PC 1994 04 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMM~$ION
REGULAR MEETING
APIHL 2O, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane ~ Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff
Farroskea, and Ron Nutting
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner I; Bob
Generous, Planner R; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIM~ARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1~ BLOCK 1 AND 0UTLOT B, PARK ONE
2ND ~DDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE
PLAN I~EVIEW FOR A 54~720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR
~ PI~ESS AND A 10~315 SQUAgE FOOT KINDERCARR FACILITY AND A
CONDITION~I~ USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP~
INDUSTBIAI~ OFFICE PARK:. LOCATED AT ~ NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5.
Public Present:
N~ame Address
Douglas A. Chestnut
John Finnemore
Mark Senn
John Dietrich
1 Cnaxtner Lane, Dellwood, MN 55110
800 Roosevelt Rd #13410, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
7160 W'Rlow View Ocrve
RLK Associates, 922 MAin~treet
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented part of the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Is that true with, as I remember. Well first of all, I'd love to get a copy of it
because I don't have it. And I obviously went back and referred to the draft that I have.
Aanenson: Right. We have the codified one' that you rccomm~d~ up to the City CounciL..
Mancino: But it is also the major gateway on the east side into our city and it is also an area
where the University said there should be plantings. Crateway plantings in this area on Dell
Road and this was also in the draft on Pigure 6-1. They have encircled that corner and said,
create significant landscape element to obtain eastern gateway district. So have we done that?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Is that part of this development and has there been some thln~n§ and some__ creativity on how
that will become part of a gateway? That comer?
Al-la/f: They have provided a berm. They have provided a mixture of plantings along the
comer so it would be all of this area. There is quite a bit that you can't do with that corner,
mainly because there are utility boxes all along that corner.
Mancino: And you have to be able to access utility boxes but it also says to me, even more
importantly, that it needs to be designed well and it also needs to be designed with the
opposite corner because here again you have your gateway entrance. So I would lilre to see
an overall plan on those two corners on how the gateway entrance to our city is going to be.
I mean look what we're doing for Opus Il_ We've asked them to wait until we've got the
Highway S, the western gateway figured out and we want to see a charette on what will
happen there. And I'd like. to see one on the eastern side too before we go ahead and
approve developments. I mean agsin this is the whole gateway to our city.
Scott: I was thinking about the great work that has been done with the city of F. den Prairie.
Because I know thc little wooded comer that we have which is kitty corner from the one that
you're talking about. They initially were planning a strip mall in there and by working and
making them perhaps more sensitive to what our plans are, for that being a gateway to our
city, I don't know whether, I'm sure there was some negotiating that was involved that I'm
not privy to but they found it acceptable to leave as is. To do something else.
Aanenson: Actually the fact of the matier is, Rottlund was in the market area. They had
demand and they bought the property out. I mean I don't think there was something that they
felt gee~..I think they always intended to save those uees and we looked at that too. Is the
value. On the south side certs_inly we looked at, there's a wetlnnd that we recommend_ ~ed
enhancin§...on the south side. On the north side, yes. I think we talked about the
landscaping berms...as far as the gateway treamm~t. We specifically talked about the Bill
Morrish one that's proposed near the bridge where the Apple Red-E-Mix is. It's a larger
smmnent...more natural and native landscaping there.
Mancino: But I would also like to see what Morrish says about this eastern one too and see
it as a whole as we enter, and I don't think we've done that and I'd ~ to take the time and
do it and decide what should go there. So anyway.
Sharmin AI.Jaff continued her staff report at _this poinL
Sco~ Thank you S~ Any questions or comments for stuff7 Dave, do you have any
co~ts?
Planning Commi~ion Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: I guess en~neefing's concern, I guess is still with that access circula~ throu~
the daycare, or it appegrs that the applicants are wi11in§ to try a measure here to try and
manage it from a management position through the Press and I guess while something can be
done in the future, if needed be, that there's that understanding out there that's...psrking lot'
circulation.
Mancino: Have we done that before?
Hempel: We did with the Bank Americana down here on Market Boulevard. They req~
a full access to Market Boulevard to the northerly, just south of the railroad tracks there and
that seems to be working very well.
Harbens: Would you consider that the same scope and size though Dave?
Hempel: It's not the same to that degree, no. But it did have the potential with the drive
thru bank and so forth...
Harberts: Well with regards to your comment though, from what I read in the report though,
is that shift change. When they have that 298 people all at once or something showing up.
· You know some are going, some are corning. Perhaps in the m__orning again. Are you
comfortable from that angle that the access issues that you have can be resolved like that
given this configuration? I guess my second question ~ I read in here that they said that if
it doesn't work, we'll come back. What doesn't work? What's that point? And what
happens then? I mean the cement is laid. The asphalt is laid. And I don't know what the
answer is.
Hempcl: That's a very valid point. It's wugh to go back and change something that's
already in concrete out there.
Harberts: Would they be willing to redesign it to tear up the asphalt and it down if that's
what's determined to make it work? I don't know. I'm not f~ with thiR type of.
Mancino: But that's a n~urernent,. You need, what is it that doesn't wark and how do we
determine that and actually have a measurement to measure agBJnst.
Harberts: And does the city, well yeah. With the access point the city would care but
internally, would the city have any jurisdiction or really care if someone got hit. Hopefully
that won't happen but it ~y is a liability for the company, not for the city. But, and
these are just questions.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: That's correct. Those fight-of-way, yield to the right I guess is the common rules
of the road type of deal. h's similar to the Market Square across tho stmoL It's a private
parking lot. It's not public fight-of-way so it's really not our jurisdiction. We try and
provide recommen~fions to promote safe o~lerly traffic flow through these sitelc I think the
interest would be on the applicant to change it if they do have a problem as well
Harbens: With the sidewalk, I like the sidewalk there. Is the sidewalk, will that be a
different matra-iai throughout thc whole thing7 You know I see this shaded thing. Or are
they just, or are we just doing it to show us? Is there going to be like a difference in the
materials used so it defines what that sidewalk is? Are we just going to paint lines down or.
Hern~l: I believe it's just going to be a painted crosswalk type of scenario across the
parking lot.
Harberts: Where the sidewalk crosses those, oh I don't know what those islands are. Are
there trees in there? So are these people expected to walk through the trees? Walk around
tbe trees? Or have to walk off of the cemented thing to get aron~nd there?
Hempel: Maybe the applicant could address these qnestions a little more thoroughly.
Scott: Sure. Why don't we, we'll...~on and leave some_ for the applicant to come up
and give your name and your address please.
John Dietrich: John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Thanks for the opportunity to address the
commission. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us to...brought up at the last
Planning Commission meeting. Also with me tonight is John Finnemore of Kindercare. He
has sa~npl~ of the Kindercare building that he would like to also present and talk in more
detail of the Kindercare program. I'd like to just go over some changes that were made to
the site plan and submittal that Sharmin had brought up. First off I'd like to address the issue
of the site plan and the changes that were made specifically were to remove packing along the
north side of the parking lot. We removed 11 stalls so that we would have a landscaped area
of approximately 27 feet from the curb up to the proposed addition. And also within this
area we're proposing a 4 foot berm to help take the scale of the building height down.
Secondly we have added the sidewalk between the Kindeware and the Press In~
The sidewalk islands specifica~y are 17 feet in width. There's a 5 foot sidewalk through the
center of the island with dropped pedesu/an curbs at both ends. And on one side is a 6 foot
phnting area that would have trees and on the other side of the sidewalk is a 6 foot planting
area that would have just shrubs in it. $o we've balanced trees along on the south side.
Shrubs on the north side. And then we would anticipate striping of the crosswalk to make
sure to mn between the drive aisles. In terms of the landsca~, we have added additional
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
landscape and phnt mam'i~ to the corner. Conifer trees in front of the warehouse
expansion and the trees and ornamental shrubs, deciduous and conifer along the east edge of,
excuse me. The west edge of the new parking lot area. We did take the comments, they
identified last time to try and match the existing plant ~ that is existing at the Press
and try to incorporate that in and throughout the entire pafldng lot. In addition we've taken
the existing ash trees that are currently out in the site and we're proposing that they be
transplanted up into this area anywhere from about B to 4 inch caliper ash trees. $o we're
looking to reuse those same plant materials that are out there along the east side of the
·
parking lot and transplant into the rear of the site. So in all toll we are transplanting about 11
trees. 3 to 4 inch caliper and then about another 2 dozen trees, about half deciduous and half
Scott: John? What would be the age7 I sec you have., there's a certain canopy indicated by
each of those trees. Just pick, let's say we'll pick the ones that arc on the.
John Dietrich: We'H pick one here.
Scott: Yeah, what's the age of that tree?
John Dietrich: I would say the age of that tree is about a :10 year tree. So that we try to
show our plans not at maturity but not right when they §o in. Depending on...The other issue
is thc architecture and the building mass of the ~ that is proposed, with the warehouse
and the storage facility. We are proposing to u 'tflize vertically ~ored co~ panels that
would match the vertically scored concrete panels above the east side of the facade of the
Press and also build into that facade some type of detailing. Perhaps it's hadzont~y scored
concrete that would match the front of the Press building so that we would have a change of
detail within that facade. That it's proposed that it would all be of the same material but we
could utilize detailing to help break up the scale and tie it into the existing building. It's
proposed that we would utilize the same lights that are on the facade. The same downspouts
and the same metal cap as currently is running along the edge of that Press building. We are
looking to, we do not have an architect on board yet but we would anticipate they will be
able to show in detail We would like to put that to our maff so flint they would have the
approvals to get that detailing. One sample of how that detailing could be broken up. The
McGlynn building on Audubon Road. If you look at their screened walh. They have
horizontal bands and then vertical bands on that concrete. It's a ~ of building a form so
that the mat~dal that the score patterns are detailed in that...panet.
Mancino: And John, that's on the same plane? So you wo. ltt have your vezfical and your
horizontal on the same plane? There would be no relief coming out where the h~tal?
Plann/ng Comrn/ssion Meeting - April 20, 1~.
John Dietrich: I would say there will be the opportunity for relief of a couple inches.
Mancino: Okay. Okay. Right now where you have it on the front of the building. You have
the vertical and then you have the horizontal that comes out about 4 feet.
John Dietrich: Yes, that is a canopy.
Mancino: Okay. So you're not suggesting a full canopy?
John Dietrich: No. We are not suggesting. The canopy is there to provide shade for the
windows and also as a cover for the walkway coming into the...
Mancino: Okay.
$ohn Dietrich: We did provide one elevation. If you were out on Highway :5 looking north
from the westtx)und land. We anticipate this is what you would see. The existing, the
existing berm that is out there, that wc would then continue to thc cast and...around the
the deciduous Irees and running back. The proposed addition of the warehouse is back in
along hcrc and ac~_,_s_~]y begins to die into thc berm that is out there along Highway 5. This
was taken at approximately a 2.5 height ff you wcrc sitting in a car, this is the elevation that
you would sec looking north into that parking
Scott: That's your 10 year?
John Dietrich: Those are approximm~ly 10 year tree ~ on the proposed tree stand.
Harbcns: I have a question with regard to thc site plan. I don't know if you're thc
individual. I'm looking at this one. I don't know if you've got a thing there. I just need
John Die,h: I have two copies. I have a land~,ape plan and then I have the full scale.
A1Jaff: I can use the overhead.
Harbcns: This location right here. You've got 1.2.
Mancino: Visitor parking.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Harbens: Where would...someone that perhaps is on crutches or in a wheelchair, how would
they access the sidewalk? Are you expecting them to...traffic or is there a sidewalk there?
Where's the access?
John Dietrich: At this point the...would be stepping into the line of traffic. I imagine we will
put in a sidewalk when necessary...
Harberts: Does that meet the ADA requirements the way it's shown...? I just, it's just a little
difficult. I recently had the experience where I was in a wheelchair for ? days and with
crutches and it really is an eye opener and I would, my further comments later on would
probably indicate some interest in blocldng the access there.
John Dietrich: I'm sure the applicant would be willing to put in a sidewalk from this comer
up to here to facilitate the handicapped ~bility...into the site instead of going into the
right-of-way.
Harberts: So that would probably involve curb cuts on the bottom end as well.
John Dietrich: Yes. We anticipate this would be one long curb cut. Probably bollarded with
posts with a sign so that you can move fight through that drop person scenario. It's fairly fiat
there so the grade's not any problem.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Mancino: Probably will la~.
Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of pazking spots there, adjacent to the
Kincle~m~. Is that based on the square footage of the b~ilding?
Al-laff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance sta~ for every 6 kids you have to 1 space
and that's what was provide(L The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on
number of individ-~ls that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it
would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the
parking stalls that they are provi?ling.
Fammkes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of,
actually kids inside.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1~94
Mancino: How many kids?
Farmakes: ...my question is, is the rationale for 6, is that a reco~on that is.
Al-$aff: That's a city ordinan~.
Farmakes: I understand that. Do you recall when we got 6, as to the rationale that they used
for that? Is that a professional recommendation or is that?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's a pretty standard parking ratio. But they exceed that.
Farmakes: For a daycare?
Mancino: I have another parking quesfiom With the addition of the warehouse and the press
room, are you adding more employees or staying about the same as you are now?
John Dietrich: My understanding is it's more of a warehouse and storage facility. Limited
expansion in production. Limited in terms of employees that will be emplo~ there.
Mancino: So when I went to thc parking lot today at 2.~)0 and there were 78 empty parking
spaces, and it didn't include visitor parking and it didn't include handicapped parking. I look
at that and I say, you've got a lot of extra parking. Because there were 78 err~,ty ones ~
at 2:00 this ~oon. Now is that during the, I would assume that's during your big shift
where you have 200 ~nployee~ there. The day shift, which would be approxima~y 7:00 to
3:00, correct?
John Dietrich: Correct but then, the reason for having the overflow is so when the 3:00 shift
comes in and the 2:00, or the evening shift come8 in and the day .~hift is there, that there is
enough parking for those two to overlap.
Mancino: Sure. But how much overlap parking will you have? I mean how did you
detrnuine how much overlap parking to have?
John Dietrich: h was based on basically the total number of err~,loyees and trying to
anticipat~ allowing all.
Mancino: So you're allowing 100% overlap?
~g ~ommis~ion Meeting - April 20, 1~94
John Dieu'ich: At this point, yes. And I would like to maybe ask Mr. Senn if err~.loyee
projection is scheduled to stay the same or expand with the...
Mark Senn: The easiest way to answer that question is that all of the employees anticipated
in the expansion have already been hired and are there. Okay. If you look at actual
employee counts, right now there's basically 252, let's call ~ warehouse manufacturing
employees and there are 75 office employees. Okay. Of the 252 warehouse manufacun/ng
employees, 124 are first shif~ 98 are second shift _and 30 are third shift. Okay. The office
employees are all first shift. So basically the parking is not on a 100% fill basis but I mean
it does provide quite a bit of overlap because it basically is necessary because those shifts
probably actually are going to overlap by as much to an hour because it's not just a, you
know everything doesn't just shut down and a whole new group come in type of thing.
There's a phase period over an hour that phases in and phases out because with the
complications of the press and the press operations, it's not that they just kind of shut the
press down, leave and you know if there's not another person.
Mancino: I've had that happen on a job. They just stop. Okay. So that's why you're
saying 100%. That's why you want the 100%.
Mark Senn: Nancy, one of the reasons you know, like you see all the trucks out in the
parking lot now.
Mancino: Yeah, yeah.
Mark Senn: Those truc~ out in the parking lot fight now are basically mostly what's going
to be going inside thc new expansion. They've been basically forced to utilize those trucks to
basically accommodate thc necessary.
Mancino: Storage of paper, etc.
Mark Senn: Storage of paper and stuff. Some of it is light sensitive and a whole bunch of
other things but you know essentially the press is going, I think this is essentially public
information. I wean they're a public company. I mean in the last several years the Press has
gone from like a $25 million company to a $75 million ~y and with this expansion,
they do anticipate going to about $100 million. But I mean again, it's not a labor intensive
expansion- It's an efficiency expansion-
Mancino: Okay. Well I was just concerned when I saw so many ~ stalls at 2:00 in the
afternoon and then I looked across the slreet at Versafil or Versafil and there must have been
Planning Commiggion Meeting - April 20, 199M
50 or more than that. There must have been 100 ~ parking spaces there too at 2:00 in the
afternoon and I was thi,~ng, why isn't there some cross use of all this parking that's
available in that area.
Mark Senn: I don't know what Versatil's situation is but with our's fight now, you probably
came an hour too early. If you would have come an hour latrr, you would have sUatod to
catch the phases. Basically because the phase stms at about 3:00 and runs until 4:00.
Any other comments or do you have any other comments you'd like to make?
John Dietrich: No. I believe that's...
Scott: Okay, great. Since we were talking spedfwally about the Press, are there any, would
the applicant with the Kindercare porlion-
John Finn~more: I've got an exterior color...I'd like to show you.
Scott: Okay, good.
John Finnemore: My. name is John Pinnemore. I'm the Dividon Co--on Manager for
Kindercare. What this color board shows is two ~t brick samples. The upper half
would be the lighter brick and the lower half, the lower row of block, would be the darker
brick. We will, we'll also use those same two colors in the trash enclosure and on the
monument sign base. Our standard sign base typically is a brick base. The picture just really
is, by the sign how many they're showing off the sign itself and not the base. The shingles,
it's called the weather wood look. This is the wood facia and soffit color. It's called Cape
Cod gray. The windows are a bronze and it's a snmked glass~ Or the window frames are
bronze and the windows themselves are smoked glass. And that's basically the exlm'ior
colors. There is these columns are also, that is made of a stucco malm'ial and that's an off
white. That I didn't have a sample of. As far as your question about the parking. The 6
spots per child, that's a pm~ common planning requirement. There's a lot of variations but
I stall per/5 children is a pretty standard number throughout ms_ny parts of the country. In
our experience we find that's even a bit shy of what we would like so we exceed that by like
I think 12 spots on that particular site.
Scott: Questions or comments?
Harberts: The buildings look nice. Ore~ pictures, thank you.
Scott: Good. Thank you very much. There is a public hearing on the schedule for _this
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20. 1994
particular item and just a show of hands. Are there any people luwe who would like to speak
about this particular, actually we have 3 items but in summary. The Press addition and the
building of the Kinderca~ facility. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about that?
We need to open the public hearing anyway so I may have a motion please.
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing, Ail voted in hvor and
the rm)flon carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Would anyone like to speak about this particular issue7 Let the recard show that no
one wishes to speak. Oh, yes sir.
Richard Wing: I'd just like Nancy and the commission, and particularly staff, to follow up
on your question as to the stand-by status of Opus out on the west entry versus this east
entry. The Council has discussed a moratarium and we're frustrated that we weren't able to
get the moratorium on for Abra and Croodyear because they were already proposed but I think
there was an understanding. Staff was clearly directed that there shouldn't be any more
proposals or directions until we had this corridor study and to go further on this. I would like
to know ff this meets the architectural standards as proposed by the committee and Bill
Morrish: If it's land uses are met. Setbacks are mec Landscaping. I think there's a lot of
questions and I don't want to get into the same problem we had-last time saying we can't do
anything about it because it's been proposed and it's too late for the moraWrinm. I think
Council's made it clear that before is done on Highway 5 we get some standards in place in
this PUD overlay and it confuses me that staff has _time to develop this proposal and bring it
forward but yet we're not complet~xi on the Highway/5 corridor study. So it seems like once
again the cart's ahead of the horse. I'm a little frustrated here. It's been real hard to sit back
and listen. I guess Nancy's questions specifically on those issues, ought to be addressed here.
I'd like to know where we're going with this first before we look at this proposal.
Scott: Okay. ,Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Seeing no more
interest, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hem*in~ Ail voted in favor and
the motion carri~ The public heating was dosed.
Scott: Public hearing is closed. Co--ts from commissioners. Matt.
Ledvina: Well, I guess thc standards for Highway 5, as I understand, that the staff has
indicated that overall thc applicant has met thc requirements of the Highway :5 zoning
overlays. Isn't that correct?
11
Planning Commi~ion Meeting - April ~), 1994
Ledvina: Okay. The issue as it relates to the gateway, the monument, whatever. The
landscaping or whatever that treatment we want to have on that corner, I think that's a
significant issue. I don't know exactly what would be done there or what the specific plans are.
Aanenson: Can I just bring you up. to date on that?
Ledvina: Sure, if you would.
Aanenson: We certainly realize that's a signiFu:ant issue. Let me just comment on
Councilman Wing's concerns. The stuff has responded to the Highway 5 conidor study. The
Planning Commission's reviewed it. It's in the Council's arena. There's not much more we
can do at this point. We require, everybody that comes in is given a copy of the overlay
zoning. Even though it's not an ordinance. So legally we can't bind them but we certainly
encourage everyone to follow it. So far we've had good coopa'afion. As far as the gateway
trea~ts. We did have HGA looking at that. We spent 3 to 4 months with them trying to
visualize, trying to get them to capture a vision for us that we could do. We identified the
monuments or the gateway that we wanted. One of their proposals came back saving the
Apple Valley Red-E-Mix as an icon so we obviously were having some problems getting
some vis~li=~on. ~ust in the last month we turned it back over to Hoisington to give us
some vis~uliT~_tion. We are working on this issue. Specifically on _this site, what we looked
at, that was talked about yes, as a gateway treatment on this site and how it relates to the
trees. Maybe the trees should be our gateway. Maybe it's not an architectural feature.
We've gone all over the map on this. We still haven't come up with a definitive what should
that gateway treatment be. That's a whole oth~ issue that, certainly that's maybe something
that we can incoxporate into this. At best on this site, as Sharmin has indicat~ thel~ is ii
substantial deterrent to this gateway treammnt and the fact that you've got utilities and utility
boxes there. I think at best what we could do at this point is, we are still, as I said, working
on the gateway treatment itself. To date. That is something that we are ongoing with. At
best what we could do at this point is to ask the applicant to take escrow for this plan and...
ask them to leave an easement so ff we get something in place, that we can go back in. We
don't know what that's going to be.
Mancino: But I think it's only fair to the apP~t that we have some sort of a time line to
know when that's going to be. Whether it's 3'0r 4 months.
....
Aanenson: ...that we know that the outlots next to Target are corning forward and we've got
the same issue there. We've always indicat~ that that's another on Powers Boulevard. If
you look in the document, there are specific ones identified as far as gateway treaUnents.
And the access off of Powers, or off of Highway 5 and other gateways. We know that
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
they're coming in and again, we want to have a gateway treatment in place so when tl~
particular project comes in we will have something in place. Unfortnn,~ly we're having a
hard time getting a handle on what should tha~ be. But I think at this site we we~ l~ing to
tie into the Irees at Eden Prairie site so I think at best we can ask them to hold off an
easement area but still take escrow so we have something in place if we can't finalize them.
If we get landscaping to make sure we have something in there to screen the parking.
Ledvina: Well my question is then, given the layout that we're mlk~g about. Obviously
something, even north of the parking lot there, is there enough room to do something
substantial? I see, well let's see~ What's the scale? About 100 feet or so.
Aanenson: When we looked in the Highway 5 document, really what we talked about is the
cluster it kind of representative of this plan with the clustering of trees. This kind of has that
affect It has a berm with trees. Maybe it needs, they make a statement with sugar maples.
Maybe it's something, I don't know.
Mancino: But it should be ~alt with on a professional level I don't think here is the time
to figure that out. We should have a hmdscape archiu~ do that.
Ledvina: So in order to keep that door open, what would you recommend?
Aanenson: That we take some son of an easement but we still can take this plan. In fact
maybe put a date on there that says we try to get something resolved and then we take in
escrow for landscaping what we normally do for the site plans.. So we still have a back-up
plans. You get this landscaping plan where you want it if you can't come up with a gateway
treatn~nt. If we find out the gateway treaunent doesn't work on there. We haven't done a
design on this specific site. That's a fall back position. We've got an approved hndscape '
plan that you're comfortable with with this site. This was just a concept that we said a
gateway lream~nt should be considered here. Maybe when we do the design because of the
power lines, we find out.
Mancino: Well no, I think we'll have one.
Al-~hff: I would point out though that a traffic signal transf~, and those are difficult to
move. Am I correct Dave?
Hernpel: That's c~
13
Planning Commi~ion Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: We'd have to go behind that.
Mandno: But also a landscape architect can rake some time and design around that
perimeter. I mean that, you know those boxes instead of just putting trees there. They may
come up with a whole other design that uses the boxes in the design and that's what I'd like,
you know to wait and see.
Mancino: And make sure that the applicant has to follow that design. That landsc/~ design,
whatever it is, and how much of an area it is on that corner. I mean I don't know how big it
will be. I can't say it's going to be 100 feet by 100.
Ledvina: Okay. Well, I cermidy would want to keep the door open as it relates to some
special work that the city might want done at that location. As it ~elates to the drculafiom I
also have a hard time with an undefined cri~ roi' intervention as it rela~ to the poumtial
traffic, pedestrian probiems there. So I don't know how we can fix th~ If you could
suggest some language there. That's the end of my cornrr~n_ ts.
Sc, om Jeff.
Fannakes: I don't understand how you figure hnlx~OUS surface over the playgrouud~ Can
you explain that to me? In the phoWgraphs I see cement, poured cement in the playground
areas. How's that figured in?
Al-Jaff: We took the calodatious that the applicant has tmrvidecC John, did you include the
playground in the hnpervious surface coverage or not?
John Dietrich: In the hard surface coverage on the playground, we included 2 to 3 as soft
upon that hard surface.
Farmakes: So the photograph that you provided us up here is, the rea_ding area off the
phowgraph is green space or is?
John Dietrich: Not completely, no.
John Finnemore: Impervious is sand. Sand and gravel
Farmakes: I'm U3dng to come up with how that factors in, I mom from a square footage.
Did a layout for you. I don't see one here but ali I see is squares saying toflot, playground,
14
Plarming Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
playground. And I'm assuming that the ones that are named playground and playground,
those are ~ surfaces?
lohn Finnemore: The playground areas are, there's roughly, incl~dlng the building sidewalks,
probably somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of concrete and then the
remainder of it would be grass areas.
Farmakes: So is that square footage factored in when we're looking at i .ml~rious surface?
Do we consider that impervious surface?
John Dietrich: To be perfectly honest we considered impervious surface would be 4% of that
building. Only about 6,000 square feet. John's indicating it's 10,000 to 12,000 square feet.
We have about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet more of i .mpervious surface on that site. So that
would probably push that site up from the 54% to probably around 62%...
Al-Jaff: They can go up to 70% so they are below what ordinance requires.
Farwsire. s: That was my question. I don't understand in relationship to what we're doing on
Highway 5, why we go from and center to place a parking lot always wwards the highway.
Even in this factor where the access to these parking areas are down-a service road. Or Dell
Road. It seems like we're putting our best foot forward or what we're capable of doing and
stick forward a parking lot next to the highway. It's just the whole direction of these
proposals, at least for the free standing bnildlng. It seems to me almost it should be the other
way around. And again: allows the building to shield the parking area and I know that
there's a train of thought that says gee, they've got to see the parking from the road. I don't
know if I follow that. I don't think that you can see the parking lot also from TH 5 behind
the building. I just think it'd be more pleasan~ offer more opparamity to see landscaping.
I'm sure that the applicant can come up with some good reasons why that shouldn't be.
From an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice to see that. I can understand the proposed
expansion of the existing building being figured as to how it fits in in the existing building.
So that's a different problem to deal with. I'm a bit hesitant to say that that expansion
shouldn't match what the existing building is on the exterior. That they should be held to
some other type of building where you get a wing that looks nothing at all like the existing
structure. I don't think that's the purpose of what we were trying to do with the Highway 5
hnprovenmnts. It ~ to me that what we were trying to do or what we were trying to
hold Opus to is that there would be some visual xe. lief on the entry area off the highway.
And again, I just count up all these parking spots. Even though they're bermed, again it's not
bermed all the way around the road. To the north and south, east and wear Going to the
signage that the applicant was talking about. On the photograph there it is a pylon sign there.
On the sample. I would like to specify that it be a matching architectural smacture to the base
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 199~
of that sign. Currently it's up on poles. The applicant mentioned that that's what was their
to do that. That the sign company went ahead and did it as this. I'd like to make sure that
we specify that.
Aanenson: It's in one of the conditions.
Fannakes: Okay. I would.
Mancino: Which number is it?
Al-la/f: 2, Site Plan Review.
Farmakes: I wonl~ also like to see some landscaping around that sign. It seems to be, there
seems to be a row of trees or a row of bushes showing and then the sign seems w jut out
from it on the end. Trying to create some relief with that. As to Councilman Wing's
co--ts on the building. To a certain extent this does incorporate some of the issues as m
the roof line relief. Probably not.
Mancino: What do you rne~ by that7
Farmakes: Well, I'm talking about the free s_tanding building.
Mancino: The Kinderc~7
Farmakes: The Kindercare. It does have some relief going on and this building is very
similar to the office building proposed up here by Ma1'k~ Square. And it's an a_____tg:em~. I think
to do some of the things that we talked about with the rooflines and so on. They're quite
linear and they're quite long. There is some relief on the side with how the buildings are
configured to the two wings going out.
Mancino: Do you think that's a good gateway though?
Farmakes: No I don't. Do I think it's a good use next to a printing company like that7
Probably. The issue of gateway I think again is two approaches. Either the city buys up all
the property and builds what it wants, or that it ~ to incorporate use within, working with
the applicants who are going to be building these buildings, to work in what is reasonable to
be required that we get an end result of what we're looking for. And I think a lot of that
would be, not necessarily sticking the parking lots all up and down TH 5. Again, the
applicant probably has some reasons that they would elect to put the road up there. It
probably makes sense with the existing parking lot as it stands. With the adjacent building.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
So there axe rationales for that. Whether or not they outweigh the interest of the city, I think
that that's an important...I would prefer I guess to see sart of the situation mined around but.
Son of twisted around in the opposite direction but.
Maucino: Yeah, I unders~ that.
Fanrmkes: The feasibility of that in relationship to the traffic patterns and so on, I'm not
going to make that judgment call on the basis of my vote. I would also like to see more trees
shielding that building. The Kindercare building from the south. If they go with the existing
parking lot, you sort of have that one little island out there. We have an additional 12 spaces
that they said than what was nece~ary? I'm still a little confused on the issue of the 6 per
child.
A1-Jaff: It ~ depends on the number of kids that they will be atlowed to have in the
building. For instance, if they have.
Farmakes: And you base that on square footage?
AIJaff: Exactly. ff they have 60 children, not based on square footage. It's based on the
number of children. If they have 60 children attending this daycate, they have to have 10
spaces.
Maucino: But the number of children is based on the square footage.
Fammkes: Don't we have a fire code or smnething that says this much square footage, this
many children?
A1-Jaff: Yes. Do you know the maximum numher?
John Finnemore: 35 square feet per child. Of totally usable space for children, exclusive of
bathrooms and kitchens and...
Al-Jaff: So what's the number of children you know.
John Finnernore: 200 maximum.
John Finnemore: It's 33.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Why do we have 45?
Al-laff: So they can have a maximum of 200 children. 33 parking spaces and they have 45
provided. So they have 12 more than what is permitted by State licen.qing req~ts.
Mancino: So does that mean they have to delete 12 spaces?
Al-laff: No, they don't have to. Our ordinance basically says, you have to have a minimum
of but it doesn't give you a maximum as long as.
Fannakcs: So there's 12 additional space~
Al-Jaff: Correct And they don't exceed the hard surface coverage so.
Mancino: Yeah but we could still get more open space, green space if you don't have the 12
spaces.
Farmakes: I tblnk the issue that the parking lot does run to the south and we should look at
eliminating some of those parking spots and replacing them with some, an additional tree.
Aanenson: The gateway?
Fannakes: Well there's very little maneuverable room here. There just i~'t a lot as to what
to do. I think it's maybe debatable that there isn't additional parking available across the
street. Not that we would place that on another business but these parking spaces in tm'ms of
Kindcrcare. They are temporary7 Terr~.orary parking7 What's the average dmation of the
parking.
John Finnemore: There's going to be staff parking and temporary parking.
Farmakes: So if somebody comes to pick up their child, what's the normal mm around of
that sequence?
John Finnemore: Transpomtion texts use about 6 minutes. That's probably a little light I'd
say it's more like 10 to 15. It's typically closer to 6 in the morning and closer to 10 to 15 at
night. You know parents have to find out what their kid did dining the day and have a little,
the ability to spend some more time there. But in the morning of course everybody's in a
hurry to get to work so that's a quicker turn around time there. And with 200 children we
would have approximately 27 or 28 employees. That is at maxirnnm time frame.
18
P/arming Commission Meeting - April ~, 1994
Mancino: So 33 would be, yeah.
Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I'm going to start with thc staff report and start with issue number 2 on page 2
which is the zoning ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage and I would like
staff, from a legal point of view, to tell me why the present Press is non-confom~§
stmcun~ Correct?
Aanenson: No. It's thc hnpcrvions surface.
Mancino: It's the hnpervious surface amount.
Aaneuson: That is non-confmming. It's not anything to do with the structure or anything.
It's thc impervious surface.
Mancino: Okay, the hnpe~ous stwfac~ is non-confarmi-§ right now. It is 79% and it
should only be 70%.
Mancino: Okay. So now they're going to take that parcel and they want to expand it and
add a, add what we see. And they're going to do down in ~ous surface to 76.8% but it
still doesn't meet the 70%. Yet they have mo~ land there. They have Lot 3. So why can't
we make the impervious surface area conforming at this point? Because if they're going in
and changing and modifying their entire b,~ilding, their entire structure and iRn't this the
opportune time to say, now let's have the hnpervious surface be conforming? And actually
when I read in the code book, the city code book. Division for non-conforming uses, it says
purpose. The purpose of this division is to number 3, to encourage the elimination of non-
conforming uses, lots and s~. So why aren't we doing that here?
Aanenson: Again, the opinion from the City Attorney on that spedfio issue and the fact of
thc matter is, if thc expansion meets all thc setback requirements...so what you're looking at
is just the impervious surface. Okay? So they are lessening that. And what the ordinance
section 20-72 says, you can't expand unless you're going to lessen or eliminate the non-
conforming. So the City Attorney's opinion, because they are les _sening the non-conformity,
that's okay.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - Atyril 20, 1994
Mancino: So you can never change a non-conf~ty to a conformity as long as they're
lessening'/ V~Faat a, I mean when you have land here that would be available to make it
conforming. Isn't it a higher priority to make things conforming? I mean is it really a higher
priority for our city to make it less conforming?
Aanenson: If you...impervious surface issue. I unders~ what, normally when you have a
building setback or something like that, because it's the i .mpervious surface.
Mancino: But that's, the green space is impartant to us. You know it's a value.
Aanenson: I'm not arguing with you philosophically but I'm just saying legally. I
understand what you're saying.
Mancino: Is that something we need to change that's in our ordinance? I mcan again,
there's land fight here. We could do it and it just seems, why wouldn't we? So whether we
can legally or not, I would go on public record saying, I would like this to conform to the
70% hnpervious surface because we have the land to do it. To take it from a non-confonnin§
impervious surface to a conforming. Can we make that as a recommendation?
Aanenson: You can always recormnend it...take it up to the City Council and give Roger a
second hit at it.
Mancino: Okay. Next, the issue. The next one on page 2 about the revised landscaping
plan. This is on sheet 4, out of 8. Was this done by a landscape architect?
John Dietrich: Yes it was.
Mancino: It was? Okay. I would like to see some added landscaping on the east side of that
180 foot span that you saw as a press room expandon. In the first 50 feet on this ~
plan you have 3, let's see. You have 3 Colorado Green Spruces at 8 feet, which will be about
a 5 foot span. So you're covedng up to begin with in that 50 foot span, you've got 3 trees.
It will be 15 feet so there's going to be 35 feet of open wall there and one of thc things that
we're trying to do is to get some nice plant massings against that entire wall So I would like
to see many more trees put on that eastm'n side. And I would like them to be pfimm/ly
coniferous with varying heights. Maybe 8. Some 8's and 7's and some 6's. I would also
like to see some added landscaping in the square area. Let's see, how do I do it. In front of
on the south side of thc press room expansion and on the east side. This area in here. I
would also like to see 3 more coniferous trees added. Then I would also like to see some
more internal landscaping in the Kindeware parking lot. And if we do e 'luninate 12 of the
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
parking spaces, I think that that will help. Other thinking. I kind of agree with Serf about
turning the parking lot for the Kindercare on the southern side of the building and pulling the
playground. I know that Early Be~nnlngs has that on Highway 5. They have the playground
in the front and the parking towards the rear. I think that that would add greatly to the
gateway affect of that comer. So I would like to see the paddng lot ~p flop on the
Kindercare. And I would also ~ to see islands between Kindercare parking and the Press
parking so that you cannot go through one. You cannot use them interchange, ably. One's a
parking lot for Kindercare and one's a parking lot for the Press. At some point in the future I
mean the Kindercare may not be there. It may be something else, 10 or 20 years down the
road so I would like to see the differeotiat~ parking lots. I would also think, and I think
Diane brought this up before, that the people from the Pr~s who takr their children to
daycare at Kindercare, have some sort of desi~_L~d or reserve paring lots next to
Kinderca~ on their side of the parking lot. Those are my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Ron.
Nutting: I think we've got a much improved stmcum: just with the landscaping additions to
the south and east facing walls. I don't have a problem with Nancy's comments in terms of
adding some additional to the east wall there but I like the looks of the project and I think it's
going to break things up nicely... I would like to see"either we tighten up the recommendation
on thc difference between parking lots in trrms of thc speed bumps. Whether it be islands or
we just put in the islands or the speed bump just to make sure that that isn't left open to
interpretation or definition of what the problem is down the road. As far as the ~y. I
guess ff there's some reaso~le way via easement to leave open the possibility. Whether it's
in the form of landscaping with trees or signage. I'm not sure we're at a point fight here in
t~rrns of ho!Oing up the project for thc ultimalr definiti~ What that should be but leaving
some window. I mean the decision may be that that's not, you know other than some trees,
there is no other gateway there. I don't know. I guess I don't have the background through
the study and...I think those are my basic comments.
Scott: Okay. Diane.
Harbe~: I would certainly recommend that that sidewalk be added in the handicap
~ible designated spaces to include this suggestion by John about that one long curb cut.
I would cenainiy support ~p flopping the parking. Reducing the parking by 12 spaces and
~p flopping it around the other way. I'm not real, I guess I ~ the desi~R__ted pedestrian
wsllcway. I'm not real thrilled and I'm somewhat ignorant with regard to, when you have
these islands to receive topsoil, sod and irrigation. And I would just come in and stripe the
asphalt to indicate a pathway. I don't know how that really constitutes a sidewalk versus just
a pathway. I'm certainly not versed into understanding that but I thinir the comments that I
21
P/arming Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
was trying to project at the last cowmigsion meeting w'~ to have an iden~ed pathway or
sidewalk that would wake it easy. That would certainly be free of obstructions, incl~g
snow, sod, irrigation, things like that. I would certainly support the designat~ parking with
regard to people that use Kindercare and pazking in that parking lot, I think that would help
just with the overall ~on. I think that's about it.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Just from ~g a tally here. It appears that the Press expansion
probably has, I ~ would I be ca'rect in saying that we wouldn't have any cause not to
move the Press expansion on? Well, from what I understand we can send one on and table
the other. Or I'm not saying that that's what we would do.
Farmakes: There are connection points between the two. The parking lots go, they're
uaveled through.
Scott: Well it sounds like we've got, I believe that there should be no direct connection. I
think it's, what we're seeing here is that the majority of the commission would prefer not t~
have any ingress Or egress inbetween the two lots.
Mancino: $o therefore you can separ~ them.
Scott: Just from looking at where thc issues lie, it nppears as ff the Pre~ expansion has been
pretty well m k_eu care of relntivc to the suggestions on landscaping and so forth. It looks as
if there's some major. We talk about flip flopping paddng lota I trw, an I tak~ the Highway 5
task force recommendations very seriously and I think thnt that's something that should be
strongly considered. It seems like there's some major...with the K~ndercnre fncih'ty and my
thought perhnps is thnt we want to entertain moving the Press expansion ahead and tnbling
the ~.
Mancino: And seeing thc flip flop, c~c7
Scott: Yeah. But I want~ to throw that out and kind of get your thoughts. Because we
need to do this as a consensus so. First of all, how many of us want to disconnect those
parking lots7
Mancino: I can do that, yeah.
Fan'nakes: I'm open to that.
Scott: That's my concern too. When I see, ff in the future. If this. If that. And then since
our vision, we have to be looking at this 10-20-30 years down the road. I think we'll end up
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
saving ourselves a lot of grief by not having these two connected.
Nutting: Joe, do we have the ability to hear any thoughts from the developer as to, just some
of what we're _mlicing about? I know the public hearing is closed.
Scorn We've closed the public hearing.
Nutting: We're suddenly going, this is the second meeting and suddenly we say, now let's
put the parking lot on the other side. As opposed to having addressed that the first time. I
guess I just, before I make any decisions I'd like to at least hear some feedback to what
they're hearing.
Sco~ Sure.
Harba'ts: Is there anything that's prohibiting us at this point, outside of the developer's
concern though, with regard to how these projects line up and whatever?
Aanenson: I just had one question far Dave. What we're doing now is saying that's a right
turn in and fight turn out so when you come out you have to go. How long is that island on
- Dell Road so if you want to come back out and get.on Highway 5, before you came out
through the Press parking lot and come around...do you have any concern with that Dave?
Hempel: It's probably going to function very similar, with ar without the curb cut from
getting access to Kindercare. I could see a lot U turns being done...
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It's thc egress I'm wattled about.
Hempel: Right. The egress and you're restricted to a right out only anyway so that ign't
going to clumgc.
Mancino: So it won't make any difference if it's on the south ar north side? Okay.
Hempel: No, it's just going to keep the short cut marc on the Press site.
Harberts: It would what the short cut'?
Hempel: It would delete that ar eliminate that through the Press.
Aanenson: But the people coming out of Kinderca~ though, have to go all the way back up
and do a U mm.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Hempel: That's correct All the way up to, what is it, Dakota and take the frontage road
back, West 78th Street east and back to the Press.
Harberts: And that would be the p.m. or is that a.m. too? I suppose whatever you u'aveL
Hempel: If you're going to the Press, you would either do a U mm on Highway 5 to go back
north w Dell Road...
Maucino: Did I miss something? I think I did.
Scott: What you're saying here is that if somebody is, ff someone is coming im They're
going west on Highway 5 and msire a right turn at Dell Road, can they make a left from Dell
Road into Kindercare? Yes?
Mancino: Sure.
John Dietrich: No.
Scott: No. So they have to go down, why's that?
Hempel: There's parking median islands...
Mancino: Oh, it goes to the whole street. The entire. So that's regardless of wherever it is.
Wherever the parking lot is.
Score Is this something that, is there enough stacking to avoid. I mean is this something
that a cut could be made in that median? I'm not doing a traffic study here. I'm just
thinking, if we're talking about making that change so that's the only way.you can get in. If
it's fight-in and right-out.
Ledvina: ...or I mean no left turn.
Hempel: I'm not sure...there's enough room to provide two lanes which you need for a left
turn lane.
Scott: Okay. I got you. $o it's the right turn on Dell Road. A U turn down by West 77th.
Farmskes: You're going to have that.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Harbens: Regardless.
Farmakes: Regardless. The primary access has to be off TH 5 anyway so if you turn
left_Eden Prairie.
Hempel: If you're a Press employee and you drop your chiki off at Kinde~.~re and leaving
Kindercare, you even have to go back out onto Highway 5.
Scott: But if we have reserve parking for Kindeware, for Pre~ employees at Kinde~sre~
they'll be coming in the back way. Wslldng and doing that too so.
Nutting: Will an employee want to park closer to Kinderca~ or will they want to pazk closer
m the door?
Harberts: Kindercare. You're going to pick your kid up. You're going to get off work.
Walk to Kind~. Pick it up and then get in the car. That's what you're trying to do.
Nutting: Will they park closer to thc door in thc winter lime and then drive around7
Harbem: Well what you're trying to do is to ~ that type of scenario because then
that cuts down circulation within the parking lot which then cuts down the possibility of any
safety issues. So you know, that's what you're trying to achieve here. Is W have them pull
in once, park and away they go.
Farmak~: Lrregardless, they're going to have to take a fight to come out...
Scott: And this could end up b~ng an office b~ilrling down the mad and they'd be no
reason to have these lots connec~ anyway so. Okay. Anyway. My co--ts are, I mean
it seems like the Press expansion is satisf~ in it's existing form to be moved along. I
~dnk the~'s still some major con~ with the, major questions with the ~ So
those are the extent of my conunents. I'll be asking the rli~cult question for a motion.
Nutting: Do we have the ability to?
Scott: You can, yeah. Sure, go ahead.
John Finnemore: Yeah, I'd like to address 3 of those comments. Number one on the paddng
stall requirements. As a company we have a standard ourself that we use roughly 1 stall for
4 children so 200 divided by 4 is ~. So we're slightly below that. Keep in mind; with 45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
parking spots out there, in the pan. when we're at capacity we'll have roughly 28 to 30
employees in those parking spots. So say there's 30 em?loyees. That only leaves 15 then for
the parents to come into which is, I mean it would work but we decrease that to 33 and all of
a sudden you've got 2 or 3 parking spots open not used by en~.loyee~ So there's not a
surplus of parking out there. In fact we would typically be looking for 50-55 parking spots
on a normal layout. We're building the same facih'ty in Woodbury and we have what, 55
there. 55 spots there. As far as flipping the, putting the parking lot in back and the
playground in front. Two things that would prohibit us from doing that. One is the speed of
the traffic out on Route 5 and that's what, 55 m?h them. I mean that's what the sign says.
There's no police so I was doing 65 on my way here because I was a little late. A runaway
car in a situation like that could right inw a playground. If the playground was in the front
of the building. We've got, we do have set-ups where the only place left to put the
playground was along a busy road and we put up guardraih and so forth but at 65 mph you
really can't put an adequate barricade that's even remotely attractive to keep a car out.
That's one issue. A second issue are those overhead power lines there. Those are
transmission lines. They've got, somewhere probably 345 kilobolts going through those.
There's a big concern these days, mostly with children but just with people in general with
what they call electromagnetic fields, EMF. And there's federal standards on what they
~ the EMF and what's called, the unit is calle~ a milogaust and you, I have a gaust
meter and what we found is we need to be set back roughly. 100 and some feeC Wherever
we're set back from the front of our bnilding is where we're down to a point where that
reading is 2.0 lower so we cnn have a parking lot out there but we can't have a playground or
building in an area that has readings that high. There's studies either way. I mean if you go
to a power company they'll I~1 you that EMF is not a in~oblem. But yet there are studies on
the other end that say that it can promote cancer and other things.
Mancino: Is this a state regulation7
John Finnemore: No. It's a federal guideline. It's nothing in the books yet but it's
something that will be someday. Other countries have. Sweden has laws on that. France has
laws and they're all being analyzed. There's major research in this right now. Numerous
power companies. Everybody's doing research on _this issue and the nde of thumb has been
this 2.0 milogaust. That's what we've been going by. We've been using 2.0 and we're
setting back everything we can from a reo~ding at that point or lower. And we do get that
reading when we go to the front of the building so if we were to put the playground in the
front of the bnilding, we would then exceed that reading. And we can't take that ~ and if
ncwul laws aren't passed that say you can't be in an area that's 2.0 or greater, we can't take
the risk and the liability of having to close the center. The third issue is the cross over ~
between the Press and our facih'ty. We would put it in our agreement with the Pre~ that, we
don't want the cut through tm/tic anymore than the commi~_ion does or staff does so if it
26
Plavning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
becomes a problem from our point of view, we're going to address that with the Press and
something will have to be done. Then additionally, in the development agreement between
Kindercare and the Press and then the City of Chanlmss~ we can put sotrzthing in there that
says, if staff or the commission or whoever determines that it becomes a pmblern, we can
change the configuration then_
Mancino: What's your reason for not eliminating it fight now so it doem't become a
problem?
John Finnemore: Well the access to our facih'ty. We've got a right-in, right-out on Dell
Road. In order to get in, you have to come in and do that U turn which I can't imagine that
U rum's legal to get into. I mean the majority of the Uaffic in and out of our center is going
to be from Highway 5. And whether you're going east or west bound, you'd have to do a U
turn around that insurmountable median out there.
Mancino: But what does that have to do with having an ingress into the Press' parking lot?
John Finnemore: Well because it...intemal drive. If you're coming in this way, you can
come around here and get in where your only other choice would be to do an illegal U turn
to get in here. That allows...
Mancino: But that's exactly what we don't want. Okay, never mind__
John Finnemore: But then how do we get into our facih~, basi~y. We've got an
insurmountable median from this point to this point.
Mancino: So you actually want to use the Press' pafldng lot as an entry into Kindeware's
parking lot? I ~ that is your inumt?
John Finnemore: Cozrecc There's no other way to...becanse the people aren't going to be
coming from back here. They're going to be coming from Highway 5.
Nutting: Do you have any problem putting a speed bump. there?
John Finnemore: No. We don't have a problem with that.
Fro-makes: This currently where that intm~ecfion is, would that be consid~ an illegal U
mm?
Scott: I don't think so because I remember when they were tipping up TH 101, I had to go
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
back there every day to get to where my office building was and I usually.
Fannakes: U turns are permitted unless otherwise posted.
Scott: Yeah, I don't think it's illegal.
John Finnemore: It's not posted.
$cotr~ So it's not illegal.
Hempel: It's ceminly not a desired..., espedally at the level or during peak hours...see if
there was maybe some almmafive to placing a median cut in for a lef~ turn lane into the site
only but not out of it. That may be a possibility.
Fammkes: If there was a cut in, would it be preferable on either end of the building? North
or south?
Hempcl: Further away from the intersection would be preferred.
Scott: Nor stacking.
Harberts: Dave, with regard to one of thc points lrought up was regarding the speed of
traffic. As I recall, we've got a lighted intersection there and we've got a lighted intersection
down towards Chanhas~n. Wouldn't that greatly reduce the speeds and I'm also looking at
that time of morning. I know when my buses nm on the road, to achieve 55 mph with those
amount of stop lights even coming east or going west, I don't know how ofum and I don't
know if you can answer that. How often that you would be at a speed of 55 mph at that
particular point on Highway 5 given the amount of ~raffic and the number of traffic lights.
Hcmpel: Those kind of conditions vary daily. Whether drivers habits and so forth. I guess
that's a pret~ tough question-
It's almost a traffic...quesfion.
Mancino: But Diane we've got the same thing at our new elementary schooL I mcan thc
new elementary school's on Highway 5. 55 and they have the playgrounds towards the front.
Towards Highway 5. I ~ obviously they're set back and there's going to be a chainlink
fence around it but the sarr~ kind of conditions happen there. I mean they're.
Hafogts: I think to a greater extent there's an opportunity for those, for that speed to be
28
Planning Commission Meeting - Atn'il 20, 1994
u____~ined at that point rather than at this point.
Mancino: Well there will be a light there though. I rn~___n eventually when the school opens,
there will be a light. So it's kind of the sume. It's the same sort of situation.
John Finnemore: But that's really the secondary concern compared to the EMF issue. We
can't jeopardize our liability of having a playground with readings over 2.0. We couldn't as
a company put a playground out in front of that b~jlcling.
Harberts: Push thc building back.
Farmakes: On the lot lines, just one quick question. The lot line that we're dealing with
there. The property ownen for those two lots. The lot to the north. I didn't ask &
question. How is the pwperty being plotlxxt? Is that one piece of land or two?
Al-hff: Currently it is one lot and one ouflot. They are dividing it into three.
Aanenson: No. They're re, configuring. They planning to well
Mancino: Total of three.
Aanenson: One outlot so they're replatting them so you'll have one for the ICind_e~.are and
one still an ouflot.
Farmakes: If the city looks at the potential issues for north or south parking lot, would the
city look at an issue when they're looking at gateway or the issue of gateway comes up, is
there the possibility of moving that back and the city acq~g the buffer.
Mancino: For that front lot.
Farmakes: That front lot or pan of that front lot ourently where the city has the most
substanti~ area for landscaping. Some of the envimntnen~ issues that were brought up.
The distance from the power lines and so on to the front of the building. Are we talking 50
feet7 Are we talking, you know the issues of, I'd li~ to see a serious response to the issue
that if we did flip it around. We haven't voted yet but I'd like to see a serious response to
how that could be done and address those issues.
Aanenson: All I can say about the power line issue is the next project's got the same issue.
Why they want to move the power lines because they have a problem getting FHA financing
29
Plavning Commission Meeting - April 20, 19oA
so there is a legitimate issue with the power lines. As far as flipping it..a'equiring that.
Again, we're falling into an area and I know the Council is a little upset about the fact that
we haven't adopted it but it's not in place right now. As far as how nmch acreage we want
for the Highway 5. The gateway requirements. As far as does the city have the abih'ty to
purchase that?
Farmakes: I don't know but certainly the city is, Highway 5 is going to be developed by the
time we get this thing approved. If we don't start, as you said in the be~nning here, if we
don't start applying these issues rather than just nod_aing our shoulders and saying, well I
guess there's nothing we can do about it.
Aanenson: All I can tell you is I think that's something that if you're interested in, that you
Farmakes: Well the issues that we've heard here so far and the issue of whether or not it's
north or south. We've heard 26 employees. 28 employeea In fact there's up to 30
employees now. I've heard ratios of 4 children per parking lot. I've heard 6 children per
parking loc '
Aanenson: City ordinance is 1 per 6.
Farmakes: Okay, so but I understand that but the applicant came up and when we're talking
about the issues of the parking lot or issues of a buffer, we're 1ooidng for some room to
maneuver there and there seems to be very little. So it's sort of either fish or cut bait on this
thing. Either we're going to line up parking lots ail along the highway ~r we're not. And if
we're not, what are we going to do about it? There has to be some mom to maneuver. If
we're talking one parking spot, I don't think that's going to make the grade so.
A1-Jaff: There's also a 30 foot buffer that could be used for green space between the
property line abutting Highway 5 and the pariring for the Kindercare. That could be used for
ing bu e s.
John Finnemore: We would like to make...This is a plant full area. There has to be certain
species underneath the power lines that NSP, if that's the power company, would agree to in
terms of height. Once you're outside of that cozfidor underneath the power poles, we do have
a 30 foot area and we also have additional green space in our front yard. We would be more
than willing to work with the cornmis.~ion and stsff as to finding what that mtn, element
would be, if in fact this is a selected intersection. But in Imum of green space, we have this
30 foot easement. Building setback area that is clearly defined and we would be more than
hazy to hold off the landscape plans in that area. Landscaping is, in terms of conslruction,
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
the last element to go in. So I would say there would be an opportunity to work with how
this area really would be defined in terms of visual, in terms of the elements that this
landscaping, the structural benning, so that we could wozk with the entry elements and
Mancino: Sharmin is there any, I don't know how anybody's going to answer this. But will
the power lines ever go under ground? No7 Why7
John Finnernore: That doesn't change the EMF either.
Aanenson: They're too high voltage. The cost is,
Mancino: So they bum the soil7 I mean I don't know.
John Finnernore: That doesn't effect the EMF. You have to encase them in about 6 foot
~ded walls in order to.
Mancino: No problem.
John Finnemore: And you think your power bills are high now.
Mancino: Just wondering. ;lust wondering. You know you've got to just dig a ditch so I
just thought I'd ask~
Scott: Is anyone prepared to make a motion7
Farmakes: I'd like just one quick comme-_ t. Staff, I'd like to get a response. I think that the
issue the applicant made in regards to health issues and the city doesn't have anything on
ordinance on that. I would think that you would review the quality of their informstlon. I
would think that that would be pertinent.
Aanenson: Right. Well that's what I was saying. You've got the same issue on the next
application. The reason why they wanted the power line moved because they cannot secure
FHA financing because of the location over the houses. So there are some federal regulations
out there relamt to...
Nutting: There may be lots of reg~l~l.ions that people just don't know. 'I'nere's studies on
both sides of the issue and I think until there's something definitive, especially when a
lender...approve things like that. That doesn't give you the answer as to.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: No, but it may tell us that maybe that bnilrling should go to the north lot. Maybe
it shouldn't be there.
Mancino: And just move back
Farmakes: There's a blank lot up above. Maybe that's the place for that pafficular.
Sco~ And the access would be much less compli~ too.
Farm_hims: One owners owns the entire space. That's the only area to maneuver anyway in
this thing apparently. Is that north lot. And it looks to be somewhat bigger.
Scott: I'll call for a motion again and whenever you're ready.
Mancino: I'll move, with a lot of help. I'll move that we approv~ let's see. What am I
going to approve?
Scott: We have three things here.
Mancino: Well I'll do one of them. I'll move that we approve the Site Plan Revi~ for a
54,760 square foot expansion of thc Press b~jlding. With, as shown on the site plan received
April 13, 1994 subject to the following conditions. 1. That thc app~cant must revise plans to
include trash screen_ ing of the Press site and show thc type of matedals used to screen the
trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City
Council meeting. Number 3. I should ask Shannin. Does nn~mbe~ 3 re~e~ to the Press also?
Manoino: Okay. And I'm assuming number 2 is just Kinderc~ right~
A1-Jaff: That's correcL
Mancino: Okay. So number 3, the applicant shall provide a meandea4_ng bexm with
landscaping along the south portion of the site, between thc parking lot and Highway 5. The
height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The app~t shall also provide staff with
a detailed cost estimate of landscat:fing to be used in calculating thc required financial
guarantees. These guaranis must be posted prior to bnilding permit issuance. I would like
to add to that. That added landscaping, that there be added landscaping to the perimeter of
the Press expansion per my request in coniferous trees. Number 4. The al~~t shall enter
into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary fmandal
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
securities as required for landscaping. Number 5. Meet aH conditions outlined in the Hre
Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. Number 6. The Press addition shall contain some
architectural detailing to break the long wall ~ and I would say architecunal detailing
Number 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a ~ lighting plan meeting city
standards shall be submitted. Number 8. Thc grading/utility plan shall be revised to
incorporate storm sewers in the psrldng lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage
calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval. Number 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from
the appropriate agencies. Number 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property
line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. Number 12. Does that pertain to
the Press?
A1-Jaff: No. It would be for Kindercare only.
Mancino: Okay. So omit that. Number 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on
the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with
tttrning radiuses at 77th Sueet West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive
aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. And I also want to make sure that it's a two
way traffic street. Number 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accardance
to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Number 15. The applicant shall
provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of
$5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevanis disturbed as a result of the site
improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo
dated March 25, 1994. Number 17.
Harberts: Nancy, could I offer a suggestion on 177
Mancino: You bet.
~: That the parking configuration for the Press will somehow be in concert with what
the approval is given for Kindercare so that they c~ or coordinate or whatev~ they
need to do.
Mancino: That it be serf contained?
Harberts: Well, at this point I just wanted to leave it open in terms of the pazking. I don't
have nny problem in saying that it's being self contained but I'm looking more at that
sidewalk and if we need that designated psddng. If that's s~ing we find is ~t.
That's why I'm saying that the paridng configuration for the Press will be, I don't know.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Relate to.
Harbens: Or somehow coordinate with. With whatever's approved then for the Kindercam
so we have that flexibility to influence the Press given what is finally approved then for the
Kindercare. That's what I would suggest.
Mancino: Okay. That's it. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell
Road, or 77th Street West. Oh I wanted to put a recommendation in about, that I would like
to see the impervious surface of the Press be a conforming permit and be at 70%. And
Diane, do you want to add anything about the sidewalk being there? I mean does that need
to be in thc rcco~fion?
Harlxrtz: Well that's what I want 17 to reflect. Is that we do have that flexibility to go back
and influence things that may need to be included in the Press parking lot because of what
comes out of the Kindercare. So that's what the intent there is to let us have that flexibility
to go back and have influence over that. And I'll second that motion. And I just want to
clarify. Then does that mean Nancy that we're tabling the second pan of that regarding
construction of the Kindercare Dayc. are Center?
Mancino: Yeah, that's going to be my second. The next motion. I think that's how you do
it.
Harberts: Yeah, okay.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for the Press
warehouse expansion. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as
shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions.
le
That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and
show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans
must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting.
,
The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south
portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm
shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as
suggested by Nancy Mancino.
The applicant shall enter in~o a site plan development contract with the city and
provide the necessary financial securities as required for landsc~g.
Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo da~ed March 10, 1994.
,
The Press addition shell contain some architecUnal detailing (with relief) to break up
the long wall masses
,
Concurrent with the bnilding permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards
shall be submitted.
The grading/utility plan shall be ~rised to inc~ swrm sewers in the parking
lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm
event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval
The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permim from thc approtniate
agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building DepOt).
10.
Silt fence shall be placed along the northern pwpa~ line where the pazking lot for the
Press is being relocami.
11. Deleted.
12. Deleted.
13.
The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Pt~s site north of the main perking
lot area should be a winimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuse~ at 77th Street
West of 30 feet and two way traffi~ In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle)
shall be posted with no parking sign~
14.
The driveway access point shall be conslxucted in accordance to the City's typical
industrial driveway apron detail.
15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash -
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restm~on. All boulevards
disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod.
16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994.
17.
The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design
approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for
pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare.
18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway $, Dell Road or 77th StreeL
19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Is there another motion?
Harlm'ts: I move to table gin~_ercare Daycare Center. Consuuction oL
Scott: And is there some direction to the developer?
Harberts: I think based on the discussions, from what my notes are and if anyone's able to
assist here. I think one of the primary areas was regards to ~p flopping the parking and the
playground. I think Jeff brought up a good point though about, if there's a concern with the
electromagnetic fields or whatcwer, do we push it down? Is that a better place for it? I think
there's some access questions. Traffic questions that rela~ to that Signage. I thinir with
regards to n~ 2. And I think there was cornets with regards to putting around some
additional landscaping there. I think there was also some discussion about cutting the parking
down 12 spaces. Again, it might be an influencing factor then about flip flopping it as to the
number of parking stalls.
Mancino: Gateway.
Harbens: The gateway certainly is a big factor in that. And I think that's really what
prompted the ~p flopping is I think Jeff convnented well is that, do we shrug our shoulders
or do we in a sense start putting some pen to the paper here in terms of what we feel is
important. And I would certainly be interested to see, to start holding. Going forward with
these values I think that have been communicalrd and addre, s~ very thoroughly by the
Highway 5 corridor group. And here's an opportunity to either leave it go or start walking
the talk.
36
Planning Commisdon Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded in summary to table the site plan review for the
Kinderca~ facility. Is there any discussion?
Hazberts: Who seconded that one?
Scott: Ah, she made the motion, you seconded
Mancino: No. She made the motion. Second.
Scott: Excuse me. Now it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Harherts moved, Mnncino seconded that the Planning Commi~d_'on table action on the
Site Plan Review for Kindercare Daycare Center. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mancino: I assmne that eliminates 2 and 3.
Scott: Yeah, I'd say by virtue of. Question. Do we have to approve the replat?
A1Jaff: Yes you do.
Sco~ So that the Press can.
Al-la.fi: Can go forward.
Scott: Okay. May I have a motion please?
Mancino: I'll move that we replat. I move that we approve the prelimim~ plat to replat Lot
1, Block 1. Do I have to do, do I do thc whole thing? I want to approve the Press.
Al-latf: Lot 1 expansion but you don't want 2 and 3.
Mancino: Not yet because I mean, you know. That may change.
Scott: Okay. So basic~y what we need to do is replat Lot 1, Block 1.
A1-Jaff: Well we can process that adwinistratively.
Mancino: Okay.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: This is...to the ouflot.
Scott: Okay, so basically we are going to end up with a prelirninsry plat to rep]at Lot 1,
Block 1 into Lot 1 and Ouflot A and B? Is that?
Al-Jaff: That would require a plat.
Aanenson: Just one outlot.
Mancino: Just to one outlot, yeah.
Scott: Okay, Outlot A. Okay.
Mancino: That's what I said.
Scott: Was it? Okay, is there a second please?
Scorn It's been moved and seconded i/mt we approve the plat as stated. Is there any
discussion?
Harberts: What are we approving?
Mancino: Yeah, there's some discussion here. Jeff, why don't yom Jeff has some
discussion-
ff we look at that, both outlots there.
They're really 3. What they want. This is really.
Farmakes:
the Press.
and 3.
So if you're looking at con~idexing the nca~heast cc~ner of that Lot 3, 2 and 1 for
If by approving that are we _defining the lines where the borders are? Between 2
Scott: Or should we just have Lot 1 and Outlot A and Ouflot A comprises the, thia is very
surveyor's talk here.
Fmanakes: 2 and 3.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Sco~ Everything to the east of the ~..
Mancino: Well wait. And if we approve it, can we still have 70% hnpervious ~
because don't they have to add more onto that?
Fammkes: But how are we tying ourselves into the development of the existing lot to the
north with the current Kinder?
Mancino: But we're leaving those open.
Farmakes: Those are left open?
Scott: Yeah.
Fannakes: So we're not tying ourselves inw access to those lots?
Ledvina: No.
Mancino: Access to them?
Farmakes: Well for in.race, thi.~ goes here and then you've got it going there.
Aanenson: The existing lot line is, you're moving it to the east is all you're doing. For the
Press. The rest of it you're still leaving outlot. That's how it is right now.
Scott: So it's Lot 1, as specified with Outlot A. Ia that what we want to say? What's the
right way to say it?
Al-$aff: Another way of saying it is, Lot 1 and combine Lots 2 and 3 into Ouflot A. That's
another.
Mancino: Thank you. And ~'eff's question.
AI-Jafl: Or proposed lots.
Mancino: But Jeff's question is, is that there won't be any problem having done this if we
go back and let's say Kindercare goes to the northern side, can we still use the access from
the Pre~' driveway into Kinderea~7
Aanenson: Sure.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Does that answer it for you7
Aanenson: You've got to remem?er again, all you're doing is moving a property line for the
Press further to the east. And leaving the rest as an outlot...
Hempel: You're approving the common drive is going to serve eventually whatever's over
there.
Scot~ And we aho need a motion to table the condifi~ use permit for a Hcensed daycare.
Ledvina: Did we agree to vo~e on...
Sc, om Yes.
Harberts: I just have a clarification. Kate, Sharmin.. On our previous motion did you get
included the sidewalk7
Aanenson: On 177
Scott: Wcll we can't really, that's a yes or no. If it's one way or the other, it doesn't matter.
Harberts: Yes we can. We can do anything we want.
Mancino: But yeah, I asked you that. It's in 17.
Harberts: No I'm asking the sidewalk, handicapped accessible. If that was included in those
cornrnents7 That was the intent. With thc parking configuration them
Al-la/f: I was going to include parking for the Press be in concert with Kinderca~ and then
to meet all conditions of ADA req~ts7
Harberts: No. No, I don't want it to meet ADA because those are more. 'llmt the parldn§
configuration though included thc fact about that sidewalk being added rather thsn having
wheelchairs and people having to go out into thc line of traffic. And I didn't know ff we
needed to amend this one because we're still on this one.
Scott: Well we're discussing, I think we undcrs~.
Harberts: But we got thc intent.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: We understand what our motion is. Basically that we're going to end up going from
Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and combining Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: That was discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commi~on reeonnnend appmvnl
of preliminary plat for Subdivision ~M-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1
and Ouflot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
2. Provide the following easements:
IL
A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along
the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1.
A 15 foot wide drainngc and utility casement shall be dedicated on thc final
plat along the west ~ line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the
sewer service.
3. Enter into a site plan development agreancnt acceptable to the city.
o
A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The
easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement
agreement shall be draf-ted and fried concurrently with a private maintenance
ngreement acceptable to the City.
o
The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watrrshed
District, Health Department, etc.
o
Erosion control meastu~s (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt
fence shall be placed along the north ~ line where the parking lot for the Press
is being relocated.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
41
I .
Planning Ommmission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Okay, can I have a new motion with regard to the Kindercare Site Plan for the
Kindercare facih'ty?
Mancino: I move that we table conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP
district.
Scott: lust a question for Kate. Do we have to make a motion to table the site plan for the
Kind~ facility? Follow up with another motion to table the conditional use permit?
Because we have, these are all specific items within the public ~§ and I think we have
Weee
Aanenson: You can't do one without the other.
Scott: Then we need to address the site plan, specifi~y for the Kind_ercare facility. Can I
have a motion please?
Harbens: I'll move it to table.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the site plan review for the ~
fadlity.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the Site Plan Review for a Kindercare
· !
Daycare facility. Ail voted in favor and the motion carded unammous y.
Se, om May I have another motion with regard to the conditional use permit?
Mancino: I move that we table the conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an
lOP district.
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Conditional Use Permit ~1 for the gtndercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Sc, om We'll take the Kind~ fadh'ty and the condit/onal use permit, well as soon as they
can bring it back to us~ We want to move it on if we can. We'll take a 5 minute break and
then thc next public hearing is regarding the Ryan/Heritage/Bo~ development.
Planning Commission Mooting - April 20, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAI~ PLANNED UNIT DEVEI.0PMI~.NT TO _REZONE 82.6 A~-~,S OF
PROPF. RTY ZONED A2~ A(~RICUL~ ~ATE TQ PUD IN~.,UDING 19.3
ACRF. S FOR OFFICE/WARF. HOUSF, 52.9 ACRES FOR MULTI-FAMILY, 3.4 ACRES
FOR PONDING ARF. A~ AND 7 ACRF. S FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED
80UTH OF HI(~HWAY ~ WF..q. T OF AUDUBON AND EAST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARD~ CHANH~qSF. N CORPORATE CENTRE~ HIGHWAY $
PARTNER~I-IIP~ RYAN COMPANW.$~ I~.RITAGE DEVELOPMENT~ BO~LAIR
Public Present:
Name Addres~
Mark Foster
Karen Olson
Robert Boisclair, Boischir Corp.
Nicholas A. Palaia, Pnlaia Architects
Liv Homeland
Kent Carlson
Steve Schwanke
lohn Dobbs
leannene Krone
Richard Frasch
802O Acom Lane
802O ~ Lane
3005 Ottawa Avenue
11420 Salem Avenue, Young ~
8804 Knollwood Dr.
15241 Creekside Com~ Eden Prai~
Suit~ 700, 900 2nd Avenu~ So, Mpls
922 Mainstree~ Hopkins
64/5 Sth Avenue, NewpoR
922 MainStl'~ Hoplcing
8000 Acorn Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item-
Scott: lust a question. The intent, I _think this is for edification of l~rhaps some of the
residents. The inlzmt of a PUD is something whe~ we will do some diWea~nt things with
densities, and so forth, in order to get something from the developer. Preservation of nannal
features, obviously Bluff Creek. Based upon the conditions that, based on the staff repro't,
whnt are we getting here?
43
Pla~i~g Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Generous: Besides thc obvious one, specific treatments of the Bluff Creek carridor. There's
a potential for the affordable housing component. Initial discussions with the developer were
that they would provide...nnit for moderate income.
What is, define moderate income7
Generous: I think they used 60% of the median income but I'll let the developer.
Generous: Tell you specifically.
Scott: Yeah, we've heard affordable housing used to define $175,000.00 house. So we'll be
talking about this. So basically what we maybe need to focus in on is that what perhaps
we're getting is affordable housing, yet m be d~uned lalrr this evening.
Generous: Correct.
Scou~ Okay.
Generous: As well as the protection of the tree corridor...consideration for that specifically.
Scott: Okay, comments?
Aanenson: ...let you be aware that we are work/nE, we do have a tentative charette date set
to try and flush out some issues on it. And that is one of the conditions and the applicant's
aware of that...but if we §o back to the Comp Plan, on this s/lc plan, originally it was all
guided for single family component. What we said is, for a portion of it up in the first
segment...and the school si~ went in and the corr~ plan said, _this area could then be
industrial. And looking at it,-in conversation~ with the former planning director, maybe it
seemed palatable that inste~ of industrial that maybe a high density would be mare palatable
than industrial. Maybe, maybe not. We did give a performance base. Maybe indusuial is
more palatable to the neighborhood. Maybe the high quality of multi-family...What we're
saying at this point, we think there's some merits to some of their, ideas but they need to be
further articp_l~_ted and again this goes back to the co~ What we're trying to do at this
point is say you need to §o back and refine...
Mancino: Well and I would like to add to that contextually is that I think you also have to
look on the north side of Highway 5 between the Lake Ann Park and Galpin. Because on
that side of Highway 5 we have, starting at Lake A nn~ high den~ty also.. Going all the way
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
to Galpin gives medium density so that will also be on the other side of the ~ So we
want to make sure that we don't get kind of a tunnel effect here of high density sncl high
apartmcn~ maybe that, we didn't.
Aanenson: Well there's an interesting relationship with the school I think that's something
you need to examine. And maybe with the multi-family...What we're saying is this plan
doesn't really articnls~ that. What we would like to see happen, we talked about, originally
the road with this access to the site, with the fixed locafion...Highway 5 corridor. The
applicants are saying, since they're not going with industrial, it probably mak~ nmm sense to
put the mad over to the other side where it serves the industrial, as they show on their site
plan and it provides, that would be the access into the industrial park. So you're not bringing
all that traffic through residential and maybe that's the mcrit...What they're doing fight now
in conc~tual is running some ideas at you...give them some direction and come back. So
they move the mad over...thi.~ is our industrial component over here. We're going to let the
U'affic come throu~ this area and not impact the rest of that $o maybe that makes some
sense. The concern we have with that, and this goes back to the design chsre~, they also
show moving the power lines. The power lines...and ~'ve ind_ic-s__L~'d ~ in ord~ to get
financing they would move the power lines across the tree corridor and that's so _nmthing...
Farms~: Those power lines are pretty substan~ too aren't they?
Scott: Is that a continuation of thc same line we were talking about along I-~ghway 5 and
then it cuts across? I think it is. Okay.
Harberts: Bob, is the office warehouse, that whole industrial office area. I don't know if
I've got the ~ninology correct here. Is tha~ spec buildings or will they have owners or
tenants or something that will come in, build them to specifications.
Harberts: And my last question inifi'"'"'"'"'"~ly here is, what's the opportunity of getting a right-in,
right-out on Highway 5?
Aancason: That's also going to be...thcy have to work at relocating that...And we feel, cvca
for thc buses coming into the school, they may want to usc that looping system also.
Farmakes: Can you tell me, the power line issue again, h's a little difficult tO see the, as I
recall the property, the power lines sort of dissect the property.
45
Pla~nirig Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanen~n: Thc power lines right now run along the back side of Timberwood.
Farmakes: So they basically dissect the...
Aanenson: What they're doing is going to relocate it.
Farmakes: Okay. Now once that goes to the south and gets towards the proposed road.
Aanenson: It will tie back into the exist/ng Thnberwood...
Farrnakes: So it snakes to the lef~ aud then heads across the street?
Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: Okay. If we were considering any other types of development for that property...
would that necessitate also moving thc power lines?
Aanenson: No. Originally that's where the mad was going to go and that power line would
fall basically where that mad alignment's going to go. Industrial I don't think
would...because it's going residential, my understanding is they...
Farmakes: The green space that you were discussing earlier in regards to the configuration.
It looked it came from the southwest up to the northeast
Generous: ...put in these view coxridors or common areas.
Fannakes: I'm wondering again what, if any thought was given to the issue of the Highway
It's sort of the same discussion we had with the last applicant.
Aanenson: Cermi~y they're aware of the standards.
Farmakes: Well as I can see, the buildings are within 50 feet of the property line. Is that
correct7 The bnilttings on the north end.
Aanenson: This is conceptual. I'm not sure it's to scale.
Farmakes: I just scaled it with a pen here.
Generous: I didn't look at that. I just said, ye~. They want to move buildings up here but
we'd make them comply when they got more detailed.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: The right-of-way is 100 feet off of the highway? ~ my memory.
Hernpel: I think it's 150.
F~: 1507 So then the scale on this is not correct then. The drawings that we're
looking at. The 150 would be almost 2 inches off of...to the highway. It's not 2 inches. Is
the applicant here?
Steve Schwanke: Yeah.
Fannak~: Are these drawings done to scale in relatio~p to the highway7
Seannene Krone: They're to scale. All it shows is one side of the right-of-way.
Farmakes: I'm looking where it states on, let's see. 4 out of 5, looking at Highway 5. If the
right-of-way shown on Highway 5 is 150 feet, limt looks a little out of whack to me. Is this
calculating the distance or eye-bailing it?...so directly, it's shown as half as less or.
Aanenson: We didn't...the setbacks. What we're looking at, what we're trying to get your
ideas as far as the .density and how they lay out and how the grading and the location of
power lines and all that stuff.
Farmakes: I guess, the reason I bring that up is this is, it seems to me once again we've got
a line of buildings right next to the highway. It would be an issue again, I think I made _this
point on the Highway 5 cormnittee and I made it again before we voted on it. It's my
opinion that what we're going to get, up and down that highway, is just like the development.
Within 50 feet of the lot line. Whether it's indusuial or whether it's medium or high dendty
housing. You're §oing to see people trying to maximize their property in relationship to that
highway. Put their buildings and parking lots just as close as they can §et them, which seem
to me to be the opposite of what the intent was of 2 years of work on that committee. What
reality or what we can do against that in the face of actual development, I'm not sure. We've
talked about, I was arguing about the issue of Alternative 2 and it seems to me the only way
that the city is going to deal with getting some relief and not having buildings to the edge of
Aanenson: But it's a PUD. You can give it whatever setbacks you want to give it.
Fmrnakes: I understand that but I'm making that point for the rest of the members on the
commission.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: $o it's important that we discuss setbacks on this.
Farmakes: And to have a drawing that's out of scale in relationship to that is not.
Aanenson: It's not to scale...
]'~nr~ene Krone: The drawing is not out of scale...northem right-of-way.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I'd like to take a
moment to introduce ourselves. My name is Steve Schwanke. This is 1eannene Krone.
We're with RLK Associates and we're ~,seating thc development team for this. As Ms.
Krone mentioned, the drawing is not out of scale. It may not show precisely the area that
you're considering. A couple of things that we want to mention very quickly. There are
some problems with the drawing. We fully acknowledge that, as the staff has indicated in the
staff ~ There's not a detailed gr,_ding plan. There hasn't been a lot of consideration
given to design. Those are the kind of issues that we haven't specifically atte~q~ed to
address here and what we're ~___-empting to address are, are the land uses okay? Can we reach
a consensus on that? Are the densities appropri~ and can we reach a consensus on that7
Are the access points at~t~ia~ and can we reach a consensus on that7 And the other it~as
that are being brought up, we certainly appreciat~ we certainly support and we'll certainly
work with the staff and ttfis body and the City Cotmcil overall in reaching a consensus on
those issues. Unfommately, as part of these drawings he~e, we haven't given a lot of
consideration to those issues and so we appredat~ the issues that are being raised and in the
coming months we'll be happy to work with you on these.
Fannakes: Can I ask you? What is the setback on the northern edge of the ~ from the
line?
Jeannene Krone: We've shown 50 feet but we now know it's 70 feet.
Fro'make: And the right-of-way is 150 feet? So are we looidng at buildings 200 feet from
the center of the highway or are we looking at buildings, are these edge of buildings on the
edge of the fight-of-way?
Jeannene Krone: When the building setback is 70 feet.
Mancino: That's 70 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.
Seannene Krone: Our's shows 50 so it'd be 20 feet fln'ther that way. Which is what the
Highway 5 corridor study is indicating.
Plnnn/ng Commission Meetin~ - April 20, 1~
Farmakes: I thought that was from the right-of-way.
Mancino: It should be. It's 70 feet from the, not the center line of the highway but where
the right-of-way ends, you need to be another 70 feec
Jcannenc Krone: That's what I'm saying.
Mancino: Okay, thanks.
Farmakes: So if I take 70 and I add it to 150.
Hempel: 75.
Farm~ke~: To 757
Mancino: 125 from the center of the highway.
Hernpel: Right now the tomk highway 5...
Farmak~: Can you ufll me how that.
Hempeh Half of that is 75. Plus your 70 foot setba~ gives you 145 from the center.
Fannak~: 175. I'm on the other side of the highway.
Mancino: Well this is about right.
Farmakes: No. Go to the buildings up here.
Aanenson: The setback is mea~ from the southern property line. I guess I'm confused
why you're measuring from the center line.
Nutting: These are all issues which we can, these are what will come out from our
direcfiom..for the conceptual plato
?: Why don't we use, since you're here.
Scott: Just let thc applicants, please identify yourselves and thcn make your presentations and
then we'll ~sk some specific quesfions~
49
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Jeanncne Krone: My name is ~eanncne Krone. I wark with RLK Associa~. I'm here
answer any of your site plan questions. I'll leave it to Steve Schwanke to finish
presentation.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission_ Again my name is Steve
Schwanke with RLK Associates representing the development ~pm this evening. I have just
a few comments to make regarding the overall site development and then each of the
members of the development ~ are going to be making a brief presentation. Mr. Chair,
we'll defer to you at that point. If you'd like to have each member of the development team,
while they're here, answer questions from the commission, they would be prepared to do that.
Or if you'd like to take comments at that time, w~er is most appropriate for what the
Planning Commission has done, we'd be ready to do that. I'm he~ just like I say, a couple
of introductory comments and if you could turn that around Jeannene. This is a Chanhas~n
Corporate Centre project. It's a project that lifts group has been working on for some time.
For those of you who have been with the Planning Commission for some time, you've
probably seen it a couple of times in many different forms and shapes. And actually it has
gone through a rather...evolution process. Again, as Bob is indicating, this is the appmxims~
site that we are considering this evening that show in the colored areas here. At one lime the
site went all the way over, including the school property going south which is now here under
a separate PUD a~t as part of a single family component and included, as you can tell
a much larger area. We started working with this property nearly 3 years ago and at that
time it was almost exclusively a comn'erci~ industrial sir and of course hence the name of
it, Chanhassen Corporate Centre. That's almost going to the other end of the exlren~_. Again
in our undersumding with what the city is considering and inu~lwsted in through the Trunk
Highway 5 process, and through a number of conversations that we had with the staff
specifically related to land uses and what the Planning Commission and City Council may be
interested in seeing. So let me just ts_be a moment here to go through some of the thoughts
that we developed and some of the things that acttmlly gave us the land uses that we
proposed here. We are now showing, as Bob indical~i, a multi-family land use in this area
here. As recently as 4 or 5 months ago, this was being shown as a com~ and industrial
piece butting up against what is now the proposed school site. There was great consideration
given that An office commexcial development next to a school site. The principle problem
very difficult to get financing for a multi-family project. In fact it was actually killing the
multi-family potential at that point and_ of course that's why we were showing the office
commercial. Then the idea of course of moving the power lines, which has now made the
multi-family land use a possibility. Now that again came thron~ a number of months of
work with Paul Krauss, of course while he was, when he was here. And of course the
existing planning staff. So we're currently showing a multi-family use here, This is,..in the
blue area is a rather large ponding site. This is an area that is currently owned by the
Plmming Commi~on Meeting - April 20, 1994
development team. We are in the midst of conversations right now with the city because this
po_riding site is planned to be used for st/mn water runoff from the school site, and of course
you know the development plans for the school site are moving along and we need to
conclude those conversations regarding the po_haling areas and some things that we've done on
the school site. This is an item that we've been in conversation on for probably the last 3 or
4 months. Going to the east we're showing again still office commerdal land use. Agnln; I
believe that that's a very appropriate transition moving from the school to the multi-family to
the office comn~~ and of course in this area here is planned office commerdaL..~ we
can literally see from this spot here the loading dock areas of Mc~lynn's so we built an
office commercial which was most appropriate there. Moving south. Again, this is a multi-
family land use. Again s~ving as a very appropriate u'ansifion to office industrial over in
this area here. Of course the single family in _this area here which serves as a very fine
transition to the Tirnberwood area to the west. So that's some of the thoughts that have gone
inw putting together the general land use plan. Some of the things that have also gone on,
with respect to this over the last probably 4 to 5 months. We've been woridng with Barton-
Aschrnan, the city's consultant regarding this project and the alignment of this mad. The
staff report talked about making sure that the grades...all the land uses here as well as with
the road. It's a very appropriate suggestion and are ready to do that Have to do it. The
last, like I said, the last few months it's actually been just wofldng with the consultants in
aligning that road and making sure that it both compliments the existing school site here as
well as the land uses that are being planned in this area here. I just want to tak~ a couple of
moments and touch on the whole issue of why the PUD. I think Mr. Chair, you raised a very
good point. You know what is in it for the city7 Why does it work for the developem and
we think this site here works very well to plan it as a planned unit development so a number
Bluff Creek probably being the most widely known. It's also a roiling topography in the
area. Some very mature vegetation in clumps throughout the area here, down through this
area here and we believe that the planned unit development process is probably the most
appropriate way to include those amenities. Use them as items that will not only enhance the
property but make them much better development for not only the devel~ and the city.
Also, the planned unit development process also allows us to comprehensively plan the
infrastrucUn~ of this area here. Vf~thout the planned unit development process, without the
development team that's here before you this even_ ing, it would not be possible for us to
comprehensively put in and align this road, have a special assessment process set up and have
complete concurrence on that special assessment process~ You have here tonight a
development team that may not be entirely 100% supportive of the special assessments.
There's still some questions regarding those and there's a development team here tonight
who's supporting the extension of that roadway all the way across. Versus on the north side
of Trunk Highway 5 where there's some problems with the exten__ sion of the frontage road.
You also are able to comprehensively plan your storm water system in this area here. This
51
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
property here, as I've indicated, still belongs to the development team and yet we're in the
midst of conversations with the city to provide storm water podding for the school site them.
So there's a number of reasons for the planned unit development process...the city also the
development team. With that I'd like to introduce the development team and as I've
indicamd Mr. Chair, they've got some specific comments relative to their projects. They're
happy to answer any questions. If you'd like to at the end of the presentation or if you'd like
to wait and _m__k-e comments from the public and then answer questions at that time. As was
indicated, Mr. Kent Carlson with Ryan Consmsction is the principal devel~ of the office
warehouse project. Mr. Robert Boisclalr of Boiscialr Corporation is the principal devd~
of the mulfi-fanily here immediately south of Trunk Highway 5. Mr. John Dobbs of
Heritage Development is thc principal developer of multi-family south of the east/weg
collector road. Of course you may remember Mr. Dobbs was again also here with Heritage
as, he was also the principal developer of the single family PUD down in this area here~ So
with that, I'd like to have Mr. Carlson come up and say a few words about hi,~ specific
development.
Kent Carlson: Thanks Steve. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My
name is Kent Carlson. I'm with Ryan Companies. As Steve indicated we are here Wnight to
talk just conceptually a little bit about the 19-20 acre parcel that we plan on developing,
which is adjacent to the McGlynn's property. Concepwslly we've been woridng with the city
for 3+ years in the development of this area. As you may know, we also have the
Chanhassen Business Center which is located on Audubon. We went through the PUD
process a number of years ago so we're familiar with the process and have successfully
completed that in other areas. Worked closely with the staff to come up with this plan. The
components of this plan I think fit icinri of well with what the guide plan does originally in
1991. It was done with the direction of the previous planning directar, Paul Krauss. His
vision of how this area would be developed and we're very pleased to be here...It's tahm a
number of years to put it all together. The area that we're talking about, what we're
envisioning is a high quality project, office warehouse and office de~el~t center if you
will where your R & D centers would be. We've shown a prupo~ road to access Highway
5. At this point that's just a proposed road. We're not sure how the lots are going to be
designed at that access point. It will be put in at a later date and we intend to probably
dividing the properties into 3 or 4 different sites and build it on, not a speculative basis but
on a basis with anchor tenants or single tenant users of the facih~. We think that this area is
going to compliment the existing Chanha~en indusu'ial base and provide some excellent
oppommities for employment for the residents of Chanhassen and also enhance your tax base
as well so. The other thing that you should be aware of again, we're just talking concel~tually
this evening and a little bit about what we're trying to do. Each of the plans is gdng to
come before you again for specific site plan review and go to City Council again for their
review as well so we'll be working closely with the staff before making any presentations to
52
Planing Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
you on a specific project. $o with that I'll take questions or if you'd like to hear from others
of us?
Mancino: How long do you see this whole project taking? The entire 86 acres?
Kent Carlson: Well I can only speak really to the component that we're addressing and that's
about the 20 acres of the industrial piece on the east side. The far east side. It's our hope to
have infraslnlcture in place by late 199/5. I think that's probably the earliest we could get
access to the property to commence development. That's all really market driven. We've
had, quite honestly, tuareg teams working in thi~ area for over 3 years and we haven't had
much activity to date. We're seeing a turn around in the market and there's continued
interest in the marketplace so I think we'll see some activity generated but I would not ~
to be fully built up probably for 4 or 5 years.
Lcdvin~ Have you evaluated the Highway 5 corridor study overlay requirements? And do
you have any conunents as to how that might affect your designs?
Kent Carlson: Our design stanchuds?
Ledviua: Yes. For this property. For your piece Of property there.
Kent Carlson: No, I haven't looked at it to see how it's going to impact..
Scott: Any other cormnents for the applicant? Okay.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs...and as was mentioned before, I'm the
principal developer of the multi-family site indicated here. Fm also the developer of single
family that is...having been before you with the single family, we recognize that the wetlands
having to stay...individual nnits and design to a very detailed level at this point so that is not
the intent here with us but I would like to address a couple issues from the staff. One of
them is number 16. Buildings shou~ be stepped to reduce the need for grading and follow
the existing site contours. The part/cular buildings that we've shown is able to be split, I
don't want to say lengthwise but down the Sl~ne so it can be stepped down to follow the
grade contours. Number 18. Minimum 100 foot building setback with the first 50 feet as a
buffer strip. I was very much aware of that and even though I'm aware that the drawings on
there, we overlap that buffer snip. That was not the intent and that was not our conceptual
design so obviously I'm at a loss to...That we can v~y building orientation to break up what
is refexrexi to as the banack. Bob and I had a conversation and talked briefly about ~i~ and
Jeannene with RLK and I have begun to have conversations about how we can do that.
Crea~g diversity visual as well as trying to create individual neighborhooda And our intent
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
would be, as we proceed further along down this road, we'll try to work with that as we came
back for specific applications. Let's see. That we should investigate the use of single loaded
units as a varying number of units per ~ on Parcel H. We had done that on a small
parcel that exists right here and I'm not opposed to look...but the intent was to try to create a
buffer between McGlynn's being industrial to a higher and medium density residential to a
single, very less dense multi-family type nnit the~ to single family and then to large lots... In
terms of the price s~, the higher density would be $70,000.00 to $90,000.00 roughly
and this would be $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 units so that g/ves you an idea of what...
affordable housing, at least from our perspective.
Mancino: Excuse me John. Can you tell rr~ what single loaded units are?
John Dobbs: I'm sorry. It basically is all the access is fixnn the front and the back yard 1~
no driveway in it. You walk out...We're aware that the EAW needs to be addressed. I'm
also aware of thc fact that the Bluff Creek charet~ is under proces~ In fact I'm part of that
process so, and we have every intention of trying to incorporate that. I've walked the site a
couple times to try to figure out what I would think. What I personally would think a creek
con'idor system should be like so I can bring some things to this conversation- I guess I'd
just like to go back and basically say, that what I'm ~3dng to, what I'd like to...point of view
is just in general terms say that the land use is son~thing that you are concummt with and
that the densities are, they are either dose to what you're concerned with...the idea of having
details done at this point, again specifi~y into architectural types, grading types, planting
design, that's not the consideration- Do you have any questions7
Scott: Well there was a comment in the staff report about the power line and the i~ that
that would have on, what is it FHA financing for the multi-family proposed up above. Is
there §oin§ to be any hnpact on the multi-family south based upon the existing ali~n~nt or
the proposed alignment of that power line from a financial standpoint?
John Dobbs: I do not believe so. For us, the power line is here and the access road is next
to that. Then the entire pod, if you look at your drawing so to speak, is off to the far side of
that. We're far enough away and we're also talking about a different kind of nnit that's a
little bit higher in price dep~_ cling on where FHA is at that time.
Scott: You'd probably go conventional?
iIohn Dobbs: I'm sorry.
Scott: You're probably be financed conventionally?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
John Dobbs: Well it's fight on the border and I guess I'm not as familiar with FHA
regulations as...but $100,000.00-$120,000.00 units al~..
Farwnk~.,s: Can you answer me the definition that you gave affordable housing as. Is that
your definition? The government's definition? Or munict~ state and federal? ...well we've
had the word thrown around.
Aanenson: It's a metropolitan consideration-
Mancino: Is that $70,000.00 to $90,000.00? Is that affordable housing?
Aanenson: I think it would pass...
Farrnakes: Are you using the medium house in the 95 central communities or what?
John Dobbs: I guess I'd.
Farmakes: What is affordable housing? Is it defined as a dollar amount in the metwpolitan
area?
Aanenson: Yeah, that's how, yes. There's a formula far that, correct and it's based on the
whole metro area because affordable housing in Chanhas~ i~..
Fammkes: So do we have any miracle amount for that? Dollar?
Aanenson: I don't know off hand but yes there are.
Mancino: That would be good to know.
Scott: Well that's a good point because we're using the PUD process. The holy grail we are,
one of the holy grail that we seek and probably the only one that's not environmenlally
related is affordable housing and I won't get into that disamsion ri~t now. But if you are
utilizing the PUD process and dangling affordable housing as a trade-off for some other
things, which is wonderfill, we have to know precisely what that definition is and then we in
our mind, as people who represent the public's inl~res~ to be able to say, to make that
decision- Whether it's appropri~ or not. So I just wanted to restate that. It's very serious
but as I said before, we had one developer who's come in here and they call a $1'/5,000.00
home affordable. So please take that very seriously and it will make things possibly
smoother for you.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
John Dobbs: I understand Mr. Chair and in doing single family further down, I'm aware of
what happens with single family detached housing. I believe that unlike, that perhaps this
does In-vide a more unique alive because...those units and if you have the opportmaity,
places you can go look at them, between $70,000.00 and $90,000.00 depe~_ding on whether
it's an end unit or middle unit of the individual. And I can honestly give you a place that
you can go look at comparable, one sided walkout type units and those are $100,000.00 ~o
$125,000.00 depending on the view. I think that that does make a nice addition to
Chanhassen...the terms of maybe affordable housing inn't correct but it is defmi~y, living in
a $75,000.00 house myself...
Scott: Any other comments? If you have additional comments, please continue. Okay.
Ch'eat. Thanks John_
Bob Boisclair: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Bob
Boisclair with Boisclair Carporafion. I'm also in a joint venture in the pwpe~ with the land
group represented tonight by Liv Horneland...We can answer and respond to any questions
~ my short presentation. First of all I accept the challenge W bring forward a project that
meets your vision of excellence in this parfi~lar...mulfi-family density in 27 1/2 acres of...
We agree that the, our proposals...co .rr~rehea~/ve study and the Highway 5 carridor and also
with the school being residential next to the school I. think that's very compatible. Bluff
Creek linear park that's proposed that's going to abut both our east and west boundaries. We
think that our proposed multi-family is very user friendly with respect to use of the pm:k and
accomplishes the use of that particular p~rk as opposed w the alternative being office
warehouse where you're facing a blank brick walls or whatever...activity in the park. The
density, as indicated, is 300 units on 27 1/2 acres. We allocated certa/n acres for the
townhouses. We do so by suggesting 20 acres is allocated to the townhouses...8 units per
acre which conforms to your low end mvafium density. And as f~r as the apartments are
concerned...density of about 18 1/2 on ? 1/2 acres. We think, I'm not sure but we believe
that your delightful building that you built about 2 years ago just north of the Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre is about the same density. I'm not sure but I think that's correct just walking
their site. So you get the feel of comparabih'ty for den_ ~ity with respect to this proposal We
do propose some affordable housj'n§ with respect to both for sale and also rental And in
deference to any suggestions of staff, we're also looking at ~g up the building. Initially
we proposed one large single building and we already have a design that shows two. We
have a preliminm~ sketch to share with yom.Our pfimm~ location, we suggest a private entry
there that's roughly 300 feet away from the one that's propose~ south of us at the Heritage
development and our development would be...but again it's not an issue of major concern.
We would acco~~ the desire that proves to be the most acceplable from studies. We
have an interest to have our own water retention for our surface drainage...plsn~ to centralize
that in a location here. We'd like to do our own site. That does two things. One, it provides
56
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
our own site ~ty. We've got our own pond. And according to initial impressions from
Bonestroo Associates, that would enhance the absorption factors of the overall drainage
system there as well. We know it's not in concert with the initial desire of the staff's repozc
Again, we offer this as an idea for a suggestion for study. We think it can be a...feature as it
buffers the inner part as well and...there's two bnildings. We're also studying three as welL..
The most significant issue for us of course is the power line relocation..Jt's absolutely
impossible to find a residential property with a power line, as you...feature to that site,
acknowledge that they...on it's most prominent bluff and as most devel~ do, they use
what's most prominently featured. I'm being facetious now, we might want to consider
Power Line Villas, so to speak had we retained it, assuming it can be financed. And my
intent there is only in a facetious manner. We know that we can't b~_!ld it that way. It's just
that we cannot accept that condition. It just...even though there's no proven case of electrical
nutgnetic transmissions that they would experience but it is a major concern for finance
border of the Bluff Creek area would run fight down the middle and we would discreetly
locate that power line between our bnildin§, which wonld_ be about 45 feet tall A 13 story
apartment building, and the...office wareh~se is about 30 feet. $o we would tend to hide it
by that relocation effort instead of making it the most prominent feature of our site.
Scott: Have you had any discussions with the utility, with NSP to d~ whether or not
the layout for the power line as proposed is something that they would recomrmmd or they
would do7
Bob Boisclair: We've had prelimina~ discussions with them and they'd be supportive of
relocation if there was concumm~ at thc city level here.
Scott: Okay.
Bob Boisclair: And we do have concurrence with our east property side owner and he'll
support the, assure me that the new easement, proposed easement..~ guess at this point I've
prel~ well concluded my initial co--ts here and wilL..
Scott: Okay, good. Any questions or cornm~ts7 Thank you sir. Is there anybody from the
development team that would like to speak?
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, manba~ of thc Commission. This does conclude the formal
part of our presentation. I would like to ask consideration for one last amendment to the
conditions tonight. I overlooked this when I was initially up here. Conditt~ n~ 22
rehting to thc density. The condition reads, the applicant needs to reduce the gross and net
densities. And we would request that the Planning Commission use one of those as a
57
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, lf}~t
standard... Wc prefer gross. Par us it §ets to be a little more corr~.licatcd if we just know
what we're, what ball we're trying to hit. We're trying to get thc gross density or we're
trying to get the net density and if we had one criteria to work with, it'd be much easier for
us to work with. Again, we prefer gross density and any questions r~gm'ding that we'd be
happy to answer those. So your consideration of that would be appreciatetL
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Harbcrts: I have one before you go into the public heating. Mr. Chair, I'd like to request
permission to excuse myself. My agency is in exploratory discussions with one of the firms
represented on the development ~am and until I have an ~ty to discuss with staff
what limitations may occur, or that we need to be aware of because of the cxplorato~
discussions that are going on right now, I think it may be best that I excuse myself from any
further discussion here as a Planning Commissioner.
Scott: Thank you commissioner.
Harberts: Is that a yes?
Scott: Yes. Good. Any other, this is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion if I
could to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearinl~ AH voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opene(L
Scott: This is the point in time where ~ from the public can address the, membc~ of
the public can address the Planning Commission. Please identify yourself.
Mancino: You just had something to say and you wanted to get out there.
Scott: Please identify yourself ma'am.
Diane Harberts: I'm Diane Harbert& I'm the Administrator for Southwest Metro Transit and
I welcome the oppommity to provide some initial comrrents on this conceptual plan that's
being proposed. My recommendation from Southwe~ Metro Transit is to request that the
commission consider adding condition 25 and I would suggest that that would include that the
applicant and city staff work with Southwest Metw Transit to look at the application of
transit to this project. You can really request that when you look at the land use with multi-
family with high density. You can do an industrial component. These are each very high
priorities in terms of the application of transit. And I think we have an exceptional
58
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
opportunity to bring into this development a service, a community service that will benefit
both from an overall developrnent ns well ns have a very long and very positive impnct for
the community and this project. So I would just strongly reco~ that the commission
consider ~d~i~g condition number 25 and incarpar~ public transit into development and
Southwest Metro Transit would be very hat:rpy W sit down with city staff and the al~lic~t to
see the best way to integrate Iransit into this eat/re development
Scott: Do have kind of a more specific idea?
Diane Harberts: I do.
Scott: That cnn be had.
Diane Harberts: It's got to be a general application-
Scott: Yeah just a general. Park nnd ride or reverse commute?
Diane Harberts: No. Some of the applications that I look at, since this is being conside~d
for affordable housing, these are typically priority areas where public transit needs to be a
component. With industrial and warehouse, which is being proposed, is a priority project in
terms of success rate as well for reverse commute. With regard to the density and where this
is located in the corridor both on the south side and on the north side, it's going to gcncra~ a
lot of people that would find public transit very conducive so there may be an oppartunity to
for instance put a major transfer station, park and ride location or just even having access off
of _this frontage road that he has proposed for bus stops. When you're looking at that many
people, these are very high priority areas and public transit has worked well in other
applications of this nature.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission7 Yes
sir.
Richard Frasch: Hi. My name is Richard Frasch and I live at 8000 Acorn Lane which
is...right about here. And I realize that there is au east/we~ kind of...but I'd also like to point
out that I think there should be a more south trans/fion. I'm talking about that Stone Creek to
our neighborhood in through here and one of the concerns that I have, we have an
opportunity to do something different than say Eden Prairie dld and not have a bunch of
banacks or apartment buildings and actually have some nice single family homes. I think it'd
be nice right here. It is a nice rolling topography and it would tie in nicely with the school
Tie in nicely with our ne/ghborhood and I think would be a much better i .mlnv. ss/on from the
highway. People coming through Chanhassen. And that's a concern that I have. And when
59
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 19o~
you have very high density here and essentislly have 200 neighbors, which isn't a problem
but I think that it makes more sense from my standpoint to have single fnmily homes here
because I think we have a much better vision for people to coming through the Highway 5
corridor.
Scott: Good, thank you sir. Yes sir.
Mark Fostec. Hi. My name's Mazk Foster. I live at 8020 Acorn Lane, Otmhassen,
Minnesota. Just a couple of comments at this late hour. Just an overall cominco_ t that I don't
think this is a quality devclopment. Just looking at it, it doesn't ta~ you very long ~o see
right away that something doesn't look righL You're looking at a large, high density multi-
family development right next to a very large lot residential neighborhood and it just is not
compatible, I don't think...I agree with my neighbor Richard Frasch. We need to have a
north/south transition there. I think one thing that we should explore looking at is in~ of
the multi-family housing, is single family. Continuing the single family development from
the south. It makes sense near a school. It's ideal It is very valuable proper~ for single
family resident. An alternative to that is, I think the developer has ~ au int~st in
seeing office and indusuiaL ~ warehouse development. .. and continue that instead of the
multi-family. I'd much prefer that. I don't want to look out my back window and see Army
barracks. I pay a lot of property taxes and _this is..3've been here about 4 years in this
development and the initial proposal, I was here for all the comprehensive planning meetings
and the MUSA plannings were single family residenti~ I still think that makes sense. But if
not, I would prefer office warehouse.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak or ask questions? Okay, seeing
none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearing. All voted in eavor nnd
the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed.
Nutting: Well we're talking conception.
Scott: The ~ is zooming in on you as we speak.
Nutting: I'm looking at the staff recommen__d~on~ and I also listened to Jeff's earlier
comments and I think you know that we have to, the Highway 5 corridor recommendations
has to be applied in this process. Whether that means residentisl's appropriate versus
commercial on that specific lot where the 300 unit multi-family is proposed, I don't fully
have a thought process to that yet. If I understand the conceptual process though, I don't'
have a problem with moving forward but as to necessary conditions and directions of the
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
developer. Whether it's, we feel the densities are appmpria~ and the uses are appropriate. I
personally don't have my thoughts laid out yet in terms of what is ~oropriate or not. I'm
cerlain to develop those after more discussion I guess.
Farmakes: I don't like this proposal There's several things that I don't like about it. Being
constructive I guess I'll start out with nomber one. I don't like the concept of thc
warehousing and C, D, E and F. They look like 4 chairs brought up to the table. I re_~liT~
this is conceptual but in looking at the size and square feet of these buildings and the
surrounding ~, again it seems as if, if you're going to put 4 cars in a warehouse or in a
garage, this is what would/ill them up with very little room to be enough to ~ the door.
Getting back to my other comment. Is the right-of-way from the highway, and I keep on
corning back to this. Nobody wants to talk about this because it's a conceptual issue but
getting back to the issue of the right-of-way. You're saying that it is 75 plus 1507 Is that
what we're looking at for this development'?
Hen'q~l: The total Highway 5 right-of-way that exists out there today is 150 foot wide
corridor.
Farmakes: And is the setback 75 feet on Wp of that7
Aan~n: No. It's 70.
Fanmkes: It's 70. So it's 70 feet on top of thaff
Aanenson: No. No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. You're overlaying two issues. One is
the 150 feet of right-of-way. What they're showing on there is the southern ~ limits
and from that they're showing approximately a 50 foot setback. The Highway 5 zone
specifies 70. They're 20 feet too close.
Farmakes: Alright. But on the distance that he's talking about on the right-of-way. The
setback that you're talking about is from the pr~ linc, correct? From the property line to
the highway then is 170 feet?
Hempel: The pwperty line and the right-of-way line is the same line. The center of
Highway 5 is approximamly 75 feet north of their fight-of-way line here. The north pmpc~
linc of this development. Thcir building is proposed on this plan to go 50 feet south of that
right-of-way line so a total of 125 feet. Kate is saying, is thc Highway 5 is then 75 feet
setback from that right-of-way line. Then adding the 75 feet to the center of the highway is
145 feet.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Farmakes: Okay. So at the plun that I'm looldng at here, the setback, the way they're
showing the property line, the setback is correct7 Or it's off7
Aanenson: Where they're showing the property llne._.
Fannakes: Where they're showing the ~ line and consequently the setback.
Aanenson: The same. The setback line, they're not showing a setback liue. They're
showing bnildings on the property.
Farmakes: Well they've got a little dot, dot, dotted line.
Generous: That would be a 50 foot setback.
Farmakes: Okay. So that is incorrect then?
Generous: Correct They would have w be mother 20 feet for consmlction.
Mancino: Or you can add even mare since it's a PUD.
Fannakes: Well yeah, that's what I was getting to but I wanted to clarify that first. In
talking about, I won't reiterate what I talked about earlier about this issue of timing a way to
help buffer TH 5. A developer wants to maximize out the property. Fill it up with as much
buildings as they can. I would rather see industrial carried over on this ~, on B.
Unless a way can be worked out to come up with single family housing. What I see
happening here, on both north and south, there's going to be a wall of medium-high density
housing and if there's any way that we can avoid that. Any way that we can come up with a
way not to achieve that. Achieve what's been done in other communities. As you drive
along 169 in Eden Prairie where you get just sort of you can see exactly where the setback
line is. You can see exactly where the fronts of those buildings are and they're all the same.
And again, there's got to be a more imaginative way to do that.
Mancino: What do you think would be a good setback? Do you have a number that you're
thinking of from the right-of-way back? Instead of 70, making it 100. 125.
Farmakes: Well since it's a PUD, yeah. I would like to see enough so that a landscape
architect can come up with something creative rather than one row of trees, which is some of
what we see. In fact a lot of what we see in this plan. And I feel fl'ustra~l because I know
what the objectives are that we worked on, and a lot of that, to me, to come up with
something that is viable, you need enough room to come up with some massing. $~ to
62
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 199~
what Morrish did on his drawings where you've got more than one tree in a line. And there's
a counter balance happening to that. You have a developer who wants to maximize out that
property and somewhere there's got to be a way to go with that. I would rather see that the
That'd be my first choice. Again, the second choice would be to ~ind a way to work out
single family. I understand the rationale for moving the power line then if that's the
direction. I'm not sure how the rest of you feel on that. I'm not opposed to moving that line
but that would be my second choice. I feel that there's just too much confined here. It's too
much of a need to create problem and when I hear issues of affordable housing, I'm still very
uncomfortable discussing issues of affordable housing when I don't know what affordable
housing is. I don't who's crilm'ia we're using and I'm not against it. But again, I'd ~ to
hear a definition or two. So far all I've heard you use is imaginative and I'd like to hear
some finite. If we have goals as a city, we should have them targeted. A dollar amount, an
income amount Qualifications quantifying. We're not doing any of that We're using it as
a sort of a crutch. When we talk about it every time that we've got an apartment building
§oin§ up. And we're not achieving anything with that. It's just a smoke screen. We're not
talking facts and it seems to me if you have a problem, you come up with facts, target that
you're going to shoot for and come up with a factual way to achieve that in our process here.
That's it.
Mancino: Well I ditw that_on affordable housing and I'd also like to say that I'd like to see
some affordable housing that isn't multi-family. I'd like to see affordable housing single
family for famih'es with children and that are next to a creek and next to a school also. And
it can be single family zero lot line. To me that works pedect between the boulevard and
Highway 5 just east of the schooL In that area. You could put single family zero lot lines
and then go into industrial. It is, what's in B right now is too dense. How much of it Bob, I
know it's in the report, did you talk with the developer about, that would be affordable
housing? Wasn't it 20%?
Generous: Well they had mentioned 20%...
Mancino: Okay. And I would like to see 20% to 30-35%. I can also see that used in the H
area, single family zero lot line also. And again, some av,~ivity to the design here. It is, it
looks like barracks and just absolutely no way. The other thing about _this conceptual plan
that doesn't have at all, is anything to do with, I really don't want to see another conceptual
plan that doesn't address natural resources. Here we've got steep slopes. We have ravines.
We have massing of trees and yet the houses or the multi-family is just plopped. I have no
idea, no conceptual idea of how the natural resources are going to be addressed. I have it in
writing but I certainly don't see it on any site plan. So what goes from here to there is not
the same and I want to see this reflect this. Conceptually because I don't have a clue what
63
Plavning Commission Meeting - April 20, 19~
they're going to do for natural resources. I would also, with the, when we go, if we go to
single family, zero lot line. That gets us into medium density. I would like to see some open
space. Amenities for those houses that are there. It looks like every sort of, you know there's
very little green space, amenities for this high of a density. And basically I'd ~ to table it
and bring it back with some of those conceptually thoughts ~ddressed.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: I'm just §oin§ to go through the alphab~ bere. I think we had some individuals
h~ from Timberwood concerned about transition and I can defini~y see their concerus but I
· also want to point out thai as it relates to the multi-family thai goes in B. we have somewhat
of a buffer that's being provided with the proposed ponding area and then also you'll have a
roadway on the other side of that. That will provide some buffer b~ve~n these large lot
areas. So I can ~y see your conch'us there but I think there has been consideration to
that buffering concern. The issue with the multi-family, we talked about the setbacks that we
were concerned with from Highway 5 and I see most of this development, for the 2'/1/2 acre
parcel, be pretty much north to south. And essentially you have 4 buildings there that work
against that right-of-way. Also, there's a significant tree stand associated with the east ridge
of Bluff Creek there, which also. I ~ you don't drive down and you're going to see this
5 miles away or whatever. A mile away.. Beca~ you have this kind of room crea~ed by
the trees, it won't be as distinct as a visual an i~ as you might think. And there's also
other things we can do with staggering the setbacks of those buildings, etc. Landscaping,
berming. I don't know. I don't necessarily think that that's a real i~-2o~/aut or substantial
issue as it mlams to going from single family to mdt/, or from multi-family to single family.
I think you can have the same effect either way. I would agree though that the density here
is mo large or too high. And I think that these, there needs to be more open space and green
space. I don't know whether or not that's approl~_ate to go to a single family because it
seems that this represents a §ood transition from the industrial parcels, C thru F to the multi-
family to the school. So I don't know. Maybe the single family.
Mancino: Well zero lot lines really...
Ledvina: Yeah. Well maybe the single family's are lot line type of approach as something
that's a happy medium there. So I don't know exactly how to look at that. I guess I could
support either type of development. Going to the C thru F portion. I had a question for staff.
When we talk about 60% of hard surface coverage as a maximum, does that relate to the net
area or is that the gross area? Buildablc or the total area of the lot?
Aancnson: It's to the gross.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Ledvina: So that relates to the gross. Okay. Because, well if we don't have, or if we've got
the Bluff ~ fight-of-way in that, we're going to be.
Annenson: You take out the roads. .. nnd the wetlands then ~ that you look st what the
impervious surface i~
Ledvina: No I'm asking. You're saying 60%. What is that based on? Is that based on the
buildable area or is that based on the actual nrea of the lot? The boundaries of the lot.
Aanenson: Yeah, it should be the lot area.
Ledvina: Okay. So if there's a 5 acre lot and there's a 2 acre wetland, we're loolring at 5
acres lis the basis for impervious surface? For calculating the 60%, is that correct? Okay.
So are we dealing, if we've got a 5 acre lot, there's a 2 acre wetland on it, do we calc-nl~_fe
the impervious surface on the basis of 5 acres or 3 acres?
Aanenson: :3 ncres,
Ledvina: 3 acres? Okay. So it's essentially the net area or the buildable area.
Aanenson: Yeah, you take the wetlands and the roads out.
Ledvina: Okay. I didn't mean to belabor that but. Okay. Well in that instance you know,
when we look at that and we have 60% as our standard. Buildings represent wughly 30-35%.
I don't know, it seems to me that those standards are, they look larger on these parcels than
they normally do and I don't know, are these drawn to scale? Are ~he buildings drawn to
scale on the lots? Okay. But they do look larger. I agree with your comment left but I
don't know that it's anything, ex~ anything that we've allowed in the past in that area so.
Jeanncnc Krone: And those areas were just the building areas.
Ledvina: Okay.
Mancino: Not parking lot?
Ledvina: Well the parking nreas aren't calculated. They say how many parking stalls are
available but in any event they can't exceed the 60% maxim~ hard surface coverage so.
Aanenson: Again on a conceptual plan...ultimate density. Obviously things evolve and you
know the wetlands are established and other things and if they can't make that, then they
65
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1~
don't get that.
Ledvina: Right. Theu the buildings would shr~nk, right. And while we'r~ talking about what
we're loo~ng at, in te~rns of gross or net. I think we should, we really should be ~v~luaing
things on thc basis of net areas. I think that's i .mportant because, especially as we're looking
at the Bluff Creek corridor. If we've got 100 foot setback there, that will change things qui~e
a bit. Okay.
Seannene Krone: I need to clarify if it is 60% or 70%7
Ledvina: Well I looked on the staff report on page 3. It says in the second indcn~
paragraph toward the bottom. The last sentence of that paragraph says maximum hard surface
coverage shall not exceed 60%. So I don't know ff this is, does this relate to a Highway 5
standard7
Aanenson: No. What it should be is for industrial it's 70%.
Generous: Well this is from the Comp Plan. ff indusuial goes west of the east fringe of
Bluff Creek, then they use the 60%. That's what that number was from.
Ledvina: Okay. So does it apply here or should it be 70%?
Generous: Not for multi-family...
Ledvina: Okay.
Ledvina: So 50, okay.
Mancino: But it can be anything with PUD.
Aanenson: Well that's the PUD I'm giving you. It's something you can negotiate certainly.
Give them higher on one end if you balance the whole site.
Ledvina: Well at any rate. I think that that is a, it's certainly Parcel C thru F are reasonable
applications of land use there. Other than that I would support the recommendations that
were identified in the staff report, and I had a question regarding the F_AW. Can you expand
on that in terms of why that's being undertaken7 I know that we have Bluff Creek as thc
central feature. Why haven't we done this in the past7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Generous: Because the scope of this project exceeds the theshhold for a rnsnds__tory EAW
based on state guidelines. And those are based on your square footage and total...
Annenson: And the qonlifications the city has.
Ledvina: Okay. So we're tripping a rrmnd~tory?
Generous: Yeah, they tripped it. They're about twice as high.
Ledvina: Okay. I guess as far as the power lines, I don't really have a si~ificant problem
with the proposal to relocate them but I would like to see that, if that option is purmmd, thai
consideration be made regarding the affect that that would have on utilization of the Bluff
Creek corridor as a linear park. So I think obviously you've got the lines cross that at a
diagonal affecting, well what, 400 feet of the corridor so I th~nk that would be a significant
~k~ug. That's the extent of my comments.
Mancino: But wouldn't that affect again the creek, because you'd have to have poles going
up and you'd have to, you know you may be in that 100 feet on each side or etc. So it
would affect the creek a little bit wouldn't it?
Ledvina: Well I think the, if you look at the adentation or the layout here. It would seem
possible to locate those poles outside of the 100 foot setback on each side. But I don't know
that for a fact but I would see that that would be possible. But again; to have the power lines
crossing the creek I don't know visually how that would be or what other affects there
might be. And I'm sure that would be part of the EAW evaluations.
Scott: I'll forego my comments and ask for a motion.
Nutting: Can I just ask for a clarification on number 22, Kate7 The gross and net density to
meet the medium density standards. What are those standards?
Aanenson: What we're saying, the app~t asked that they be given the interpretation for
the gross. We've always gone with net and right now to get the high don~ty it's 8 to 16 and
they're over that. If they stay within medium dallsity is 4 to 8. We don't want to change the
way we've always interpreted it...gross and net. We've always gone with the net and if you
are to get them, get the inlm'ln~'~alfion of that, we'd just as soon stay with the higher density
which is the 8 and 16. So that's what they're asking for is to be in that range.
Nutting: What's the calculation for the 4 to 8?
Planning ~ommission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aancnson: That's medium density, thc 4 to 8.
Nutting: Okay. Number of nnits.
Aanenson: So you know, depending on...but we always use the net to figure out whether or
not and that's what they were asking for. They'd rather go with the gross so...
Mancino: I have a question k/nd of for the group, commi~ion. I'm not comf~le just
seeing this one more time. You know preliminary plat and then passing it on~ I mean there's
so much here that I think needs to be reworked that I would like to see it tabled conceptually
and come back aflrr taking staff's reco~ons and then adding a few of our own.
Scott: Anyfl~g that we send onw the Planning Comn~sion, or the City Council, we own
and I don't own this yet. It's got a lot of work_ I would support your thought to table.
Mancino: So I'd like to move to table the conceptual plan and I'd like to see it agsin and I
would like to take. Make sure that they come hr, k using staff's reco~tions and I think
that Bob wanted us to elirolna_te number 11 and he wanted us to add, incorporate elements of
the Bluff Creek design charette but I don't think that's going to be on the next review. I
think that's going to be on the preliminary site review. And 18 reads, again from what Bob
said, that from Bluff Creek to a winimum of 100 foot building setback. 25 has to do with
Southwest Metro Transit. That we wsire sure that the app~t and the city staff work with
them. Other suggestions that were made, you might want to add to the recommendations.
Fannakes: We talked about significant environmental features adjacent to the property.
Mancino: Well I would like to see how the natural resources are going to be handled and
that means placement of stmcv, ue, s. What the gr~__dlng's going to be like.
Aanenson:. I understand the direction you're going but this gets back to the intent of the
concept plan. Really we're going into thc preliminary aspect I understand you're not
comfortable with what you've seen so far but let's go back to the concept plan and what the
intent is. I'm reading this straight out of the ardinan~. To give you the overall gross and
net density. Give you the lot ~ and width. It doesn't talk about the setting of buildings
on that. It talks about general locations. The extent of the public and common open space.
The general type of land uses...what the purpose is is not to incur a lot of cost. What they're
trying to do is to flush out whether or not you feel, is this ~pproprlate. I understand that
there's uncomfortableness based on whether this should be medim and maybe you want to
see some other versions. Maybe you want to look at some other things but I think wh~ you
start asking a lot of those specific things, then we're going out of the concept leveL Or
68
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
maybe just.
Mancino: Then do you never bring in natural resources at the concept level when topography
and that should be ~?
Aanenson: I'm not saying that I'm just saying that, how do we keep it at a concept level
without kicking into, they don't even know what this, if they're going to do all this, spend all
this and then you're going to go back and say, well we don't even want to see, now we want
to see all industrial I'm just saying, maybe there could be some_ other, maybe the applicant...
Mancino: So then you're saying, just address land use?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Mancino: Then you're saying just address primarily land use issues?
Aanenson: Well no, I think there's some other factors that we need to make some of this, to
make...to make this palatable. There are other issues to address but I'm saying how do you
bridge those so I think we're going beyond. And again this conceptual is not binding. I
think you have to keep that in mind too. I think what we're asking is for you to give them
marching orders. Say you know, we want to see this.
Nutting: No residential. Residentisl. IndusUiaL..
Aaneuson: It's not binding. If they come back..
Scott: But why waste their time? I know what the ordinance says and I take that as, this is
the stuff that you 1rally have to take a look at. The thing is that we obviously take what
we're doing here extremely seriously and it's a reflection on us as a body, inespective of
whether it's conceptual or not, what gets passed onto the City CoundL And I think it's
extremely important at thc conccp_m~l stage, when things arc the least expense for the
developer and the city, that we 8jvc them as specific a direction as possible so that when we
go to thc next phase, they've collected significantly more information on what the
expectations arc than if we say, okay this looks pretty good but wc didn't tell them about the
25 things that we think need serious work. And all of a sudden they start getting more
people involved on their end and spend a lot more money and then we go, oh. Well you
know these 20 things wc didn't talk about and give you any direction about, well here it
comes. I don't think it's fair to them and I don't think it's fair to the people who we
represent.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: I don't think that's what I said.
Scott: No. I was just saying, that's where I'm coming from.
Aanenson: What I'm saying is, somewh~ we've got to separate co~ fxom pr~_.liminsry
because they're two different process.
Farw~ire~s: But if you're looidng at concept or preliminary, if you're going to mak~ any
judgment, you based it on what you get. If you're talking about significant oth~ issues of
say for instance there's a stand of tree adjacent to the property. If we don't know what that
is in relationship for instance to the school site. Although we've reviewed it, I don't see how
it is in comparison to what they're pro, sing along that sight line. It would help ff there was
significant tree stands outside of their ~ line to see what that is in relati~p when
we're talking about concept.
Aanenson: Right, and those are the issues that we've tried to start, you know we've
identified a lot of them. Those are thc ones that we need to tag along and give them with
their marching orders to say these are the things that need to be further evolved as it goe~
through the process.
Farmakes: Well in looking at the plans though, they don't delineate that. They're not telling
us that.
Nutting: I've asked this question once before tonight and I forget what the answer but do we
have any way to have this come back more than once? Is next time the only shot we have to
look at it?
Mancino: No, because we're going to see Kindercare another time too. We just table it and
it keeps coming back and back.
Nutting: Okay. So your comment about you don't want to see the prelimixmry next time and
send it onto Council. At that point I guess, what I'm trying to do. I'm trying, I'm struggling
myseff with conceptual. I'm new to this commission so I'm still trying to filter things
through but we have to give them some direction. We have to ~ them whether or not
residential or office industrial space. We talk~ about den_ ~ties. We talked about what the
land uses will even be and I mean if we §o and tell them that it's not residential, it may not,
the same development team, the same development's not going to exist conceivably.
Mancino: Yes but if they come back and they do medium density residential, it looks like
this again, that isn't going to work either.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 199~
Nutting: Fine, but we have the ability to give them that direction.
Farmakes: But it's more complicated than that. If you look at this, they could come back
and say with B, and if the density was lower and there was more green space around, I
believe probably the majority of the people on here would pass it. The problem with that is,
is that they may not be able to develop that property with that in mind and make a profit.
And if they can't do that, then you have to look at other issues. If that's not viable, if we
can't buy that, then the issues of industrial development or office development or village type
single family or any of that type of things, those are other issues that arc viable. But that's
really up to the applicant to come back with those solutions. I can review this plan based on
what it is and give my comments on it but I don't know if it's my, it's not my directive to sit
up here and solve that problem for them. I think that it's been verbalized what the problems
arc here and I'm not sure if we should be taking the pencil out and drawing in exactly what
that is. It seems to me that it is a land use issue to start out with and that's really nothing to
do with the developer. Or the applicant. The issue is what we think belongs there in a
general usc. Now we have a master plan sitting there and we're familiar with the
development that goes around it but it's, to me I don't think we should be doing that.
Scott: Well we have a motion on the floor.
Nutting: What is our direction to them at this point?
Mancino: For land use. Is that your question?
Nutting: Yeah. I'm just trying to summarize...
Scott: Well the motion that's on the floor is to table the conceptual plan and then issue
directions to the development team subject to the staff report and any additional comments
that we've made, and that's. Has it been seconded? I'm sorry, I forgot.
Scorn Okay. Is there a second7 I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that the
conceptual planned unit development be tabled. We've had discu~on so I'd like to, all those
in favor signify by saying aye.
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair?
Sco~ Excuse me.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Mancino: Aye, but I do have a thing about ~on.
Scott: Okay, then let's ~. Okay.
Mancino: Can we open it for discussion for a minute. I'm getting back to land use, because
I see that on 17 it says, the multi-family aparlment building should be separated into ~ or
more s~s to reduce the mass of the proposed building and to lessen the visual impact of
the building from Highway 5. I got the hnpression from the commissioners up here that they
wanlrd to see, I think Jeff wanted to see industrial office on B. I got from Ron and I guess
1eff and Matt, or $oe and Matt that you wanted to see maybe medium density on B?
Ledvinm That's acceptable to me.
Mancino: Medium density7 Is that what you wanted to see on B which was north of the
access boulevard7
Nutting: I can go with medium density or the industrial. I mean that's...
Scott: I didn't rnak~ any specific comments on it but from a transition standpoint, I think that
medium density works well for me. You're talk4ng about the transition from the industrial to
the medium, or multi-family to the school out there7
Mancino: Yes. Okay. Then let's take out 17 and put in something about C and B. The
land use in B being either or7
Ledvina: I'm fine with that.
Mancino: Be either multi-family, medium density7
Scott: Because there was a comment from, I believe from Mr. Boisclair that if the power
line, in effect if the city doesn't pay for the movement of the power line, the multi-family
development, in his opinion, is not finsnciaUy viable. So that would, in their m/n~_: that
would flip the switch where it becom~ industrial. Or commercial so.
Mancino: So what do we want to do about that7
Scott: So is it, you're talking specifically about condition m~mber 17 relative to the motion to
table7
Mancino: Yeah.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Scott: Let's leave it open. I = that's a decision andit's probably something that's going
to be based, at least ~ing to what I've read, has all to do with wheth~ the city pays for
the relocation of the power line.
Mancino: Okay, so that staff works with the developer on Site B and give options of office
industrial or medium densities.
Aanenson: You want us to do that?
Mancino: Yep. Is everybody okay with that change7 That the staff will work with the
developer on Si~e B to look at either medium multi-family density or office industrial
Scot~ Sure. Any additional discussion7
Manelno moved, Scott secooded that the Planning Commi~don table conceptual PUD
~2-1 to rezone 82.6 noes of property zoned A2, Agricultural ~ to PUD including
19.3 acres of Office/Industrial, 52.9 acres for multi-family; 3.4 acres for stormwaler
ponding and 7.0 acres for road fight-of, way subject to the issues outlined by the
Planning Commi~qion to be addressed by the applicant. Ail voted in tkvor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Sco~ The public hearing number 2 has been tabled, and the reason for that is the, there's
about 24-25 conditions that need to be reworked. If you'd like to makr a comment or two,
you're certainly welcome to.
Steve Schwanke: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Cornrrdssion~ My only
comment is that your ordinance requires specific things .... §oin§ above and beyond that.
Scott: There's 24 of them in the staff report.
Steve Schwanke: Absolutely and we're happy to meet most of those conditions.
Scott: Then we'd like to see it come back.
Steve Schwanke: May I speak?
Scott: Go ahead. This is not a public hearing but go ahead.
Steve Schwanke: Thank you. Again, we've been working with the staff on this project for a
73
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
number of months. Actually more generally for 3 to 4 years. We're happy to continue
working with the staff on it and working with you on the conditions that were pan of the
staff report tonight, which we've indi~ on several occasions we don't have a problem
with. In fact we're happy to continue working on those conditions and we're prepared to do
that for the next 5, 6, ? months as we go through mare detailed parts of _this plan. And as a
moment W digress here, to distinguish between what wonld be a concept phm and as we get
into more detail preliminary plat plans, let me say what works very well and what helps the
development ~s, the development team specific~y, is if we can reach consensus on
specific land uses~ Specific access points and specific transportation mutes, That then allows
ns to go on and provide the additional detail that you're looking for. We have no problems
provi_'aing that detail. In fact we're happy to do that. We're happy to do that as part of the
l~2]minary plat process as required as part of your code and we're happy to come back again
and again, as part of the code requires to do that during the preliminary plat process. Your
code doesn't require that here. And so we're happy to provide you with the landscap~g plan
and if it doesn't meet your smndiuds, we're ~ to revise it. We're happy to provide you
with the grading plan. If it doesn't meet your standards, we're happy to change that and
we're happy to delineate the environment~y sensitive areas, as Mr. Dobbs mentioned, we're
working with the staff on the Bluff Creek charette and we've been doing it for a couple
months. We're going to continue doing that and we're happy to do that. All we want to
· point out wnight is, that we need to reach some type of consensus on the land uses and on
the access points and on the densities, as required as part of your code. Those items that you
want us to go into further detail later on again is required as part of your code, we're happy
to do that.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A "CONSENT AGENDA" FOR ITEMS
AS OISrRI .
Aanenson: The open discussion item that you had. Todd's requesting, I think he'll be before
you...I don't know if you leally want to call it a Consent Agenda. I think you may want to
have some discussion...but I think what he's _ss_king is that normally our public hearings go
first and then he's requesting that he has an opportunity at such time...
Scott: That's fine.
Aanenson: I believe he's scheduled one for the next meeting.
Scott: Yeah, imm a consent agenda, I can see it. It works extremely well at the City
74
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 199~
Council because there will be maybe 10 or 15 items that are extremely suaight forward and
that makes a lot of sense. And then the capability exists w pull items off where there's
questions. The co~t here, and I thought maybe a better example could be used but I saw
using this for items that do not necessarily wammt discusdons, such as TIF district
modifications.
Aanenson: ...pretty much everything that com~ I don't think we really have...so I think
what we're asking is that you allow those...
Scott: Yeah, and do it early because those...just like the Council.
Mancino: Can we stop for a second and...concept plan one minute7
Nutting: Yeah, I'd like to talk about it a little bit more than one minum
Mancino: Okay, here is from the Highway 5 task force guide. Land use. Policy.
Conceptual development plans will be prepared for critical sites within the corridor. These
will be adopted with the corridor plans to serve as guides for preparing and reviewing
development proposals in the .future. Conceptual development plans will be utilized to refine
allowable uses, provide input into access, grading., building mater/als and orientation and
insure that other plan elements such'as environmental protection and pedega/an access are
Aanenson: What I'm saying is, in the charette process, we can't flush out all the
enviromnental stuff because that's a big quesfion...part of the EA document is to weed them
out in 3 to 4 months. So I guess what we're saying is that, what we're looking for at this
point is what is the appropti~ land use. First you've got to decide what it is. Then you
decide how it's going to walk and talk. Okay. So what we're trying to...is it appropriate to
have industrial? h it apffmpriate to have high density?
Mancino: But.
Aanenson: But I undO, you've got to have some...
Mancino: You can't do one without the other sometimes.
Aanenson: Well fight.
Mancino: You've got to see how they fit.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: ...if it's palatable, it works. Right So it helps to bring in site renderings, h
helps ~o bring a lot of those other things. I agree. But to §o and do a complete grading plan
and then come back and say, well now we've decided it all be industrial I mean that's, it's a
Ledvina: Well just to respond to that. You don't have to have a complete grs~alng plan.
You can §o on 10 foot contours and do something like that in a very rough ~h type of
way.
Farmakes: And it doesn't need to be an environmental review like that. I mean is this a
significant stand of trees, ar if there's a significant investment on the part of the city adjacent
to the prope~, certainly indicating where that is...doesn't hurt anyone.
Aanenson: No. I'm not arguing that aifl~r. I'm not arguing tabling it becanzse you want
more information. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you need to give them
direction on their type of land uses.
$cot~ We did.
Aanenson: And all the items that have been corning before the Planning Commission, for
some reason, they're all getting tabled. Somehow we're doing too much design work here or
we're not doing something ahead of time. I don't know, we need to. This is part of the
reason why I'm having Roger come next week, and specifically just talk about, I wrote down
some things...wo~ be talking about.
Mancino: But Kate.
Aanenson: One obviously is thc concept. One is the Highway 5 overlay zone and the
moratorium issue. How does that work'/ What is the respon~ty for updating the... Oh,
settling applications. That was a question that you asked me Joe. When one person comes in
and you've got two specific projects, one developer. Can you separa~ those that want to go
forward and hold one bac~ just lilm we did tonight with gind_,srcare...There is a time facurr.
You've got so much time to pass them...and I just want to make sure that we're not crossing
the boundaries here. I think there's some questions that you can ask hirm..this is just an
opportunity for you to ask specific questions about some of that stuff too.
Farmakes: But why. Somehow I'm sitting here and I'm getting the feeling that I'm sort of
being asked to approve something because there's a time issue involved.
Aanenson: No, I don't have any problem with tabling. What I'm talking about, if you need
76
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
more time, fine. What I'm talking about is the depth of that informstlon.
Farmakes: But see, that's the quality of my decision then. If I don't feel that I can make the
decision based on the information that's been provided to me,_ I'm going to table it or vote
against it. I'm supposed to be represeafing the community here and in my opinion the stuff
I've seen and I've voted against, or vol~ w table here, has been medium to poor quality.
That's been adjacent to TH 5 and I've spent the last couple of years working with a group of
people to try and change that ancL
Aan~n: I'm not disagreeing with...tabling.
Mandno: Well then maybe at the staff level, do we need higher quality there when it gels to
you guys?
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying.
Mancino: Then that's what we need to do.
Aanenson: That was...thc npplication thing. That was at our last meeting and that's
something else we can ask him about. If the information isn't there at the app~on stage,
then we just don't put it on the agenda and that's something else we need to talk about too.
Because that goes back to now all of a sudden we're requiring final landscaping plans, which
we've never done on subdivisions before. And some of those sort of issues.
Scott: With this particular, the thing that, and I chatmt with you a little bit about When I
take a look at this and you guys have a lot of expertise and I go through here and I read this
and I hear, you know barracks and hide this and this, that and the other thing. A whole
bunch of conditions and I just go yeah, this really has a lot of problems. And then I see, but
all this starts out with, the Planning Commission shall reco~ conceptual approval, and
I'm going now wait a minute. Here's this thing that's tolally shredded by staff, and rightfully
so, and then it's the reco~on to move it on~ And I know that you guys have more
work than you can handle and less people than you need but personally I'm not going to be
put inw a position where I'm going to let something that is substandard based upon city staff,
and I don't care to see a landscaping plan but the thing is, when I read a really nicely, well
put together boiler plate from a developer that talks about enviromnental sensitivity, blah,
blah, blah, blah and then you see somebody gets out with the stamp and goes...they're not
walking the talk and it's like yeah. The development agreement is the ultimate definition of
what's really going to happen and everythin§ that's come before that doesn't mean squat.
But anything that we send as a Planning Commission to the City Council we own. Has got
our thumb print on it. We don't want to waste their time with it. And we lake this job very
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
seriously so yeah, I mean it would drive me crazy if I had been sitting on a piece of pwpa~
for 3 or 4 years and it comes in front of the Planning Commission when pedutps someone
might have intimated that it's going to go forward. I don't care what son of deals were
w_ade. I don't care what sort of promises were made. The talk has got to be walked and the
buck stops here. But then it also starts here. Someone gives us a quality piece, we rave
about it and we send it on so dam fast it makes your head spin. So anyway, my personal
comments but I would say that a majority of what I've said is also agreed upon by the other
members of the commission.
Aanenson: Can I get clarification on what the motion was7 You want us to meet with
them...
Mancino: Or what you feel would be the best. I mean also from a staff position. As far as,
again. I rnean when I look at the topography, etc, maybe medium density, multi-family
would be the best. You know maybe industrial would. I couldn't tell from that at all A lot
of it has to do with how the topography, we are trying to and it very explicit~lly says in here,
that we are trying to keep the natural topography and to minimi=¢ grs_rling. $o how can I
tell?
Aanenson: ...siaff go back and match topography. Now I always felt that, you know the
industrial with the pedormance...standards would be more palatable. I think the neighbors
feel that...indicated that maybe high density may be more palatable than the industrial so.
But, on the other hand, if you can make the high density work, maybe you buffer it, maybe
you cluster it. Maybe that works too. I don't know. I agree. There's...high den~ty but.
Farmakes: But in general, when you look at a PUD when it comes in and this is typically
what I've used as criteria when we look at this, and I looked at say for instance the industrial
section that was basically quartered and halved. Square quartered and there were 4 buildings
in there with a 50 foot strip of lawn around it. I don't see where giving a PUD, what the
city's gaining from any of that. You know granted, it's a conceptuaL
Aanenson: Okay, first we're talking about the use. Then we've got to go back and the next
step...now you've got/o have these setbacks. Now you've got to have this landscaping. Now
you've got to have this type of arc~. That comes with the next step.
Mancino: But the land use and the topography go hand in hand.
Farmakes: And if you're looidng for the possibilities for the property.
Aanenson: ...development s~ndsrds and land use too.
78
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Famudms: Even if it's conceptual, I stRl believe that it shoold im:ozl~t~ ~ of ti~
criteria that we use for giving out a PUD. And rrget the Highway 5 issue and I didn't see
any of that. So it might have been there under a rug somewhere but you know, I didn't
Scorn That was kind of open discussion on new business. But how about.
Aanenson: But we will meet a little early next time too. Probably have dinner and talk. If
you've got questions for Roger...he'll probably talk for a little bit of time and then he'll be
available for any questions you might have.
Scott: Old business please.
Aanenson: Let me t~l you what happened at City Council.
Scott: Why don't I do the approval of Minutes.
APPg0VAL Or
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commi~
dated April 6, 1994 as presented. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: Wendy's and the retail office were both approved by City Council...They did
request, specifically Councilman Wing, that they do additional landscaping...around the side
that faces Highway 5. A variance was given to the Byerly's sign. On the monument, you
had reconusmnded _talcing out the 24 hours and giving them a monument. They gave up on
that monument They will have a monument identifying the retail center and one pylon sign
but that additional monument, and the 24 hours.
Farmakes: What about the east wall? What's thc situation with that?
Aan~n It's going to say By~rly's ~ri~ No Open 24 Hours. No subsequent monument
signs.
Mancino: Is it as big?
Aanenson: Excuse me. It's a pylon sign.
79
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Sco~ 18 foot on the east side?
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: On the front. Now is the Byerly's on the east side, the same size as the Byerly's
on the south side? It's huge. It's not proportional to the east side wall really. That Ci~
Aanenson: The City Council approved the amendment to the wetland ordinance for
compliance in the Wetland Conservation Act. They approved a fee increase for wetland
alteration permits. They tabled action regard~g the buffer monnmen~tlon...They tabled
action on the Heritage concept plan...City Council tabled the amenamen_ t to require computer
aided graphics. They got inw a lot of discusdon when would be appropriate to ask for that.
Who should ask for it and what we're doing is putting an issue paper wgether. What we've
done is, we've always felt, and I know there's concern about that and I attached those, what
the requirements are...we also felt that that would be something. Now maybe if we feel like
we didn't need it but it gets to you and you're saying Kate, there's no way we can determine
this and then you ~11 the developer we're going to table it until we get it. That's the purpose
of that Council was concerned that maybe that...maybe they should be the ones to
authorize...so what we're doing is putting an issues paper together. Trying to put a list '
together of vendors. Possible other options. One was getting a site elevation proposed or
building elevation. What we're trying to do is see how the proposed development sights with
the surrounding pwperty. I mean that's~.. In sulxlividons~..maybe you don't need them but
sometirms there's subdivision applications that it's appwpri~. You want to see what's the
amount of gr,_ding and what's the views/rom the surrounding properties. That it's not.., and
we've got some signifi~t, even on this property...and what are the i ,mpacts. So anyway, that
will go back to Council with some issues that they've asked us to look at. But hopefully
we'll...find an appropri~ tool that will help us in addressing some of these...because granted,
it is hard. It's hard for us to visualize it based on building elevations or just for perspectives.
Scott: I think it'd really help too is ff we can see something that says okay, this is a
$5,000.00 computer w~er and this is the $300.00 thing that Mark was talking about. Just
so we know that if you use Im'mlnology, this is what it entails because our intention is to
assist us in making the best recommendations without causing any undue expense.
Aanenson: And we sometimes need it ourselves to give you a recommendation.
Scott: Yeah but we need to have the opportunity to require that should we need it, if you
haven't.
80
Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
Aanenson: I concur completely and...we feel we should have the option too...
Sco~ Well they're just a rubber stamp for the Planning Commie/ion anyway.
Aanenson: And then the last item..just to talk about specific questions we have about the
process. There's no hidden agenda with that at all I just thought it'd be a good oppommity
to give a little...
Mancino: Yeah, I think that will be great but I would still like to soon, because I don't think
we've come to a conclusion here about conceptual approval I would still like to, as a
commission, sit down. Not only look at it f~m the logificis standpoint but from what's good
for our community and what we should be doing as leaders in our community and decide
how we want to look at conceptual plans and decide that as a commission and be pro-active
and do it now. In fact I'd like to set up a work session to do that. I'll come early on a
Wednesday. I'll come any other night and spend 2-2 1/2 hours but I would like somebody to
facilitate it and have an agenda and a good facilitator. You know a third person. Maybe
somebody not even in the city. A professional Maybe Barry Warner. I mean I'm just
giving up names here but somebody kind of outside to give us a look at it also and help us
get to a consensus~ That and I would also like to make sure on landsc~ plans, if we're
going to see them, I want to see real stuff. I mean ff it's going to, ff somebody's going to do
a landscape plan and show it in front of us, then I can't, and then they say well this i~n't
really the final one. I say well then why did we see it? Because if, you know is everything
else about the site plan real or not? You know the landscape plan should be mo and it should
be done by a professional and we should be loo_lriug at something that somebody spent some
time on. That somebody's designed well and it should be done with the rest of the
development. And I don't look at the rest of the developmem and say boy, is that bnilrling,
is that real? Is that the real size building? Is it really 64,530 square feet? I mean everything
that we see I want it to be, come to us quality and done. $omebody's thought about it. I
don't want to see just an engineer put a tree here, here and there and then call it a landscape
plan.
Scott: And then ff we need to reco~ changes to the existing ordinance, we do.
Because we have to have thc people on the receiving end of the process have to know, just
like we had talked a little bit about, here's the checklist. These are the 17...city staff has to
have by such and such a date if you want to get on the Planning Commission agcnda~ And
they can make it, great. If they can't, let them go 2 more wee~.
Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, there also, since we serve at the direction of City Council.
Perhaps City Council would like to let us know how they would prefer us to address this
issue since they are seeing everything that we're voting on. I agree with what you've said
81
P/anning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994
but I do feel responsible that we are serving at the direction of the City Council so if they
think otherwise, I'd like to know about it and we can all consider our actions then. But I
agree. I think that I should, and everyone else here should, when they vote on something,
there should be a time considemIion involved. Obviously from a practical stand~t that's
an important thing to develop there and the issue of looking at interest rates going up, as
they are now and the City has a targeted service time that they turn ~ing around and get
it before our commission. But C. hanhassen's been here for 3 billion years. What goes up
now along that highway is going to be up there for 50 to 100 years. And it would seem to
me that when we're talking about, I've got to be on next week or Charlie came here and said
you know, 14 days. I've got to have it or I'm losing millions of dollars. Well, those are the
realities of d~vel~t.
Mancino: And v~ came in on Saturday and m~ that requem.
Farmakes: But there are titrw, s when we're not going to be able to do that. Does that mean
well, we'll go ahead and vote for it even though we don't support it.
Scott: And you have to make the judgment call based upon what you know about the person
who's making the smmn~nt about the time table. You know there's a character call too
which is a gray area.
Farmakes: Well and if there's a finite amount of time that we can deal with these issues and
do them responsibly and quality wise, then maybe that has to be set bacL
Scott: Is there anything else that we need to be? Would anyone like to maim a motion to
adjourn?
Mandno moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:~0 p.m.
Submitted by Kal~ Aanenson
Planning Director
P~-pm~ by Nann Oph~ra
82