okay. Anyway, what do we all think about having multi, bringing multi-family all the way down to West 86th Street? Aanenson: 82nd. Scott: 82nd Street And having a multi-family strip there instead of IOP down there on 82nd. We know what Nancy thinks. What do you think Ladd7 Farmakes: I've never seen a compelling reason to bring industrial across the highway. But tempered with what cotmnents I have heard from the Arboretum, I'm open to whatever thc residents that abut that property would like. Prom a planning perspective, this is like really kind of a back closet in Chanhassen. It's a comer and it's, I think it's an issue of buffered use at this point. It's not really a planning issue. I'm open to vote either way on that particular item. Scott: Okay, good. What do you think? Conrad: I think we're treating this ~ it's an access park. You can't, your multi-family folks can't go into the Arboretum. That's trespassing. Mancino: Sure they can. Conrad: But you made some parallels between other parks and that doesn't count. They can't go there. I think, thc issue is buff~g the Arboretum Fiat out, that's the issue. My perspective, and the second issue is doing what the local residents who have single family care about. Single family folks would rather put the office institutional in there is what my feeling was when I heard them talk. In fact, my feeling is, the best buffer, the best visual control we have is putting in. Making it IO in that area. I think we could just do a terrific 50 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 job for the Ar~ in terms of visual impact if we left it IOP. Becaus~ we've got control We've just got a ton of control We can put some, we can do so many things that just make it unobtrusive to the Arboretum. Maybe you could make the same comment about putting in multi-family but multi-faivgly is real, I'll ~ you. If you put multi-family in them, it doesn'g it's like you're putting it in the middle of where? You've got office. You've got industrial to the south. You've got industrial lOP to the east. It is kind of nice to put it up against a park but they can't use the park. Mancino: Sure they can. They can walk to the. Conrad: You can't walk through. Mancino: It's right there. But you also have single family fight south of them. Conrad: It goes south but not in the park. Mancino: No, but there's single family. The Chaska zoning is single family. Conrad: But anyway, bottom line for me is, I think the residents would rather have it the way, the IOP. Ledvina: Well, can I just try to recollect my thoughts on that? I think they were thinking that if we were going to be doing multi-family there, they'd rather have the IO, the indusafial thing application. But we had it set up here as a recomnmadation for single family and that's consistent with what they have. Am I right there? Aanenson: Well thc way it's shown here, a pon/on of it's single family and a partion of it's strictly office. Scott: But is that square that's single family, that's one single family home. Aanenson: No. It's 30 acres. Farmakes: There is an existing single family home. Ledvina: $o I think in comparison to multi-family and indusa'iak light industrial, they'd rather have the industrial but I think for single family, I don't think they would object to single family as well. I mean given the hierarchy of land use. Farmakes: The single family though were looking at developing the property. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 19~ Farmakes: As industrial, Ledvina: So whatever. I guess ovcnll I'm pretty comfortable with how the staff has laid it all there. The parcel to the east, that's pink there on the map. The reality of that chunk is that there is a very large wetland on the northern part of that that buffers the Arboretum and I don't know what, even if you could possibly do anything with that single family orange, industrial so I'm not, I'm pretty indifferent to any classification on that. So I'm comfortable with it the way it is. Scott: Okay, so what you're saying is single family up above, multi-family on 82nd or IOP on 82nd? Krauss: I think if you look at Figure 8.21, you have that regom _mendation. It.show8 medium density, office and medium density down on the street. Ledvina: Okay, so it isn't single family? Aanenson: No. Ledvina: I guess considering that, I would agree with Ladd then. Kind of flip flopping but I thought that was, fight along 82nd there was 6ngle family on our maps but that's incorrect. Sco~ It's IOP. Aanenson: No, it's shown as... Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I guess I'm comfortable with the way the staff has laid it out. $co~ You're not. Jeff's kind of. Mancino: Well I'm comfortable with the Highway 5 task force reco~on, which is medium density in that. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Adjacent to the Arboretum and then of:rice... Harba~: I support that staff recommendatiom Mancino: Which? Conrad: Which is the task force? Aanenson: The modified...? Harberts: The modified. Medium density. Aanenson: With the rest ali 1OP. Harberts: Yep. Scott: Yeah, I would agree with that as well. Okay. So we're clear. Are you guys clear on what. Aanenson: So was there consensus on that7 A show of hands7 Sc. om 4 of us liked it as indicated. J~f was. Farmakes: I'm comfortable as it's written. Scott: Okay. And then Nancy you wanted to see multi-family brought down to the, you're snickedng. What are you snickedng about? Okay. You got that? Aanenson: Yep. Scott: Okay. Eckankar property. The owners are requesting that in addition to the multi- family, that institutional be lisuxl as a permitted use. Diane. Harberts: Now as I understood from our work session, that thc multi-f~mily would be thc underlying designation in the event something happened to the cummt owners. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Scott: So your concern is, it's okay to have it institutional but if something happens to the institutional rose, it would revert back to multi-family7 Harberts: Right. Now the only question that I have, what's their cm'r~t, how is it currently guided? Krauss: I think it's medium and high. Harberts: Okay, so we're not changing it. Aanenson: You wouldn't rezone iL Krauss: The only proposal in here was that, I think it covers both bases because basically you leave that yellow up there... Harbem: Okay. Aanenson: The zoning would still remain the same. Harberts: Yeah, and as I said at the work session, I don't have any problem with it. I thought it was fine. Ledvinm Well I didn't attend the work session but I think that's a reasonable way of ameuding iL Scott: Okay, Ladd. Scott: Jeff. You're okay? Okay. Okay, so am L Okay, so that's a yes. Okay, about what? Farmakes: Well we discussed the pan:eh next to it, I'm wondering about the issue of commercial scale on the comer of TH 5 and TH 41. Scott But recommending an access boulevard altmmafive do we, and then also recommending the design standards, doesn't that take care of the Fleet Farm use on that corner? Farmakes: Well yeah, I'm sure it will be brought up to the City Council and I'm wondering if philosophically. P/anning Commission Meeting - hnuary 19, 1994 Scott: You're looking for a statement. Farmakes: A statement and the issue of expanding large scale commerdfl outside the business district. Scott: Oh, well. I think we can take care of that. I mean I stagd my opinion but I guess, we'll take just a quick, actually son of a detour but as Jeff is stating, as I understand it, that as Planning Commission I think we may need to make a very specific s~__t~vumt about the use for the proper~ on the Mills Fleet Farm property. And your thoughts are? Fmmakes: My thoughts are that the large scale commercial use would be inappropria~ in that area. Scott: Okay, I would agree with that. Nancy? Mancino: I agree. Scott: Ladd. Diane. Scott: Okay so just for thc matter of record, thc Planning Commi.ksion is unanimously opposed to any large scale commewhd use of the property northeast on thc intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 5. Otherwise known as the Mills property. Okay. J.P. Links, which is 15-20 acres may be considered as a park site. Aanenson: ...another opt/om Scott: Fine, fine7 Okay. That's a yes there. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek. South of the frontage road. Multi-family should be considered as an option with thc indusuial. What do you think Ladd? Aanenson: That was the piece we were just talking about. Scott: With Mr. Dobbs, cozrect? Okay, Dobbs? John Dobbs: That's correct. Conrad: I think that's fine. Planning Commission Meeting - ~Ianuary 19, 1994 Scott: Fine. Nancy. Mancino: No problem. Scott: lc-ff. Farmakes: No problem. Scott: lust because of it's proximity to the Bluff Creek corridor, obviously this is coming in as a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Is it going to be industrial on the outside and multi-family on the inside? Farmakes: Sounds like a candy bar. Scott: And crunchy too. Conrad: How many acres are we talking about right there? Aanenson: 120. We'll have three different ones. Single family, multi-family and industrial. Conrad: Okay. Good. $o by doing what we just did, giving them the option, how many acres are we taking out of~ Aancnson: You're taking it out of the industrial Conrad: How many acres would we be taking out'/ Aanenson: We're not taking it out. We're saying... Conrad: It could be but more than likely... Scott: And then we'll be able to, we're going to see it anyway so. 56 Plavni,g Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Conrad: My only point is, you know industrial's a high value. Do we have enough of it? buss: You have to remember that's also a flood plain. Sco~ Okay. Possible locations of a 15-20 acre park of the easterly portion of the ~ Farm property. Aan~n: We talked about that already. Mancino: I actually tbinlc it would be a wonderful viewpoint into that area, into the wetlands that are north of that. Scott: Okay, that's a big yes on that one. Okay. Now we move on into development and design standards issues. Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts, the central business district (I-IC-1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers on the west. And that was something that just came out of our discussion at the work session. Krauss: That was something that when we expanded thc CBD district... Scott: Which will definitely impact the DataServ looks. Krauss: I think it gets to a lot of the...I don't know what thc concern is but that was one of the things we discussed. Scott: But that's the gate, the eastern gateway to the city and I think it's appropriate that we do something. $o we're all in favor of that? Okay. Now here's a big item that we'll be debating for a long time. Application of these standards far public transit, is there flexibility? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay. Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added. So th~'a Aanenson: We'll put that in there...we ask~ for 3 d_iffemnt typicais...Not all pitched roofs depending on the san~ of the b~_ilding...so different applications. Scott: Okay. Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logos. Aanenson: That was raised by Jeff. Scott: Yes we will. 57 Planning Commission Meeting- Sanuary 19, 1994 Aanenson: You want to put that in there7 Scott Yeah, I think so. Conrad: Why? Scott: Well, because we talked about accent colors and that we want to have accent colors to break up the monotony but I don't consider a Hardee's sign an accent color. So it can't be part signage. Ledvina: What I'm thinking of, what if they have an admiral blue as part of their, one of their logo colors. They can't use that? Scott: Well, I think what we're trying to get away from is someone saying we're breaking up the monowny on our building by using our signage. Krauss: I think Rapid Oil is a good example where they have their red barreling as part of their logo. Or Burger King which has a neon orange stripe around the building. If that's an accent color... Scott: Yeah, we're looking more at architec~amd elements and not signage. Aanenson: I think what we did is put it in contem. Ledvina: You're telling them not to use their color. Scott: No, no. They can't include the color as, see if we're asking them to break up the monotony of a surface on their tmilding or their strucm~ by using accent colors, generally they do something with tile or brick or something ~ that which is great but by putting or using, holding their sigllage up as a conformance to adding accent colors to break up the monotony, signage should be. I don't know if you want to. Aanenson: ...context of looking at thc...of the ordinance about...Those are questions to make Scott: Okay, and then the height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are limited to one story and it shall be neutral in color. 58 Plann/ng Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Aanenson: So you want that added? Scott: Do we? Yes. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Harba'ts: As opposed to what? 3 story? Ledvina: Is it appropriate to do that? I mesh in all cases to limit it to 1 story? I don't know that that's. Krauss: Well, you're going to wind up with more poles, which raises cost. Ledvina: Yeah. Which there's more lights. Scott: Well then we have our landscape, our parking lot landscape stuff which is going to cause more islands. Ledvina: How tall is one sWry? 12 feet right? That means you're looking at a 12 foot light7 Scott: How tall is Target? Ledvina: Those are 40 feet. Krauss: Those are 40 feet, yeak Ledvina: We want sonmhing inbetweem Scott: What are we looking for here? Mancino: Well we didn't want anything taller. One of the things was it wasn't any taller than the building. IJire the ones at Target are much ~ than the bnildit~g. Krauss: Well there you have a 25 foot high building. Scott: So is Market Square and it seems like every, I think you go into any commercial parking lot and you can see. Mancino: You can see them over the heads, I mean you can see them 3 miles away. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 199~ Led~: Yeah but one story, is that ovefldll? I mean that's what scares me. Mancino: I don't know. Conrad: You know actually I think you're right because I'm not sure that that makes sense. Scott: Should it be 1 1/2 times the height of the bnilding? I mean is that what we're looking for? Mancino: Well that could be 3 stories... Farmakes: We toyed there about whether or not it should be any higher than the bnilding, similar to a pylon issue. Then there was a discussion that you would have too many lights because they don't, the arch of the light~ does not give off enough, it's not high enough to give off enough fight coverage. So can we get, it would seem to me again that that's a professional response to what's appropriate. I think the issue is, you don't want to drive in and see these kind of arched lights that are far higher than any of the buildings...Well they lend too much visual pollution from the standpoint of it kind of becomes signs in a way. Ledvina: I understand and I agree with that but can we just, instead of saying these shall be whatever, 12 feet. I mean can we say that they're going to be. Mancino: In proportion to the height of the building. Ledvina: Yeah, right. Scott: What does that mean? I mean I was more comf~le when it was like I 1/2 times. Farmakes: I'd like to see a specific gap similar to the way that we do pylon si~ Scott: What is that? Fm'makcs: I'm not saying it should be the same. I'm saying that something that is reasonable for the economy of lighting a paddng lot. But no more than thag Scott: Why don't we say 1 1/2 times the height of the suucun~ and if somebody comes back and says, watts and all this kind of junk and they can say well Mancino: But 1 1/2 times is still higher than the ~ Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: 1 1/2 times so it's 16 feet on a 12 foot building. Farmak~: But you could have a maximum building though of more than 40 feet. Conrad: We really don't know what we're talking about here. Let's stop this. Somebody's got to tell us. The intent is real valid but we don't have a solution. Ledvina: Let me get back to that just a little bit though. I mean if we can't say that it should be in proportion or use a qualilatlve term like that, then the whole, then we're taking the wrong approach to this ordinance because we go through this throughout the ordinance in umns of being subjective and having qualitative measures and all of that. So if we're trying to do that for light fixtures, I think we've got to take a real deeper look at that what's in here and how we're doing it. Farmakes: No, I disagree with that I think that there are qualitative issues on there. There are issues such as how many materials are be/rig used in comparison to build it... There are other issues where you don't want to be quantitative and the issue of the height of something, I think you should be, should say specifically what the maximum is. And the issues of aesthetic things, that becomes a far more difficult issue. You talk more about the end intent of wha~ you're looking for. Ledvina: Isn't the height of a light fixture aesthetic though? Fro'makes: Not necessarily. Not if you're going to qualify it. If you want to qualify it, and you say in proportion to the building, define the word proportion. Many of the definitions that are in there, that may seem ambiguous are definexi. And I think in the purpose of the light fixture, or we discussed that issue. You were concerned I think about the...and ~ of things that are already currently in our ordinance. I think the purpose of it was that you did not get disproportionately huge lighting situations going on. Scold: But I don't have any problems specifying something and it doesn't have to be 1 1/2 times the building but I think when you put some language in, the...who would be hnp~ by it, would take a look at it and if they can come back and you know with reasons why this isn't going to work. I mean I don't know, quite frankly on that issue I don't know what we're talking about but I think we do need to put something in there that's specific. So as part of the next step of the process, ff somebody should come back and say here's why or why not it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: Currently I believe don't we have a height ~on on lighting7 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: I _think we just have a candle. Krauss: Now we have a half a foot candle at the property line. Farmakes: You just have a power resuicfion. Krauss: And the problem always comes about, that when they mice the~ plans to an elecuical conuactor...to bid, that can save you $25,000.00... Fro'make: Well, I would enemin just getting a professional responses to what would, the econornic...leave it to that. Harberts: I think it's a public safety issue too perhaps. Scott: Yeah. Let's do it. Mancino: I have one quick question. Kate and Paul, on Chapter 8 with the standards related to architectural designs. It says standards governing all these architectural designs shall...both new and renovated buildings. Do we need to say what a renovated building is7 I ~ does that mean when somebody existing on Highway 5 let's say, ! don't know the storage company who has rooftop equipment that shows now. It's very visible from Highway 5. Wants to screen and do a little bit of building renovation. Do they have to comply with these standards now? Krauss: I thinir we should have some more specific language. One of the things we talked about, a couple of years ago...you want to work with your existing business community by encouraging them to expand or improve and a way to do that is not to throw, not come down like a...you're adding a window, therefore you've got to add $75,000.00 in irr.mr, ovements to make it proportional. We can probably put in some language there that says just _ths_t Ledvina: I'd recommend that. Sco~ Also too, this is on page 12 where it talks about in locations where plants would be susceptible to injury, so on and so forth. Possibly something in there about the salt tolerance and I may have missed that ff it was in here but we spend a lot of time lalking about that in all of our developments. This would be good to have use of salt tolerant spedes, Krauss: ... over the sumrmr we had the ordinance that... 62 Planning Commission Meeting - Sanunry 19, 1994 Scott: Good. Okay. What about the comment that came up about any development, and I don't know whether it's going to be at the conceptual plan would show not only all the elevations but some sort of a computer aided design or a computer generated simulation of a~_mnl~ ~ actual vis-nj impact and as constructed. Not in 15 yr, ars when thc ~ nl~ big. It seems like when we see these plans, first of all and I got quite excited when I saw that, the bridge because I think we were able to jump on that and make some better decisions. I thinlc we would be better served if we had that as a requirement of all projects at a certain point. Aanenson: ...you may want to amend the ordinance to say any large scale parceL.. Scorn Okay, so that's a different ~pot. Okay. Have we satisfactorily dealt with the land us~ portion and the design standards? Mancino: I have one other design standard question for people to talk about and that is, there's nothing in here on neighborhood commercial. And I would liice to see something about how neighborhood commerdal is different than a regular commexcial area, ~g does it, how it fits in with the neighborhood better. Does it have more residential type materiah being used that retlect the neighborhood that it's support to be part of? Scott: Good point. Farmakes: Won't that be part of the zone though? Scott: I don't think it is. Aanenson: In a PUD certainly when we lookr, d at th~ with Opus, ~y that would be something to put in a PUD development plan. Do you want it to be archil~mmlly compatible so it looks as one cohesive unit, and that's one of the goals. But certainly if you had a separate case that's not under a PI.rD. Mancino: Yeah, I mean what about Galpin and TH 5. Aanenson: Right, and that is built separately without any other project, right. Do you still want it to go under the residential, so it looks like it's part of that neighborhood. Mancino: Yes. Because it is neighborhood commercial. I mean it's not general commcwin]. Aanenson: I know that's in thc intent. I think we'll have to make sure that, even the intent when we adopt thc plan. I mcan that's in thc goal staten~nt there but how we put that into 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 the ordinance,, we'll have to get some clsxification from the City Attorney on that. That was an issue that was... Scott: Any other comments on deaign standards or land usc'/ Sccing none, let's talk about the access boulevard. Harberts: I'd like to maybe broaden that a liule bit lust with regards to the conunents we heard _this evening. I think some of the comets that we heard tonight we've addres~ through some of this discussion. And there seems to be other comments. I don't know if .they're really our role to address such as with the roadway, moving it 100 feet south or, I guess what really concerns me is some of the comments made by the, well the fact that the conunents made by the landowners in terms of not supporting the whole access boulevard conccpt. I'm not saying that, I ccrtainly reco~iTe thc need for development and I think thc best thing that this community can do is put a plan out there. I think we've all sat on this commission and pulling the hair out of our head in terms of, give us a road map. An htfra~u'ucmre plan so we don't have this pieces hcre, pieces there of roadways not connecting. I like the idea of putting thc access boulevards out there as a guide plan so that we do know what way dcvelopment is going to go. I guess I'm going to defer to the task force of where the ali~mcnt is for the corridor because of all the time they spent on it. I guess when we look at DataScrv, I don't know who's role it is to consider that request with regard to you know 600 employees. That's somewhat of a major development for Chanhassem So I'm just sharing my, I guess my comments in terms of what I heard tonight Narmakes: I would qualify that. I was on the task force and we had known flint, the task force was made up of many divergent interesta The same divergent interests that you see here tonight. And it's similar to this commission I guess. They don't always vote alike. Sometimes it's 5 to 4 and sometimes it's 10 to 1. I mean there were a lot of cl~ffercnt things to look at on this issue. Many of them, particularly the landowners, obviously they have a divergent interest Their properties are all shaped ,~crcntly. How they can maximumly develop them to get their return on their property. Whc~ their access roads would be. Each property owner, if left to decide that, it would be different and obviously you can't build a corridor like that. And the other specuum of that process. Harberts: And did thc corridor task force hear these same comments or similar comments then? Narmakes: Oh sure. Yeah. Harberts: And that's why I'm saying that I certainly defer to what's being recommended by the task force because of the detailed work that you folks went through, and overall like I Planning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 said, having a plan for a roadway system that's going to help enhance the mobility of our community is important. And I think with what's being planned, I think it's good. Farmakes: I just wanted to say that the task force was in disa~t just like we are here and thc issue of what was voted on of course is, in some cases there was no disagreement whatsoever and in other cases there was disagreement. Scott: And also too, as necessity is the mother of invention, I think left to their own devices, I think any developer, and rightfully so, would take the path of least resis~ the least creative, the least costly and you get basic stuff, which is what we don't want in our community. You know we need a plan. I happen to prefer the alternative as proposed by the Highway 5 task force and after the hoopla dies down, this property is still going to be developed. We're probably going to see the same people coming back in here with similar plans. Tweak those a bit but they're going to have to think and they're going to have to stretch and they're going to have to be creative, and isn't that what we want anyway. F~: But you would expect that though. I mean this is in use now as agricultural property. So it's much more of a free for all than on the east side of TH $ where it's much more defined and city zoned. And as I said, each individual property owner has a different expectation. And rightfully so. That's their prerogative. They own the property. Scott: So you've got, you support your recommendation. I support the recommendation. Each of the guys that are on the task force, you guys were on opposite sides or? Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I, obviously I'm in the minadty of the issue of the access road. I believe it's 2 between Lake Ann and Galpin Road. I support the southern route solely because I think that the city would be able to control more of the property. Whether the city buys it or whether the State buys it. Whether the money's there or it's not there or if it was there 6 months ago and now it's not. 6 months from now it might be back I think that it's logical to assume that by controlling that propm~ between Highway ~5 and the access mad gives you more oppommity to landscape out and buffer TH 5. The issues of land use, it seems to me it's convenient to slice off that chunk and essentially make a strip of high density housing. And I've already talked about this with everybody so I'm not §oin§ to repeat myself a§sin about my issues there. Failing that, I do support the norflm'n route around the Bluff Creek area which is not currently on the recommendation. I'll just give you my opinion. I don't think that the task farce spent a c~msiderable amount of time with that issue. We spent more time arguing the north and south mutes. That's my personal opinion anyway. And I feel if you §o and look at the pmlm~, there's a lot of compelling reasons to run it to the north. There are some issues of crossing over residences. If you look at, there's 4 for on either route and this is a sensitive issue. But if you look at the long term...one 65 Phnning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 would have to say that there's a limited short term life span for those uses. Based on what's coming in there. So if we were looldng in terms of, long tarm planning and we're looking at essentially a highway network that's going to be here for the foreseeable future, I would say that it would seem to me that protecting that creek corridor, where the trees are, and going around it rather than through it would be in the best interest, long term of solving the intent of the original statement which was to keep Highway 5 from becoming a wall with no landscaping, no trees and no separation. Scott: That seems to be a wash with construction cost anyway. Mancino: Yeah, I'd ditto Jeff on that too. I mean...and did like the northern mute. In fact I think the site plan that's done for that parcel between Lake Ann and Galpin, it's a very good one that shows some view so that we won't have a medinm den_ sity just lining Highway 5. There's some good site plan analysis in here. But so I do agree with him on taking that northern route and not cutting through Bluff Creek in that heavily wooded area. Sco~ Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I agree with that. Ledvina: I agree with the proposed alignment and again I would support thc northern route fight at Galpin there avoiding the crossing at Bluff Creek I see that as a severe crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as the most environmental friendly way of tackling that feature of the Scott: Say that again. Scott: You support the A-C connection or just number 17 Ledvina: No. I support the northerly route. Conrad: Thc Mue. Ledvina: Right. Right. Scott: Blue all the way. Lcdvina: I think that you know I feel bad about displacing pcoplc and that but again, we are 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 talking about long term planning issues and that's really thc key. And if we stay with the objectives of the task force and what was laid out far us as the ground rules, I think that northerly route at Galpin satisfies those objectives. Sco~ So thc recommendation that wc will then pass to the Planning Commi~ssion would be the complete Alternate #1 without A-C. 1ust the blue line that we see here with the northerly connection at Galpin. Harberts: That's basically what Jeff indicated in the be~nning? Scott: Yeah. Harberts: Going around Bluff Farmakes: I disagree with mother section but yes. No crossovers, lust go up to the n~h. Scott: I had some concern about that too because I was thin~ng, if it's dollar for dollar and such huge soil stabilization and so farth at the head waters for a pretty benign and fairly fiat connection versus a tremendous amount of landfill and re, I think we had 200 or 300 feet of. Farmakes: h's still all essentially a wash. Any of the mutes that you go and from an environmental impact. Or at least that's what the recamunea~lation. Scott: So we'll pass the comple~ alternate #1 without the A-C connection. We've gone through the EAW on the design standards. Farmakes: I'll dissent on that one. Scott Okay. Oh, because of your. Farmakcs: Yeah. I support no crossovers and that issue but I just don't support the northerly route from Galpin to Lake Ann, Aanenson: We can ~ these out into three separate motions. Scott: Yeah, can I have a. Farmakes: I'm not sure, are we voting on ~i~ or are we just giving reco~tions? Scott: Well, we're going to now. 67 Phmning Commission Meeting - Sanuary 19, 1994 Fsnnakes: It makes no difference to me. Conrad: Let's not vo~e yet. The northerly route, does that elimina~ the possibility of the golf course? Scot~ Well, my person~ opinion is that the goff course is not real Farmakes: I would not be ~posed though to leaving in an option in there that should it become real, or should he acqu/re another 40 acres to the west and it become~ a viable issue, let him bring it forward. Let him bring it forward and let's see it. I mean it does support the Conrad: I'm not sure how we do that Jeff. It's lik~. I think we can revise stuff but you know. On the other hand, where can you put a golf course? You can put a golf course in a residential. In our zoning, as we would have it, even though we've already talked about zoning, we don't have a zone for a golf course but they're permitl~ where, in our proposed zoning, would a golf course be permi~ where he's got the l~roperty? Krauss: Actually I don't think we'd permit it practic~ly anyplace. We'd probably have to... the zoning ord/nance to do it but in itself... FarmAIrea: Since the city or thc developer is going to have to pick up the cost for the road anyway, when it does go in from that section, I would assume from a matt~ of practicality if he comes forward with a golf course, it doesn't stop him unless there's a zoning issue that would stop him from proposing that. Scott: Plus the fact is that the, there is not going to be any access to that parcel off of Highway 5. All access to that parcel has got to come off of the access boulevard, right? Krauss: Well yes. That's the way we see it..~VmDot will see it. Scott So, I think you can take the senior housing would have to be serviced from a different way. And still, you know having a 15, actually we've got 30 feeC The total right-of-way for the acce~ boulevard is what? Aanenson: 80. Scott: 80 feet? I can think of 5 golf courses right now that have major, major like University of Minnesota golf course has got Larpentt~ Avenue. That's 4 lanes. Minnekad~ Interlachen. I mean the list goes on. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - Janum~ 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah. I don't think a mad would ~ude. It will take some property but I don't think it's going to preclude putting a course the~e. I think the total amount of land is more an issue than the mad going right, you know separating 3 or 4 holes from it. Scott: He's got to have. Farmakes: Another 20-40 acres. Conrad: He probably does but I guess my only issue, and ngain my only issue is I don't want to not, I don't want to force that as not a possibility by whatever we're doing and my perception is, the road is not the thing that's going to keep it from happening. But I want to mnke sure that we haven't done something zoning wise that is ~ that from. ~ If he can make it happe~ ActnaHy if he can znsl~ it happen I'd ~ a lot of smff. What makes the northerly rout~ vnlid in my mind is that it's not only, it's transit for people to the northwest to downtown but it services some high density men that we really are tnming in ~ th~ mad. It's really a v~ ~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ we ~ ~ ~ do~ to right next to Highway ~, ~ it's nothing in my mind. It's nothing. It's just not doing a great deal. Farmakes: But what's right next to Highway 57 80 fe~t? 100 fe~t? 400 fe~t? Conrad: You'd end up with not a functioning piece of property. Farmnkes: Something that you could develop as a medium densRy or high density. Conrad: Basically a service road concept doesn't give you much to work with between Highway 5 and. Farrnnkes: Well in the case of TH 7 or 494, there's nothing. It's right next to the slope. Conrad: Right. And I think we've got a great opportunity to do song different and that's why I ~ what we've got but that's why I want the mad to the north to ~ it. I need to justify it cost wise and that's not our decision here. ~ is no object to the Planning Commis~on. We kind of want a realistic solution but we don't really weigh it against some price options. We typically don't. But from a citizen standpoint, I can justify that road and when it's servicing some people, plus it's also a corridor far the community. Farmakes: It would seem to me then that the only thing it would reslrict, since they're not... the road, would be an issue of how much time we're looking at or the timeframe we're looking at here and whether or not the zone that we're commi~ to or give a guideline to is 69 ~g ~ommission Me~ting - Ss~ 19, 1994 going to include that. Does the fact that that's going to be single family and multi keep them from putting in a golf course there? Sco~ Wouldn't you think though that if a proposal like that came forward for a golf course, that would be able to be built on that property, I'd be wi11ing to bet that any Planning Commission who saw that would say, well oh you mean we have to rezone this to have them build a goff course. I would think that most Planning Cowmission~ would go fine. Let's change it. That's definflely something you want. Farmakes: But what happens when you get some piecemeal development going on there? Maybe they don't want a golf course. I can't imagine that but maybe they don't. Scott: Well I. Farmakes: Are we committing ourselves here? Are we essentially zoning this to the effect that nothing else can go in there? Where we have it as multi-family and single family, I think on the comp plan it's listed as residential, is that conect'/ Aanenson: It's guided fight now for multi-family and single family. That's how it's guided right now. Farmakes: Okay, but what I'm saying is there isn't, is there a line on the comp plan that shows exactly where multi-family beans and single family ends? Krauss: Pretty much. Farmakes: Okay. Krauss: I mean arguably it could slide a little bit one way or the other but the line was put exactly where Mike Gorra asked for it to be put several years ago. When he says he was never consulted on this, I mean... Farmakes: When you submitted the comp plan. Krauss: Yeah. Scott: Yeah he was, yeah, I mad through all that stuff. On the July 23rd meeting. He talked about...but are we in a position right now. I see we've got three things to adopt. Should we make that into three motions? I think we all have them in front of us. I'm not going to make the motion since I'm not supposed to do that. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Paul, I thought of something else that I wanted to add to this whole thing. Scott: It says approval of these things, like the corridor land use study as modified. With rnodificatio~ I supposed you want to get the modifications in before your motion tonight. Harbens: Yeah. lust real quickly. Aanenson: Those that we took notes on, and I'm assnming there are modifications. Scott: Yeah, but if anybody has any more, let's get it in before we msde a reco~on. Mancino: The only thing I'd like to add is to the park and trail section which is Chapter 5. I'd like to beef up the Bluff Cree~ conidor specifications. You know when we had the school site and we reviewed it, one of the things that I c.x~nmell~ to 8q~'f I thought they did a great job on was proposing that the applicant meet with the DNR to ~ne the original landscape along the corridor and also to have a 60 to 100 foot width set aside for that purpose of getting it back to it's original vegetative state and we all kind of talked about it. And I think that would be really good in here. Some son of specifics on the Bluff Creek corridor and how it was treated going through the Highway 5 area. Does that make sense? Krauss: Well I think it tics in real well with the...the way thc routing should go on thc north side. By the way, when you touched on this golf course thing too. There's some issues that were raised tonight that we're going to want to od_dress as smff...but it may be appropriate to add some text to the plan that says if a goff course is legitims_tely demonsuat~ to be a viable option, then that's something that will be ¢onsidel'e~ Conrad: I would like that very much. Scott: But it's not going to change thc alignment of thc access. Krauss: Well I don't th inl~ it will but since we don't have that...coming down the ~ immediately, it could. I mean if Mike came in with a proposal and said look. I really need to slide this thing over. Over to here because it's going around the 14th hole. Wc always work with people on stuff like that. Scott: Is it going to go down the line and down the line and down the line and then all of a sudden the road's looped all over the place? Krauss: Well yeah. It obviously has to meet our parameters and the longer Mike waits to do something, the less flexibility he's going to have if the die is cast on either side. Wha~ I 71 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 heard Mike Gorra saying was, don't do anything and I'll tell you what I'm going to do when I'm ready to tell you. But if you want to keep your foot in the door and say that the golf course is a possibility. Conrad: See Joe, if somebody brought in a golf course that was real, it's a u~c community asset and it's equivalent if not better than where this road goes. I'll just tell you, if you can get a golf course in Chan, if somebody's willing to put it on this high potential property, if that's what he wants to do, I'll slide roads wherever they want them because I perceive that to be a very definite community resource. But I'm real comfortable keeping the roads the way they are right now until that comes in but I do want to communicate to them that I'd sure consider it That's real valid. I just...the course next to the park, it's just reatly neat but I considered it but not until I see it. Scott: Yeah, I'd go with that. We want to see something that's for real and we haven't seen it yet I mean I think we were all took it as waving the golf course around to try and get the road to move so something else could be built there. And I think it was ~ obvious that's what was going on, at least to me. But I would agree with Ladd. If something for real comes in and it's something that we're comf~le with, we're not going to, I mean I'm personally not going to shove the mad all the way down to Highway 5 but, as Ladd is saying, if the layout is such that you need to put a bend in there or s~g to get it around a hole, I can see that minor rno~ifications but nothing major. Farmakes: If we were talking about his proposal exa~y, I would not enlm'taln any other uses though except a golf course. Conrad: Correct Farmakes: He had some other uses that were envisioned there including a large space, building yet to be ~in~L Conrad: Well there was some strange stuff. Farmakes: But recreational golf area between... Scott: Why don't we ~ire this, can we take this as one motion or three? Ledvina: No, three. Scott: Okay. Well, who wants to start? 72 Pl.nning Commission Meeting - .lanua~ 19, 1994 Ledvinm What would you recommeM? Aanenson: Obviously number one's been amended... Ledvina: Okay, well I would recomffend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Number 1. Affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretnm Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton-Aschman. Scott: It's been movecL Harbcrts: And second. Scott: Is there a second? Yes~ It's been moved and seconded that we affirm the preferred Alternative #1 as stated by Matt. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton.Aschman. Afl voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of $ to 1. Scott: And your reason? Farmakes: I don't support Alternative #1. Scot~ Same as during thc discussion prior to this? Farmakes: Correct. For reasons already stated. Scott: Okay. Is there another motion? Lcdvina: I would move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Recommending approval of thc Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and thc land usc rcco~tions as discussed in detail this evcning, and we had several discussions on the items that were identified by thc stuff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - Jan,,ory 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study as extc*nsively modified. Is there any discussion? No discussion? Ledvina moved~ l~qnneino seconded that the Planning ComminMoo recommend approval of the Highway S Corridor Land Use Study and the land use reeommnndations Izs modified during the previous disomsion of the issues outlined by the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Ledvina: Well I'll finish it off. I would reco~ that the Plannin§ Commission adopt the following motion for the approval of the Ordinance Es~blishing the Highway 5 Con'idor Districts with modifications as discussed this evening. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the ordinance of the corridor disuic~ Is there any discussion? No discussion- Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the Ordinance Establishing Highway $ Corridor Districts with modifications di~ during the previous issues outlined in the staff relmrt. All voted in favor, except Diane Barbera who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of S to 1. Scott: And your thoughts Diane? I-Iar~: Public transit needs to be flmher flushed out and we'll do it at the Council level Scott: I'm sure you will Motion catrrie~ Due to the hour, ,mless there's some significant adminis~tive approvals or first of all, we'll accept the Minute~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted thc Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 1994 as present~ Scott: Unless there's any objection. Yes rna'am. Mancino: We just need a calendar for our attendance at City Council meetings for '94. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - Sauuary 19, 1994 Scorn Good. Matt mentioned that. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director 75