Loading...
1992 12 02CH~NH~SSEN PLP~NING COtlMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, 3eff Farmakes, Brian Batzli, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Joan Ahrens and Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff. Planner I; Dave Hempel, St. Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: BEISNER, LTD, PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION O~ GOODYE~ TIRE ~ ABRA FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH. BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5. NORTH OF LAKE DR)~ EAST R~E) ~ST OF THE CH~NHASSEN ~]~ISSION CONTROL STATION: A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1. CH~ HAVEN PLAZA 3R~ ~)DIT[ON INTO 3 LOTS. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN ~UTO SERVICE REt~_ATE. D USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIC~WAY DISTRICT, C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQURRE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING RND A 6,494 SQUARE FOOT ABRA FACILITY. Public Present: Name Addres~ Thomas N. Thompson Michael Koenig Tom Kotsonas 1011 Butte Court 8005 Cheyenne Avenue 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Did that correspondence, was that written after the current? Al-Jaff: Yes. Batzli: So they had seen these? Al-Jaff: No, they haven't seen these. Batzli: Okay. And another question. Your first condition of the site plan review talks about the applicant preparing revised architectural plans. Al-Jarl: Correct. We hadn't seen the plans at the time when we wrote this report. We don't usually do this. Batzli: In view of the plans that we now have, that were hand delivered to us, would this condition change? Are you asking for something in addition to what was hand delivered to us? Al-Jarl: We are still asking for dormers on the Goodyear building. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, ~992 - Page 2 Batzli: Otherwise staff is, finds that the current revised plans that were hand delivered are acceptable? That's staff's position, other than the dormers? Okay. If the applicant would like to make a presentation regarding any of the conditions or revised architectural plans, why don't we do that right now. A1Beissner: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. We have taken the time and effort we think to revise to reflect what came out of our meeting a couple of weeks ago and we did meet and if there was a timing problem or a gap it's because we were under some pressure to try and get it done in time and I hope what we put together reflects what meeting we had with 3elf was helpful in bringing forward. I. have my architect here and I have some colored renderings of what you see there that will better reflect. We even have an elevation taken from or drawn from a view from Highway 5. That we'll show with our berming and you'll virtually not see any cars at all that are parked there. Where as you drive right now by the McDonald's and the Emission Control building, you can see the pavement and you can see cars that are parked there. My architect is here and I'd like to at least show you our color landscape plan, building plan and elevation plan if we could. Batzli: That'd be fine. A1Beissner: We were also under the impression, and mistakenly so obviously that we could put signs on all four. sides of the building. didn't in our original drawing and we can modify that to what city requires. Batzli: In order for the camera to see these, they're going to have to be slid over more toward the podium. A1Beissner: I'll start out briefly explaining what 3ohnas did in here with his detail. First one is Just basically a colored site plan showing the existing lot that's not being developed and the two lots with our coverages. Green area to asphalt and to building area and as before, we have met the requirements of the city of Chanhassen. We've also in this elevation, in this landscape plan, put in the additional trees that were requested last time that we were here. This is an elevation taken from Highway 5 and this is what your view will be with the berming that we have proposed and that's in place. If you look closely you can see a couple of cars drawn in here. With the normal standard size American car, that's probably about how it will look from the freeway. If we get some bigger campers or things, you'll see at least the tops of them but you won't be seeing grills. You won't be seeing headlights. You won't be seeing anything like that with the proposed berming that we have. This was the same berming we had last time but wasn't illustrated as it is here. This is the proposed Goodyear elevation, and we do have in-the drawing 2 weeks ago, we did have gables on the end of the roofs here. We now have introduced the gables on the sides and have broken up a lot of it and I think put some of the detail into the Goodyear store that we didn't even discuss last time. And this is the Abra store. The one that we put a lot of time in and discussed last time and it doesn't look even close to what it was last time. And I'm again trying to interrupt what everybody wants architecturally is difficult sometimes and I don't know Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 3 still if this is all that we had in mind but we think it's gone a long way in accomplishing what we had to do as far as screening our rooftop unit. Creating something different than what you will see in any of the drawings that we've had. This is the elevation from the freeway and as you saw in the berm, the berm would come across here and you'd only probably see the top. This is the elevation that you would see from Lake Drive, if the trees were down. The trees aren't down so it's there. This is the elevation as you look from the Goodyear store and this is the back elevation that faces east. And like any good architect, when he thought we could have signs on all four sides, we put them on. We didn't proposed it the first time and Iwe can take some off. $o the architect is here, $ohnas Blumental, if you want to ask him any questions about it, feel free. 3ohnas Blumental: I guess I can answer questions or explain what we are talking about. These are mansard roofs and they enclose equipment. These docks...spots, they are mansonary recesses to give a little more interest to it. The idea is created to break up the roofline but obviously these are not downtown buildings. There is no pedestrian traffic walking by... As what you can see from Highway 5, and people that are out in the parking lot, so like I mean when I read the report about dormers for a Goodyear, instead of putting several small dormers, we are using one larger dormer and breaking up the roof line. That was the idea. And we are also breaking up this roofline on the end of the buildings so there is not that, pardon me for the expression, a barn look. And we are creating the peaks and we have a...because we have in this case, there is really attic effect on...we need some louvres for roof ventilation anyway so we are oversizing them I mean for the architectural effect. In a way this probably is probably very telling elevation of the entire site because this is what the public will be seeing. They will see the different roof lines and so on. And as A1 was explaining about the cars, berms for me have an elevation shown here on a side. Usually the berms are 4 feet higher than a parking lot. And normal car is 4-4 1/2 feet high so it might be that the car top, 6 inches or so might show. That is... Batzli: Is there something architecturally or some architectural reason why you don't want to put the dormers that the staff'is requesting on the Goodyear building? 3ohnas Blumental: My understanding was, we talked about the dormers in a meeting...the report. And we made one big dormer instead of several smaller ones because the reason why I mean that that will be more noticeable from the highway than I mean several small things. Batzli: So you feel that breaking up the mass of the building has been accomplished by the one large dormer? 3ohnas Blumental: Right, yes. 8atzli: Anyone else have any questions? Ledvina: Was there any attempt to coordinate or propose the coordination of building materials between the two Goodyear and Abra buildings? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 4 Johnas Blumental: Actually they are very similar in a way. I mean they are concrete block and moving some, I mean one is ivory color. One is beige color and so everything is coordinated. They both have stripes. I mean obviously the Goodyear has different color stripe and things like that so we felt very comfortable that they are two individual buildings but they are coordinated obviously. It's not the same design. Ledvina: One of the comments that we had at our last session related to the possibility of having the same type and color of building materials. Maybe the same types of roofing materials and things like that. I don't know, was that discussed with Jeff at all? Farmakes: We were not defining materials at that point. We were talking about architectural issues of bringing light industrial to what we would consider I guess more of a retail type building where we had more detailing. And we were not, there's only so much you can do in one meeting. I think that the next step maybe would be to consider to look closer at the materials that they're talking about. Johnas Blumental: My comment would be that the materials would be, should be complimentary but not necessarily the same and that's what we are trying to do. Farmakes: The blue that you have issued on the Goodyear building. Is that indicative of the blue that you're proposing there? 3ohnas Blumental: Not exactly I mean. This is our print. It's rather regular blue color that Soodye'ar uses but it's not exactly the final selection. I was just trying to illustrate that. it is going to be blue. A1Beissner: We will get color chips from Goodyear on what they proposed and what they use and what is their standard and this is about as close. When 3ohnas asked me, this is about as close as we could come we thought to duplicating it. Farmakes: That's a colored stone? A1 Beissner: Yes...And the other thing that I think, to answer your question, we talked last time if we wanted the buildings all .to be the same or be in a shopping center kind of look and they're small enough here so they can be individual, almost like homes. You don't want the same home repeated but yet you don't want a very inexpensive rambler next to a very expensive two story. $o we did take that into consideration trying to do it but we didn't, it would be virtually impossible to try to get Abra and Goodyear to be identical because each company seeks for · their own identity so we thought we did that. If you would like, I have the prints that I had here 2 weeks ago that we 'didn't like. If you want to rehash that and refresh that? Batzli: No. A1Beissner: No. Okay. Planning Commission Heating December 2, 1992 - Page 5 Farmakes: The color, the proposals that you're doing here for the exterior is far different than the samples that you brought in previously. Do you have samples here? A1Beissner: No, I don't have samples here. This, the Goodyear, in their specifications have what their talking about and they have different shades of what they have. We went' to a lighter shade here to try to coordinate with the lighter shade that Abra has. They will give us their samples and say these are the, this is the color that are in the specs that we can choose from but they're shades of that. Farmakes: The shingling that you're putting on the roof, is that a raised type shingling? The sample tha% you had was sort of a black shingle. A1Beissner: That was from their colored rendering that they supplied us that basically was their standard throughout the country. We don't have samples of the colors of the shingles that we'd like to use yet. Farmakes: But you anticipate that it's going to be close to what you have here in the color renderings? A1Beissner: Yes. We used the black one before. They had a blacker and a grayer and the blue tone. Now we're going into a beige and a lighter and we can do that. Johnas Blumental: The idea 'is that the roof would be a little darker than the building. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had a chance to look at the staff report? Are there any conditions that you don't agree with at this point? A1 8eissner: Well the only one I think we had a misinterpretation about the dormer thing and when 3ohnas came up with this big dormer as opposed to the small ones, I think when we talked-about dormers last time we put the smaller ones in and that's. Farmakes: I think the issue of dormers that's not functional. It may let a little more light on the inside. It may create a little bit more problems for the construction. The issue of dormers again is if you look at the mass of the roof there, there's nothi.n~ much breaking it up. These large expanses of nothing being broke up are typical of more industrial type structures. It is more of an aesthetic thing than functional. A1Beissner: I think when we put that up before we had one solid roof and then we were throwing in, you know small dormers here and there. Here 3ohnas thought it was better to go with bigger ones on each side than say 6 smaller ones. And again, I don't know. The dormers were, are false dormers. They don't provide any light inside the building. They're just there for the aesthetics from the outside. Other than that I don't have. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 6 Farmakes: ! have one question on the Abra structure. You know have believe a garage door on both ends of the building, is that correct? A1 Beissner: We've always had a garage door on both ends of the building. Farmakes: You have? Al Beissner: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. That was my error then. A1Beissner: This is, that's for the'paint line that begins'at one end and comes out the other end at the back of the bui.lding'. If you have a site plan, that's always been there. Farmakes: And then that's the air conditioning vent? A1 Beissner: That was the problem we had. It's right over here. It's right over here. Farmakes: The north elevation then would be the side that's facing the highway? A1 Beissner: Correct. And if you get back to, that will face the highway. We still have the grove of trees that's between us and Lake Drive that someday will probably come down but they aren't coming down when we're developing this. Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to give any member of the public here tonight an opportunity to speak. I would ask that if you can keep your comments fairly brief, that would be appreciated and also please step up to the podium and give us your name and.address prior to speaking for the record. Would anyone from the public like to address the Commission? Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen Estates. I'm not too sure how brief I'm going to be but I've got a statement to make. I spoke to you last time also when we talked 2 weeks ago and I wish to again street some of my concerns and point out that as far as our neighborhood is concerned, that both of these businesses are an extremely negative and will have a negative impact on our. residential neighborhood. And would like, if they are going to go through, to keep several things in consideration. The buildings, as been talked already, should be as pleasing and the roof line should be imaginative. Something noticing as they're driving through Chanhassen, looking at the new bank building. I thought that was an imaginative design. The. Country Suites, the new Market Square mall. Also the roof line again, for such a large building, large site is rather well developed I thought. Another thing · to keep track of is what's going to happen to trash and cars left ' overnight as we talked about before and the layout of the buildings, I don't understand and maybe they could point out where these things are. What are we as a neighborhood going to be facing? Is all the traffic in and out of the garage doors going to be facing our neighborhood or is it going to be facing the highway? That's something that should be Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 7 considered so that what we're looking at. Also the trees and the evergreens that are going to be planted, that they're strategically placed so that they do give us privacy and and our neighborhood privacy so that they're not all on the highway side. Or facing the emission test center which does nothing for us. So that when that third lot does get developed someday, which probably will be in the near future, that whatever goes there, we also are well protected from whatever goes there and whatever is developed. And keeping these things in mind then, please keep in mind that the site should be developed so that not.only the owner but the neighborhood and the city of Chanhassen can be proud of whatever goes in there and whoever enters into Chanhassen coming through the east end can look at that and say, well that is a well developed, well designed, commercial site. Okay, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. Batzli: Thank you. I was actually pleased that you noticed some of the new roof lines. We put a lot of effort into trying to, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mike Koenig: Hi, my name is Mike Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and I guess a couple of my concerns is there seems to be a lot of talk about how we're going to put a berm up to block it from Highway 5 but what about on the other side where taxpayers are going to look out their back windows and see this all the time. This grove of trees that you're talking about, right now I can look out and see all the way through it. That's not going to help us at all. Another question, a sign on all 4 sides of the building. Is this the lighted sign that I'm going to look out my window at night and see lighted signs? That's not real appealing. My taxes, or real estate property values were raised last year and this going in is definitely going to not increase them. It's-going to lower them and at least if it's going to be there, let's put some trees or something. Evergreens or something to block it from us. Thank you. Batzli: Let me ask you a question. From your window you say you can see through the trees. Is that because the leaves are down? Mike Koenig: Right. Batzli: $o you prefer to see something green all year? Mike Koenig: From the time that they're, in the fall when they drop their leaves until they're full in the summer again, you can see all the way through there. Obviously something's going to be going in there before long and they won't be there is another concern too. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Just by way of introduction, to those of you who may' not have attended a Planning Commission before, we're now going to ask each one of the commissioners for their comments on the plan. From time to time Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page 8 people do have questions Fight in the middle and we'll try to entertain those questions if we have time at the end of each commissioner's comments. Joan. Ahrens: The only issues we're discussing are the architectural issue~? 8atzli: Pardon me? Ahrens: The only issue we're discussing is the architectural issues? Batzli: You can bring other issues up. Ahrens: Well I didn't attend the last...but I'm glad to see some progress here in the architectural plans. However, I don't think that they ate creative or attractive...along Highway 5. I think that they, I like the...I think you did a good job on those. Farmakes: They'll be copyrighted next week. Ahrens: I like the dormers along the roof. I think that's nice. I like the brick on the front of the Goodyear building. We need buildings like this. Too many cities have buildings like this towards t~e entrance of their city and...and I think that we need to provide that...our city will be proud of...As far as the trees, I think if these people think that there's not enough trees in there, there should be some more trees... Batzli: Jeff. Farmakes: I share the concerns about the car care development center developing on it's own on that end of town. We've had a long discussion on this. I'm not going to repeat myself, about our ability to control the development there. I think that the applicant, in the meeting that we had, had made a start with this. They have taken some of the elements that we discussed. It's not the intention that the sketches that we worked on were to be done verbatim. It was simply to be used as a tool to communicate what the city is looking for and the quality of architecture. Not necessarily that we have a comtemporary building or that we have a theme building throughout the city. Or that sort of thing. We weren't discussing style as much as issues of detail and quality of materials and things of that nature. Typically with car care type structures you wind up with the very minimum it takes to do the job. That's the type of light industrial use that you often see with these type of buildings. It is not something that I think would be in the interest of good planning to be putting next to both the entrnace to the city and single family residences. Very close by. I too would like to see landscaping, evergreen type to be a year round barrier continued over on that east side of that property on the lot that's yet to be developed. We need to also be thinking about how to incorporate the pylon signage with this new type of architecture that we're looking at. I'd like to see the detailing that they're working on, whatever it winds up being and the building to also work it's way into the pylon itself. The signage is an issue that has yet to be resolved. I think it's a major issue considering the single family residents close by. Actually in materials that are being used on the buildings I think would also go a long way in Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 9 helping the discussion here. Perhaps at the next round here we could discuss those more in detail rather than a colored magic marker. I know obviously when a client is looking at what they're going to buy, they see a sample. It would be helpful I think to assess the quality of the type of the building if we could see some samples. I think the Goodyear is perhaps more cohesive as a design than the Abra. I think the work on the roof needs to further modify. I like the different approach the client, the applicant has taken to the color. Again that they're attempting to be less obtrusive and relying on their signage to identify their position and not the gawdiness' of the structure. I think it needs work, to sum it up but I do believe that we're no longer on step one, where we were at the last meeting. Emmings: I've got a couple of questions. When staff says they'd like to see more dormers on the Goodyear building, what have you got in mind there? All the dormers, do you want a bunch of them or one more? Al-Jaff: We want the roof broken up more. You still have a long roof line on the building. If we can break that up someway and the thought that comes to our mind is, dormers. I don't know if that helps. Emmings: Well you don't have a specific? Al-Jarl: No. We don't have a specific design. Emmings: In your condition number 4 on the site plan review you're talking about an additional 16 evergreens on the south side of Highway 5. Is that in addition to the landscape plan that we've seen? Al-Jarl: Those have been shown on this plan. The plans that were submitted to you on Friday reflect that, yes. $o we no longer need · condition number 4. Emmings: Okay. For my two cents worth on the way 'the buildings are looking. I agree that, I think the landscape plan looks pretty good. Perhaps there should be some more evergreens to the south but otherwise I think it's a pretty nice landscape plan that we've seen. I don't really have any reservations about the Goodyear building. I personally don't like the Abra building. I think the roof line is just too choppy. It just, the building itself is not something that I particularly like but I have mixed feelings about how far we go with what we like and don't like. I don't think it's an inappropriate use here in this location. Those are my comments. Ledvina: I generally share Jeff's sentiments as it relates to the architecture. I guess softening that a little bit. I think the applicant has gone quite a long way in this process and I'm sensitive to that too. He's spent a lot of time and money in developing many different concepts. I would have hoped that we could have zeroed more into what we really want at this point because there has been a lot of effort on both sides and I know that. But still I feel we do need some more work with the building and if it's adding dormers, well that's fine. I generally agree with the landscaping plan. It seems to, from Highway 5 I think that will improve the view of the buildings and I'm not too sure Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page lO about the south side of the site. There are quite a few plantings there but I don't know if there would need to be some more evergreens in there. I don't know how staff would feel about that. I really don't see evergreens. Mostly honeysuckles and things like that. About the lighting issue, is there a possibility that they could have lighted signs on that south side of the building? Al-Jarl: They're entitlted to one but it's a conditional use permit. If you want to have non-illuminated signage to the south, illuminated to the north, I think you have the option to do so. You can make it a condition of approval. Emmings: Can you also limit, if there are lighted signs, can you limit the time that the lighted signs are on? Al-Jaff: It's a conditional use permit, so yeah. Ledvina: That might be more appropriate. Their working hours. And I don't know about that. I think that was it in terms of the site plan. I did have one thing on the conditional use permit. I guess in the staff report we talked a little bit about the pollution and that ought to be associated with this development. And I think that the discussion that we had at the last session related to cars coming in and 'out of the facility. The pollution as it relates to more traffic. I guess I feel that that is really pretty much out of the control of the proposers here in that they can't obviously keep cars from coming in and out. That's what they want. I guess your condition number 7, pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I just, there are literally thousands of pollution levels and I don't think it's applicable. I think they'll do what they have to in terms of their sanitary discharge and I guess I would just propose that we would delete that condition. I don't think it's useful. That's it. Batzli: Thank you Matt. Ladd. Conrad: I think that the applicant has made some strides and I'm comfortable with some of it. Most of the issues that were brought up the last time. I hear the neighborhood concerns and I think if I were them I'd still be concerned as to how this looks and their impact. Overall I think it's a good site plan. And overall I think it's, based on the zoning, it's appropriate. I don't have a problem with the Goodyear. Whether it's the current design or whether it's one with more dormers. · The current design is fine. I really don't like Abra. Batzli: The roof line? Conrad: Yeah. The roof. Abra's welcome here but the roof line is just not, it's not there yet. I'm real uncomfortable with that. I think the north/south elevations are okay. The east/west is 3ust choppy and the mansard enclosures of the mechanicals are not good. So real briefly that's where, I think some good strides have been made and again, as we're playing around with architecture, we're doing a lousy job folks. We don't have standards to apply. Remember, we took Target. They had a 330 foot expanse and we put one dormer. We put one big block in the Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 11 middle of it, okay. $o let's be kind of realistic what we're doing. We've got a building that's a whole lot Smaller here so. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have our standards. It is a gateway. It is the way people come into Chanhassen but we don't have those architectural standards that are real solid that we can apply in every situation here and I get uncomfortable. I don't want 7 of us designing this building. However, I don't like Abra. I just don't like how that looks. It's got %o change and I don't think I'm asking' for a great deal. I think I'm talking about that roof line. There's just something wrong with it. Batzli: So Ladd, before we move on to Tim, what would you propose we do with Abra? I mean do you want to see one more shot at it here? Conrad: I really don't. To tell you the truth, I feel real uncomfortable talking architecture. Real uncomfortable. The Planning Commission shouldn't be doing that. We should have some standards out there that guide. That guide the developers and the architects and then we just make sure they follow the standards. We don't. We do have some power here simply because we do have some conditional use. This is an area that we perceive to be an entrance to Chanhassen so I think we have some power that can make the developer do some things that we like. But you know, again I just don't want, I want staff to do that and I prefer to have it go to City Council because they're going to see 5 new perspectives once it gets there. 8ut it's not going to go up there with, the Abra building's not going up there with my approval. 8atzli: Thank you. Tim. Erhart: Well looking at the landscape plan, I think there's a lot of trees on the north side of this site with all the evergreens. It's Just a matter of years and you're not going to be able to see these buildings from Highway 5 at all. In 10 years so I'm not asking anybody to take them out but I'd say the landscaping site is pretty good in that area. The south side we don't know what's going to go in there ultimately. I'm surprised. I guess I thought at the last meeting I thought we had an understanding with the developer that they were going to make the roof lines like we wanted them and 3elf raised his hand to go tell them what we wanted. And I think, this is what you did Jeff? Is this your work? Farmakes: Yes. Erhart: Yeah. I think 3elf did a great job and then they came back with something different so I'm confused because we spent quite a bit of time listening to the developer tell us that they've gone back and forth at the request of staff and that it was staff leading them around the loop and all this and then we bought that. $o then we gave them a chance to show them what we wanted and they come back with something different. So now I don't understand anymore. But I agree with everything that's been said pretty much here. Abra is just awful. We've got partial flat roofs and partial pitched roofs and it looks like there wasn't any planning into it at all so. The Goodyear building, I'd' say it's marginal. At least it has a pitched roof over the whole thing. Certainly it could be done with a little more pleasing to the eye. I think Ladd you hit it on the nose. We pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 12 it. Probably the best thing to do. I think the site plan's pretty good. The conditions seem to make sense. I hope it makes the motion to pass it on with our comments. Batzli: Does it make sense to you Tim to require that they put evergreens in there which will really be interim screening until the southern piece develops? You've indicated that the northern side looked good and would you require them to put a'couple more evergreens in on .the south side? Erhart: When all these trees, essentially this area here is going to remain in until it's developed? Batzli: Right. Erhart: Yeah. Well in the first place, I don't think so. They've gone beyond the requirements already on this. Extensively beyond the requirements. I guess without studying it anymore, my reaction would be, I think they've done a pretty good job. Al-Jaff: The...landscaping could be required when site 3 develops. Because right now you do have existing trees that will provide some screening. If that would help. 8atzli: You think we should make that a condition? Currently or just when it develops? A1-3aff: When it develops. When site 3 develops. Then we could require that additional landscaping. Because right now they are providing some landscaping around the drainage pond. Batzli: Right. But those are hackberries and things like that. They're kind of low. Al-Jarl: Yes they are. Batzli: Okay. My comments are more of the same. I don't mind the Abra building north and south elevation. In fact, I think there's almost a repetition of the shed dormer almost effect from the background to bringing it in the foreground in the Goodyear building but then I start designing their architecture for them and I didn't want to do that either. The side elevations do, we've added depth to the, last time we talked about how it looked like a set from an old western when you went to the side and it's just a piece there. We've added depth. We've broken up the middle. We've added some interesting elements but I think, from what you've heard from the commission, there's still a problem that looking at it it either looks contrived or choppy or something doesn't jell. I think, obviously I'm not going to tell you how to build buildings but if there's a certain number of people up here and all of them kind of look at it and kind of go, I don~t know. I think you want to be pleasing to your customers and be visible and want to construct a good building. So with those assumptions, I'm hoping that they'll try to take one more shot at it as it goes before City Council because I think they may have somewhat the same reaction. I would have liked to have Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 13 seen a couple of evergreens shifted to the south. But just to.break up that southern side because we don't know when that particular parcel will be developed so ! would prefer not to wait with that. ! would ask that whoever makes the motion at least consider shifting some of the trees'to the back. ! think we've done a real good job on the north and in fact I agree with Tim. I think you've got a lot of evergreens and I think we could move a couple of them to the south side. With that I'll entertain any motion on the site plan review. Or should we do subdivision first? It doesn't matter. Conrad: Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review ~92-3 as shown on the site plan dated September 21, 1992 subject to the following conditions. With the conditions as per the staff report except the following changes. Condition 1, that the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. The second part of condition 1 is to consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council. Changing condition 4. To eliminate condition 4 as it stands in the staff report but to recommend the shifting of an appropriate number of evergreens to the south side of the project to do, per staff recommendation, to help screen from the neighborhood. That's all. Emmings: I'll second the motion. Batzli: Discussion. Emmings: I'd like to have, with regard to the sign. Condition number 3 Ladd. I assume that your motion, because they still have to obtain a sign permit, you're not, your motion doesn't in any way approve the signs as they appear on the plans that we have in front of us? Conrad: No it doesn't. Emmings: Just so that understanding is clear. Batzli: Well actually the plans that Ladd included in his motion don't have all the signs on it. I mean if we'd really would probably like to include these new plans in the motion. Emmings: Okay, I assumed that we were talking about the new plans. Batzli: Have these been received? Date stamped received by the city? No. Ledvina: These are dated November 25th. Emmings: So are the plans that we're approving the ones that we all got at home that are dated September 20. Ledvina: Two of them are September 29th... Batzli: Well, Ladd if you'll reflect your motion to say something folksy like the plans we're looking at tonight, I'm sure that by the time it Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992' - Page 14 gets to City Council. Conrad: Yeah, that kind of sounds like me too doesn't'it Brian? Yeah, the plans I see in front of me. Boy that's just so, I don't even want to do that. Al-Jarl: We received those plans on the 30th. The revised plans. Can we change the date on the site plan to November 30, 19927 Emmings: Instead of September 217 AI-3aff: Please. Conrad: Yeah. I would change my motion to reflect the site plan dated November 30, 1992. Emmings: And then? Conrad: I don't need to change 3 Steve. Emmings: No. I don't think so as long as the record's clear that you're not, and by my second, I'm not approving in any way any of the signs that appear on these plans. They're Going to have to come back and Get those approved. A1-3aff: Do you want to make a recommendation on t~e illumination of the signage facing? Conrad: Do we do that here or do we do that in the conditional use permit? I thought that's where we'd put the condition on. Batzli: Any more discussion? Ahrens: Ladd, on number 4, did you 3ust change the first sentence? Was that what you were changinG? Conrad: Number 4 I took entirely out 3can except to move certain of the trees, and I don't know how many, to the south side. So that condition no longer applies based on the plans that we have. They have done what this motion was to, made them do.- It's already on the plans so that, 4 does not exist except to shift some of what they've put on the current plans to the south side. Ahrens: Including the part about the detailed... Aanenson: That's city ordinance. That's a requirement anyway so they're going to have to do it. Ahrens: Okay. So why was this included in there? Emmings: That would be before they saw these new plans. The new plans reflect some of those things I think. I'm not entirely, even though I seconded the motion and I'm going to vote for it, I have to say that I'm not entirely comfortable taking away trees from the Highway 5 side and Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page moving them back there. I'd rather see them add trees. If we think they've done a good job on Highway 5, why wreck that to give them a little bit on the south si-de. Ahrens: I agree. Emmings: So I would leave the north side alone and I'd rather see the, I would be willing to just leave the south side alone for now until it's developed and make sure we do a good job of landscaping once we know what's going in there. But if the feeling is that there should be some additional trees back there, then those should be in addition to the Highway side. Ahrens: I agree. I mean I can't think of one plan or one development in the city that we've ever over landscaped, it may have looked great on the plan. Emmings: Nell a good example is the. Conrad: Ne took of the median down main street I think· Emmings: Yeah but a good example is the Valvoline, the quick oil change you know. Ne saw those plans. You know, you couldn't see that building unless you got in a helicopter because it was hidden in'a forest of trees. You look at it now and it's up there and you wonder where all that landscaping went you know, and maybe it will be there in lO years but somehow I don't think so. Conrad: Okay. Batzli: Amend your motion Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to withdraw my change to condition number 4. See if you can decide whether you, but my motion or my change would now reflec the following. That the, 4 is worded is entirely deleted but that I'd request that staff review the need for additional screening on the south side with the applicant. Emmings: Yeah.·. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review ~92-3 as shown on the plans received November 30, 1992 and subject to the following conditions= That the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. Request that the applicant cons[der adding more dormers to the Goodyear building and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council. 2. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the Abra site with a gate facing east and a second for Goodyear with a Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 16 gate facing west. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit pr.lot to erecting any signage on the site. Provide a detailed sign for'staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped lot. 4. Staff review the need for additional screening on the south side with the applicant. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of .landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 6. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Building Code. 7. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and approval. 8. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memorandum dated October 8, 1992. 9. The applicant shall post "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals and the curb painted yellow. 10. Concurrent with the building ~ermit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 11. The applicant shall pay $7,550. into the Surface Water Management Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site. 12. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90-17 and Conditional Use Permit ~92-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: Is there a motion on the subdivision? Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision ~90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plan dated September 21, 1992 with the conditions in the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 17 Batzii: Discussion. No discussion. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the PZanning Commission recommend approva! of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #90-17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plans dated September 21, 1992, wlth the following conditions= 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond. c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, Block 1. 3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze-up, special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc. 7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval. 8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted/combined with Lot 3, Block 1. 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line. 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type 1) shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat. 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees associated with the storm water study. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 18 12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92-3 and Conditional Use Permit #92-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: Finally the conditional use permit. ' Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #92-2 subject to the staff conditions with the deletion of item 7 and the creation of a new item number 7 which would read, if illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two buildings, that illumination would be limited to the operational hours of the businesses. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: I second. Emmings: When it says they have to come in for a sign permit. Who does that in the city? Al-Jarl: I do. Emmings: Okay. And is a sign permit a conditional use permit? Is 'it a type of permit where you can impose restrictions on things like illumination? Al-Jarl: Whatever you approve now is going to be my guideline to approve that sign permit. Emminos: Well that and the siQn ordinance. Al-Jarl: Correct. Batzli: We need to add something. Jeff requested that we tie it in somehow with the architecture of the building, at least the pylon. We kind of skipped over that thought in the first two motions. Is that something that's appropriate here? Al-Jarl: Or in the site plan. Farmakes: As a condition? I thought we weren't approving th'e siQnage as shown. Batzli: We aren't but if you don't impose a condition now, they would merely have to comply with the sign ordinance. They wouldn't have to tie it in architecturally. Farmakes: Yeah, I think that's what we do with Market Square. We ask them to do the same thing. I don't see why that's any different. Batzli: We can't I don't think. Move to amend? Would you like to move to amend the motion? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 19 Farmakes: I thought the motion was made already. Batzli: Yeah, but you can move to amend it. We'll vote on your amendment then. Farmakes: I'll move to amend it. Batzli: To include architectural equivalent standards on the pylon? Farmakes: That would be with the signage design. When they do it. Batzli: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Batzli: Okay, any discussion on the amendment? Emmings: I want to be clear on what it is. Because I'm not. What' you want to do is see some kind of architectural comparability between the sign and the buildings. Farmakes: To the monument sign. Emmings: Now how do you define that? A1-3aff: You can make a condition to see the signage before it goes up. Farmakes: Yeah, I thought that's what we were doing. A1-3aff: So you can review the signage separately. I mean you pass this but we'll bring the signage in front of you. Batzli: Okay. Does our motion accomplish that? No. Emmings: We're getting real tangled up here aren't we? Aanenson: You can either spell out the standards or ask to see it again. That's really your two options. Ledvina: Well, why don't I Just, I'll amend my motion to add an 8th condition which would say that the Planning Commission shall review the actual signage for this project. Batzli: Okay, is there a second to that? Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Okay, let's vote on 3elf's original amendment. Farmakes moved, Ledvina seconded an amendment to the motion to include a condition that ~ould require architectural standard equivalents to the slgnage designs. Farmakes, Ledvina and ahrens voted in favor. Conrad, Erhart, Emmings and Batzli voted in opposition. The a~end~ent failed by a vote of 4 to 3. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 20 Batzli: Okay, so that motion fails. We're going to vote on our second amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment? So that we see the sign back in front of us at a later date? Okay, no discussion· Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to amend the motion to include an 8th condition which would state that the Planning Commission shall review the signage proposal for this proposal. &ll voted in favor and the motion for the amendment carried. Batzli: Is there any other discussion on our amended motion, conditional use permit now in front of us? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #92-2 subject-to the folloNtng conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review ~92-3 and Subdivision #90-17. 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the-site. 3. No parking or stakcing is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public rights-of-way. · No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear and Abra sites. . 5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at either site. 6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control agency guidelines at the property line. 7. If illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two buildings, that illumination would be. limited to the operational ' hours of the businesses. 8. The Planning Commission shall review the signage proposal for this project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING (~D~NANCE AMENDMENT TO ~DE) ~ C~TY COPE. SECTI(~ Z8-37, EXEMPTIONS CQNCERNIN~ SUBDIVI$IOb~. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Tim, do you have any comments? We're on the subdivision ordinance· Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 21 Erhart: No, I don't have any comments? Conrad: Me either. Ledvina: No comment. Emmings: No. Farmakes: No comments. Ahrens: There was a typo in here. Aanenson: Yes, it's been corrected. Ahrens: Okay. Aanenson: Paragraph (c)? Ahrens: Yes. Aanenson: Yep, got it. Yes, it's been corrected. Ledvina: Hr. Chairman, I did have a question for staff. In the introduction here, I guess I was wondering, are we reducing the level of review for these types of subdivisions then that come in front of us? Aanenson: No. What we are, we're saving them actually the time and when it's pretty straight forward and there's no dedication required, we're saving them time and expense. If it's straight forward, it's just a matter of doing a legal description. That's really all-we're doing. It's the same level of review internally. Setween engineering and planning. Ledvina: Okay. That's it. Batzli: I have no comments. Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 18, Section 18-37. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance ~mendment to amend the City Code, Section 18-37, Exemptions concerning Subdivisions as presented. Rll voted [n favor and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 22 PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A ~4~OIMENTAT~ON BASIN ADJACENT TO A CLASS B WETLAND AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SEDIMENTATION POND FOR THE OAK PONDS/OAK HILL PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF WEST ?BTH STREET. BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS 80ULEVARD. LOTUS REALTY. Public Present: Bob Bohara Jack Thien Bill Oolan 7510 Canyon Curve 7570 Canyon Curve Meadowwood Engineering Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Can you tell us what the status of the overall project is with City Council? Aanenson: They've submitted everything to date to be on for preliminary approval for the December 14th meeting. Preliminary site plan approval. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to address the commission? If the applicant is here. Bill Dolan: I'm representing the applicant. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Bill Dolan. I'm a consulting engineer and I'm representing the developer this evening. We have, as Kathy said, reviewed all the reports and everything and we agree with the reports and the method of handling the storm water. She also eluded to the fact that they're still working on the costs and of course we want the right to review those costs too. But other than that why we agree with it. 8atzli: Okay, thank you. this Commission? Is there anyone that would like to address Jack Thien: Hi. My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve and I'm just curious being that my property is adjacent to that one particular pond on the east end, in what way that might effect my land or my property, if at all. Aanenson: The pond along Kerber? Jack Thien: Yeah. Aanenson: Maybe Dave can specifically. Hempel: The proposed development will not raise the elevation of the pond. The improvements that they're proposing on the pond is to modify the outlet control structure to, as you may be aware of that when we do get a good rainstorm that the water over tops and essentially washes' out the berm from time to time. City crews have gone in and tried to modify that to rectify that problem. In the past there's been cattails and Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 23 debris getting stuck in the pipe itself thus causing the overflow problem. What's being proposed here this evening with the overall development is modifications to those berm areas with what is called a broad crested weir. It's essentially a notch in the berm that provides emergency overflow should 100 year flood take part. That broad crested weir is designed so it will not wash out like it has in the past. That is done with rip rap rock and from an aesthetic standpoint..what is proposed is to backfill over that rip Tap material with topsoil and re- establish the vegetation so you will have, similar to what is out there today with the exception of the elevations. There will be a, I believe it's a 20 foot wide gradual slope with a V notch so at the low point of the overflow, be approximately 18 inches lower than the rest of the berm. Bob Bohara: Bob Bohara, 7510 Canyon Curve. Where is this sedimentation, new sedimentation pond going to actually go? Aanenson: This is Powers Blvd. The edge, would be the southerly edge. Bob Bohara: Right at the edge of the road there? My only concern was, as on the road side, that's very steep there and going up the other way it's also, it's not as steep but it's still fairly steep there and I don't know where you're going to get any significant volume of water in that area without significant cuts and they're already cutting from the top to add that road on there so I don't see how it all goes together. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Essentially what they're providing here is a sediment trap or sediment basin. It is not designed to handle the 100 year storm event. It is designed to handle the 5 to 10 year type storms which our storm sewers are designed for. It's strictly for a sediment removal prior to discharging into the wetlands and further on down the stream. Bob Bohara: Is there going to be erosion problems from the road side? Or you don't know yet? Hempel: Well we don't believe so. Not with the measures, the slopes I believe will be a 3:1 slope and will be re-vegetated with native grasses and so forth. Bob Bohara: How close to the actual roadway... Hempel: It is outside the road right-of-way. Aanenson: And the bike trail. Hempel: And the bike trail, that's correct. Bob Bohara: That was the next question. How does that, and were you going to have to build up for the bike trail too or something? Hempel: I believe the bike trail will be basically notched into the side of the hill and a retaining wall possibly on the inside slope to retain that. Planning Commission Heating December 2, 1992 - Page 24 Batzli: As you have it illustrated Kate though, the dark line is the right-of-way line. That's not the edge of the tar, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Bob Boha~a: Okay. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wouid like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the ~ublic hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was close~. Batzli: ~oan, do you have any comments? Ahrens: No. Except for on condition number 4. I think it should read a cash contribution in an amount determined by the City. Batzli: Anything else Joan? Jeff. Farmakes: No comments. Batzli: Steve. Emmings: No. Ledvina: I did have a few questions and number one, a general comment that I have and it relates to the report itself. I know that there might be some concern to work this through to City Councii and I don't know maybe catch it up with the other things that are going on with the site but we talk about the drainage plan for this project and throughout the staff report we've cited areas C, D, E and G, etc. And from the information that's given to us we really can't evaluate what those drainage areas are. Aanenson: You should have been given a drainage plan with this. Ledvina: We do have a water plan with this but it doesn't, to my, maybe I didn't catch it but I don't believe that there's a delineation of how the different drainage areas, from what I saw. So I think that would have been helpful. Aanenson: That was a mistake. You obviously got the wrong set of plans. You should have gotten a copy of them. Ledvina: There's a different set of plans that goes with this proposal? Aanenson: Yeah. There's one that shows the A, B, C, yes. Ledvina: Okay. So that was a concern that I have. I think that from my evaluation of what's provided here, it all seems to fit together but I don't have a real solid way of making my own evaluation. So just in the future if we can make those changes. Or I'm sure that's, we have the information that should be provided that's discussed in the staff report. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 25 One of the comments from the engineer's report relates to the erosion of the wetland. Currently there's a meandering channel in the middle of the wetland, as I understand. The engineer's indicated that the flow rate from or the flow to the wetland as a result of this development will increase. I guess I don't understand what the provisions are going to be to mitigate this situation. It seems to indicate some work, some additional work that would have to be done downstream and if that's not part of this project, how do we insure that that happens without further damage to the wetland? Hempel: One of the improvements proposed at these berms is what we call a surge basin at the bottom of the outlet to dissipate the energy of the runoff through the storm pond. The water quality issue is being dealt further downstream with the Eckankar pond. That pond has been designed to take in the consideration the additional runoff generated from this site. We're controlling the runoff underneath Powers Blvd with a control rate structure so that we maintain the pre-developed runoff rate on this site and underneath the culvert to the west of the Eckankar property. Ledvina: Okay, so you mentioned a surge basin at the outlet of the wetland, is that correct? Hempel: At the berm, yes. The downstream side of the berm at the outlet. The end of the outlet pipe, that's correct. Ledvina: Okay, is that part of this proposal? Aanenson: The second retention pond you're saying? Hempel: The second retention pond. Ledvina: Oh, the second retention pond. Aanenson: Not the wetland. Ledvina: How does that deal with the issue as it relates to the erosion and the wetland which is downstream from the second retention? Hempel: That erosion we believe has transpired over the last few years with the overtopping of. these two storm retention ponds. By correcting the outlet of these two retention ponds and providing surge basins, we hope to mitigate the erosion downstream. Ledvina: $o by equalizing the flow, we won'{ have a situation where there will be a concentrated large volume of flow? Hempel: That's correct. We're hoping to regulate it and keep the velocities down. Ledvina: And you believe that will be the case even though the volume, the runoff volumes are? Hempel: Based on the hydraulic models our storm water consultant has provided, he's comfortable with the proposal. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 26 Batzli: Ladd? Conrad: Nothing. Batzli: Tim? Erhart: I don't have anything. Batzli: My only comment is somewhat technical and that is, the motion that we adopt, we should probably recommend approval of the wetland alteration permit rather than approve it and we should probably do it in accordance with the plans stamped October 22nd? Or is there a different set? Or should we do it in accordance with the staff report? Aanenson: I'd do it with the staff report because it's, his map's in here and that's really what it, yeah. Batzli: Okay. Is there a motion? Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-11 with the conditions listed in the staff report and as described in the staff report. Emmings: Second. Batzli: I'll call for discussion and then I'll ask if you would be willing to modify condition 4 in accordance with 3oan's request to read a cash contribution as determined by the City to the Surface Water Management Program Fund. Er hart: Sure. Batzli: Second, do you accept that? Emmings: Yeah. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-11 with the following conditions: The limits of the sedimentation trap shall be limited to the 944.0 contour adjacent to the Class B wetland. 2. The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as proposed including the weir and outlet structures. 3. Type III erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of the wetland. 4. A cash contribution in an amount determined by the City to the Surface Water' Management Program Fund. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 27 PUBLIC HEARING: P~ANNED UNiT DEVELOPMENT AHDN.DM~N_..T TO AMEND THE PUD FOR CH~ASSEN BUSINESS CENTER. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW A CH[JRCH RS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS PLANNED UNiT D~VE~OPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL, AND PACIFIC ~AILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, CHANHASSEN 8USIH~SS CENTER, RY~ DEVELOPMENT. Public Present= Name Address William & Marilyn Stewart John & Judy McDaniel David Bradshaw 3ohn, Eileen & Rosa Hiltner Heidi Zimmerman Kristy Heglie Troy & Tana Theiser Chad Walker Matt Gustafson Richard & Cynthia Miller Mark 8eiger Sandra Stoltz Sue Hour Stephen G. Kern Richard & Effie Taylor Mark & Heather Brown Darryl & Alicia Laube Lynette Danz Tess Husemann Yvonne K. Kerm Wade Peterson Martin Andreasen Gary & Susan Harju Randall & Joan Johnsen Ron, Amy and Carol Curie Jule Eggen Charles W. Mattson 17005 Honeysuckle Lane, Eden Prairie 6502 Grand View Drive, Eden Prairie 6975 Pima Lane 2975 Autumn Woods 8675 Marigold Circle' 1001 Pontiac Court 12790 Primrose Lane, ~106, Eden Prairie 425 Chan View #120 15906 Cedar Ridge Road, Eden Prairie 425 Chan View 1029 Smetana Road, Hopkins 15200-18th Avenue No, Plymouth 8351 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie 6540 Devonshire Drive 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Prairie 7641 Bittersweet Drive, Eden Prairie 8471 Pelican Court 6540 Devonshire Drive 8471 Pelican Court 6540 Devonshire Drive 361 Trappers Pass 19330 Vine Ridge Road 5985 Mill Street, Shorewood 8580 Magnolia Trail, Eden Prairie 110912 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska 5701 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka 287 Wheeler St No., St. Paul 55113 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Batzli: ...are we really approving a change to the PUD to allow for a church in general on Lot 17 Aanenson: Yes. Batzli: Because they have not actually provided us with any documentation. Aanenson: Correct. But that's what we did like with the National Weather Service. The same thing. We're assuming that they're going to go on. They haven't. Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page 28 Batzli: But in our discussions we're discussing whether a church in general should be permitted on Lot l? Aanenson: Right. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Well first I should ask, is there a representative of the applicant that would like to address the Commission, prior to opening it up for general public comment? Richard Taylor: Richard Taylor, 7365 Howard Lane in Eden Prairie. Member of the congregation. I don't know just what to say until I find out what the reaction is of others here. We have been looking for a place. A building site and many times we come up against various problems. All I would say is we would be very willing.to do whatever is necessary to make this, any adjustments that need to be made. We're willing to cooperate with the City Council. With neighbors. Just to give you an idea, our meeting times, if we had.a Kingdom Hall built there, our meeting times are Tuesday evening at 7:30, Thursday evening at 7:30 and Sunday morning so it is not a problem for traffic. We have our own parking. It's a controlled crowd. It's not loud. And that's about all I can say. If there's any other questions, then we'd want to be able to talk about that. Batzli: Is there a standardized building that Jehovah Witnesses normally would erect? Would it be a problem in a PUD where we might.have additional sorts of conditions placed upon certain building types? Richard Taylor: Our buildings are all very attractive. We showed the city some of the, and we have some plans. I have some pictures of the different ones with me if you wanted to see them. Batzli: We have a couple pictures representative, yeah. Aanenson: If I could just qualify that Brian. We did sit down with them and go through the whole standards of the zone, including signage, lighting to let them know that they'll have to meet those standards and it appears that they can do all that. Batzli: I have one other question and that is, is there any possibility in many churches and things nowadays we're seeing preschools and things like that. Is there any intention on your part to do any of that? Richard Taylor: We have none. Batzli: Okay. Does anyone have any questions before I open it up to the public? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If you'd like to address the Commission, please step forward and provide us with your name and address. Charles Mattson: I am Charles Mattson. My address is 2870 Wheeler Street North in Roseville, Minnesota. My interest in this hearing is' relative to the fact that I own 90 acres of land to the west of this Audubon 92 property. And also I hold a contract for deed on this Audubon 92 contract. I appear here in opposition to this request for the special use for a church. First of all I believe it's incompatible with your city's Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page 29 comprehensive plan. As has already been mentioned, this would remove some property from the tax roll. I am not opposed to church use per se. However I do raise two objectives to this hearing as to it's notice. First of all, the notice did say that the property lies east of Audubon Road. Really it lies to the west of Audubon Road, so I wasn't even sure at first if it was the property I was thinking about. And secondly, it does indicate that this is to be for a church special use. There was no identification in the notice as to the church and I think the public at large would like to have your notices to be a bit more definitive as to who the applicant is. I have no objective in terms of any particular church. It's important that any group have a place to worship as they feel they should. However, we're dealing here with a group that has some very special doctrinal positions. Down through the years I've always been very patient and spoken with people as they have called at my home, so I'm somewhat aware of their positions. For example, I could envision the case where there might be some public cememony held out there at the Chanhassen Business Center and in terms of potential litigation, I'm sort of wondering, will there be some raucous raised as to whether or not the United States Flag should be saluted or not. Our not saluted but should the Pledge of Allegiance be said. So at any rate, my position here is not one of economics. In fact in my personal case it would probably be better to see that this go forward. I could get paid some money potentially because at the present time this underlying contract for deed does not have any release provisions in it and therefore the entire balance will have to be paid off on the contract that I hold on this property before there will be a release made. Or a sale finished in this case. So I appear here primarily based upon my sense of conscience and civic duty and it's not one of these things that I particularly enjoy doing but I wanted to make my position know. That I do appear in opposition to this. Batzli: Kate, do you have an overhead which shows the parcel more generally? Aanenson: With the whole park? Batzli: Yeah. In relation to the map that's up here. Could you point to the property that you said you own currently? Charles Mattson: My property lies to the west and southwest... ' Batzli: South and west of the whole parcel then? Charles Mattson: Right. And I do, as I pointed out, also...92 acres that you see there are under my contract for deed. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Stephen Kern: Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission. My name is Stephen Kern, 6540 Devonshire Drive, Chanhassen. Member of the congregation. We've been looking at land here in Chanhassen since October of '91. We've considered some 23 sites that had some possibilities for us as far as acreage. And of the 23 sites, we.approached the Planning staff on 7 or 8 of them. During that discussion with Paul Krauss 9 months ago Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 30 and then later on 3o Ann was involved, problems came up such as being in a residential area itself. For the most part there's not much precedent for a church being in a residential area in Chanhassen. Most of them are downtown or like the Lutheran Church is in an industrial area near Rosemount Manufacturing. Or issues came up like we're not on a collector street with particular sites we were discussing or there was covenants in that residential area holding us back. Didn't really like to see us in a residential area period. But by our presence often they saw that we were serious and we're going to be pursuing this until we find a place because we'd like to be in Chanhassen. Ne. have many, many families here in Chanhassen that have been here for a long time and Ne attend temporarily a hall that's in Minnetonka. Ne borrow their use there. Also, there was one site that was recommended to us by Mr. Krauss and then later on that was concern about some protected trees in the area or it might be a potential wetland area. We're not sure but at first we were encouraged to be there and then later on we were encouraged not to be there. That was on the southwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. So then that one was excluded. We were just about to the point to offer a bid to Mr. Kerber on that property. So we moved on and were working real close for several months with Mr. Morehouse who's representing a lot of the commercial development areas and told us how, here's a site that you could fit in with. It's a preliminary plat condition has been finalized and so on. And being that although our buildings, we presented a building as you saw in the picture. It's called Plan 3-B that does meet a lot of the requirements as far as the brick structure, roof line, different things seem to be pretty compatible. It looks much like an office. Like a dental office or other such type offices, and yet we have many other plans. And also I've always, not only had these specific plans but we have built halls that are per se constructed and designed right from scratch too to meet city needs. And so we don't have any raucouses out in front of our Kingdom Halls. All the activity is contained inside and 99~ is the main meeting of Thursday night and Sunday morning. Maybe 50 cars might pull in on Sunday morning and about 35 on Thursday night between 7:00 and 7:30 do they enter so we'd certainly be helping the traffic problem. Whereas if you had an office there during the day and we understand there's going to be thousands of cars per day in the coming years on Audubon, so we'd be solving that problem. And we have very compatible group for the city and a nice building for that development and we think it would look good and also start tha{ development on it's way for future sales. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Let me make sure no one else and then you can have a turn at the end okay? Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Richard Taylor: I've already given you my name. I was just going to say that we have about 40-50 congregations in this area. They all, most of them have their own Kingdom Halls here. Seneraliy, or all the time they get along very fine with their neighbors. I know we were going to, the Golden Valley congregation was going to change and leave their location there and go to another location. Build a new building and the neighbors objected to us leaving so after you're there, they'd been there for 30 years, they got to know our people. There's no, as mentioned, a raucous, whatever be going on there. There's always people that disagree with our teachings but I didn't think that that-is a gualificatton for building a Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 31 building and the matter that the gentleman brought up about Pledging Allegiance. I believe the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on that matter but all we could say is we're, we need a place to meet and we need a building site and we always get some objection from some people over that but we're willing to, like I say, we're good neighbors once we get established. And we feel that's the criterian that we have a right to have a building just like anyone else has a right. Okay. Batzli: Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded to close the public heating. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hear1ng Nas closed. Batzli: Joan, comments? Ahrens: Well, I have no comments at all on the 3ehovah Witnesses located there. I think our discussion should center around whether or not a church whether it's a proper site for a church. And I don't know frankly. If it is a proper site for a church. I guess I don't have any objections unless the City can prove that it's a detriment to the...taxwise which I don't think they have...so I'm going to go along I guess unless I hear some strong arguments that convinces me otherwise. I'm going to go along with the staff report. Batzli: Okay. Steve. Emmings: As far as making the driveway directly across from Stockdale's driveway, what's the purpose of that requirement? Hempel: Like to consolidate access points. Keep them more of an' intersection than have random offset turning .movements on Audubon Road. Aanenson: And to add to that, that property may be developed further in the future. That may be a residential subdivision so we want to have the trafflc comlng out there. Emmings: That was my thought but if it-is developed in the future, would we then require that he leave his driveway there because it's across the street from the driveway for the church? It may not be where it ought to be for a subdivision. Hempel: It's also possible that that site may be accessed off of Lake Drive West in the future when that is extended east of Audubon Road too. Emmings: Okay, well. It's not a big point. Hempel: It's a guess. Emmings: Yeah. I think that this is p~obably as good a use as you could find for that lot as you could imagine. I like the fact that their peak traffic hours are going to be different than the rest of the trafffi¢ that's using that area, or most of the rest of the traffic is using it once it's developed as a commercial area. I always wondered what was going to Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 32 go on that lot and I think this is, I think it fits in very nicely so I'd certainly be in favor of. this and I'd support the staff report. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well I wasn't here when this originally went through the first time on the preliminary plat and Kate, if you could respond for the comprehensive plan compatabtlity. How do you see that? Is that really true? Aanenson: Well we've got an opinion from the Attorney on that church's use is basically, they're permitted in pretty much any zone. Because this is a PUD, it's kind of an anomoly but we said the first thing is, well our first choice is to leave it industrial park but then we looked at it. It's a corner piece and it's going to be buffered and then we felt, really for the residents on the other side of the street, and the massing of the building and what would it hurt this 2 acres. It may be a good buffer use. Ledvina: I would also agree with staff conditions. No other comments. Conrad: I agree with the staff report. Batzli: I was backtracking. Steve, do you want to? Emmings: I 3ust wondered if there was something, is it okay to amend a PUD that hasn't been finally? Aanenson: Yes. That's why we're doing it. Calling it an amendment to this PUD. We have a precedent set. I mean .we're following procedure on the PUD ordinance that allows for an amendment that hasn't been final, yes. Emmings: Oh okay. Aanenson: But we did leave off the number which is important. The PUD number 91-4. Batzli: Okay. Ladd, you didn't have any comments? Tim. Erhart: When we lay these things out, both in the Comp Plan and in the PUD amendment, or the PUD plan here, do we take into consideration the tax issue and where we site churches? Or is that too detailed for that level of planning? Aanenson: The only concern we did have originally was the assessment for the new Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and water, but as Dave has pointed out, that they'd be required to pay those assessments anyway. Erhart: They'll pay for that, yeah. So there's no concern or no master plan where we put churches with regard to the lack of tax input? Aanenson: I don't make th'at. Erhart: Because we did the Comp Plan. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 33 Batzli: How big is the entire PUD? Aanenson: 90 acres. Erhart: The question would be, if you started opening up, I personally have no, I think it's a great place for a church so I'm just pointing out, if you just start taking, all of a sudden I mean we've got one very large parcel in town here that doesn't pay taxes now. You start getting a collection of parcels that doesn't pay taxes, sooner or later you erode the basis on which we planned out development to the community in terms of where do the taxes come to pay for the staff and community and so forth. ' I was just wondering if anybody's looking at that... Aanenson: We had the same concern but I'm not sure there's a good answer for that. Erhart: So with regard to that, perhaps if there's any recommendation at all, it's to look at what in the future, if we look at another thing like this, maybe some more background on. Batzli: Well, we looked at this before. We looked at this about 3 or 4 years ago when we talked about having some sort of condition, you know they're not closer than a couple miles apart or something because we talked about it in connection with Tanadoona and then when Eckankar came in and we were taking big chunks of land out of the city. And we talked about that at a meeting. And I don't remember where that went but as I recall, we gave it up. Conrad: I don't think little issues like this, we don't need to be concerned. I think the Eckankar parcel was a major concern but 2 acres here and there, we can't control that. We can't plan t~t. This is beyond what we need to really forecast. The major 50 acre thing taken off the tax roll, I totally agree Tim. Erhart: Okay. With that then the only thing I'd change is then is when we make a recommendation. We're recommending the PUD amendment for a church at this location. Not necessarily a 3ehovah Witness. That was your point. Okay. The only comments I've got. Batzli: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. Aanenson: Can I just set one comment that you had Brian. I think you made a good comment that I hadn't thought of and that was the preschool use. I'm not sure if that's a concern to you or not but I guess I was looking at approving the church use itself and I'm not sure if you want to look at expansion or ancillary type uses they would have. If you want to put any conditions on that. Batzli: Well that was the interesting thing because we were approving this as a church and not necessarily the particular applicant's church. And I asked them specifically whether they were planning on doing that but assume for a moment that they determine that this parcel was unsuitable and another church came in and developed it. And ran preschools and did Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 34 things, then it might not be such an ideal location given, you know, don't know. Aanenson: It's something to think about. I hadn't thought about it. Ahrens: I don't think, I think if you allow a church, we have to allow whatever they do in that church. Zf it's preschool. Batzli: But then we should evaluate the location in light of other activities. Ahrens: When that proposal comes through. Batzli: Right. I think so. Aanenson: They would still have to go through site plan review. Richard Taylor: I just want to make a comment, in case you didn't know that we do have a contract with the 92 Audubon Partnership. Solid contract. Large amount of money down and we have a solid preliminary approval with the Chaska Bank for the remainder of our loan. Very large downpayment so it should close on January 10th. We should be in there. Batzli: Okay. I don't have any other comments. Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PUD amendment allowing .for a church on Lot 1, of the Chanhassen Business Park as shown on the proposed p'l&n amendment to the Chanhassen Business Center PUD dated November 4, 1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina: Do you want to add the PUD number 91-47 Is that something we want? Aanenson: Yeah, got it. (Jeff Farmakes had left the meeting and did not vote on the remaining items of discussion. ) Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that th~ Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PUD amendment allowing a church on Lot I of the Chanhassen Business Park as sho~n on the proposed plan amendment to the Chanhassen Business Center PUD #91-4 dated November 4, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway to Lot i shall be perpendicular to Audubon Road and shall be located to tie directly into the Stockdale's driveway to the east. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 35 2. Lot 3 shall not have direct access onto Audubon but rather from the extension of Lake Drive West. 3. Submittal of an acceptable site plan in compliance with the development standards/guidelines established for this PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: When does this 90 to the City Council? Aanenson: Well we've directed the applicant, the owners of the property that we'd like to see this final platted and we're trying to push this with the final plat because we've gone in there and condemned to get sewer through there to benefit their property and we'd like to see them final plat this. So we're hoping that we can put this all together and do it in January. Emmings: Is the weather station still, they're still planning to build a weather station? Aanenson: Yeah, they're supposed to be operational by June of '94 so we expect to see them shortly after the first of the year too. Batzli: Okay, thank you for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR ~°PROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, A~R[CUgTURAL ESTATE TO PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SE QUDRRNT OF HIGHWAYS 5 ~ 41 AND NW QUADRANT OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41. GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK. OPUS CORPORATION, Public Present: Name Addre~W Michele Foster John Uban Peter Olin Paul Paulson Bruce Perkins Harry Adams David Dungey Opus Corporation Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban MN Landscape Arboretum 3160 West 82nd Street 125 West 82nd Street 115 West 82nd Street 105 West 82nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. John Uban: I'll just give my name. It's John Uban, consulting Planner working with Opus Corporation. What I'd like to do is show you some of the things we showed the Highway 5 Task Force so I can kind of reiterate and discuss a little bit about some of their concerns and comments. And then show you...illustrate to you a little better what our intentions are. Since the last time we met, we made some changes to the plan and I think staff has shown... Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 36 Batzli: Excuse me, before you continue, would it be better for him to use the microphone for the recording? Yeah, could you do that. John Uban: I'll show you some of the changes that we have made. Previously we had industrial all on the west side of Highway 41 and the concern was, how does this work with the Arboretum and neighbors to the south and Chaska. And we of course had to address what, we don't know what's going to happen with the site that was going to be for Nordic Track and it's for sale now for Sl.00 to try and encourage some development there. But in the past, we don't know if it's going to be a truck industrial site or a corporate site. There's those possibilities. But we, this had been the area at the intersection of 82nd and 41 for some commercial to serve the business area and the traffic and so forth in this area. And so we, at this time looking.at a small business, service or daycare and gas station,'convenience. Basically for employees of the area as well as people on Highway 41. But we looked also, and this area is not adjacent to the Arboretum per se but this portion along TH 41 is and we instead said, let's try and use the attractiveness of the area and sited then multiple family on this Site. And we need, in order to do that of course, have direct access to TH 41 but that corresponds directly where we would have access to the larger site. So this works out just right and we've worked this out with MnDot and this is appropriate spacing and so forth and works out for them. It also offers us flexibility and opportunity to work with the Arboretum to secure for them an access point that they can use in the future also. And so this can, through an easement that we're willing to work out with the Arboretum, to give access to the Arboretum. They're interested in another access point from TH 41. When Highway 212 is completed, they anticipate more of their visitors may be coming up from the south as they come out on the faster highway rather than coming in on TH 5. So this may prove to be a good entrance for them at some point in the future. So we would continue to coordinate that.with the Arboretum. That allows a lot of this site to remain an open space. Then the parcel that is also adjacent to the Arboretum but along 82nd Street, before we had industrial development in here but now we're showing it, not just industrial but some office. Also in a single structure in trying to illustrate some of the controls we can put on that particular site. One, we would buffer around the edge. Set it back farther. We're also anticipating for this residential use to the north that a residential driveway can be put in place right next to the wooded area of the Arboretum. That way it would take their entrance off of 82nd Street that is in this area. If they want to be industrial to the north, then we would provide the easement that they already have and that could be their industrial access. So we have an option of doing both here at this point. But-additionally, the building itself would shelter the noise and activity of the area to the east for the area that lies to the west because we would have loading and the parking on the east side of the building. Totally screened and entrance then as far down 82nd Street as possible. And that would then consolidate a more quiet use. Obviously busy during the day as any business would be but in the evenings and on weekends, that business would be more quiet. And that is what we're trying to do. Have the control here so it's a good neighbor for both the Arboretum and the residents. Basically the same as what Chaska's been doing to the south. The rest of this has stayed primarily the same except for the water tower Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 37 site. The reason we looked at this is we kept placing it in different places and everyone had an objection, one way or the other. In placing it up in here, the Arboretum was concerned that they might see it. And so when bringing it down here, you may recall this site, it's one of the few treed areas along the highway. And in the regrading of this area, this tree knob could be left as a feature because there's some nice evergreens and other things on that site. The water tower might work very well if the final design works out so we think this is a good alternative to look at. And it may, if the program works out with the existing owner, it could be a way for them to stay there and still have the site used for the water tower. Furthermore, our road system is as we had shown before, follows basically what's in the comprehensive plan. It curves through the site, opening up a lower tier of lots and then this is stepped because the site is rolling. We haven't done a grading plan but each one of these are tiers as it matches the surrounding road system. We have shown additional parkland from the last time. We're up to about 33 acres. 19 of those acres are developable acres. Not wetland but we have included the wetlands also. Our approach has been that we've taken what we thought was most attractive part of the site and turned it into park. The Park Commission has reviewed this several times now and this was what we added for the court activities in this area. We took off a lot and moved everything over. This is, we had worked this out with the city staff, at a city staff meeting. This might be a good compromise. Since then Park staff had asked for some more. About another acre amd a half. But at the actual park meeting, they asked for more yet. $o there's really a point here where the city has to decide, here is something, a significant amount of this can be had through just the dedication process. 8ut how much more should the city really want to acquire because at some point the city has to buy the additional land. When in fact there's an opportunity through dedication to fulfill all the park needs for the adjacent parcel. And maybe patience is the best thing. The most cost effective way to fulfill all your park needs in a cooperative fashion. And that's what we've tried to express here. 8ut obviously if the city wants to buy a lot and do all the park at once, we'll be subject to that desire. What we've'also tried to illustrate here is some of the design features that we think will eventually be incorporated in the final design certainly with perimeter landscaping. We're talking about having a 50 foot landscaped perimeter edge around the development that will then be consistent and bring the whole development tied together as a uniform property and a uniform pattern of development. This then is part of a corridor planting but also city staff had also talked about having a feature of some sort at this intersection. Now we haven't designed this but we have offered a suggestion to start the ideas flowing. And we presented this to the Highway 5 corridor. And what we're just suggesting is that landscape earthen feature that encircles the intersection will create like a room, a turning room as if it's turning around for locomotives. It's a European round where the cars zipped around until they found their exit. This could be a symbolic then entrance to two communities. The Arboretum, Chaska and Chanhassen. So in a cooperative way something very interesting could happen here. And so we're just suggesting an early idea of that. We found also that it was hard for the task force to really visualize what we were really- saying here because this is roof tops and parking lots and roads and it's hard to bring that home. What does this really mean when you see Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 38 development. We showed them two existing developments. This is in Plymouth, the industrial area of Plymouth. This is 494, 694 rather. And here is Highway 55. This is looking south. City Hall's over here but this shows that this is an industrial area. Sort of in a grid pattern but they see the pattern of roof tops and parking lots and this is how this particular one developed. But this is the one Opus did which is called Opus in Minnetonka. Here, more curvaiinear road system. A saving of open space and trees in sensitive areas like we are doing with the park and the wetlands and so forth. Here, they have different entrances off the Highway 169. And once again it's roof tops and parking lots but it got them to see the pattern on the plan was similar to a pattern that they see in an aerial photograph. And when they saw visual keys or photographs that were taken all around the community in other places, they liked the way the roads looked at Opus and they liked the way entry monuments looked. So those were some of the positive images they chose. And then we showed the typical kinds of buildings that have been built by Opus in the past. Certainly Rosemount, and here are a variety and these are once again about 15~ to 20~ office and the rest industrial manufacturing. The architecture is tied together. There are different types for different kinds of industrial needs. A variety of architecture but all of this is tied together with standards. Architectural standards. Landscape standards. A variety of site criteria. So this is the kind of view and kinds of buildings that will eventually be built on the property. So we wanted them to start visualizing and getting some idea of what that could be. Ne showed them the four alternatives and as staff has said, they saw the institutional kind of mixed use hotel, office, so forth. Headquarters, industrial, corporate and a retail. And of these three, the retail they didn't like. It was mostly, parking was up front versus the building. But retail they didn't like this particular one but they still said, where should retail be? How should it work and so forth? So these were the other ones that they looked at and they said yes. These are the sorts of things that look reasonable. We don't know how the Task Force'is going to develop their criteria for aesthetics and so forth over the next 6 to 10 months. We're here tonight trying to get a general concept approved and we're still saying on this site, we really don't know what's going to happen but we do want to hold it and make sure the best thing happens. And so we have that commitment and drive to what we're trying to do. That's why that site is saved as a focal point to the whole development. And we're committed to putting in the best architecture and so forth into that site. So when we come back to this concept plan, we're really looking at the general use pattern, road system, how we're preserving open space through dedication as. an public park for those portions that are wooded and so forth. And our general use and we're trying to soften this edge against the Arboretum. So these are the basic things we're attempting to do and we've worked with staff and Michele Foster from Opus has reviewed the staff recommendations. We have a few comments and she would like to make those comments to you at this point. Hichele Foster: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Michele Foster and I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation and one of my primary responsibilities is the development of Gateway West Business Park in Chanhassen. I guess I will not repeat the beginning parts of this letter which 3ohn basically summarized ~or you Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 39 which are the changes that we've made since the last Planning Commission meeting. And I'd like to direct you to the basically four issues that we'd like to briefly discuss where we would like to see some amendments to the staff recommendation that you have before you. The first has to do with the role of the Highway 5 Task Force. And you can see that what we are asking is that conditions number 1 and number 10 be deleted and replaced with a condition that states, the applicant shall continue to consult with the Highway 5 Task Force with respect to site design criteria, bicycle trails, and pedestrian crossinss and landscapins themes and gateway treatments. Our concern here is that as we understand the staff report, basically the direction seems to be to defer the decision on what kind of land uses should occur on the property west of Highway 41. We feel that we have really made every effort that we can to be responsive to the concerns of the neighbors and the Arboretum. The wetlands that are there. 'The visual concerns about the Highway 41 corridor and it's important to use to be able to proceed with some assumptions about land use on the Highway 41 property so that the project can proceed and we can continue to do the kind of analysis that We need to do. As John mentioned, we think the neighborhood commercial is very limited in scope and is very necessary for a project of'this scale. We think that it can be accomplished within the kinds of quality and design standards that the city and the Highway 5 Task Force will be developing. So that is our basic concern. We really feel that we need to reach some decision on those land uses. We feel that that is certainly within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to consider and we'd like to be able to move forward with those land uses in place as we show them on the concept plan. The second issue-has to do with the environmental impact statement process. This is not a major issue but in order to facilitate the development of the environmental impact statement, we would very much like to be able to use our consultant for the traffic study. We understand that our consultant will need to confer with the city closely about the scoping of the work and the nature of the work that's included there but it would very much facilitate what is a very complicated process if we could use our traffic engineer as part of the total environmental impact statement process. Therefore we would like to see that condition revised as stated in our letter. The third issue relates to park dedication and I won't spend a lot more time on that since John basically described our position there. As John indicated and to clarify what the staff said, the Parks Commission position at the meeting last week is that they want all of the park, all of the community parkland to be taken out of the Gateway West Business' Park. $o that means ali of the passive components and all of the active components should be shown on our property. That means that we think, and we haven't done a layout, but we think that probably means another 8 acres of property of Gateway West Business Park needs to be shown for active park components. We would like to resist that. As my letter states, you know we're trying to meet a number of multiple objectives. We understand'there needs to be a park but the park needs to be located in such a way that it allows the land to be utilized for it's highest and best purposes that creates or locates the park'in an area that will serve not only the industrial park but the residential property that's going to develop to the east. And also creates an economical solution for the city at a time when we know that park resources are very limited. And we came up with the concept of a more comprehensive approach to the park issue by looking at both our Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 40 property and the property to the east. We're trying to create a fair and balanced solution to creating a park, which we understand that the city needs to create here but we don't think that requiring another, it's probably 9 1/2 acres from what we are showing on our plan, is necessary. We think that there's a better solution that works better for us and works better for the city and would like to see that given further consideration. My interpretation, and I don't want to put words in the mouth of the Parks Commission, but my impression was that the Parks commission was interested in our proposal but they were mostly concerned that the city didn't have the kind of controls that it needed to assure that that plan could be implemented. And that's why I recommended that condition 7 be revised to state, the kind of condition that it does which is that the dedication of the parkland be approved as we have requested but that it be subject to the development of appropriate safeguards to assure the city that this plan can be implemented. We think the city has the kind of controls that it needs to designate that property for a community level park. It has the same kinds of dedication requirements that it has of us. But we understand that the Parks Commission wasn't feeling comfortable that they did have those kind of controls. We would like the opportunity to work closely with staff to go forward with the kind of solution that we are recommending but that it be conditioned on the assumption that we can come up with safeguards that the Parks Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council feel comfortable with. We'd like the opportunity to do that. If we can't, then we can't. But we'd like that opportunity to pursue this kind of solution. As you can see, the current plan that we have presented shows 19~ of the developable property in park. Most communities will say that 10~ is the standard. We're already showing 13~. If we needed to provide another $ acres, obviously that percentage continues to keep increasing. We'd like a more balanced approach to that if it's possible and we'd like your consideration for that. 3chh also mentioned the fourth issue which is the shopping center option as one of the four options for Lot 1. The staff has recommended that that option be deleted. Because we don't know what can, what is going to occur on that property, we would like to have all of the options available at some point in the future to consider that and so we ask that that land use option not be deleted from consideration. So those are the four areas where we have some disagreements and-where we'd like to ask that there be some consideration to these kinds of changes. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Aanenson: Brian, can I take an opportunity to respond to those? Batzli: Sure. Aanenson: I can just quickly articulate them. Paul and I did take a few minutes to go over this this afternoon. The role of the Highway 5 Task Force. As you recall, there was some talk of a moratorium you know because the concern about getting some of the goals and objectives of the Highway 5 Task Force out in front. We felt that that wasn't necessary. As I stated earlier, they will be meeting in January trying to resolve. We're taking this issue first. What should be the commercial in this area? Whether it be, there's different scales. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 4l Neighborhood, community, regional commercial, and at this time, the PUD allows for 25~ ancillary support commercial. Me're not sure that this is the appropriate.location for that. Maybe it needs to be interior. I guess what we're saying is, we certainly don't want to drag them through every Highway 5 Task Force meeting but we feel at this time it's a little bit premature to say this is the uses we're looking at and how they should be laid out. Ne feel strongly that we need a little bit more time before we can decide that those are the appropriate uses. What we're talking about is basically on 82nd, the majority of that property. The Nrase's in the south, where they're showing the commercial on that, what's adjacent to the Arboretum which would be on the west side of TH 41. Secondly, the traffic engineer study. We feel it'd be in the best interest to havela traffic engineer working for the city. That's our position on that. Again, it's not a big issue as they stated too. Th'e park dedication, we certainly don't want to usurp the Park Commission's authority but as my understanding of how the meeting went Tuesday, there were some misunderstandings and ! think this is something that can be resolved internallw with the staff. Certainly there's some credit given for you and we went through this problem with Hans Hagen. You know.the Park Commission wanted to see a lot of the flat area and we also want to preserve some of the natural and giving them credit for that and I think that's an internal decision that needs to be made and we certainly want to sit down with the applicants and try to resolve that. I think that can be resolved. Number 4, the shopping center option. We feel strongly that needs to be eliminated as a possibility. It's inconsistent with the Comp Plan at this time and it should just be not considered. Batzli: Let me back up and ask one question about the parkland. I'f wou take out the wetland, how much land would thew be 'dedicating to the city? Aanenson: Well they're showing 19 acres but that would include some of that wooded area to the south along $2nd. Where there's some trails and the like so. My understanding, the Park Commission wants like 14 to 17 acres of ballfield, tennis, which would be right along that frontage road. What they really wanted was an additional acreage right in here. Chopping into one of their lots. Batzli: Okay. And normally in a situation like this, where wetlands can't be developed anyway. Aanenson: We don't give them credit. 8atzli: We don't give them credit. Aanenson: Correct. So they do have acreage that they've taken out that's undevelopable. They are showing actually, they've taken out for the wetland. The 22 acres. So that is not included. And some of that again, where they're showing the park trails along the south side, some of that may be questionable as to how they would get access to it and develop it too. 8atzli: Just for my own clarification, the nice park that they show to the east, who owns that right now? Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page 42 Aanenson: That's not their property. Batzli: I know. But do we know who owns it? Michele Foster: I don't know her first name. It's Mrs. O'Shaughnessy who owns that property. Batzli: And is this her entire parcel that you're showing as parkland, except for that 8 acre exception? Is that all owned by one person? Michele Foster: My understanding is that that property includes everything from our easterly property line to CR 117 and south...that entire property that abuts our property. Some of it is zoned for multi family. Some is zoned for single family. 3ohn Uban: There are significant wetlands in that area. But only the, if I could show this board real quickly. There are large wetlands in here that are wooded wetlands and they're protected. And then this portion of it here that is more developable for field or ballfield activity. This area also has some fairly poor soils in it. The upper portion, once you get out of this sort of drainage area up in here that's developable on that piece. So once again it's sort of attaching the two pieces together to take advantage of both the high wooded areas here and some of the low ballfield type area on the other side...all that can be combined in a very large...park. As a park planner, we do this for other cities, this would be a very difficult approach to try to assemble with multiple properties, the best pieces of both that work for a park. Let that plan work the best to really make the private development even better. You know so the two really work hand in hand to make what is included...on two different uses. Say residential or multiple family over here and the business, industrial office business park over here... Batzli: Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone else in attendance that would like to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and please give your name and address for the record. Paul Paulson: Mr. Chair and Planning Commission. My name is Paul Paulson. My address is 3160 West 82nd. Street and I live directly north of Lot 20. I have a prepared statement I'd like to read tonight. Just to I guess give you a sense of our perspective on the development, I'd like to give you a brief history of our involvement with the property that we live on. In 1986 we began our search for a rural property on which to establish our residence. We were looking for a quiet, rural setting safe from development. We purchased our property in August, 1987 and at that point began planning our hOUSe. We had planned to have construction complete by 3uly, 1989 but due to circumstances beyond our control, were not able to begin the project until November, 1989.. We first heard of the purchase agreement between Bill Qwalley and Steiner Development in the summer of 1959. Steiner Development purchased their property in December of 1989. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan was made public in the spring of 1990. This was the first indication that we had that the city intended our property-and the surrounding property to be guided for commercial development. Given the circumstances, we prefer things the way they are out here now and are Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 43 surprised by the development around us, although we recognize that it's taken place and now expect it to proceed. Ne are still not convinced that the PUD should extend to the west side of Highway 41. In fact that part of the plan west of Highway 41 seems more appropriately used with the Arboretum and existing Chaska uses to the south. So we continue to be concerned about the planned development west of Highway 41. The plan will impact us in many ways. Not the least of which is property taxes. I called the Carver County Assessor this morning to get an estimate of our property tax once the surrounding property is zoned PUD. He estimated that our property tax could jump from $4,000.00 today to around $9,000.00 at that time. The new plan shows the easement moved to the west end of Lot 20. This was not our idea. It is not clear to me that moving the easement is in our best interest and at this point we have not agreed to move it. The staff report recommends that a public street be built on the current easement. This seems reasonable to us and we support it. Ne would like to see a time table for commercial development on Lot 20. Not enough information is available yet to understand the impact on us and our property. For example, if the city street is constructed on the current easement, how .does that effect the location, size, and orientation of the development on Lot 20? In regards to the overall project, we're just small potatoes but we do not want the overall project to lose sight of our property, it's value and it's future use. At this point we would like our property to be included in the PUD since it's exclusion from the PUD will be a drawback to the future use of our property consistent with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. If that means designation of our property as PUD at this time, then perhaps the PUD should not go forward without that taking place. At a minimum, our property much be planned into the development. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Peter Olin: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission. Peter Olin through the Arboretum. I would like you to bear with me for a minute because in the past meetings I have made some comments and some recommendations along with the neighbors which I thought would, they were professionals would be taken into consideration. I don't think they have been and therefore tonight I'd like to address you, not only as Director of the Arboretum but as a professional and give you a little background of my professional background. In 1963, 29 years ago, when I started as a landscape architect and planner in Hartford, Connecticut, I worked for a firm where I learned that planners could be more effective at destroying land than developers because they had the tools to manipulate everything. It was a poor job but a great learning experience. In Massachussettes in '67 where I learned how good PUP's could be designed while working on two of them, seminole ones in Amhurst, Massachussettes. In 1970 I worked on a major regional plan for southeast New ~ngland with the New ~ngland River Basin's Commission. In '711 was working for a planning research firm analyzing factors that make up the scenic qualities of the State of Vermont. In '72 I worked on some developments with a landscape architect in Vermont, including town plans, zoning ordinances, PUD's, shopping centers and so on. '73 I worked on several developments in the Boston area for Carol Johnson and Associates. And from '74 to present I have been with the University of Minnesota as a Professor of Landscape Architecture. Teaching both design and planning. I hate to do this but Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 44 this Gateway West PUD is one of the poorer designs that I've seen. If a student turned this in I'd give them a D. That's not passing for a design course. PUD is a unique opportunity for a designer/planner to work with landform and the native environment so that it isn't destroyed. And for the developer, the way to preserve part of the site and increase the amount of development, that they would not be able to do under regular development guidelines. For the City it's a way to retain the character of the land and provide amenities for it's citizens. For the people who work or live there, it provides a better setting, a more environmentally compatable and sensitive place in which to work, reside, and recreate. This plan does none of those things. The road rips across the landforms destroying them entirely. The buildings cannot be put up on most of the lots without either removing the entire hillside, where we've got 90 feet of drop across the lots. Or massive retaining walls. The parking lots all face the road making the drive through the site a tour of parking lots. There's no respect for the Arboretum, which is a major, as a major regional resource needs major buffering considerations. A couple rows of trees doesn't begin to do the job to buffer a potential machine shop, fast food restaurant, gas station, multi family housing or whatever else they're proposing in there. It does not respect the importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41. The welcome they propose will greet people with a gas station and a fast food restaurant. At Highway 5, where there is only the most sketchy of ideas about industrial, office, commercial, or whatever have you, there's not much to say Chanhassen is a different community and you're entering it now. I think the only thing they did respect was the wetlands, and of course that's only because the law won't allow them to do anything there, or at least without major access cost to the developable sites. A PUD is the way to creatively approach development. In this case, the importance of the site in relationship to the Arboretum and to Chanhassen's major entries, needs a major creative design development. Certainly the city entrance needs far more than a circle of shrubs or trees or a berm. I'm not sure what it is that's proposed exactly.-The city wants to protect this rolling landscape and that is the character and the characteristic of Chanhassen and it's in your city plan. This proposal will eliminate it. Actually I'm surprised that the Planning office, again asking the Planning Commission to give preliminary approval with the very slight changes made from the first plan which was a very poor plan to start with. For the PUD you are allowing this developer to make much more money on this property than he would be allowed to under the conventional development pattern, if he were to follow them. You deserve and should demand a creative development solution for this site at the conceptual stage. I strongly recommend that you not, no approval be given of this plan until a plan is presented that minimally, one, gives the Arboretum a major buffer of appropriately compatible development. Not just a row of trees or a berm. Office and light industrial or other 8:00 to 5:00 uses come immediately to mind and I'm talking about that whole corner. This is a major resource. And that it not be crowded up against the Arboretum's boundary. Two, that this minimally respects the rolling landform of the site for both roadway and building location. Three, that it shows at least block grading to indicate how roads, parking lots and buildings can be placed on the site. Any PUD I worked on, it was required that we show that we could put those roads and buildings on a site and it could be graded properly. Block grading means you use 5 or Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 45 10 foot contour intervals or something that is a little more gross than any kind of detail grading. Four, that begins to develop some type of logical and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen, both on Highway 41 and Highway 5. And 5 and finally, to indicate that this development will be more than a parking lot tour as one drives through it. Just as a side thought, the highest and best use of any property could very well be parkland. Not necessarily commercial and industrial where something that squeezes the very last dollar out of developing that piece of'land. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments they'd like to present to the Commission? Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins. I live at 125 West 82nd. I'm one of the residents south of Lot 20. As I look at the plan, it seems that Lot 20 sticks out to the west. As you 'look at it coming from the south, you have residents and parkland in Chaska. Lot 20 breaks that contour. You have a residence to the north of it. A residence and parkland to the south of it. Why not continue the current use of that corridor of housing and park area on Lot 20? A single family home, or parkland covered with trees would be the best to protect the sanctity of the Arboretum and continue the current use. If Lot 20 and the property west of TH 41 is developed, for my neighbor's and for my family, we would no longer live in the country. We would live in an industrial park. Potential buyers of our property would.say, these aren't country homes. These are homes in an industrial park. The residents around Lot 20 would be severely hurt by development of Lot 20 as anything but-a single family residence or a park covered with trees. The Arboretum will be damaged by commercial development on this border as well. Please don't ruin our country living and our country living experience and don't intrude on the Arboretum. Office development on Lot 21 seems appropriate but a daycare or a restaurant or a service business that would operate 24 hours a day would bring a lot of traffic to our area. This will cause pollution by noise, light and traffic congestion at a variety of hours. A service station on Lot 22 is totally unacceptable and if it's me&hr to service the industrial park, it should be on the east side of Highway 41, not on the west side. Lastly, the plan still does not reflect the fact that the Paulson house is existing on the lot north of it. They say there isn't something on record to show that that house is there but a simple drive out will show that it's there and it should be listed on the plot and the plan, just so you don't forget that there is a residence to the north. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? David Dungey: David Dungey, 105 West 82nd Street and my neighbors and friends have pretty much said it ail but I'd like to just very briefly address the traffic congestion issue. If in fact the support commercial uses that are proposed for the people who work in the industrial park are allowed to be in the west side of Highway 7, it simply means that anybody coming to work who wants to use the daycare center, gas station, must exit or leave Highway 41, go to the west, do their business and again enter TH 41 or cross TH 41 to get to their place of work. If these commercial support businesses were on the east side of TH 41, people Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 46 going to work could exit, do their business and get to work on secondary roads. Not having to get back onto TH 41 again and leave it again. So from a traffic flow standpoint, I just think it makes an awful lot of sense to keep any commercial support to the east side of TH 41. And I'll just cut my remarks there. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Harry ~dams: Mr. Chairman, members. My name is H. Adams. I'm the last resident in the line of four residents that have spoken tonight, and I strongly endorse what you've heard from all of the speakers to date. I would add one thought. I've been in contact as recently as 6:00 tonight with the planners for the City of Chaska and they would generally be supportive to those objectives to the commercial properties being west of TH 41. They regret that they weren't here tonight. They'll work with your planners as we move forward and make those comments directly to them. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Kate, will you refresh my recollection one time. The property in Chaska to the south of Lots 21 and 22, what is that zoned? Aanenson: Industrial. 8atzli: That's zoned industrial. Aanenson: Then there's the ravine and then you've got residential. Can I just make a couple other comments? I feel like I need to defend myself. We've had this problem when we did Lundgren where we came in with a preliminary plat and we were giving a conceptual...and I'd just like.to, for Peter's benefit, read what the requirements are'for conceptual approval. And that's looking at the overall density, identification of lot size and width, the general, general location of streets. The general location of open spaces, The general location and types of land uses and intensities, and staging and time of development. So what we're looking at is 'conceptual here. I certainly am uncomfortable with the information. That's why we're saying we need to go the next step and look at how, what the amount of grading. We certainly are going to look in detail at the amount of grading and the cuts and fills but we don't have that level of information here. And what the applicant is seeking is, are you looking favorably upon this layout in the conceptual stage so they can go to the next one. I certainly expect to see modifications as I'm sure the applicant is too as we move through the process. And I just want to make that clear that it is conceptual and we certainly, this is not the depth and breadth of information that we need'to do a thorough review of a project. Batzli: Okay. Mr. Olin, we'll come back to you if there's no other comments okay? Is there any other comments? Go ahead. Peter Olin: The concept in the course of any kind of land development has to fit on the land...but if the topography is a major factor in a site, look at the grades on it. I don't see how you could even develop a concept without...or knowing that that kind of topography should be developed, and I don't think it can. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 47 Batzli: Thank you. Is there any further public-comment? Is there a move to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, ~hrens seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Tim, we're going to start at your end. Erhart: The developer's asking for the PUD, correct? Aanenson: Correct. Erhart: Over a straight commercial/industrial development, what is he looking to get from a PUD? Aanenson: Again, I think there's a misconception Of what they're getting. What we're getting is we're getting the development standards that we can tie them to a cohesive storm water management, design elements, a contract that holds them to this. Erhart: It works both ways. Aanenson: Well they can come in and split, come in and split off 5 acres. Maybe they want to respond to that'. Just chop off 5 acres. 5 acres here. 5 acres. Leapfrog kind of thing where right now we're getting tight development standards to make it cohesive architectually, landscaping, and all those features, the park issue. Batzli:- But from your perspective, what is the developer getting? Why are they doing this? Conrad: You can ask them. Batzli: I don't want to know what they think. What do you think? Aanenson: I'm not sure what the benefit is to them to do it in the cohesive, you know marketing wise, they've got a park. I think we're getting more from them. I'm not sure they're getting more out of it. I certainly don't see that as an issue. Erhart: Well yeah, I'd like John to respond, or someone. Michele Foster: The reason that we've submitted a PUD application is because it's our understanding that that's what was going to be required. Quite frankly a PUD process, from a governmental point of view, is.far more restrictive for a developer in many ways than it is beneficial. Which is not to say that we would not do many of the same things with development standards and.preservation of open space, but the PUD process is far more restrictive to us than it is beneficial and we would have preferred not to do that. But we understood from speaking with staff that it was important to do that. That it was the only way really that the City was going to want to consider that property, and if those are the rules, then that's what we're going to do. Quite frankly, the Opus II development which, you know I'll take a little bit of issue too with Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 48 Mr. Olin's statements. The Opus II development in Minnetonka is an award winning, nationally recognized industrial park. It is not a PUD. The things that we did in Opus II we did voluntarily. We were on the cutting edge of the development process when that park was started. And the kinds of development and constraints that you see there, while developed in conjunction with the city, were done voluntarily because that's the quality of development that we uphold and that we intend to uphold here. But quite frankly in this case, I think the PUD process is probably a bit more onerous to us and is far more beneficial to the City because of the kinds of controls that it gives you. $o that's our response. Erhart: Okay. Yeah, my question doesn't imply that I don't think it should be done as a PUD. I just wanted to get a response on that because a lot of the issues being discussed are, who's going to give up what. I kind of wanted to set who's getting what and it seems to me that I think we're . . . Aanenson: The City certainly is. Certainly when we have concerns about what those setbacks are going to be from Highway 5 and TH 41, landscaping treatment, that's going to all be part of those development contracts which we have control over with the PUD and it's cohesive. Erhart: On Lot 20, there was some suggestion that that should be residential. Could it be residential? Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is up to 25~ of the PUD zone, if permitted by the Planning Commission and City Council, could be for alternate uses. If it's in the best interest of the city. And I guess that's why we were kind of looking for the Highway 5 guidance on that and that seems to make sense. You know what is in the best interest of the City and that's why we really wanted to get their input again. Going back to Michele had raised a concern that they didn't want to have to, they feel like they should be able to go forward and we still feel like there's some issues the Highway 5 Task Force needs to look at. Erhart: Okay, so you think the Highway 5 Task Force would get into the Lot 20 situation? Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: Even though it's off Highway 5. Aanenson: Well they're looking at the whole commercial. Where it should be in relation to that, yes. Erhart: Okay, and the line that everything west of that diagonal line in Chaska there is zoned residential? Aanenson: Correct . Emmings: There's some parkland in there isn't there? Aanenson: Parkland, residential, yeah. Or open space I believe it is. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 49 Erhart: What's Opus' response to the concept of that Lot 20 being residential? Michele Foster: We have two concerns. One of which is a marketing concern. We looked at the issue of making that site a multi family site after the last meeting and there's two issues there. One of which is we don't feel there's a market and we understand that isn't necessarily always the driving force but in consultation with some residential developers, that was one reaction. And the second guite frankly is that from our experience, a good quality office, industrial neighbor is often preferable to single family homeowners than a multi family development with lots of traffic and kids and activity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And for both of those reasons we decided that that was not the best use and we felt that we could develop with appropriate standards an office industrial use there that would be a better neighbor to the single family, and maybe even to the Arboretum. I don't want to speak, for them. Erhart: Single family homes developed for what reason? Michele Foster: Quite frankly we didn't look at single family as an option. I don't know 3ohn if you have. a response to that. John Uban: If you'll, although we don't have good information as to exactly what's happening to the south, we do have this fiat industrial piece which...but what is separating this and Chaska from the single family that exists on 82nd Street is the large wooded ravine, which is a good separation. It's a good way to make a transition between an industrial use, Highway 41, and single family come back this distance. When we go to the north, you don't have the wooded ravine. I mean it's just open prairie quite frankly. And so we don't have that kind of buffering. To put single family in here then, we're really exposing that more directly to what even a potential industrial use down here. This area is much more exposed than to that industrial development. So the single family here doesn't have that sort of natural buffering up here. So what we're proposing to do is to lighted our plan for an office industrial use here. To make it as quiet as possible where we can control it for the homes that are to the south here. Just moving it back so directly across from these single family homes is all open space to the north. Aanenson: Can I just add to what 3ohn was saying. I think one of the things, I'm not sure what that use is going to be. I don't want anybodQ to think that I'm stating that's what it's going to be'but we talked about with the PUD that maybe this is a site where we say anything on this 10t has fixed hours. No truck traffic. Closes down at 6:00 where it's more compatible with the neighborhood uses. Try to make it more fit in so it's not as obtrusive as having truck traffic all night long or something like that. That's a possibility too with the PUD zone. Putting those type of controls on whatever goes on that lot. Erhart: And our Comp Plan calls for that, what they call Lot 20 is zoned, or the Comp Plan is. Aanenson: Is guided for, yes. Industrial commercial. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 50 Erhart: We're not in any, are we in not a position today to modify that? Conrad: You can tell them what you think. Aanenson: Sure. That's what we're looking for. Erhart: If we're looking for residential. Aanenson; Direction to what you feel the uses should be, yes. All I was saying is through the PUD there's another way to approach it. Yeah, right. Erhart: I was going to say. It just seems to me that Lot 20, maybe the best use is that for residential. I'm not sure you just didn't contradict yourself when you said at one point that yeah, you can control it better. Make it compatible with homes there. But then you just said industrial commercial isn't compatible with the homes that you would put there. Paul Paulson: Excuse me. I just want to agree with what Michele"said. That as a residence, I think all of my neighbors would agree that we would much prefer a well done industrial piece of property compared to a multi family. Erhart: I wasn't disagreeing with that. Paul Paulson: I know you weren't but I just wanted to emphasize that. point, and I think all of the neighbors would agree with that. Erhart: No, I understand that. Well I'll leave that to someone else... Again, your reason for not allowing retail up in that corner. Aanenson: It's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Erhart: Okay. And we expect to have retail on the northeast corner? Aanenson: Well that's what we're trying to decide as a part of the Highway 5 Corridor. We briefly got into a discussion that, do we need some retail at this end of the city and at what scale that should be. And if it's going to be on 82nd and TH 41, does that preclude anything north? And again, what scale and what types. Should it be smaller. A series of 20,000 square foot. Should it be one big user. That's something that the Highway 5 Task Force will be working on. Erhart: Okay, and you responded that you would like to at least see conditions 1 and 10 remain where they are Kate? Fairly strongly. Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: Okay. That's the only questions I've got right now. Conrad: Generally I like how the plan looks. I thought Peter brought up some good points and I'm sure going to pay attention to those as we go through this in more detail. But generally to the east-of TH 41, on the Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 51 surface I'm comfortable. The southeast corner, just so you know where I am, and I'm not going to change. It will never be a big parking lot which may dictate that you're not going to put retail there or whatever. So retail is, boy you're going to have a tough time selling me on retail. I just want you to know that. Okay. And there may be at some point in time something that came along that I'd look at but right now, I want to be real clear about that. It's a real important intersection. Lot 20 bothers me. I don't know what to do with that. It sort of juts out there. I think we just have to real sensitive to the neighbors and the Arboretum. I'm not sure Kate why, to the west of TH 41 is part of the PUD. Not real clear to me. Don't think it has to be. The rest does. Absolutely, the rest of this is a PUD. Erhart: Why wouldn't you want it? Conrad: We've got a barrier called TH 41 between these two and I don't. Batzli: We already rezoned this as PUD. Conrad: What? Batzli: I think we already rezoned this. Aanenson: No, we've guided it for industrial commercial so whether we zone it PUD or not, they could still request. Conrad: It doesn't have to be part of it. Aanenson: They still own it. They can still request to come in for a commercial industrial use. Conrad: Why include it? What is the advantage? We can control it? This is just lot, lot, lot, lot. Tell me what the advantage is and then maybe I'd consider that but TH 41 is the boundary. TH 5 is the north leg. You know there's some real good reasons for the'rest of this being part of a PUD and I think they've done a good job at the conceptual level. Right now again I'm paying more attention as we get into the detail but I just don't see why. Erhart: Because if you don't put it, then there's some guy that buys Lot 19 and he could put anything he wants in there. Conrad: Yeah. Within our zoning. Erhart: Cold storage warehouse in there. Conrad: Possibly. Erhart: Make that a PUD, we could put some controls on it. Conrad: We can rezone that right now anyway. What's it zoned? Aanenson: It's A-2 but it's guided for commercial industrial. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 52 Emmings: It's A-2 right now? Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: If it's guided...that, how do you stop them? Conrad: Anyway. I guess the applicant is asking for some things on point number 1 and lO and I think the Task Force, I think there has to be some accountability from the Task Force. And I think the applicant would like to hear what that is, and so would I. I guess we typically do a lot of the zoning here and make those recommendations and I'm not sure what the Task Force is, what they're doing versus what our role is but I think we should have a date associated with that. I'm not sure I need to change the wording per the applicant but again I think we need some input from the Task Force and this should be on some kind of a schedule. The Park and Rec thing, I don't have a clue what theY're doing. $o I'll just wait for something to happen on them. In terms of staff's, I've got to go with the city staff's recommendation in terms' of who does the traffic. I can't make a decision on that. I have to trust our staff. That's all. Ledvina: I think that the conceptual really has to evaluate the topography in detail and that's one of the things that I thought we were going to get when we saw this again, because the topography is just, it's very critical. You have, for instance in the parking lots of 4, 5 and 6, which would apparently be leveled. Maybe you could get 10 feet stepping across the thing or something like that. There's 60 to 90 feet of contour elevation difference and I just don't ever see that working without massive earthwork and that's Just, it doesn't suit the site. I just, I think that that should have been addressed with this additional plan. And I don't know, the applicant has made some changes and open some things up in terms of the park and worked on that end and I'm sure has made some progress with this area west of TH 41. Again, you have Lot 20, the potential building pad there is a fairly high elevation and if you put a warehouse or whatever up there, that's going to be,. I don't think it can be screened very well so I think maybe' that would almost seem to be a site for an office headquarters or something like that. It looks to be a pretty good piece there but I don't know about an industrial application there. I guess on the issue of the traffic study, I would agree with the applicant. I think that we can, the city can provide some direction in terms of what needs to be done there but the City would be spending the applicant's money on that and .I think the applicant probably could do that more efficiently with the same results. Or acceptable results at any rate. I was wondering, in the Opus response regarding the Park and Rec, they suggest that, I think the term was used, suitable controls or the City could do something to insure that this park area is integrated in a uniform manner. Can you expand on that? What kinds of things can we do at this point to make sure that a ball, a softball field would be built in those areas. Aanenson: On the adjoining property? Ledvina: Right. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 53 Aanenson: We don't unless we buy it. We've had numerous people look at that property. It's a significant development problem. It is guided for multi family so we're at the whim of waiting for development to occur. And if that's part of what the ballfield area,' they hence wouldn't get built so I guess that was the concern of the Park and Recreation Commission. We have a development in front of us and they can get the property now to make a useable park instead of waiting. It's unknown as far as when that development would occur. Ledvina: So we have to buy it? Aanenson: Well I'm saying we can wait until, we have the choice of either buying it or waiting for someone to develop and ask for dedication at that time. There's two options. 8atzli: Well, assuming that it's all one lot, would what we would be able to get under our current ordinance, include for example the softball areas and things like that so that we have a park that makes sense7 Or is this one next door to us small enough that we're not even going to get enough to put on two softball fields? Aanenson: Are you asking me if we can get enough useable area with this, with Opus' piece? Batzli: No, with the second one. What would be required to be given to the City under ordinance on that second parcel? Aanenson: The same that we're applying here and it kind of fluctuates. Like Michele mentioned, it's generally around 10~. 8atzli: Okay. How big is that lot next door? Aanenson: I don't have the exact details on that. Ledvina: I guess otherwise I would support the staff and the other recommendations that were made regarding the Highway 5 Task Force. I believe that we should eliminate the option as it relates to the retail' on the corner, so I'd be in support of that. Batzli: Okay. Anything else? Ledvina: No. Emmings: First off I think, I agree with everybody that it's good for the city to have this developed as a PUD. My overall reaction to what they brought back is that it's surprisingly similar to what they brought last time. I see that there are some differences but it looks a lot more the same than it does different. And I don't think it does much of a 3ob at taking into account the comments we made last time. It is a concept plan and that's very broad and you read us the stuff that we're supposed to take into account but there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan. And there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan that I can't accept, and those specifics are part of this drawn plan and I don't accept them. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 54 Aanenson: I agree with you. We certainly have those same concerns. Emmings: It may be that they should have been left off. Aanenson: Right. Exactly. I see some of these lines being shifted based on topography and the like. Emmings: Maybe they should have been left off but they're there and I couldn't live with that. Aanenson: Footprints of buildings, that could have ail been left off. We just needed the lot lines. Exactly. Emmings: If they want to do anything close to what's on here, I couldn't be for it because the grading, I'm totally untrained in this but when I look at the contour lines on the plan, there are so many lines inside some of those spaces that you know the grading is going to be dramatic and it's going to ruin that piece of property, in my opinion. They showed us a picture of the Opus Center in Minnetonka that you do voluntarily and I don't see those same ideas brought to this plan. I think what you did in Minnetonka is beautiful and I don't see you doing it here. So while I applaud you for that effort, I wish you'd come and do it here. In Minnetonka you have patches of things distr, ibuted throughout and here you've got it, all the green is shoved down to the corner into the wetland that you can't use anyway. So I don't see how, and maybe you have a response but I don't see how you brought those concepts or that feeling or whatever it is to this big parcel of property here. My specific comments with regard to Lot 20 would be, oh! I have a question first for Kate. When we did that other business park we did here tonight. Chanhassen Business Center PUD amendment. We talked at great lengths on that about the fact that we were butting the industrial up against residential and we had to' have a big buffer yard and we came up with the buffer yard concept and we put it in our ordinance and if I remember right, it called for lO0 feet between those conflicting uses of trees and area that would be left in a natural state. Why don't we see that here on Lot 20? Aanenson: I raised that issue with Mr. Krauss. For some reason it got put between Mr. Paulson's property and this development which I'm not sure makes a lot of sense because if he wants to be included in this PUD, and become the same ultimate zone, that's not where you want the buffer. You want to buffer to the east. We can certainly put that in as one of the development standards. Emmings: It seems to me that all sides of that thing need a buffer yard and maybe the whole thing ought to be but I could see that with a buffer yard, if and maybe a professional office building that's used just you know, during kind of 9:00 to 5:00 hours that you could put a use in there of that kind. I don't know if there's a market for it but I don't think that that would be, with that kind of buffering and that kind of use', I don't think it would be a horrible neighbor there. But anything more intensive than that I'd sure be opposed to. With regard to Lot 1-, the big one on thel corner, is there a pond comtemplated right on the corner? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 55 Aanenson: There is a wetland. A small wetland right now. Emmings: It's a wetland? Aanenson: Right. Emmings: Well that's good because whatever happens out there, the corner has to be left very open it seems to me and that's real essential. agree there should be no retail, even at this conceptual stage we shouldn't even be considering retail. The i'dea of a corporate headquarters, one building that would sit there certainly appeals to me more than anything else. With regard to condition one, I don't think it . says anything and that bothers me. It says the Highway 5 Task Force shall further define the uses permitted adjacent to the Arboretum. $o what? First of all I think you ought to add, and along Highway 5. Not just adjacent to the Arboretum but also all [he way along Highway 5. You know that sounds like an instruction to the Highway 5 Task Force. It doesn't really say that Opus has to do anything so that bothers me. I guess somehow they have to be subject to those recommendations or conform to the recommendations but you can't just say, you can't just tell us what the Task Force is going to do because it doesn't make sense in this context. I don't have problems with the other specific ones. I don't understand condition 11. That the City Council should consider gaining input on the design of Highway $ and 41. Aanenson: That's the landscape feature. The gateway kind of treatment. Including that maybe. Emmings: Well when you say gaining input, you want the City Council to have input or they want input to the City council? I didn't understand what it says. What did it say? Aanenson: Paul wrote that one. Emmings: Oh sure. Dump on the guy who's not here. Aanenson: If I can try to explain what I think he meant. I believe what he's saying is that this may be something that we've used tax increment money for and kind of create a gateway treatment. Emmings: That's fine but again. Aanenson: Maybe they should come up with a design. Not Opus come up with a design feature but maybe we should have another consultant. The City Council fund that or the HRA fund that. Come up with a design element. Emmings: That's fine but again, that's an instruction to the City Council or a suggestion to the City Council and what this should say as a condition to their proposal is that they would have to conform to it or be subject to it or. Aanenson: Certainly. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 56 Emmings: Okay. Can you tell me just, and you probably wouldn't want to if you could but I don't know. Can you give me a ballpark idea of what Lot 20 is worth. I mean nothing that I'd ever hold you to, I'm just curious. What's a lot like that worth? Michele Foster: As an industrial site or? Emmings: ~h, okay. Michele Foster: Just to throw out probably an average type of number. Maybe $1.00 per square foot with the buyer assuming whatever special assessments there might be. Emmings: And then as an office building. Now when' you say a square foot, are you talking about the building that's on it or the land itself? Michele Foster: No...for the land. They pay $1.00 per square foot of land. Emmings: And then is the value as office, if there were a market. Michele Foster: That's the problem, there isn't. Quite frankly there is not. Emmings: And as homesite of course it's much lower I take it. Michele Foster: You're talking about a single family homesite, yeah. I'm not a residential developer and never have been so I'm not 'sure I can help you out there. John Uban: Paul Steiner, who is Steiner Koppleman does a lot of single family development. We did talk just briefly about residential potential on the site and he said he would never put single family there...on that particular lot. Emmings: Because of it's exposure to what's going to be east of it? Because certainly what's west of it. 3ohn Uban: ...yeah. You know, if for some reason in Chaska, industrial development had not come up from the south, we would be looking at other land patterns there but it's how Chaska has really, all the way along TH 41, brought their development right up to the edge. We really have to address that and it really continues to the north. Emmings: $o when something bad happens somewhere else we ought to just keep on doing it. No, I know what you're saying. It's there and we have to recognize it. 3ohn Uban: There's nothing bad about industrial development. Emmings: There's something bad about it when it bumps into the Arboretum. That is something bad. There we need. 3ohn Uban: It doesn't have to be. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 57 Emmings: Well I guess maybe that's a matter of personal opinion. But if we say it's bad when development like the weather station which is very non-intensive, and pretty low profile and everything else butts up against or has residential neighbors across the street and we require 100 foot buffer yard there to make sure that those uses are separated, and certainly you'd want at least that much separation between an industrial use and the Arboretum wouldn't you? I mean that conflict is greater to me than the residential industrial one. This one is greater. In my mind. So anyway, those are my comments. 8atzli: Okay, Joan. Ahrens: I agree with Steve that the more this changes the more it stays the same...I couldn't approve even a concept plan looking at this concept plan because it's just too specific and I don't like what I see. West of TH 41, I don't understand, I'm not sure we finished the discussion. I know this is guided in our Comprehensive Plan as commercial industrial. That doesn't mean we have to rezone it. Aanenson: I believe you do. You could recommend denial. That's what it's guided for. Ahrens: I know it's guided for that but does that mean we have to do it? Can't we just leave it A-27 Aanenson: I don't believe so. Emmings: Well now wait a minute. John Uban: If I could interject. The law, the Stats law really mandates that the city rezone it's property in conformance with it's.comprehensive plan. So when you create a comprehensive plan, approve it, approve the Metropolitan Council, that then is the guide for your rezoning. And the law technically says that within 6 months of doing a comprehensive plan you're supposed to rezone all that property. Most cities don't do that. They wait until a development comes'through. But that is the guide for rezoning and the city has to then change... Ahrens: What if we don't rezone it? Will we get penalized? Aanenson: That's up to whatever challenge they want to take. Michele Foster: I think the city would be ultimately challenged. Basically it will have taken the value of the property that was once there and taken it away without compensation. Ahrens: But we can amend our comprehensive plan? Aanenson: Yes. That's a possibility, yes. Ahrens: I think it was probably a mistake in the first place for us to ever designate this as commercial industrial. Emmings:. It was your idea wasn't it.? Planning Commission Heeting December 2, 1992 - Page 58 Ahrens= You have such a good memory. I mean who cares if Chaska has industrial coming up from the south. That doesn't mean that we have to... I think this should stay A-2 and whatever we have to do to accomplish that, I think that we should do that. Aanenson: Are you talking the whole thing or west of TH 417 Ahrens: West of TH 41. I know this is not a specific plan John and I don't know if this was your idea or not. What my little public policy statements are, but whoever told you that a daycare should go inbetween a service station and whatever Lot 20 is supposed to be. Industrial. Is way off base. I mean do you really think a daycare should go in inbetween uses like that? 3ohn Uban: Daycares go actually where. Ahrens: Do you think? 3chh Uban: Yes. Ahrens: You think that's appropriate? 3ohn Uban: Yes. Emmings: We've got one down in our industrial park over here. Ahrens: I think it's absolutely crazy. There's one right near Eden Prairie Center. You drive by there and these litt'le kids are out playing in this little tiny area. 3ohn Uban: It's a business that where the people want... Ahrens: I realize that planners can justify this. I personally think that as public policy that that's a bad use of space. ~ terrible place to put a daycare... Those are my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you i Kate, on Lot 7, is that actually part of the Wrase's property right now? Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: But they're showing it as, we, the City or they, somehow purchased it and put a water tower up, correct? Aanenson: Yes. It's our understanding that the policy is, since we need the water tower, and maybe Dave came help me out with that, is that the City would be involved as far as some compensation as far as the establishment of that water tower. Batzli: But given the fact they have absolutely no underlying agreement with that lot owner, you know, why would we put it there as opposed to somewhere in the area? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 59 Aanenson: It may be beneficial to them because they would to stay on the property. And if the City does do a condemnation for the whole piece, it gives them a security as to what the value of their property is that they bought out. They have a life estate and their first choice is to stay there. So that may be acceptable. We've met with them and that is an acceptable option. They're not sure that's what they want to do at this point. Emmings: Spend the rest of their days living under a mushroom. Kind of neat. Aanenson: There's a concern, you know how close would be the house and if they did decide to pursue that, the next step would be to see how close it would be. Batzli: But why on a conceptual plan wouldn't that be shown on their property rather than on someone elses that they have absolutely no interest in the land yet? I don't understand that. Michele Foster: The history behind that particular location is that, when we first brought our plan into the city during the summer, that is the highest point of the property which is where the water tower wants to be located. And the engineering staff directed us towards that location. We had some concerns about that. Number one, because there will be some grading that occurs there and we're not sure yet if it'will be the highest ground. And we thought that there might be some better locations. As you recall, in our last plan we showed it on the southerly part of Lot 1, right across the street from the Arboretum and they objected to that. We decided that we still needed, therefore we needed to move it to respond to the Arboretum and we needed to get it towards where we thought the highest ground was going to be and we felt that that might be a solution. It can still go somewhere else but We keep bringing in proposals and everybody says no and if we can get some direction on where they would like it, we'd be happy to work with that but we've been. Batzli: Well you understand my objection that'you're not putting it on property you own. You're putting it on, you put it on Lot 1 where you're not going to develop and then you put it on a piece of property you don't own. That was my objection. Michele Foster: We felt that there may be a way to be able to allow that residential use to stay and put the water tower-there and still eventually have a developable parcel if that property owner decided to move. If we need to move it somewhere else, we will. That's not a big issue. But we've been trying to respond to a number of multiple objectives. Obviously we're not succeeding so, we're trying to respond. The primary concern of the engineering department is it's got to be on the highest part of this development, and we'll continue to keep trying to find that. Batzli: No, I understand that and my comments will be much more general. My concern was the location and I appreciate the fact that you're trying to work something out with those people. I appreciate the fact that in fact one of our conditions is that you work out the two exemptions Planning Commission Nesting December 2, 1992 - Page 60 because I think that's important rather than build around the way it currently looks. I don't like the way that that exemption sits there. $o I hope that that can be worked out. We've kind of beat this concept versus some detail in here to death and I'm sure that we had a hand in telling the applicant what they should bring in. I've sat on this Commission where we've seen conceptual plans that were sketchier and we wanted more information. This is a real chicken or egg kind of thing. I'm sure we wouldn't have liked it had we not seen anything on these lots. And now that we see something, we don't like it. I don't know what we do about that. In general, not looking at the buildings and where the parking lots are necessarily going but the roadway through here and the general layout, at least east of TH 41. Assuming for a minute they don't grade it flat, and if you just ignored the contours which is something that Mr. Olin has told us we can't do, I think I'd like it. But we can't ignore those and then I wonder whether, as part of our PUD, we're kind of protecting some of that character of the land. I don't know from this and I don't know if you guys know or if that's something that you're going to be taking a look at down the line. I think that's part of our uncomfort level. Is that by what our fear is, is if we approve this tonight and we see 15 contour lines running through a parking lot and we're wondering, my God, what are we telling them they can do out there. And that's something that, I think that's what we're really hesitating about doing tonight and I'm not sure what we can say about that other than we have a contoured piece of property and we're putting a big development on it and while it's conceptual, we seem to need some sort of assurances that you're not going to go out there and do that. And I don't know how we do that at this stage. But I think you know what our fears are from listening to us tonight. I don't know if that helps or not. I think west of TH 41, I agree there needs to be buffering. My initial hope, after last week, was that Lot 20 would somehow come back as a real low intensive use or parkland or something creative out of all of this so that we get a buffer and a large buffer. Now obviously we've just heard that a $1.00 a square foot, we've got to use the building alone for 77,000 feet. How many acres is Lot 20? Aanenson: 9.6. Batzli: Yeah, so that's a lot of bucks. I don't know how we'd do it. I mean I would, the ultimate best use from my perspective of that particular parcel is open space. As just a big open space buffer to the Arboretum, and having the two, Lots 21 and 22 be not necessarily supporting commercial. I tend to agree a little bit, depending on what we do with Lot 20, I supposed there's some sense, well Lot 19 isn't connected to it. I was going to say. If Lot ~9 was connected down that way, then there might make sense that it would support the multi family housing. But currently all it does is support Lot 20, unless you include trips back and forth across the highway. And it is interesting why that wasn't necessarily put on the east side of the road. I think I like Lot 19 better than it used to be. My hopes have been dashed though on Lot 20. They really have. I don't know what we can do about that. Aanenson: Brian, if I could just add to that. Mr. Paulson had spoke tonight that he wanted to be included. Maybe that allows them some more flexibility if they can work something out. Pushing something back. I'm Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 61 not sure, pulling it away. I don't know, gives them more acreage. I don't know if it helps or not. Michele Foster: If I could ask for clarification on that. I heard Mr. .Paulson say that he wants to stay where he is but he also wants to be included as part of the PUD and I don't know what, I don.'t know how to do that. To me those are two conflicting positions and if the Planning commission could give us some direction. Quite frankly I don't know what to do with that. Those two different messages. And I suspect he doesn't want a public street put in if he has to pay the assessments on it, because that's not pretty and if I were in his position, I wouldn't want to do that either. $o if by saying he wants to be part of the PUD, does that mean he's acknowledging that he wants to be industrial someday. Because that's one, that's certainly an alternative. But I don't understand and we need some clarification on why...part of the PUD but wanting to stay residential. If somebody could comment on that. Conrad: Well we can't. Do you know what you're asking for? paul Paulson: I think so. I think there might be a little bit confusion maybe by my opening remarks. I intended to just give a perspective on the way we're looking at the development. How we got out there thinking, wanting to get away from the city and being out in the country and thinking that we were far enough to escape development for a while. But now it's just all around us. Now I do believe I know what I'm asking for when I ask to be part of the PUD and that means that our property would become part of the development and that eventually we would'have to leave in order for that development to occur. I don't know if that necessarily means that we need to leave immediately or if we could be included in the PUD and then move, have the opportunity down the road at some point when we do feel like we move out, to at that point have it developed. Does that help? Ahrens: But that could bring development closer to the Arboretum. Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean it gives you a bigger piece to buffer too. Maybe get a bigger piece of residential. I don't know. Conrad: How do you want to buffer the Arboretum? We're buffering a buffer basically. Ahrens: I don't think it should be developed. Conrad: But the zoning right now says it can be. Ahrens: Yeah. I think I was opposed to that all along though. Batzli: We're correcting the record as we go. Conrad: We have nothing to stand on. It's not, I don't even know that that's reality. Ahrens: That what is? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 62 Conrad: That going to A-2 is a reality. Ahrens: Ne don't know that but, we don't know that sitting here tonight. And we may need to get a definitive'answer from Roger about what we can do. But why eliminate that as a possibility if it may in fact be a possibility? 3ust because we don't have that answer tonight. Conrad: I don't think it's. a possibility. Ahrens: Nell you know, you may not think so but it may be a possibility. It doesn't do us much good though to say yes, it's not a... .. Conrad: I guess, I don't want to stay here all night on some of this stuff but, I think the best thing we can do is try to get some kind of consensus. I'm not sure if we have the right 11 motions here. Again, what these people want to hear is some consensus of our opinion that they go away with at least 4 people giving them, 4 out of the 6 of us, giving them some direction. In my mind we've given them some pretty good direction in terms of what we want on the corner. I think we were pretty consistent there. I don't know that we've given them direction in terms of our overall perspective east of TH 41. Is there consensus on that? Do we like what we see in general but we're tied into some specifics? Emmings: Nell what is there in general? Conrad: The road layout. Emmings: That's it right? Conrad: The road layout, you've got a corner that's going to be developed. You've got a park area and wetlands. You can smuggly say that but that's not bad. You take a look at what's been done around the wetlands, that's a really nice area. Again, there are some physical constraints to developing this and it's not a horrendous. Now there may be some things that Matt's pointed out in terms of some topography issues that I don't know yet. But I'm just trying to get us to make some, give them some clues. You know if this is totally unacceptable, then they should hear that. If it's something that we feel a little bit comfortable with, we have to give them that direction too. Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. Michele Foster: If it would be helpful to the Commission and if there was a desire to add a condition regarding the grading and that at the next level of approval where the grading plans would be brought forward, that if you wanted to direct us that that plan needed to...aren't probably exactly the right words but that grading plan should respect to the greatest extent possible the existing topography so that we have that direction and that you do then have the ability to evaluate us against that direction when we come back? I don't know if that gives you any assurances but we would much rather come away with an approval with those Planning Commission Meeting DecembeT 2, i992 - Page 63 kinds of conditions so that we know what you want us to do when we come back. Is that going to help? Aanenson: That's a standard condition in the next phase. Again, I agree with what Peter said. There is some concerns about this. You know the grading. We certainly have that concern and that's what you do in the next step and if it doesn't meet,.just like when Lundgren came in, we shifted the road. We shifted the lot configqration because that's the definite objective with the PUD is to preserve that and we don't have that level of detailed information. Yeah you can cursory look at this and say, there's some problems there but we want to see the depth and breadth of that. And that's certainly a standard requirement in the next level. Emmings: The flip side of that, what you just said is though, if I were the developer and you gave me concept approval here with this plan in front of me and Z came in, and you said well. You can't do this because it's going to require too much grading and it's going to destroy the site as we know it, I'd say well why the hell didn't you tell me back then. You saw where I was going to put a building and you approved the concept plan anyway. We hear that kind of thing all the time. Now maybe you can tell me we won't hear that from Opus, I don't know but. Aanenson: But we also have regulations as far as street grades and those kind of issues. Emmings: Then why are the buildings on here? Why are they there? ~, you know you'd think after, it's probably a good thing I'm getting off the Commission because after I've been this long I ought to know what's going on and I really don't. I mean I've looked at a lot of concept plans and this one really kind of baffles me. Aanenson: I guess the last time we came with the Lundgren one we got the big lecture on there was too much detail on the Luod~Fren one. $o now we're trying to go backwards and now the comfort level's not there. we're kind of in a bind. I agree. Emmings: And I'm the first one to say, there on Lot 1 you're not showing me anything and that scares the ** out of me so I don't want to approve it. Aanenson: Well they showed you the four options. Emmings: No, I know. I realize it's contradicting. Aanenson: We have the same concern. It's what is the appropriate level? We have the same concern. Emmings: But I guess to restate my objection to this concept plan, overall is this. This concept plan shows me how these people are thinking about developing this property in a general way. And I don't like it. And I think it betrays the principles that they've used to such good advantage in Minnetonka, -and if they can't do at least as good out Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 64 here as they did in Minnetonka, then I'm not interested. That's where I stand. Conrad: But then specifically why is it you don't like it? What is it that you don't like about this? Framings: Because they haven't, the principles that we saw on the plan, on the Minnetonka plan showed nice curvy roads. .Showed pockets of protected natural area that were left in trees and this one is buildings from one to the other except down in one corner. It's very, you've got trees along the street, so what. This doesn't look anything like or doesn't have anything like the feel of the Minnetonka project. So I can't tell you specifically but I can tell you conceptually why I don't like it and that's what we're doing. The specifics, they don't. On the one hand we're being told not to look at the specifics but still it tells us how they're thinking about this property and I don't like it. Conrad: You would break it up? Emmings: I don't know. I'm not a planner. I know that this doesn't look like the Opus Center in Minnetonka. Ledvina: I have a problem with the way this-is laid out because when my idea of a concept plan is something that's feasible and I can't tell if this is feasible. Then I also look at a goal of a PUD is to be sensitive to the natural features of the parcel, and I can't say that and if it's not feasible and doesn't meet one of the basic goals, or I don't know if it meets one of the basic goals, I'm not even at square one yet. Emmings: But I think maybe this ought to get moved on. Maybe it's time for the City Council to take a whack at this, whether we're interested or not. I think we've beaten this to death and I don't think they could come back with another plan that wouldn't get the same batch of comments that they've already gotten. Personally, so I think We ought to move it on to the City Council. Either with an approval or not. And because maybe we wind up getting some direction back from City Council too that way. Conrad: Well we're still waiting. As I see the report, we're waiting for this Highway 5 Task Force stuff to happen. Batzli: I don't see that at all. Conrad: Don't you? Batzli: No. I don't think the Task Force is going' to. Conrad: Well we're waiting for the Task Force to say here's what some uses can be and here's how we buffer the Arboretum and we're waiting for Park and Rec to tell us some stuff. Emmings: The Task Force is going to make recommendations but won't have any authority. That's...here and the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 65 Conrad: Right, but aren't we waiting for some of that? 5mmings: Well you're going to have to wait 6 months for that you know. I think. I don't think it's fair to them to just let the thing sit here. I think it ought to go up to City Council. Who knows, they may love it. Ahrens: This is the same conversation we had when we looked at this thing before. Conrad: See I wasn't here the first time. This is brand new. Batzli: This is identical. Ahrens: This is ridiculous to have to go through the same discussion over and over again at 11:30 at night especially. I mean it's... Erhart: I'm going to make a motion. Emmings: Do it. Batzli: Okay, well let me before. Conrad: ...basically there's a lot of controversy to the whole thing. Matt, you don't like it. Steve, you don't like it. Brian, I'm not sure where you're at. Batzli: I like the easter.n side, I could live with provided they contour. The western side I don't really like. Erhart: What you're approving is a concept plan. Does that mean that. the streets can't move? Batzli: They can move. Erhart: Does it mean that the lot lines are locked in today? Aanenson: No. Erhart: You're not committing to anythin~ by approving a concept plan so I don't know what we're arguing about. We're approving that we want a PUD. That we want this all planned as a whole. That's it. Emmings: That I'll vote for. Ahrens: We're just approving this should be a PUD? Aanenson: And giving them some general directions on the types of uses and give them an idea of where to go. Ahrens: That there should be a road in there and some buildings3 Erhart: No, we're not even approving the buildings. Ahrens: Simple. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 66 Erhart: It has been simple. That's why we can't get the consensus here because we're not being asked to give any. Other than we want this developed as a whole concept. 8atzli: Well, but there's a certain degree of when we do give them conceptual approval of, I think there is a certain amount of general layout that we're telling them that we're approving. Erhart: I think we did it in the Minutes. Batzli: Okay. Well, my only comments because Ladd cut me off a little earlier. I agree that the Task Force should have input but I don't want to wait for them. And also, I think we should delete the shopping center and on number 11, I still don't know what it is we're doing but I'll wait for Steve to make that motion. Emmings: Why don't you make the motion and then I'll amend it. I really haven't gotten prepared here much. Erhart: You're always prepared. Emmings: I didn't think about it. Ahrens: Is anybody besides me interested in keeping that area west of TH 41...? Emmings: You're outvoted. Conrad: I really, that brings up a real important issue. What are we doing to the west side of TH 417 Are we close? Batzli: We're screwing it up. Conrad: Are we close or are we, do they need some guidance? And Joan, you have some guidance. Say, keep it A-2. I don't personally believe that that's legal or that we could stand behind that so I'm not' supporting that. But I'm serious about what should we be telling the applicant. Batzli: Steve said buffer yards. I said open space, and get rid of the supporting commercial. I didn't hear any suggestions from that end of the table. Conrad: So we buffer the buffer. $o to protect the Arboretum we're going to put 100 feet in between. Erhart: Of more Arboretum. Conrad: I really have a, that just loses me on what we're doing or how we're trying to do that. Do you want a giant berm? Batzli: No. We don't block the view. We just, we don't put it right on the edge. We don't build up to the edge. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 67 Emmings: Remember the old King Kong movie, that big wail they had? Well, that's an idea. Peter Olin: I think, what I suggested was that buffer...I think a commercial with a lot of controls on it, or I mean industrial, with a lot of control could be a fairly good buffer. As long as it doesn't come right up to the border. But commercial development is not a buffer. I think those are the kind of considerations that should be given to that site. It doesn't necessarily have to be parkland. That would be great but... Conrad: But Peter, the multi family on Lot 219, that's pretty much away from. Peter Olin: See what you're doing is creating a whole group of people living near us then who then start taking over the Arboretum as their land. Single family, just a few people, we can deal with that but when you start getting crowds of people, and again we have no idea what... Erhart: The Arboretum is fenced isn't it? Peter Olin: Well we do have a fence along the one-side there... Batzli: Okay, well we've stalled while you've drafted your motion Steve. Emmings: Well no I didn't. I was talking to Joan. I'd try this if you gave me a couple minutes. I don't really know if I want to vote for the motion. Erhart: Well let me try here. Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman? ...when you look at, everyone seems to talk about how intense the property is being developed and we were just doing some quick calculations and also some comments were made about how this is not consistent with what we've done in Minnetonka. The best that we can do, and the reason that the buildings are on there is one of the things that we needed to address in the plan process is intensity of development. So we have...some buildings down there to try and figure out how much development can this site support. So the building coverage that we are looking at is approximately in' the neighborhood of 22~ to 25~ building coverage. That is.very consistent with the Opus II development. In most communities building coverage is going to be anywhere on industrial property, 30~ to 35~. I think if you approve this plan as it was, and nobody's asking you to approve the exactly building and parking because it's not going to get built that way anyway. We all know that. That you would be approving a development with about that kind of...and that's very consistent with the kind of business parks we have developed in... That's what we would take away as the direction of the Planning Commission. That that kind of intensity is acceptable.-Now-maybe it's not but I don't think that, I mean I think that that is a very reasonable use of the property in the sense that it's... Part of the problem is looking at this in such a small scale, it tends to...the naked eye what is really going to happen to that property. If direction needs to be given on grading, then give us direction on grading. With respect to Planning Commission Neeting December 2, 1992 - Page 68 what happened in Opus II for those natural features. The difference is, other than with respect to the topography, a lot of natural features in Opus II like ponds and woods, are spread out throughout the whole property. Unfortunately, they aren't spread out all over this property. There aren't ponds and stands of woods all over this property. If there were and if there are some that we are respecting, we will respect those. But it's a different piece of property and where there are significant natural features, we are respecting those and that's what we are looking for approval for what we understand the direction of the Planning Commission to be. I think there are some very basic perameters here that I would contend are very consistent with the quality of development that we have done in other communities that we would take away the direction from the Planning Commission if we were allowed to proceed. We aren't going to take away that we can have exactly that building with that parking layout. We understand we need to do more detail...more detail water retention studies. There's a lot more work to be done. We're just at the sketch plan process and all we've been able to accomplish. Conrad: Steve in your motion, are you going to address the uses on the west side of TH 41 as well as buffer? Have you thought about that? Erhart: I was going to put those in my motion. Emmings: What is this, lobbying? Conrad: Yeah. I want to make sure you do that. I think the applicant asked that we tell them. Emmings: There are some of these things that I feel strongly about and I feel like I can address them. There are some I don't know where to go and that one doesn't. Erhart: Have you got a motion? Emmings: Yeah. So I think that to the extent that I missed something like that, you can amend my motion. I guess what I'm going to do is, after expressing my great displeasure with this plan and everything else, I'm going to make a motion to recommend conceptual approval. Now, to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 8, 1992. Aanenson: It should say, excuse me, November 4th. Emmings: Of course, I knew that. Dated November 4, 1992 subject to the following conditions. We'll take the first condition will state that there's a great discomfort with the Plan that's been p~esented to us but based on the remarks that were just made by Michele Foster, in that they're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and natural features of this property, I think we can go forward with this as a PUD. That's going to be a condition and that incorporates all of her comments and their willingness to work on this with us. The second one. will combine the old 1 and 10 and just say that the Highway-5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Arboretum Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 69 and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation seriously. The conditions that are in here that were numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will stay as they are but the numbers will have to be changed. Number 8, it says delete the shopping center. I want it understood. That should say, delete the shopping center or any other retail option for Lot 1. The old 9 can stay as it is but would have to be renumbered. Number 11, I guess what we should say there is that the City Council and the Highway $ Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway $ from TH 41 interjection area and I think Opus should be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non-intrusive. Very non-intensive and they should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it. With regard specifically to grading. It's the intention of the Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect the natural topography of the site. That's my motion. Erhart: Okay, I'll second it. 8atzli: Discussion. , Erhart: Yeah, I'd like to add another, one more. The last one that you had. 11. Okay, one more that Lot 19, while it's shown as office, it appears that Lot 19, we're expecting Lot 19 to be the highest quality building on that, and in particular as shown on here that it's an office only. Not office warehouse. Emmings: Are you talking about 197 8atzli: 19 is multi family. Erhart: Oh okay. I thought I read it was office. Batzli: It was on the old plan. If you looked at the box in the staff report, it was still listed as what it was originally. Erhart: Okay. Are we satisfied that we're not going to have a warehouse there because that's what I was driving to. That's a real unique spot and that's the one that has the most exposure to the Arboretum. Emmings: Yeah, because the land really goes down there. You can see straight across from there. Erhart: $o we're clear that we're not going to get a warehouse there? Ahrens: No. Emmings: I guess unless you added it, you'd better add it. Erhart: Well that's what I was trying to get to. I thought that was an Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 70 office and now it's an apartment so, if you're interested, I'll throw out an amendment to clarify that that has to be the highest quality, either multi family or office but that warehouse is not acceptable on that lot. Emmings: Yeah, I'd second that. Batzli: Any other discussion? Resident: I'm confused whether you're referring to Lot 19 or Lot 20? Erhart: On Lot 19. The one on TH 41 there. Resident: You're comfortable with multi family there? Emmings: Not 20. Batzli: Well his motion was that it either has to be multi family or office. Erhart: Well let's talk about it a second. Why wouldn't we want it multi family? Now you're going to get garages. Oh well, that could be incorporated in the building. Emmings: I think it's a tough site to do anything. Erhart: I could certainly envision a very nice quality office building there. Emmings: I think you're more interested that it not be, what I was understanding you to say, I thought you were more interested that there not be a bunch of trucks going in there and it not be warehouse. Erhart: Overhead doors, I mean from any direction. Mrs. Dungey: I have to say that as a resident at 105 West 82nd Street, just south of Lot 20, the noise from Highway 41 that has evolved over the last 10 years because of all the development in Chaska, has become quite bothersome. I can't imagine that anyone would want to live that close to TH 41, especially with all the other industrial and office stuff that's being proposed. Emmings: But you know, that's right where they build all those apartment buildings. You drive up and down the freeway and what do you see on each side of you? Apartment buildings. And it's hard to imagine who lives in there and why but they rent them. Maybe to some extent, we don't have a lot of multi family here and maybe this kind of development will require that we have some too. $o it might not be totally out of the question. £rhart: Well, we'll leave it as it is and let the Council tackle that one. We don't want warehouses there. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 71 Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval to Gateway Nest B~siness Park PUD #92-6 as shown on site plans dated November 4, 1992, subject to the following conditions= There's a great discomfort with the plan that's been presented, but based on the remarks made by Michele Foster, in that they're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and natural features of this property, the Planning Commission will consider this as a PUD. 2. The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Rrboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation seriously. 3. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent topography. . The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100 year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's subdivision code. 5. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. 6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project. 7. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. 8. Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. 9. Delete shopping center, or any other retail option from Lot 1. lO. Work to incorporate two exemptions (Wrase and Paulson properties) to the site. 11. City Council and the High, ay 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the High, ay 5 from TH 41 intersection area and Opus should be part .of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan. 12. Nith regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non-intrusive. Very non-intensive and they shou. ld design a buffer yard at least on the north and ~est and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Rrboretum uses that are around it. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 72 13. Nith regard specifically to grading. It's the intention of the Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect the natural topography of the site. 14. Lot 19 is expected to have the highest ~ualit¥ building, either office or multi family, and not warehouse. All voted in favor except Ahrens and Batzli and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons 3oan. Ahrens: I think that we should look at the option of A-2... Batzli: And I think I would rather have seen it, some of our concerns addressed here. I understand the applicant wanting to go to Council and I don't know if we've given them enough direction but I'm not truly comfortable that, although like I said, I like it on paper but I don't know if it fits on the land and that's what scares me about approving it. $o if they can demonstrate it, I've yet to be convinced. When does this go to Council? Aanenson: Next Council meeting is the 14th. I'm not sure that you can make that. That meeting. Otherwise it will be January llth. Just a matter of whether or not we get the Minutes back in time. That's usually a pretty quick turn around. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in. MODIFICATION NO. 15 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN. Batzli: Okay Todd, do you have a report? Give me 30 seconds. Gerhardt: If you just want to approve the resolution, that's fine too. I mean basically we're making a modification for the three conditions that I've outlined in our report. We have to modify the plan for the purchase of, or land write down for the Target development. And 2, acquisition of Taco and Apple Valley. 3, to spend funds for the conference center, recreational center. Batzli: $o this conference center is going ahead? That's really .what I wanted to know about. Gerhardt: I'll update you on that. Right now, next Thursday at the HRA we'll be interviewing for architects. Leonard Parker, Hamel Green, the Alliance Group, and 8W8R. Batzli: Okay, this is not a public hearing as I'understand it. Is there any discussion? Ladd. Conrad: No. I think it was well said. Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 73 Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution finding Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment Project consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. Ledvina: Second. Was this evaluated by the HRA formally? Gerhardt: No. It will go next Thursday to them... Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Resolution finding Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment Project consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November i8, 1992 as presented. Emmings moved, Erhart seconed to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at li:$$ p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim