Loading...
PC 1993 03 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad, Self Farmakes and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harborts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Sharmin A1-3aff, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,410 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/W~REHOUSE FACIL)TY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP. INDUSTRIAL OFFICE P~K AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF P~RK PLACE AND PARK ROAD. LOT 3, B~OCK ~, CHANHASSEN LAKES BU$~NESS PARK 5TH R~)DITION, Mf%RK UNDESTAD/EDEN TR~CE CORPORATION, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES. Sharmin Al-$aff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Mark Undestad: I'm Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. Brought this back a little bit ago. What we've gone through, I wish we would have brought the first time. This design is more what we like to put out here...very nice looking building. Batzli: Okay. Did you, apparently the staff is making some requests. Have you seen the staff report, and do you agree with those changes? Mark Undestad: Yes I have and actually we've already made the changes... We've staggered the trees along the front there. We've added some...to go back here... Batzli: Sharmin, do these changes that he's showing us right now comply with what you were talking here earlier? A1-3aff: Yes. Batzli: Okay. So this is the final plan we're looking at? A1-3aff: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Okay, we may have some additional questions for you later as we go around among the Commissioners. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else present that would like 'to address the. Commission on this issue? If there is, I'd like you to come up to the microphone and give us your name and address before you address the Commission. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Ladd, do you want to start off? Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 2 Conrad: Nothing. Batzli: Nothing? Okay. Scott: I think the City staff is fine with the changes. We spent quite a bit of time last meeting going through this so I have no comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you Joe. Jeff, you came in late. Let me come back to you in a minute. Nancy, do you have any comments? Mancino: I just want to say that I like the additions and that I did go to the building that you developed in Chaska and saw the Mankato Rehabilitation Center. It was quite nice. I really liked it. I liked the way the scale and the proportion of the building and your uses of materials in the existing block with those other two Chaska brick buildings. I thought it fit quite well. So I'd just like to say that I saw it and I like it. Batzli: 3elf, you were here last week and they've made some changes that are reflected there. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at those but. Farmakes: I have no further questions. I reviewed the plan. I think they responded to our comments. Batzli: Okay, very good. And I have nothing else here. So is there a motion? Scott: I'll move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93-1 as shown on the site plan dated'February 22, 1993 subject to the conditions numbers 1 thru 6 as set forth in the Planning Commission packet of February 24, 1993. Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: I'll second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? What's going to happen when it goes to City Council I assume is that these are incorporated into their packet and so some of these conditions go away. Is that right? Al-Jarl: Correct. Batzli: Okay, they can handle that then. Is there any other discussion? Al-Jeff: We will send it to the City Council this coming Monday, the Sth. And at the last meeting we agreed that the applicant would pay Nann to type the Minutes overnight so that we would have everything in. Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review ~93-1 as shown on the site. plan dated February 22, 1993, subject to the following conditions=' Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 3 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A separate sign permit is required. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all Conditions of the Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo. dated February 4, 1993. 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The Ci%y's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a .mix of conifers and deciduous trees. 4. The northwesterly parking space shall be striped to allow trucks to back-up into the space. The most northwesterly stall shall be deleted. 5. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering Department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. 6. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated January 26, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Matt Ledvina was not present to vote on this item.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Kate, do you want to do a report from the Director or do we want to get Paul down here? Aanenson: Stone Creek received final plat approval for the first phase. The development contract was pulled. It will be on for the meeting next Monday. Gateway East was also approved by the City Council. That's the Hanus building. That's clearing up the lot lines based on the Rapid Oil. Interpretation of the conditional use, that was quite a lengthy discussion at the City Council meeting. I think what the Council felt was that there needed to be some interpretation and gave time for the applicant to come back and go back through the process and do some more research on exactly what the history of that was. Batzli: This wasn't the one where they were going to store telephone utility poles on the site was it? Planning Commission Meeting March 3, i993 - Page 4 Aanenson: Well, there was a question as to whether or not there's been continuous use of the property since the building was never done and it was alleged that the buiIding wasn't put up because the Building Department made certain requirements of Code and it was a rather lengthy matter. Their attorney representing them. The Council decided that they needed time to look at this again. They even talked about getting another 6 months to review it so they asked that it be brought back and we do more staff research on it. Exactly what happened on that. The Abra/Goodyear, that item was tabled. Kind of moratorium issue kind of came up again. The Council I met tonight to talk about the Highway 5 Task Force. Where it's going. How long it's going to take. Batzli: They tabled it again? Aanenson: Abra. They didn't even consider it last Council meeting. It's going to be on, not this Monday because we didn't put it on based on the fact that they were meeting tonight in a work session.. They're meeting right now to talk about how long it's taking with the Highway 5. Rearranging priorities to make sure that Task Force can move along. Batzli: I attended the first moratorium meeting. This is after that one? Aanenson: Right. They didn't go forward with that but they did give the staff some direction. They may go back and do, they talked about temporarily doing an overlay zone or maybe rezoning everything PUD. Even looking at, I think what the final consensus was was putting in a, looking at all the conditional uses or making conditional uses, that seemed to be the sore thumb was fast foods and auto related services so they're asking staff to look at that and come back and making those conditional uses so there's more control there. Because it was felt, even with the PUD or the overlay zone, yeah you can make it prettier but the use is still there so that doesn't really solve the problem. And also we felt as a staff, we really need to look at the whole corridor. We can't really go back. They wanted the staff to come forward with specific pieces of this done. We felt uncomfortable doing that because the whole study is really, each piece is a part of the bigger puzzle and'we're not sure how it all relates together and we felt it really needs to come together as a comprehensive package to you and to the Council so I think that's what we'll be looking at and they want that on the next, not this Monday but 2 weeks from next Monday in March. The second meeting in March to actually looking at the conditional uses. Maybe making fast foods and auto related conditional uses. $o maybe we can say, maybe it's appropriate here but not at this. location kind of thing. That was a directive tonight. Boley. The City Council recommended approval of that preliminary plat. Again, that's contingent upon what Victoria does so that was going to sit until we get a recommendation from Victoria. School acquisition site, that was tabled. There was concerns raised by Councilman Senn. Again, that's something that Council's meeting on tonight too, talking about that. And Moon Valley litigation. Paul was in Court on that last week. Still waiting to see what happens as far as with Judges. Ledvina: I had a question on that. Did they ever excavate the clay? That was the last proposal that we heard. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 5 Aanenson: It's my understanding he's going forward in saying, to balance the site he needs to excavate from the other side. Ledvina: No, but we had a specific proposal in front of us for the excavation of 200,000 yards of clay. Batzli: From the northern side? Ledvina: Yeah, on the northern side and then they were going to redo those ponds. Did that ever happen or no? Aanenson: I'm sorry Matt, I'm really not sure on that. My only understanding is that to balance it he needs to work both sides and we're saying no. He can't work both sides. Batzli: We approved it. Ledvina: No we didn't. Batzli: It went to Council without with our approval? Ledvina: No. It didn't even go to Council. I think we sent it back to the staff to iron out some questions. I think you had some questions on ground water contamination. Batzli: No, it got up to Council. Ledvina: Did it? Farmakes: I wanted to see it back and I was in the minority. Ledvina: Okay. So it did get sent up? 8atzli: Yeah. Aanenson: And it was that they could only work the one side and that's what he's contending now. That he's found he needs to balance it and so that's why we're back in court trying to get that resolved. Batzli: Okay, thank you. We have administrative approvals, and I assume that we have none to talk about tonight. We're-going to, with permission of the other commissioners, jump over our open discussion items for just a minute because the Council isn't down here and Paul isn't and I assume they're going to be involved. Were either of these other two things in the pack to the Highway 5 Task Force. The letter from Don, Mayor Chmiel. What is this about? I don't understand. Aanenson: Well what happened on that is, you'll be hearing more about that tonight. That's part of what we'll be talking about, the northern frontage road alignments. The Task Force made a recommendation as to the alternatives and in looking at tha~, the staff felt, and'in speaking with the consultants, that maybe there was a possibility for some crossovers. We'll be talking about that in more detail tonight and I think that 3im was feeling that the staff kind of usurped the Task Force in going ahead Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 6 and making some alterations to that. And then there was also some concern about the direction the Task Force was going in itself. That meeting was kind of bounced all over the place. I think we're kind of back on track. The last meeting we put together some goals and policies. Maybe Nancy can comment or 3elf, that were at the meeting. And we felt that we were kind of back on track. Ne realized that by not having goals and policies, everybody didn't have a clear understanding of where we were going and what we're trying to accomplish and I think our last meeting, I got a lot of positive feedback and I think we're kind of back on track. So we put that in here so you can see what the status of that. I think that was what the Council was also concerned about. Making sure that we do have a clear purpose and we're sticking to the task at hand. Farmakes: I think part of the problem perhaps might have stemmed from the fact that there is a subgroup within the Commission that had been working on it for a year. And they, in their own discussion, for some of the catch words, Main Street and so on, perhaps discussed it among themselves but in using it in discussion among the larger group, was much more subject to interpretation and I think that there was some confusion as to what the overall goals and policies were. But in the issue of the EPA study here, I think that occurred when we were trying to eliminate some possibilities of route and there were some crossover areas from the top to the bottom. You can see where they cross over. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what they said was, you have to pick one or the other and the issue was, that you may like part of one. Like the crossover to the upper one but the problem was, is that the way they worded it, you couldn't consider the crossover. You had to pick one from Column A or one from Column B. That's where the problem arose. I think Paul responded to that. Basically we're talking about a half of block worth of difference of physical space. I mean' it wasn't, if you were looking at it as an EPA study, it probably wasn't going to be a significant difference. If it would work for one than studying the other. Aanenson: That's really the heart of the Highway 5 discussion that we'll be having in our open meeting. The consultants will be here to talk about those two alternatives. Batzli: Okay. Don needs to upgrade his address. Jim doesn't live in my neighborhood anymore. Okay. Aanenson: If you'd like, I think the consultants would like a chance to maybe pull some of the things around. If you Wd like to maybe take a minute and look around and rally the troops. They've got a lot of information to maybe look at before they start their presentation. Batzli: Okay. So we will take about a 3 minute, 5 minute break here. (The Planning Commission took a break at this point in the meeting to review the information on the frontage road alternatives along Highway 5. Chairman Batzli turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Conrad at this poi nt. ) Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 7 INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING PROPOSED ~LTERN~TIV~S FOR A FRONTAGE ROAD NORTH OF HIGHWAY $ BETI,JEEN POt4ERS BOULEVARD AND H~GHWAY 4~. Public Present: Name AddreSs Barry Warner Deborah Porter 3ames Unruh 3ay Dolejsi Vernelle Clayton Gene Borg Thomas $. & Sharon Eischens Pat Kerber Doug Kunin Marlene Bentz Mike Gorra Ray & Lisa Notermann Barton-Aschman Assoc. Barton-Aschman Assoc. Barton-Aschman Assoc. 6961 Chaparral Lane 422 Santa Fe Cricle Highway 5 Task Force 7460 Hazeltine Blvd, Excelsior 1620 Arboretum Blvd, Chaska Eckankar 7300 Galpin Blvd. 1680 Highway 5 1450 Arboretum Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and then Vice Chairman Conrad asked for the consultants to give their presentation. Barry Warner: My name is Barry Warner. I'm a principle with Barton- Aschman who lead the land use and landscape architecture planning areas of the company. With me tonight is 3ames Unruh who is a civil engineer and Deborah Porter who will be writing the Environmental Assessment for the north access boulevard. I'm going to very quickly and concisely give you an overview of what character this roadway is-going to likely accommodate. 3ames is going to talk about some of the specific alignments and then Deborah will highlight very quickly the procedures in the Environmental Assessment. As Paul pointed out, and I'm going to quote from a document put together by the University. They had done some study early on for the access boulevards and they make the statement that an objective should be adhered to to make boulevards not frontage roads but connect into the community network. For example, the proposed roads, Chanhassen Avenue and Arboretum Boulevard kind of expressed local character and identity. With that being one of the guidelines, and working with our civil engineers, landscape architects, 'traffic engineers and environmentalist as well as staff, we put together some specific criteria or design objectives which we hope the access boulevards will adhere to. This specific purpose is two fold. To facilitate local trips. That is traffic movement between sub areas or neighborhoods within the city and second, to provide local access to those parcels abutting and in general proximity to the corridor. I might point out that the access boulevards are viewed to be different in function and design from traditional frontage roads, specifically from a visual standpoint. They may vary in some cases from the alignment of the Highway 5 mainline and they certainly will have a different visual character. In addition, the access boulevards should provide both pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A couple of specific design principles that we've tried to adhere to. Number one, the access boulevard should include corridor landscaping in establishing unique roadway character unique within Chanhassen. Boulevard trees and landscape treatments should occur at intersections and where possible, where the roadway abuts the Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 8 Highway 5 mainline. There shouid be distinctive signing. Distinctive lighting, and as I pointed out, there should also be some specific amenities for rest areas and potentially overlooks. Number two, the roadway alignment, both horizontal and vertical layout should respond to the lay of the land. That is the topography, the wetlands, vegetation and so on. Number three, access to the abutting parcels should be provided- but in a manner that is consistent with the designated land use type. I might point out that we are not intending to provide immediate access from specific single family parcels. Number four, proper dimensional setbacks from the Highway 5 mainline to the access boulevard intersections should be designed to provide for traffic operational purposes. Number five, a buffer should be established between the 5 mainline and the access boulevard where it occurs, and that can occur with earthen berms and landscaping. And the last item is that we're trying to in all cases remain sensitive to wetlands, drainage areas and so on. With that, the specific criteria that the roadway will likely adhere to includes a classification of a high density roadway type. A design speed that would likely be about 40 mph, although it may be signed at something less. Perhaps 35 mph. The Highway 5 Task Force took a look with our assistance, at four different cross section alternatives. In their December meeting ~hey looked at and agreed that the most appropriate alternative was one that allowed for a 32 foot wide top of the roadway within an urban section. That is it includes curb and gutters. That would include two 12 foot travelways and two 4 foot shoulders and the roadway therefore would occur within an 80 foot right-of-way. This also would allow for adequate space for landscaping and for a 10 foot bituminous trail that would run the length of the access boulevard. It also would allow for boulevard plantings or other natural type plantings to occur. As I pointed out previously, specific access to individual single family homes would not be allowed for. However, obviously subdivisions and so on would be. The roadway would be designed to a 9 ton classification. Parking would be prohibited from the roadway itself. Right and left hand turn slots would occur at intersections and where large users abut the access boulevard. The access boulevard should also accommodate bus traffic and transit opportunities and designed within the 80 foot right-of-way should be public utilities. Obviously storm sewer, sanitary sewer and.water. $o those are some of the broad parameters or design objectives that we tried to adhere to and James Ulnruh is now going to highlight some of the corridors so we can get a better idea as to the status of those corridors and where they specifically occur. James Unruh: Thanks Barry. I just want to work mostly over here and give you some specifics as to how we got to the alignments that are shown on these maps right here. One main factor in getting to where we're at now was the various comments we got from the Highway 5 Task Force. Each time we've come before the Task Force we've gotten some very good comments and we've incorporated those into subsequent versions of these layouts. I just want to touch on Alternative 2, first of all. How did that come about, and some of you correctly surmised that it's mostly from the Morrish study that's hanging on that wall over there. Patterned very closely after that. How did we get a separation distance from the access boulevard to the highway? We tried to fit a 5 foot mound inbetween the access boulevard and the highway. Obviously you could separate them more and put a higher mound inbetween them. Between the actual, from curb to Planning Commission Meeting March 3, J_993 - Page 9 curb is 47 feet is what you need to get about a 5 foot mound in. An example of that is a frontage road on the south side of Highway 5-, just east of Mitchell Lake, and MnDot participated in that frontage road and we did get a 5 foot mound inbetween those two. $o that"s where the criteria for the separation distance comes about. For example this separation distance at this west city street was dictated by I tried to minimize impacts to the stand of trees here and also to get adequate stacking distance for vehicles turning on that crossroad. At 6alpin Boulevard here, we wanted to get as close to the creek as we could, to Bluff Creek that is, so that this, as much area and this parcel here would be able to be developed. That's how we got this location here. Again we come back to the butting up against the main line and then there's a small wetland in here that we swung back around to minimize impacts and then back around to Audubon Road here. The offset for Audubon Road is dictated by these, when you get right about here, the slope starts dropping off pretty significantly. So we tried to minimize construction costs by this separation distance here. Our traffic analysis will tell us if this is too close or not. It may have to get pushed back a little bit but then you increase impacts to trees and some different things back here. Here's Lake Ann Park. We wanted to minimize encroachment into Lake Ann Park so that's why the frontage roads, or the access boulevard stays close to the highway. Right in here there's a small hill which basically we're just going around with the frontage road, or the access boulevard to keep it separated from the main line. Any questions on specifically Alternative 2? I just want to give you a background as to how we got to what we've got here specifically. Farmakes: The abandoned farmhouse'there, the distance from the highway td the abandoned farmhouse is? 3ames Unruh: Let's see. About 400 feet. 300 or 400 feet. Something like that. So it's pretty tight. Farmakes: That includes the right-of-way? 3ames Unruh: I'm just going from the edge of the lanes. Pretty much from the edge of the lane, which actually the'existing right-of-way is at exactly the edge of this lane right here. So it is as an existing right- of-way. Batzli: When you cross the creek, how do you do that? 3ames Unruh: Probably with a culvert underneath the roadway. With just a culvert underneath the roadway.- Right now there's a 48 inch diameter culvert crossing under Highway 5. That's probably what the size of the culvert underneath the access boulevard would be. Underneath. Highway 5 we're thinking either we'd have some kind of a pedestrian tunnel or a pedestrian tunnel with a creek crossing incorporated in it. But MnDot is not real high on putting bridges on Highway $ in this location and the frontage road. The cost is about twice what this pedestrian culvert is and maintenance costs get pretty intensive over the years. Farmakes: You showed us several, I believe those drawings there for when you refer to a culvert. Did you bring those drawings with you? They had Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 10 those at the previous meeting. James Unruh: We have some of those. Farmakes: Okay. I was wondering because when you say culvert, some people might tend to think that it's a cow culvert out here or something. James Unruh: For pedestrians we're looking at a couple of different sizes. One of them is a 13 foot wide arch culvert and I know that some of you have seen those drawings already, eut that would be about the width is a 13 foot, up to 20 foot wide arched culvert. And I'm sure all of you have been on pedestrian trails where you've seen those types of culverts. So it's called an arch culvert. That's where the terminology comes in. Maybe that's a little bit, puts a bad impression on it. To carry the water underneath the highway or underneath the access boulevard would probably be just a 48 inch, round culvert. I just want to touch on Alternative 1 here as well. And there we look at what kind Of land use could fit in between Highway 5 and the access boulevard. That was one of the first criterias is what setback do we need to get a decent development in there. $o that was a starting point for how far back you go with Alternative 1. The second criteria that we looked at then was basically the topography and the lay of the land. And we tried to not go through a big hill or right over a real dip in the land but tried to match the land as best we could and we've done some fairly detailed work on that and that's what you see here. The map behind you is a topographic map that- shows contours on it and the City of Chanhassen needs to be commended for that aerial photography with the contours.. That is a goldmine as far as design standpoint is concerned. You can really get a, as a designer you can have a 3 dimensional model almost. You have to-visualize it but a model of just how this roadway would look and you have to be almost up against it to see the actual roadways but that was the starting point of looking at the topography and aligning the roadway to fit the topography. The only other comment I want to make about Alternative I is here at Galpin Boulevard, we wanted to again come as close to Bluff Creek as we could but stay far enough away from Bluff Creek that we didn't cause any adverse impacts. From a design standpoint, I really can't say that one of these is better than the other one, as far as geometrically and as far as what happens at these crossroads. I really can't say that there's anything that's better about one than the other. They both have positive points and negative points. Mancino: I have a question. On the Alternative 1, west of Galpin. Does that go right through a house? James Unruh: Yeah, that one would. Well, the house is actually here and these are two barns here. But that is one of the environmental impacts or socioeconomic impacts that will have to be analyzed and certainly this alignment doesn't do that. Alternative 2 doesn't cause the impacts. Ne really, it's hard to tell but it looks like that would pretty much jeopardize this whole operation if you take those two buildings out. Mancino: And on the east side it comes close to a house also but not. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 11 3ames Unruh: It comes pretty close. We don't know for sure yet at this point if that would mean taking that house or not. It might be uncomfortable. Uncomfortably close but that's part of the environmental assessment is to analyze that. But the problem is, if we go closer to Bluff Creek, we're almost into the ravine. Farmakes: The more secluded version of the cut-off there with the natural topography would be the northern route? The cross over. If Alternative 2 went to Alternate 17 On the north side of Bluff Creek. 3ames Unruh: Let's see. Over here? Farmakes: Yeah. No, the other way. 3ames Unruh: This one. Farmakes: Come up from 2 to 1 comin~ from the east to the west. There. Now come up, that would be the north side of Bluff Creek versus the south side. If you were driving on the highway, would the topography more seclude the road behind, I believe there are trees there and so on. Would that from the highway more seclude the road...? 3ames Unruh: Oh definitely. Definitely because there's a good stand of trees all the way through here. Farmakes: And how much elevation is that lowered? 3ames Unruh: It's about, from here down to here I believe is about 20 to 25 feet. Farmakes: $o it's quite a bit. 3ames Unruh: Yeah, it's quite a bit. This trail that goes along with Alternative 1, that's why it's colored blue here, would kind of snake it's way through the trees somehow and then come down to'some kind of a crossing of Highway 5. Hancino: And it's a 10 foot wide trail. James Unruh: Yeah, right. We show it on here, actually a 30 foot wide trail corridor easement though it'd probably have to be purchased. Maybe it could be something less than that. We don't know for sure. Farmakes: With the trail in consideration, would the southern crossover or the northern crossover have any advantage over one or the other? 3ames Unruh: Either way, that's a good point. We have assumed that the trail would be on the north side of each of these alternatives. So to get over to this crossing here, you would have to go all the way to Salptn Boulevard and then cross. And the same with Alternative 2. It essentially does the same thing. Now obviously some people are probably just going to jump across the roadway bare and here. I don't know how you avoid that'but that is a good point. You still, either way correctly you have to go over to Salpin Boulevard-and then cross the frontage road and Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 12 then down to the crossing of Highway 5. These crossovers that you see are all color coded too so you can see that they stand out from the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. But you could do any one of these combinations. You could come from Alternative l, cross to Alteranttve 2 and it's obvious all the different things that you could do. And that's the good part of the flexibility of this plan. Scott: Doesn't it have a major, significant impact on the cost of the environmental assessment because instead of talking of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, we've got 1 and 2 and then we've got a couple of different options where we mix the two and obviously the environmental assessment has to be taken into consideration of the crossovers. 8ut that's basically what we're getting is 1 and 2 and the effect of the crossovers and then we have to distill that impact based upon which combinations we take. 3ames Unruh: That's correct and maybe that's a good point for me to break and give it over to the person doing the environmental assessment work. Any other specific questions on how we got to these alignments here? Mancino: I just have one other question. Not how-but Alternate 1 where it comes into TH 41 there. I stood there, or sat there in my car and actually could not see to the right of me. I mean if I came out of that road, I couldn't see around the curve on TH 41. 3ames Unruh: Previous versions'of this layout had Alternative 1 coming in right about here. It doesn't look like it's going to make a lot of difference moving this maybe 100 or 200 feet one way or the other. But based on some comments that we got, and then I did go out there and drove it several times back and forth to figure out just where a good place would be. So we moved it to the south side of this row of evergreen trees here so that we're quite a ways south of where it previously was and feel a lot more confident that that will not be a severe sight constraint. Because that is very crucial. I mean you've got to be able to sit here and see if traffic is coming from this direction. So we've made some modifications to accommodate that. Mancino: And Alternative 2 will give enough stacking on that intersection of TH 41 and Th 5? 3ames Unruh: That's another one that previously we showed it coming in closer on a previous version and based on some comments that the Task Force, we've moved it up about 200 or 300 feet from' where it previously was and we're comfortable that we should have enough stacking distance between these two right now. Again, we'll have to analyze those in the environmental assessment but from a design standpoint, we're fairly comfortable with it. Scott: Does the environmental assessment take into consideration the potential, the one land use that I think we're all particularly aware of is the land use on the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41. If we use the Alternative 2, does that negate the possibility of putting a Mills Fleet Farm type operation on that corner because I think, was that 500 feet? that what the setback is? Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 13 3ames Unruh: Actually it's about 700 feet.. Yeah, the .previous one was about 500 feet and they moved it back. Scott: Does the environmental assessment take into consideration what financial impact that, various alternatives are going to have on people who have property and have planned land use for that property? James Unruh: For that I'm going to turn it over to Deb Porter. She is my associate doing the environmental assessment. Batzli: Let me ask you one question before you turn it over to her. The Alternative 1 at the break between the two boards you've got behind them. Right here. You're at about 992 there and you're probably inbetween two hills at about that point. What do you do to get down to the creek elevation? I mean the creek is what, at about 950? 3ames Unruh: Well, it's on the map behind you. 8atzli: Yeah, it's at 950. I'm asking but it's at 950. Farmakes: It was a trick question. Batzli: It was a trick question. $o you've got a significant difference there as you're heading down towards the creek and then it climbs back up on the other side. 3ames Unruh: Right in through here. 8atzli: Are you filling? Are you grading? What are you doing to the land right there to get down to the creek level or at least the edge of the ravine or what have you? 3ames Unruh: I've just been working on that the last couple of days and you almost have to split the difference. You cut about halfway through the hill and fill about halfway through the ravine. I could not, what you're saying is there's a hill here and then there's a low point right in there. And I couldn't bring it up, or bring it down quick enough to hit the bottom of that ravine and then up again high enough to hit the top of the hill. So I cut pretty much through the two of them and try to split the difference so that you're half filling in half of this and cutting half of this hill. 8atzli: What does that do to the corridor right there? Our creek corridor by doing that to landform right there? James Unruh: On that topography map, I show the exact construction limits. How far out the fill will be and the cut and maybe that's something, it's on a green line which is a little bit difficult to see. But that's maybe something we can look at afterwards. It's very appropriate you ask that. I've just been working on that to determine the exact construction limits. You know how far out are we going to be filling on each side of this road, and it isn't as severe in really any locations as I thought it would be. But maybe we can look at that a little bit later, and that's something we're still ~orking on. But Deb Planning Commission Heeting HaTch 3, 1993 - Page 14 Porter is from Barton-Aschman is going to talk to you about the environmental assessment. Deb Porter: I get the feeling that 3ames has done a lot more work on this at this point than I may have. What I'd like to go over tonight is this two page handout that I think was part of your packet and we have copies here this evening too entitled, Arboretum Boulevard Project Review. And what this is is a very brief overview of the purpose and scope of the environmental assessment. We go over some of the possible funding sources and what the expected schedule is for the access boulevard and how that relates to Trunk Highway 5. The environmental assessment document, for those who may not be familiar with the process, is somewhat less formal than an environmental impact statement, an EI$ but it will cover a full range of impact issues. It will be prepared for the federal, state and local agency reviews as well as the general public and it will identify the impacts of all the alternatives that we're looking at here tonight. The Alternative 1 and 2 corridors and the crossover options. You asked how that will be addressed in the document and it could be cumbersome if you're looking at all combinations, permeatations of those corridors but I think the way we plan to handle that is looking at ~lternative 1, the norther corridor, Alternative 2 and then the crossover segments of A, B, C and D, which are anywhere from I think 500, 800, 900 feet in length. And kind of handle those separately. To combine them as an Alternative, we may do in some kind of table format. It's a little awkward b~Jt I think we'll be able to get a look at the total impact of each segment. You'd have to sort of add those up to get the full picture I guess. In terms of impact studies, and mitigation plans, that's also required. Any impacts we identify, we'll need to offer some type of way 'in reducing or possibly even eliminating some of the adverse effects of the project. The impact studies themselves, it will be a wide range of studies. The impact to the physical environment will include things like, what we've already been talking about. The wetland basins. The storm water runoff. The erosion control. Other water quality issues. We'll look at air quality. Noise impacts. Land use development will also be one of the impact studies. We'll look at the visual changes and the landscape of the corridor, and also the traffic study is important in that that will look at, or estimate the future traffic volumes both on Highway 5 and the different alternative corridors and how that might impact the major intersections along the corridor. We'll look at the level of service along there and the whole traffic operations between Highway 4I, Powers Boulevard, and how that ties in with the central business district of'Chanhassen. We'll also be looking at all mitigations for any type of impacts that we identify the~e. Once that's been put together in a draft form, we forward that to MnDot. They will review it and if satisfied, then we'll issue it for a public review into all the regulatory agencies. We plan to hold a public hearing so there's an opportunity for comment from the general public and the agencies. I guess our guess right now would be mid-year 1993. We might be ready for a hearing at that point. Once all the comments have been received, and responded to in writing in the document, it becomes formalized by MnDot. They issue something called a negative declaration, meaning that an EIS is not needed at that point is their position. It then is forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration who is really the ultimate sign-off authority on the document. And they issue what's called a Finding of No Significant Impact., or FONSI I guess is how we generally Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 15 refer to it. At that point the environmental process is pretty well completed and for this project, assuming that we begin work on this soon, March of this year, we.expect to be done by the end of this year. That's the typical timeframe for an environmental assessment for a project of this length is 9, 10 months to a years time. I think that pretty well covers the EA process. I mean it's somewhat involved. I haven't listed every topic that we'll be covering in the document. There's probably 20 or so different impact studies. Are there any questions about what we plan to cover in that document? I guess I could have brought some documents but...bias what people may be expecting later on. But it's a fairly comprehensive document. It should allow you towards the end of that process to identify a preferred alternative based on the range of impacts and advantages, disadvantages of various alternatives. Batzli: Paul, did you say that the City's paying for the EA? Krauss: That's correct. Batzli: And what is the impact of doing a second alternative route and all these crossovers as far as monetary impact to the city? Krauss: It's in there. I mean it's part of the process that's already been approved. Deb Porter: I think if there's other questions we'll be here later this evening to talk about that. Another point here that I want to go over is the schedule for the project, and Paul has already gone over that somewhat. That's on the second page. We've outlined a time table actually and I guess what we want to make sure everyone's aware of is the fact that this access boulevard project is closely coordinated with the Highway 5 project. MnDot views that as one design package. $o in that regard then we need to look at the program construction date of Trunk Highway 5 which is February, 1996. $o that.would also then probably become the construction date of the 'access boulevard. Sacking up from that then, from February, 1996, we've identified as you can see here, a 2 year time period for right-of-way acquisition and final design work. And that again is typically what's required for a project of this size and the number of parcels involved. So that would bring us back to February'of 1994. At that point we need to have construction limits established for the preferred alternative. We'd be through with the environmental ~eview process. We'd be into the permit application phase, and that essentially gives us then the remainder of this year to finish the environment process. I think that it's very doable and a lot of the design work, as 3ames is talking about, is already progressing and as soon as it's really spring, we'll be able to do a lot of our field work too. I think you can expect to see a draft EA this 3une, I would imagine for your review. It will be coming before the city staff and City Council prior to being released to the public so it's something you find acceptable. So I think in the memos and so on that I've read from the city, they've stated that very well in terms of how critical it is to keep this project on track with Trunk Highway 5. Now as far as funding is concerned, as Paul mentioned, the construction costs are primarily through federal funds and then supplemented somewhat by the city and MnDot. And the right-of-way acquisition costs at this point will be some mixture of city and MnDot Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 16 funds and it is somewhat dependent on the location of the access boulevard. As Paul said, MnDot's prior commitment in upgrading TH 5 was to provide some short, what would have been frontage roads to some of those properties on the north side' of TH 5 that would no longer have access to the highway. $o their commitment then is tied in with that. You know what they had promised in the past is something they plan to keep to and possibly supplement in areas like through the park and so on. But the farther away an access boulevard becomes from the main line, the less they may be interested in funding because at that point that may be setting a precedent of MnDot pays for city street construction, and that's not the case. $o I guess that's something that needs to be kept in mind. Are there any other questions, either on the schedule or the EA or any of those topics? Mancino: Deborah, when you just said that MnDot is sharing the cost of the access boulevard depends on where it's placed...acquisitions of land or actual construction? Deb Porter: No, that's only as far as right-of-way acquisition costs are concerned. The construction costs I think are probably as much as 80~ federal dollars and the remainder being city and MnDot. But this negotiation or further discussions on right-of-way acquisition, that certainly would have to go on with MnDot and it's for right-of-way only. Conrad: Brian, do you want me to continue... Batzli: Yeah, go ahead. Conrad: Or do you want to take it back over? Batzli: No. I'm going to have to leave in a few minutes, so please. Conrad: Paul, anything else? It is an informational meeting and we have a lot of people here. It's not a ~ublic hearing but my understanding is, what we're doing right now is, as Paul's pointed out, we're affirming that these are the alternatives to study. We're not making a recommendation which ones we like tonight. We're saying these are the ones to spend our time looking at. I think if anybody has some comments that is here tonight, I think we'd be interested in them. Again, we're not taking a vote on which ones you like. That's going to be later on but our role here as a Planning Commission is to make some comments in terms of what we, if we feel these are the right ones and then move that up to City Council. Are there any, yes ma'am. Pat Kerber: The home that we.own...' Conrad: Would you give us your name. Pat Kerber: Pat Kerber. Batzli: Can you hear her for the record? Conrad: Would you step up to the microphone. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 17 Pat Kerber: Okay, I'm Pat Kerber and we own 3 acres of land. We are abutted on the east side by Lake Ann Park. The tree farm. Now here in this diagram it shows that it's going back by the creek,evidentally. And we own from the highway to the creek. What are we going to do? Do we stay there or do we get bought out completely? I sure don't want a road on each side of me. When Highway'5 gets to be a four lane. Scott: Excuse me Mrs. Kerber. I want to make sure I understand exactly where your property is. So you.'re going to have to speak very slowly for Pat Kerber: Okay, it's right on. · Scott: Okay, I see Lake Ann Park. I see the tree farm. And it looks like there's a. Pat Kerber: And Audubon Road as it goes north would be right beside our house. Scott: Okay, and your house is located very close to the Highway 5? Pat Kerber: Well go back, I don't know. We built back far enough... Scott: It looks like there's a very long drive and then your property is due south of Lake Ann about 100 feet? Mancino: On the north side of TH 5. Pat Kerber: It's right in here. Scott: Oh okay. So very close to Highway 5. Okay. You can see your _ house from the road when you just get past Lake Ann on the right. Pat Kerber: It's a red house. Scott: I got you. Pat Kerber: But I'd like to know, do you buy us out completely or what? I don't want to sit there with a half acre and a house between two roads. Scott: I got you. Conrad: Paul, do you have a? Krauss: Yeah, if it's the property that I'm aware of. I understand the concern. Pat Kerber: Well my husband was born and raised on that farm. Krauss: And I've heard talk from time to time about acquisition of the property relative to the park and different things. So if I'm understanding right, your bourse would be basically on that island of land that's created. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 18 Pat Kerber: Between the two. Krauss: Yeah, that's really something. We don't know the exact answer to it but the likely answer is that, when you isolate property like that, typically it becomes part of the right-of-way acquisition, unless there's some legitimate way of saving it but you're severing, when you're doing that you're severing a house from it's natural environment. Pat Kerber: That's right. Krauss: And we recognize that and MnDot recognizes that. It's something that's going to have to be developed as part of the EA. I think we'll have to make some guesses in the EA as to what's likely to happen but just looking at it now, it looks likely that it would probably be considered as part of the right-of-way acquisition. Scott: And the right-of-way is 80 feet so. Krauss: No. The right-of-way itself is 80 feet for the roadway but in areas where you bump the road north to set it back for sufficient stacking distance, you may be creating a. Scott: A berm or something like that. Krauss: Right. Right. Conrad: One of the purposes of going through what we're doing the study right now is to understand a little bit more what would happen. Pat Kerber: Well I wasn't at the last meeting but my husband couldn't be here tonight so. And I was interested. I mean that's his homestead. He's been there for 72 years. Or a few years he was in the service and that and we acquired the land from his father. And built the house and we've been there since 1958. Now to get moved out, or sit there with just a little piece, I don't want that. Conrad: I'm sure we'll be working with you on that. Any other comments? Again we're looking at, are these the right alternatives to look at. Planning Commission comments. Scott: Yeah, could I ask. There's a comment from. Tim Keene: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keene and I'm with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren and here on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. Just a couple of questions. One as it relates to the design alternatives and the other procedural. I guess I'd like to hear from the engineer how much flexibility we have as it relates to the western terminus and the location of Alternatives 1 and 2 to move those around. We're a little bit handicapped in evaluating this as it impacts the property because we don't have exact spacing distances on a drawing that isn't scaled. We could estimate them but that certainly does impact the property depending on what the spacing and separation are and so we'll reserve our comments for later in the process when we've had an opportunity to take a look at that. And that relates to the second Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 19 question I had. At what point will we, as property owners have to provide the most meaningful comment and address our thoughts as it relates to the alternatives? Will that be when the environmental assessment document is put on the street in June? Conrad: I assume that's coming back to us isn't it? Krauss: Well, it will but I think there's going to be two opportunities here for Tim to make specific comments and deal with something that's being offered in some specificity. The EA document's going to come back before the Planning Commission, City Council and we'll have a formal -_ public hearing at that time. B. ut I'm expecting that even before that's done, we're going to have a draft document and we're going to try to feed . that back in to the Highway 5 Task Force. They've already said that they want to have public information meetings because they're making decisions based not only on what they're going to hear back on the EA but also what in their vision is the best, the most appropriate land use. The most sensitive way of developing and other things. $o we need for those two processes to come together so again, I think there's going to be public informational meeting at the Task Force on that and there certainly will be a public hearing ultimately on the Highway 5 plan and again on the EA. Tim Keene: Thank you very much. Conrad: Anything else? Planning Commissioners. Scott: Gene Borg is here arid you're the Co-Chair of the Highway 5 Task Force. I just have a question. Is 'there a position that a majority of the Highway 5 Task Force has as to which alternative they believe or you folks believe is the best one based upon all the factors that you're taking into consideration? Gene Borg: No. Scott: Okay. Gene Borg: That's about the plain truth. There's as much disagreement on which way... Ne were rushed two meetings ago trying to choose an alignment... Conrad: Well that opens up the next question. As this is going on, what else is happening? Krauss: Well the larger Highway 5 corridor planning process is happening. They have been charged with not only looking at these access boulevards' but also inputting into the main line design of Highway 5. Giving proposals on land use changes in the corridor. Defining environmentally sensitive areas and means for protecting them. Developing a strategy for how the Highway 5 corridor should be developed. Developing an overlay district ordinance. They're tying together a lot of stuff. Conrad: How do the cost implications get wrapped into this Paul? I see the Alternative 2 and some of the things we talked about in terms of landscaping. When the EA comes back to us and we start making some Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 19~3 - Page 20 decisions, are we going to know all the cost factors at that time? Does the EA, does that wrap up some but are there missing? Are we going to be missing pieces and is that a charter of the Task Force or? Krauss: I honestly don't know the level of detail that we're going to have. I mean we're going to have some ballpark cost estimates in terms of acquisition and development. I don't think at that point we're going to know specifically how many dollars are the Feds kicking in. How many dollars is the State going to kick in. I mean those things need to be worked out on an ongoing process. We will provide as much information as we can at the time we have it certainly. It's been my experience that those kinds of, do you protect the forest. Do you spend a few more dollars or, that's a difficult one for a resident or a citizen based task force to grapple with but it's certainly one that the Planning Commission and also to a very large extent the City Council are in a position to deal with because it's the City Council utlimately that's going to have'to cut the deal with MnDot. It's going to be their name on the dotted line. So all that information will be available at the time that decision is made. I'm just not certain how much of that the Task Force is going to be able to digest. Conrad: You talked about zoning issues. Can we really zone before we get the EA back? Krauss: Well again, you have a cart and horse situation. We're under a great deal of pressure to produce the Highway 5 plan and we're really not in a position to say well let's wait 6 months and see what the EA says. I mean this is an outgrowth of what we've done to date. It's an iterative process. I mean one of the things we spend lots of time on is tanning back and forth between our consultants, MnDot, the Task Force, the Planning Commission, the City Council trying to pull all these things together. I think we're honing in on decisions of the Task Force. As more information becomes available, they will make some determination. For example, I mean there is a very significant question, 3oe you raised it about the Fleet Farm ownership on the corner, and Tim Keene spoke to that. That's certainly no secret. We've known for the past 4 or 5 years that Fleet Farm has owned it. There's never been an active city policy, one way or the other pro or con on it but clearly the Task Force is going to have to make, first of all they're going to have to make a recommendation as to whether or not it has any merit at all', and I think they're going to approach that as a land use issue. Then you also have to put in which, if you decide it is okay, then probably there's only one road alternative that supports it. If not, you go with, you have either of the other options and will take it on their own merits. Again, it's an iterative process. It's not clean. We're just not going to have everything in front of us at any one time to make all those decisions. Mancino: Not only Fleet Farm but...that whole study area and looking at that for land use questions that come up. Scott: What is the study estimated to'cost? The EA. Deb Porter: I think our budget is between $120,000.00 and $130,000.00. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 2! Scott: Is there an implied time line based upon the fact that the alternatives need to track with Highway 5 with MnDot's schedule. Is there an implied decision point at the, and this is a question I guess for the Chairman or for you Paul. When we have to come to a decision on this. I sense that there's a very tight timeframe here that hasn't been articulated. I'd like to know precisely what's expected here. Krauss: Well, I mean clearly you're going to have to, the City's going to have to take a position on a preferred route. Deb has made it very clear to us on a number of occasions that we can't go to MnOot keeping all the cards in our back pocket and say well, we're not going to tell you which one we want to do but we want you to pay for it nevertheless. We have to make those decisions in that timeframe and that seems to give us another $-6 months I guess to get it together on that. I think we really have an opportunity here, and it's an opportunity that we saw slipping through our fingers. When we started working on Highway 5 issues a year, year and a half ago, MnDot's initial position was, don't bother us. It's all done. I mean we've already planned, we designed it years ago. You really have nothing to input. Well, with a lot of hard work they've moved off of that to working with us on a lot of things but it's imperative that we keep to their timeframe or all bets are off. $o I regard this is as a window of opportunity. Yes it's rather time, the constraints are significant but it's opportunities that we didn't think we'd have 6-8 months ago. Conrad: Let me go back to this point. I asked you before Paul but when the EA is done and it comes back here and we get this informational meetings, one alternative's going to have some highway acquisition costs. Or not highway but just Alternative 2, if we want to do something like this, there are other costs there. Who's developing those other costs? That's going to effect how we perceive one alternative versus the other. Where does that come from? - Deb Porter: Well I think as Paul said before, ballpark estimates. That's generally a part of the EA or EIS. We would look at approximate construction costs and approximate right-of-way acquisition costs when it comes to the corridor itself. That still is something that, as I have on the schedule, that really doesn't get finalized until we have construction limits, MnDot has the...and so on. It's very easy to make a wrong estimate on right-of-way costs. At time you may think, well we'll just take a quarter of this property and as it turns out because of access or an unwilling seller or whatever, you end up buying the entire parcel. So you could be plus or minus a few million off on that cost. That's really beyond the scope of an EA. We'll come up with the construction costs and estimated right-of-way so you can feel comfortable with it but the number you're looking for I don't think is going to come into this document. Not as a definite number. Krauss: We are probably also going to have to work with Barton-Aschman too in developing a cost projection for all those non-covered items. I mean you could well have a budget that says we're going to have 3,000 overstory trees and we're going to pay for brick paver treatments here and there and the crossings and all these other things that are the city's option and develop a cost package for that. We clearly would have to do that and present it to the City Council and HRA to gain their support. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 22 But that's beyond the EA process. Probably something we're going to have to do in addition. Conrad: But it's got to merge. When we start looking at alternatives here, that's a parcel, that's part of it. Okay. But thanks. Deb Porter: While we may not be able to give you an exact cost figure, we will look at, under the relocations and right-of-way impacts, we will look at the number of parcels. Number of landowners and what we estimate as being complete and partial takings of properties. So that should give you some gauge on cost but yeah, as Paul's explaining to you. Everything involving with landscaping, purchasing that additional corridor for berming and screening between the highway and the access road, that could get into a wide range of costs. Mancino: ...those estimates will be in the draft that we get in June? Deb Porter: The construction estimates will but the right-of-way costs are something we'll have to talk about in a more qualitative way rather than quantitative I think. We'll be discussing it with MnDot. They should be able to give us some input on what they think is needed in terms of the access road, at least closer to the highway. Krauss: If I could Mr. Chairman. Barry Warner and I were just whispering back and forth. Barton-Aschman's worked with us on the first phase of Highway 5 and the public-improvements for that and we developed a cost package that was taken back to the HRA. It's quite likely we're going to have to add a work task program that's independent of the EA but to develop these costs. I mean obviously we need to get that information and we have experience working with them to do just that. Scott: So basically what we're looking at then is sometime between August and November of this year we'll be, we and others are going to be determining which alternative is going to be presented'to MnDot? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: And at that time we will have the other costs developed? Deb Porter: ...need some input from you on a tenatively identified preferred alternative. That needs to be in the draft EA before that's finalized and brought to the Federal Highway Administration. Scott: Is that June? Deb Porter: June I think is more when we'~e .looking. June-July. It's not an absolute, definite decision at that point because you haven't had your public hearing yet or all of your agency comment but in order to issue that document and to give the agencies and the public some idea of what you're thinking, rather than here's all the alternatives. We don't know yet. We like to do what's called a tentative identification of preferred alternative. And that gives people something a little more to react to instead of you know, all the issues and all the potential impacts still being out there considered. It narrows it down somewhat. And it Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 23 can be changed if something comes up that was unforeseen.. Not considered. Generally doesn't but. Conrad: So then Paul we're going to be developing some additional costs that will be bundled into that package? Okay. Other comments? Anything. Again~ we're reacting to are these the right alternatives to study. Anything else? Gene Borg: I'd like to make one comment about choosing an alternative route. You get the cart and the horse...do the land use first and then place the road around it. Something's got to come first. It sounds like the road placement is going to come first and then we're going to recommend zoning to fit the road. Krauss: We've done some preliminary investigations working with Barton- Aschman and our other consultant Camiros on how drastic an impact the road placement has on the uses. And it's really not as.great as we would have thought. I mean it clearly in one or two instances has a major impact but beyond that, it really didn't. $o I think we'd like to keep working with the Task Force on the land use issues and we can feed that information back into Barton-Aschman. Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Need a motion just to recommend that we affirm that these are the right alternatives to study. Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission affirm the draft alternatives for analysis of two alterantives in the Environmental Assessment document. Farina kes: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission affirm the draft alterantive for analysis of two alternatives in the Environmental Assessment document. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DZ$CUSSION OF ENTRY MONUMENTS - TODO 6[RHARPT. Conrad: Is Todd here? Barry Warner: Mr. Chair, he delegated it to me so I'll pick a couple of boards up and highlight those things for you. Conrad: Okay, you want to discuss the entr. y monuments? Barry Warner: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The panel that you see in front of you tonight is the panel that 3elf had assisted staff and ourselves in looking at. A monument sign at Market, adjacent to Highway 5 to serve as an entrance into the downtown area. It shows some of the metal work and so on top of a limestone radius wall. This is a more updated image of that same scheme with exception of this does not show the metal work. What is being suggested is the metal work would be bid as a Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 24 part of the sign when it is sent out for construction bids so that we would have prices on both the wall and the metal work intact. So in essence I'm filling in for Todd tonight so if there's any specific questions that I can respond to, I'd be very pleased to do so. This has been something that's been ongoing for the last few years and I think with Jeff's assistance, we've been able to advance forward with it and are looking forward to taking it into construction bids and potentially constructing it this spring if we can still obtain the landscape work during the spring construction season. Ledvina: A question. You mentioned metal work. Did you mean the letters or? Barry Warner: The metal work that I was speaking to was the ornamentation that is on the top and on the other side. Ledvina: $o they'll bid both parts Of-that? Not necessarily construct the metal work at this time. Barry Warner: I think that that would be the city's perogative once the bids were received. Ledvina: Okay, so that would be an option that they'd exercise if it was a real favorable situation? Barry Warner: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. That's reasonable. Mancino: What are the letters made out of? What is the medium? Barry Warner: It would be metal. Mancino: The letters? Is it a black metal? Barry Warner: No, they would be a bronze colored metal that we would select a specific color with a contractor but it will have, it's a metal letter that will be an anodized material so that it will appear as a bronze color or something similar to that. Farmakes: It depends on the cost of materials. There's bronze. There's brass. There's copper. It depends on the staying factor. The maintenance. And whether or not the economy as to whether or not you go to an electroplated steel. The idea is I believe it would be painted green with... Mancino: What's behind the lettering? The Chanhassen lettering? What's the? Barry Warner: That's merely a change in the same type of material. It's a limestone but this would be a smooth face and this is a rough cut material. So it is the same material, come from the same quarry. It would have the same color but it would have a different relief. This is a course texture block and this is a smooth texture san finish. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 25 Farmakes: I talked to Todd a little bit about that. What we had discussed in the meeting that there were some differences of opinion as to that stone. I still feel a Kasota creme colored limestone or the Chaska golder color limestone was better for the rough treatment and a whiter limestone behind the lettering. We're talking about the same quarries. Same limestone but different types of limestones. Barry Warner: That's correct. It's basically how the material is quarried. Scott: Where is this going to be located and what is the orientation going to be relative to the? Barry Warner: It's in the northeast quadrant of Market and Highway 5. And there will be some landform that will be required. Some grading work to allow the sign to be situated so that it can be seen and there is going to be some landscaping behind it. Scott: So it's going to be oriented, so if.we were to look at this. Barry Warner: If you're westbound on Highway 5, the sign is going to be facing you. Scott: Okay. Mancino: And if you're eastbound? Barry Warner: You're still going to be seeing it because it's a round, it's a radius wall and that expression is going to be seen for traffic that would be on westbound as well. If you're westbound, I'm sorry. I've confused you. If you're eastbound on High.way 5, the sign's oriented towards you. If you're westbound, you're still going to be picking it up but to a lesser degree. Farmakes: The one thing that I didn't understand, and it was a recent petition, is the extension's coming out from the wall and I understand that the purpose was to blend it into the contouring of the landscaping that they were going to do. But what I don't understand, it's difficult to assess what that is achieving when it's cut up like that on the drawing and the overhead. There's an overhead and the illustrative drawing here. It's cut off. You're not seeing it in any relationships. I guess the illustration isn't really achieving the purpose naturally for me anyway. Barry Warner: Well let's state to what the objective is rather, than what the graphic is saying. The objective is to make the monument sign in scale with the area. The comment came specifically from Bill Morrish and he felt that if the radius sign would walk around in a stepped fashion and walked back into the adjacent grade, that in fact it would appear more comfortable with the area. So that's what we're trying to respond to. Farmakes: The one thing that's missing off of here in relationship is there is landscaping in front of that sign. It appears to be more massive here than. Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 26 Barry Warner: In front of the sign oT in back of it? FaTmakes: In front of it. Isn't theTe floweT plantings in front of it? BaTTy WaTneT: TheTe's floweT plantings, Tight. FaTmakes: How much height fTom the baseline that you'Te showing heTe? BaTTy WaTneT: Well it depends on the vaTiety of floweTs that we put in fTont of it but I would imagine you'Te looking at 12 to 15 inches. Mancino: BaTTy, what kind of plantings ate going in behind it? BaTty WaTneT: There ate canopy tTees, maples that are kind of fTame if you will the image to the chuTch toweT. In fact if you sit, if you're eastbound on Highway 5 and you'Te sitting at the inteTsection, the plantings thTough the sign will actually fTame the chuTch toweT. Scott: We're talking about two structures? Farmakes: These landscaping plans that you're looking at here are not the ones he's talking about. That is not relevant to what he's talking about. Scott: This has nothing to do with that? Farmakes: Correct. Scott: Okay. Farmakes: The only thing, the wall itself that you're looking at there is relevant to scale to what is being discussed. Conrad: So this shows the relationship though to the highway? Scott: This is by Holiday and I have no idea. Conrad: I'm real interested in how that's oriented. Scott: Yeah, I don't know yet either. Farmakes: The confusion is that there's two signs. Two locations. You're dealing with the one on Market. This is the scaled down version. It's really the last page is all you should be looking at. Scott: Jeff, if we were, let's take that radius view of the top. If that's an aerial view, is it south? Farmakes: It'd be southeast. NO, excuse me, southwest. Yeah, slightly southwest. Barry Warner: For your orientation, Highway 5 is shown at the bottom. Market Boulevard is oriented to the north. If you can imagine, if you're sitting eastbound on Highway 5, this is in the northeast quadrant and the sign is oriented to you. But the question was before, if you're going Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1~93 - Page 27 westbound, can you still see the sign? Yes you will because you'll be staged at this point. This exact traffic island currently exists. And the question about the landscaping, I believe that this isn't quite the current drawing but in essence there would be massings' of maple trees that would provide and frame a view of the church steeple. Farmakes: The long term thinking for this signage was that there'd be, these sign repeated in east and west entrances of downtown. So what you're looking at here is the center sign on Highway $ Conrad: And the orientation Jeff is really to the west? Farmakes: It splits the difference. The orientation that they have here. Conrad: It's really not good for anybody driving east to west. Farmakes: Correct but if you have been driving from the east, you would have passed one...but that's one of the sites that's in consideration. 8arty Warner: That's correct. In fact I think that the Morrish group had just presented, as you might remember, to the Highway 5 Task Force, the notion that there might be another type of monument at that point. So for traffic that is going from east to west, that would be one of the locations. You might remember back some months, actually a year ago ~e took a look at both quadrants and this is much more accepting of some type of a monument because if you look at the west side, you have a wetland basin that's situated there and that would require significant filling to make any type of a platform on which the sign would be situated. Councilman Wing: This isn't an east/west orientation of this sign. Market Boulevard and TH 101 is the main road coming from the south. For the south entryway monument and...so this really isn't oriented east and west... Is that correct? That's how I remember it. Farmakes: I think also, eventually isn't TH lO1 will wind up coming up through there? Coming from the north so it's kind of splitting the difference but you have to view this as in use with other signage. With other monuments so you actually get a repeat impression. The purpose of this is not to be a 360 degree reading. Barry Warner: That's correct 3elf. And the other thing you might recall is that when the Target parcel was applied for, there were provisions made in the outlots adjacent to County Road 17 and Highway $ that there might also be some type of a some monumentation adjacent in the northeast quadrant so think of them as 3elf is doing it. There's a-series Of these announcing and providing monumentation for'the city. Conrad: Take us back to the other diagram please. The scale is real big. The height of that is l0 feet? Barry Warner: That is correct. 8ut one needs to also keep in mind that the grade is dropping off so that the sign from a vehicle is not going to seem massive by any means. The grade is dropping off. The sign is set back into the northeast quadrant and also it's a fairly generous parcel so Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 28 we believe that because of that, the scale is more consistent. Actually at times in the, this sign has really gone through a significant evolution. I mean it's been around for 3 years? In varying forms and we believe that this is the strongest candidate because it has been reduced in size from what we even had pursued a few months ago. It's more in keeping with the parcel. The way it steps. Is consistent with the topography and so on. Mancino: In the final construction, who's actually overseeing, who's picking out all the materials and...? Barry Warner: Well I can't answer that entirely, but there's really three groups of people that are involved here. Jeff, ~taff and ourselves. It has gone through a number of iterations. Our specifications at this point have been written and I think there needs to be more dialogue in terms of what specific quarry the material's going to come from. Conrad: 3elf, you're comfortable with 'the scale? You've been part-of the process. Farmakes: What I had suggested in the site is that there still needs to be some site evaluation with sizing. The-letters are 2 1/2 feet high. You can see a 2 1/2 foot high letter. You can get one. You cad take it out to the site. See what it is in relationship to the height. Obviously giving that kind of mass is going to be difficult. You can peg off where the 65 feet is going to be. As far as the width goes and you can put up on a, stand on a ladder with a 6 x 9 leaf or piece of styrofoam so you can see the relationship of mass to the size. This is a very opened up area. There's a large expanse of highway on one side. There's a wetland there. And the Americana Bank is set quite a ways back from where it is. There's a wetland on the opposite side. A lot of open room there. $o although it looks large here, because it's confined within this drawing and it's actually being cut off on the drawing. There's a lot of area around it. Conrad: I guess my concern is, just for perspective. A Naegele billboard is 10 x 36. The big ones are 14 x 45. This is longer. This is big. Farmakes: It is set. It's not as high as a Naegele billboard. Conrad: Right. But it's big and again, that's why site evaluation is critical. We could, I don't know. It's bigger than what I thought it was going to look like. Farmakes: It's actually smaller than what was originally proposed. Barry Warner: This is smaller even than it was. Farmakes: I think actually a 2 1/2 foot letter really would be a minimum size... Barry Warner: To help you understand the situation. This is the scale of an individual right here so I think that gives you some perspective of what this is going to appear at. However, if you can imagine yourself in an automobile, stepped back some significant distance from the sign as we Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 29 have shown in this plan view, to where the vehicle's actually situated, it's a substantial distance. Farmakes: The overhead actually is, that's an extension that they've added to the wall. The wall really is where that gray area is there or he's shadowed it. Anything above the pink there. The pink fs the planting in front of it so it's only a part of that. $o you can see in relationship to the property, it's quite small. Can you just point out with your finger, just run it down where the actual wall would be. Barry Warner: The actual wall is right in here. Farmakes: The wall, without the little extensions coming off that little one foot high. Barry Warner: These are the wing elements that are literally I believe I8 inches in height. They're more of a seedin~ wall if you will. Conrad: What's the drop from the road back to that? How many feet do we lose? Barry Warner: In terms of elevation? Conrad: Elevation, yeah. Farmakes: About equal elevation. Right on the ridge and then it drops off. Barry Warner: There's about an 8 foot drop. From this point in back. Farmakes: Once it gets to the planting though on that ridge, they're of equal with the road height. Scott: So it kind of dips and comes back up? So you're going. Barry Warner: There's a swale that comes back in through here. We have to carry water across the face of the sign. That's one of the reasons the swale is in. Farmakes: The elevation that they show here is not the elevation currently that's on the property, particular as it heads towards the wetland. They would have to build that up a bit. Barry Warner: There is going to be some filling in this portion of this basin to accommodate the sign. It's a moderate amount. Conrad: So from Highway 5, I don't want to belabor this. Let's get out of here but from Highway 5, it's the same elevation so basically we're going to look at from here to the ceiling is the height of this sign. Barry Warner: Actually the face of the sign is 6 feet lower than the back of curb. So it is depressed. Even though it's perched up a little bit. Farmakes: And the wall is of varying height. Planning Commission Heeting March 3, J. 993 - Page 30 Conrad: I'm really worried about blocking. Farmakes: Originally the wall was one flat wall. Conrad: Yeah, and I like how this has been... Farmakes: It's stepped down so in reality the width really just forms around the 2 1/2 foot letters. Which again I think are a minimum so that's, there's no more wall there than... Conrad: Yeah, I like the lettering...I think that's fine and yeah, I like the change in the. Farmakes: And again, I found that the metal work, again the materials in · the...effect has a lot to do with budget that remains... But the wings added onto it, I guess the verdict's still out as far as my opinion for that because I'm not, it's difficult to assess based on this particular drawing on an illustrative approach built into the landscaping. It's difficult on the overhead for me to assess that that is a good thing to do versus breaking it up with some smaller plantings. Versus running the 18 inches into the, directly i'nto the ground. I know that in a previous reincarnation of this, there were I think it's in there, there were sort of little plantings that sort of followed in a straight line and I don't think that that would have been right either. It makes it very... contemporize the feeling of that. This is really a continuation of what was done up here on Great Plains. The material that's being used in the oval there for the Dinner Theatre. This is similar to that type of material. Which is sort of indicative of this area. Scott: Chaska's got a monument that sounds like it's quite a bit smaller than that but of similar look. Farmakes: Nell they have a historic church up there that's made out of the same material. Conrad: Okay, any questions for Barry? We don't need to vote on this do we? Ledvina: No, I like it. Conrad: We're just looking at it. Okay, anything else? Scott moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meett~. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adJourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim