Loading...
3k. Minutes� CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Scott Harr, and Harold Brose APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the ' agenda with the following additions: Mayor Chmiel wanted to add under Administrative Presentations a discussion of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 5; Councilman Wing wanted to discuss under Council Presentations a toll road for Highway 212 construction, requesting a formal public safety report on the current ' costs for 1994, and also, a work session item regarding Highway 5 corridor study prior to it's coming to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: c. Resolution #94 -12: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates 4th Addition, Project 93 -22. ' f. Resolution #94 -13: Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of a Loan Application to the Metropolitan Council's Right -of -way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF); and Authorizing the Purchase of Property in the Highway 212 Corridor, Frank Fox Property. I g. Approval of Bills. h. City Council Minutes dated January 10, 1994 ' Planning Commission Minutes dated January 4, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 14, 1993 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 13, 1994 i. Resolution #94.14: Resolution Adopting Permanent Rules of the Wetland Conservation Act. k. Approve Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract, Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. D. GAMBLING LICENSE REQUEST, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I pulled this for the opportunity to vote against it knowing full well that it will pass and ... before when these come forward. I'm not comfortable with our ordinance but before we look at our ordinance. Excuse me. What I'd like to put on one of our work items this year is that we look at our ordinance but I'd like the opportunity to vote against this one. 3'1k, I City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 ' Councilman Wing: I have supported Colleen in trying to get this ordinance looked at. I think it's from past Public Safety experience. I guess we have an ordinance that somewhat is specific that Scott has worked out but if we're going to approve one of these, I'd like to be more specific. I'd like to know exactly, I'd like to set up speck amounts of money specifically directed and if we're going to approve these, have the function and the focus for the money and then have a strong city or county. I don't, there's a little too much free, although it is for me. ' Councilman Senn: I was going to ask if we could table this tonight because if you go back several meetings now, we had one of these come up and we talked about it and agreed that we'd let that one go through and that was kind of the basis that that was the only one really coming at us in the foreseeable future. And the whole ' basis was at that point, in fact I think Scott wasn't even at that meeting but we asked Roger to go back and draft up an ordinance which eliminated just having 15 people in the city type of thing and went even further to designate that the funds, or at least a large portion of them be used in Chanhassen. And that's supposed to be coming back to us for review and it is an item, I think I saw it on the priority list back under item 5 for Council ' work sessions but given that direction and where we were at that point in time, I'd really like to see this be tabled and have our work session and decide where we want to go with this thing overall before we proceed with any more of these. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the things I'd just like to point out. From both of the other two participants we have within the community. Specifically the Legion whereby they have provided the city with many, many ' things over and above what we have presently now. With additional contributions towards public safety to the park and recreation segments. Building different things within the community and I think we have to acknowledge the fact that they're doing a great job with the city. And I think we're looking at the Lions as well. The Lions have done a superb job with us and to me, I don't know if that's penalizing them or not but I think to a certain point you should be well aware as to the contributions that are made from these organizations over, way over and way above of what their requirements are. And so I just wanted to point that out. Councilman Senn: You know Don I agree with you 100% because those are two of them that go way over and above our very minimum requirements you know. And what we talked about before that I thought we were at least heading for some consensus on is we'd like to establish a much higher standard so for everybody we'd be talking about the same set of rules and they'd be much more substantial. But a number of different things that I've pulled together for some other communities that I really would like to share and talk about on that. Scott Harr: Your Honor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Scott Harr: I believe this isn't a new permit. This is just a paperwork requirement... Mayor Chmiel: Approved the last time. Yes, I realize that. So that is the portion as to what Scott has indicated. My suggestion at this time would not be to table it because we've already approved it. And I would therefore then look for recommendations but somebody raised their hand from the Legion. Councilman Senn: Point of clarification though. Is this the one then we approved about a month ago? ' Mayor Chmiel: Correct. 1 2 11 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. So this is the one we said let go and this is for one year and this is the last one we're letting through? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: And in one year, here at the bottom it says that the rules are going to change. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilman Senn: Okay. So this is the one we made, okay. Alright. Then I agree with you. Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to come forward here. Wayne Blue: Yes I would. Mayor Chmiel: Please state your name over at the podium, and who you're representing. Wayne Blue: I'm Wayne Blue. I'm the Gaming Manager for the Disabled American Veterans. What happened here is when I submitted the request...as a matter of fact we took in $10,000.00 from Riveria Club. We hadn't turned over any to the city yet because our bookkeeper was still working the figures out. Anyway, all we're requesting now is my gaming license for the DAV for the State of Minnesota expires on 4/30 of '94. Consequently, when that happens I've got to renew all of our licenses. This one, Chanhassen. Not Chanhassen. Shakopee and...Club. Got to renew them all. Costs us $250.00 a license to renew. If I had known at the time when I asked for permission to come in here in the first place, I would have waited until after I renewed my license. It would save us $1,000.00 overall. We totally agree and intend to comply with all of your rules. Your donation and what have you. However, it takes us a little time to get our feet on the ground because we've got quite an expense to start a gaming operation and get...We're not coming here tonight to talk to you people to try and get an extension. Or get a license for a year now and at the end of that year, and then we'll be able to come before you and at that time we'll have made our donation to the city with ... making money for nothing. However, all of our money that we do make, outside of expenses, go to the VA Hospital. We have a number of programs at the VA Hospital. Many, many programs. We have a senior companion program that gets $2,000.00 a month. We have many, many programs that we sponsor. We have a band program we sponsor ... to the hospital. If we didn't have these programs in the city, we'd have to come up with some reason, some way in order to get these veterans because after all we are disabled American veterans. And we all fought for the same thing. You people fought and didn't get wounded. People like me that fought and did get wounded. Right now we're trying to keep our VA hospital going and also we know that the percentage has to come here because... split down what might have to come back to the city. We totally intend on doing it just as soon as we get our feet on the ground so we've got the funds to do it. Which is getting close. We have taken in like I said about $10,000.00 to the Riveria, which is a pretty good income. Pretty good income. But I appreciate your consideration to extend our license for at least one more year and let us show you what we can do for the donations to the city. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Wayne. Councilman Wing: Usually between the City Manager or Scott, I think as these come before us, if they should happen again, I'd like to know a lot more about the group that's asking for the license. I'd like to know what the word expenses mean so we have a full accounting of exactly where the money's going, dime for dime. I 3 J �J City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 1 think to just have a group come in, and I'm certainly familiar with the Disabled American Veterans. It's a name but I have no idea where the money and impact is going. That happened down at the Legion once where we looked into exactly where the money was going and what percent was going where and how it was handled and we wound up fairly comfortable. I guess that's enough. Councilman Senn: Well based on this being the one that we already approved and it's just the paperwork, I'll move approval on it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution #94-15: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Gambling License Request for the Disabled American Veterans. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman ' Dockendorf who abstained and the motion carried. E. APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING VARIANCE NO. 93-9, JEFF PAPKE. ' Mayor Chmiel: I believe we did receive a letter from our City Attorney in regard to that. Roger, would you like to make any comment on that? ' Roger Knutson: I have no comments other than to say, you can adopt these Findings. If you decide not to adopt them, it's not a motion to reconsider because all you have done, the only motion that you can pass so far is recommending to do this. It's within your discretion as to what you want to do. ' Councilman Wing: But failure to pass Facts and Findings, that puts us in a very neutral area then. Roger Knutson: Well, you have one of two motions available to you tonight. One would be to adopt the ' Findings of Fact and the Decision as presented. The other would be, potentially to approve the variance subject to conditions outlined by staff. Maybe there's a third motion. Councilman Wing: I guess the only comments I would make then, and put back to Council is, is that this is a lot of record and we argued this and it was a split Council decision on this. And being a lot of record and being the city has known, the Park and Rec has known for years that this is going to go and the Arboretum has complained that this is going to go but no one has stepped forward to do anything about it, somebody else owns the land and wants to do something about it. Roger what, do you have a recommendation on this? As far as I'm concerned, it can stay where it is. On the other hand, I'm willing to reconsider if we found some inappropriate ground here. Roger Knutson: It'd be your judgment call. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's basically Council's call and I think that for us to go with the Findings of Fact puts us probably I think in a better position from a legal aspect. Roger Knutson: Well the Findings of Fact to deny it. approve the Variance, obviously you do it without this. conditions listed. Again, it's your. It says they don't get the variance. So if you want to If you move to approve the variance having the N i� r City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: And basically the Findings of Fact lead to the conclusion that they can hook up to water and I sewer... correct? Roger Knutson: Just sewer. Councilman Senn: Well yeah, sewer. Councilman Wing: I'll just approval of item (e) then. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah and I guess I was willing to consider a reconsideration. And knowing that we have a very, very difficult time deciding this issue a couple weeks ago but the decision isn't made any easier this evening so I guess that's all I needed to know. I'll second his motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Don, did you have something? , Roger Knutson: It's just, it's academic but technically this is not a reconsideration. If you wanted to approve this, and I'm not suggesting you do, but this would not be a reconsideration to think about it. The motion last time was to direct myself to prepare Findings. That has been accomplished. There's no reason to reconsider that because it's already been accomplished. Councilman Senn: It's really ruling on the appeal which has already been denied by the Board. Roger Knutson: By the Board, correct. So it's not a reconsideration. Councilman Mason: One quick question. Don Ashworth, you put on here approval is recommended. I'm ' assuming you're saying approval of the Findings of Fact? Don Ashworth: Right. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Findings of Fact regarding Variance No. 93 -9 for Jeff Papke as presented by the City Attorney. All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who abstained and the motion carried. ' Councilman Mason: I'm abstaining on this one simply because I voted against the denial of the variance in the first place. J. APPROVE_ PURCHASE AGREEMENT, NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, TH 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have anything on this that you want to say? , Don Ashworth: To the best of my knowledge the agreement in front of you is similar to the original approval that you gave in actually purchasing the property. It's similar to what you included in the economic ' development plan because you had to modify that document before we could move ahead with this type of action. Staff believes it's in accordance with everything that we've been doing to date and we would 5 ,� . 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 ' recommend approval. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ' Councilman Senn: We have two items on this tonight. One is the purchase agreement and the second relates to rezoning of the property. I don't see any big problems with the rezoning coming up but from a financial perspective, since that's what the purchase agreement ties into, I have opposed that and I'm going to continue to ' oppose it. By latest count now, I've got over $4 million in TIF going specifically into this project and I just think that's too much and I remain opposed to that level of city expense through TER So I wanted the opportunity to vote no. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move approval of the item. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement for the New Elementary School site at Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. ' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. AWARD OF BIDS: AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR 1994 EQUIPMENT /VEHICLE PURCHASES. Mayor Chmiel: Charles isn't here. Don, do you want to touch it? ' Don Ashworth: Yes. Charles caught one of those bugs that have been traveling around and he wasn't here today. I believe that Charles' report is pretty straight forward. Harold Brose is here this evening. Our Shop Foreman and, Shop Superintendent. So if the Council has any specific questions in regards to the equipment, I would turn those over to Hang. Otherwise, approval is recommended. Mayor Chmiel: No, I took a tour of the facility here a little bit ago and Harold took some time to show me ' some of the problems that are existing and from a personal tour that I had, I did see that there are these needs for what he's saying here. But if there are any questions the Council may have from Harold, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to answer those questions that you may have. And he's sitting there crossing his fingers. r Councilman Mason: Well I just, from rumors I hear about how tight fisted that group of people is, this list seems pretty necessary and okay with me. ' Councilman Wing: May I address that comment? Mayor Chmiel: Very quickly. ' Councilman Wing: If I could quote former Councilmembers that I have sat with, I think they would have said, he is serious? Is this for real? This is more equipment than I've seen Harold get in one sitting in 12 years. But 6 9 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 I would agree with you. Mayor Chmiel: If you went down and looked at it, you'd know. Unfortunately. Councilman Wing: No, he's been looking for this for years. This isn't an accumulation ... I would move approval. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions? Councilman Senn: I think we should keep a few of the rusty vehicles just to keep our inventory. Resolution #93 -16: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize staff to advertise for bids for equipment and vehicle purchases as approved with the 1994 budget and that an award of contract for the two (2) dump trucks be approved as per state bid contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. UPDATE ON THE 1994 BOND SALES, DAVE MACGII.LIVRARY, SPRINGSTED CORPORATION. Dave MacGillivrary: Good evening. We'd like you to reaffirm your actions of December and formalize again the taking of competitive bids to refund the four issues. That competitive bid sale will be February 28th. ...to go with four issues, there's two objectives. One is to reduce future interest costs and the second is to extend the term the City would be eligible to collect future tax increment revenue. There's four issues. The 1994A issue is a GO improvement bond sale of about $6.3. We refunded about $4.3. A net savings of $360,000.00. On the '94B issue, to save some interest cost and also to do this extension... tax increment purposes. There at about 6.6 %. We'd refund them to about 4.1 %. Extend the term by 2 years and that would be a $65,000.00. The '94C issue is to refund some taxable GO tax increment issues from 1988. They're outstanding at 9.3 %. We'd refund those at about 5.8 %. Extend the term of all three ... with a net savings. And '94D issue, GO TIF funds from 1988 of about 6.7 %. We'd refund those at about 4.3 %. Extend the term 2 years and have a net savings of about $24,000.00. This action tonight sets the stage to have competitive bids on the 28th, which we would bring back to you. In general, why we're doing this now rather than last year is, some of the quirks in Federal law about bank qualifications ... Also rates right now in January are, have come back down a little bit. They're the lowest point now that they were in 1993. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with all of the savings we're going to do and extending it 2 years is what you're saying, are we going to save money from what you're doing and what you're going to get paid as to what it's going to cost the city? Dave MacGillivrary: ...Yes. I'll throw that into ... is after you pay us and everybody else, there's a nice savings. I think the total net savings, net after all costs is about $500,000.00 a year. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any other questions? Councilman Mason: Yeah I do. Are you really a tag team with Don Ashworth? Dave MacGillivrary: ...I thought that was kind of interesting wording. 7 L] City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: I was going to ask you if you wanted to buy the wrestling ring and pay for it... Don Ashworth: I really have enjoyed working with Dave and yes, the wordage there is accurate because with this County road project, we had to get through some real hurdles on that and I think, I was very happy to have Dave at my side and I think we did do a pretty good job on Ron. Councilman Senn: One question though. Our costs are no higher doing it this way, under two issues than they were doing it under one issue? Dave MacGillivrary: Higher in terms of, you mean because it's multiple issues? The reason for the multiple issues, first the tax increment. The basic answer to that is, there's two different things. First, the tax increments have to be sold separately because they're tax increment versus the improvements. They're two different tax increment issues. One is taxable. One is tax exempt. That goes to why there's more than one issue here. ' Councilman Senn: So which ones are we doing tonight? Dave MacGillivrary: You're doing, you're setting the stage...A taxable tax increment and a tax exempt tax ' increment so they're completely separate. The other two improvement issues, okay we did put the improvements together because you only gain on extending on the terms of those on one of those two. The other one you don't and therefore the other, if you don't extend the term on, the savings go up. You get higher savings. Councilman Senn: I thought in December we acted on five though. Dave MacGillivrary: Well I wasn't here in December. Don Ashworth: Six. Dave MacGillivrary: We presented six and we shuffled back through those and now I think four are really viable candidates. Councilman Senn: So of the six, we issued two in December and these are the other four? Don Ashworth: No. That's why Dave started. These are a reaffirmation of your action in December. The only difference is, is we're now reaffirming four of those instead of six. Dave MacGillivrary: You didn't do anything in December. You said there's six possible candidates up to the city to review ... gone through some more analysis and of the six, two aren't worth doing anymore. Or aren't worth doing... Four will get the job done ... You won't do anything until you actually take bids and award it. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. ' Councilman Senn: Okay. And the ones we're doing, two of them are GO's and two of them are tax increments? ' Dave MacGillivrary: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: When did you say the bidding is going to? 8 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Dave MacGillivrary: February 28th. Don Ashworth: Regular City Council meeting. Councilman Wing: I might buy one. Mark, do you have any more questions on this? If not, I'll move approval of the recommendation of the four bond issues as stated on the last page. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll second that. Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following: Resolution #94 -17A: $1,170,000. Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1994C. Resolution #94 -17B: $525,000. General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1994D Resolution #94 -17C: $1,665,000. General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994B Resolution #94 -171): $5,570,000. General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1994A All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: I'm abstaining because I voted no in December. REZONING REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 107,609 SO. FT. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RECREATION /PARK COMPLEX, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Mayor Chmiel: Somehow or another I'd like to see us get another name in there but that's going to take place eventually I hope. Councilman Mason: I concur with that comment Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Don, do you want to? Don Ashworth: I think Paul is going to take this one. Paul Krauss: I can go through my spiel on it but you've already heard it. Mayor Chmiel: Well we've gone through this. Paul Krauss: ...outstanding issues. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That might be a good idea. Paul Krauss: As you're all aware, this has been in the planning stages for quite a long time. Throughout the building has shifted locations as soil problems ... The roadway design ... We're still trying to resolve some questions w C J Ij r City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 pertaining to drainage. We think we have the answer at hand. Basically everything is falling into place at this point. The program is designed. The building seems to be meeting the needs. We've asked for some adjustments in some of the building architectural detailing... The landscaping is very well executed. Some of the original landscaping the Planning Commission looked at ..cut back somewhat and shifted around to make ... balance and site preparations but I think we can be consistent with some of the goals. This will be an extensively landscaped site. Looking at it from Highway 5 you'll see a series of what will look like groves. They increase in height as you go backwards and ... One of the outstanding issues here that we're trying to work out at the present time is to insure that the ... design this road to where the Highway 5 task force anticipated which is an attractively landscaped boulevard street with a trail. So from the plan the Planning Commission looked at the road as being—anywhere from 20 to 30 feet farther north ... The landscaping has been modified. ' We're asked for reforestation to the hill in the southwest corner of the property at Galpin where it bumps up against Timberwood. We've asked that it has to be reforested It will be ... It's a hill that's basically being farmed right now but we think... reforestation. One of the things we were looking at was what tree restoration. We had hoped that there might be willing—information but has not. However, we've got some other mechanisms to achieve this ... 100 feet wide to accomplish that. As I touched on, drainage is an issue that remains as yet unresolved and we think we know the answer. Basically we have a site that's being very intensively used and there isn't a whole lot of room to do the drainage on site without basically giving up ' something, which we prefer not to do. What we're essentially looking at doing is developing an off site NURP basin as a wetland mitigation over here by putting the road, the storm drainage... That pond is located on somebody else's property and that's all good and well if we can get access to it. We've been in conversations with developers on that property. They're coming through with a proposal that will be tracking through the Planning Commission almost as we speak and we think we can develop a cooperative basin there for very little expense. There is a condition in this thing that basically nothing happens... until the drainage issue is resolved and we have every confidence that it will be shortly. There may be some temporary ponding ... Utility work, road design, Galpin Boulevard upgrading, the signalization of Galpin, are all progressing at their own rate but everything is falling into place on those as well. The Planning Commission reviewed this 2 weeks ago and was feeling very comfortable with the recommendations. They made some modest changes to them but the project was given strong support. With that we do have the architect here tonight... answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Would you like to come up and give us your presentation. ' Dave Leschek: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I am really here to answer any questions that you might have concerning, I think Paul has touched on everything quite well. We could just review briefly the plan, the site plan. Paul has mentioned that we have made a number of changes. As was mentioned in the ' staff report, there was given a dollar figure for the landscaping work and what you're seeing on this plan does in fact represent that number. With some of the comments that we received from the Planning Commission as well as Paul, we have continued to buffer along Highway 5 as well as Galpin. Moving some of the trees that we had along the southern portion of the site and getting more of an effect, buffering of the site from two larger ... that go along the perimeter of the site. ...the soccer fields. This happens to be the school district soccer field. We have also rotated another soccer field here and ... to 180 feet so we can create that corridor along Bluff Creek. ...so those are really at this time the amount of changes that have taken place to the plan. We have scaled back some ' of the courtyards or exterior courtyards that were a part of the original design for the project but we feel that the conceptual nature of the plan has remained intact with the orchard effect along Highway 5 and then creating these open spaces by using what we consider a wind row effect with the plantings in the north/south direction. Any questions concerning the plan? I know I reviewed it real quickly but Paul and his people have done such a fine job. 10 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: I have one question in terms of the plan. The only part that really disturbs me or bothers me about the plan is the availability and proximity of parking to the community facility and the vehicle side. I'd really like to see that lot on the east side of the building extended and expanded to the north there so there's more convenient and accessible parking to the community facilities, as well as the ball diamonds. I mean if you look at the way this is laid out right now, there's wonderfully convenient, accessible parking for the school use but it's a pretty good jaunt, especially on cold winter nights, to the community part of the facility. I'd really like to see that corrected. Dave Leschek: The consideration given to the parking lot here on the east side was that we wanted to leave this , area open for winter activities where they would maybe have their open skating or just the regular skating rink. In this area here, they've got their two hockey rinks in this location here with the provisions for a future out ' building that would also be the warming house and so that is the reason why this community parking has occurred mostly to the south end of the facility. We have added a drop off area and that came up as a result of dealing with the task force and their need to get, for instance parents coming in, dropping off their participants or children to go out and get them to different activities and then they would then park the vehicle. With just ' the time constraint of people picking up their kids after work and getting them to the playing site but that's how that decision came about. I'm only explaining how we arrived at the plan that we have currently. Your comment is well taken though. , Councilwoman Dockendorf: How many feet, like if I'm in the middle of that parking lot, how many feet would it take? Mayor Chmiel: Distance. ' Dave Leschek: This is probably about 120 feet. , Councilman Senn: What, from the middle of the parking lot? No way. Dave Leschek: From this center island here. One inch equals 60 feet. ' Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah and you've got to the end. Dave Leschek: The community entrance is located in this area here. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and what's that distance to you? That's I would say about 4 inches. So unless I'm ' miscalculating, you're talking more than 200, 240 feet. I understand your point about the surface skating rinks but I think the surface skating rinks could go in a multitude of places in that park. I'm going to stand strong on wanting to see that lot expanded over to the north there. ' Councilman Wing: Yeah, I agree with Mark. I'd like to see a turn around at that proposed house, or the drop - off point. Just take out the trees and run it straight north. So you get parking and access to the central area. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and if you run it straight north you can move some of that landscaping to both sides of the lot there if you want. Mayor Chmiel: On either side or yeah. 11 1 t� City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 ' Councilman Wing: Or even delete it if you had to. That's a central area. Councilman Senn: It's just if they're trying to meet a requirement. ' Councilman Wing: This is a real major project and we're looking at it off blueprints again. I only want to back up on that because you came in with the Rapid Oil off a blueprint and I'm not aware of anybody who didn't think we made a mistake there. The elevations and the whole sight line of the thing and the landscaping and we were going to try and learn our lesson. Then Bill Morrish came out and showed us one of the major rooms or impact areas to the city is the hill behind Byerly's and that hill should be protected. It's kind of an entry monument, if you would. The trees up on top and I worked off that one again. A major project that had HRA ' funding and they took a lot of HRA dollars and worked off a blueprint and suddenly it's not what I thought it was off the blueprints. I was convinced it was back where those apartments are running west. Well it's not. It's taking up the hill. The impact on the city. It's destroyed that room that Bill Morrish said should be protected. I'm really frustrated by that and every time I pull in there I just agonize over what we did. We did it ' off a blueprint. And here we have a major project and then we talk about landscaping and so on and so forth, and I can't picture this except I'm learning enough to know that in the Target store out in Seattle, Sunday afternoon along one side I counted 36 maple trees on one side of the Target alone in a terraced situation and that wasn't saturated with trees. So we're not asking for too much. At any rate, to move ahead on this. If we're going to spend this kind of money and with computer imaging available, I think we ought to be having some sketches of the actual train with these things drawn in so we can see elevations and we can see what this means. And Paul I think we've got to start doing that. When we're spending this kind of money and like Mark pointed out, there's a tremendous amount of city funding going into there and major decisions. I think we have to have more visual acuity to make decisions but maybe that's neither here nor there at this point but I want that to get, to have more credibility. I want staff to start reacting to that a little more. I want people coming in to start using the technology that's available so we can make better decisions. One comment I've got that is different from Mark's here. I had hoped that Highway 5 to, as much as possible, would tend to be a parkway experience and I know from the last 3 or 4 projects we did, I don't like anything dwarf. I hate crab apples. I mean that's a fact. I don't think they're attractive trees. I don't like their height. I don't like the way they spread out. I don't like the colors in the fall. I don't like anything about them. And there's thousands of them along, well several hundred, maybe 40. Well, there's a bunch of them, on the north side of this property. I don't care if we want to blend, and I'm glad to see the pine trees up here but if our Highway 5, I want to see some quality specimen shade trees going in along there so that we have a landscaping plan for this corridor that's going to have some reforestation. Crab apple trees don't do it for me so I would want to see a majority of these crab apples placed into, I think spelled it out. 33% sugar, 33% northwood red, oak, red. Whatever you want to do I don't care. I don't care if it's linden or hackmores or aspens or ash but I want overstory shade trees along the north side of this property. Not crab apples. And I would make that, somebody bail me out quick. Councilwoman Dockendorf: A requirement? Councilman Wing: A requirement for approval. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks for pointing out the two issues that I wanted to... Number one, the artistic impressions for a project like this I think is mandatory. You know, it's way too hard to envision what this is going to look like from blueprints. And particularly the building, there's absolutely no detail on the elevations... Regarding crab apples. You know I said it 6 months ago. I can see kids picking them up and throwing them at cars so, aesthetically I don't have a problem with them. Realistically I think we may have a problem with them. My other big concern is the mass grading of the site. I know when we initially talked about this project we ' 12 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 talked about perhaps stepping some of it. You know I realize it's a cornfield now but it is growing and I have some concern about how these elevations are going to work and again it's very hard for me to tell from this elevations, you know numbers on a blueprint what exactly is going to happen. As stated, if you could kind of explain. Dave Leschek: Well first of all I'd like to apologize. When we were before the Planning Commission we did have a number of additional boards that we had for it. It just so happens that tonight there's another School District meeting going on as we're speaking here and that is in fact where the boards are. We do realize that we were reacting to the Planning Commission report and we are intending to be back in front of the Council I believe sometime in February. Is that correct? And at which time we would then bring those boards back with us. For us to produce two sets of boards, and the number of boards that we're producing, it's just... Paul Krauss: Yeah ... you should be done. Unless you want to come back. Dave Leschek: We'd really like to get, I guess maybe get the boards out to you. We have those boards and they are colored. They do show you the types of materials. We were just in this situation where we had two meetings occurring at one time. Paul Krauss: There's also a model of the building that shows the massing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what I'd like to see then is the model. Dave Leschek: Yeah, we have that as well and again, that is at the District tonight and Bob Rothman, who you met once before when we were here, they are there at the School District tonight. Councilman Wing: And you're not going anywhere without our approval and maybe we ought to approve it first before they look at it so I guess ... here tonight. Dave Leschek: We've run into that situation a number of times. Colleen, to address your concern. We have, obviously the natural grade or slope of the site is towards Bluff Creek and we have taken this site, and you're right. We have mass graded a significant portion of it. As we come across the site we do begin to step back down so that we get back down to Bluff Creek. We step down along this point here as well as up on top of that. We do not have as much relief as we once thought we were going to have. At one time we were going to be able to get a significant amount of fill off of Galpin. We were counting on that. We do not have that availability now because the County has decided to extend their portion of work in the future and ... they want that fill for their future road work. So we have had to grade the site a little bit more significantly to provide for all our project because if we do some of that terracing that we would have liked to have had, which is also the trademark here for the Chanhassen parks and rec program ... Lake Ann. We have maintained a significant portion of that. Maybe not to the extent that we fast thought but we still have terraced as we begin to drop to the creek. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So right in the very middle of the project on Highway 5, there's right now a really large ... will that be maintained? Paul Krauss: In the future Highway 5 ... yeah. Highway 5 right now follows a contour. It dips down to the creek and then it goes up high. The future Highway 5 stays high. Councilwoman Dockendorf. So that's more a function of how MnDot's going to build it than what we're doing 13 Lam' r LI City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 here? Paul Krauss: Right. And that's one of the reasons why we're able to put a bridge structure underneath Highway 5 at Bluff Creek. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That swamping area right now, and I only know from chasing my dog down there, that's not on this property? And if it is, it's not a designated wetland? Paul Krauss: This was a real important part of this review. There are several areas of potential wetlands. The one you're talking about Colleen is the large one that kind of backs up into here. There's another smaller one over here and there's a couple of ditch sections and then there's the creek. What we found is that everything that's on this 137 acres, the original 137 acres...has been actively cultivated for 60 years. And it's called prior converted wetlands in the new ordinance and therefore functionally does not exist. The cutoff line is right about through here. It's basically the ... tree line. There's an outlot ... that comes back in here and ... by Wally Otto. That is wetland. It's never been, not recently been farmed. That is totally protected. So this is flood plain down in here but it's not protected wetland and this is why we want to use ... to build our NURP basin. And then maybe actually expand this wetland into the rest of the area We're having that design done right now. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, good. As long as it's not going to be still protected. We need it for the drainage. Okay. I just wanted to verify that there's no lighting on these outdoor facilities. Dave Leschek: There, at this time there is lighting at the. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Ice rinks. Dave Leschek: Ice rinks as well as the tennis courts and of course all the parking lots. Councilwoman Dockendorf. How do we regulate when those get turned off type things? Is that a Park and Rec regulation? Paul Krauss: Well, you know that... facility and essentially you can do whatever you want. If you'd like to establish some guidelines for that now, you could... Councilman Senn: Excelsior's got a good system. Their's is just coin operated. Councilman Wing: This is a real issue here. We're moving into a significant neighborhood and residential area and I think the size of lighting, intensity of lighting, hours of lighting, all big issues. Paul Krauss: ...parking lot is regulated by city ordinance. That's the half foot candle and it's ... from anything. Councilman Wing: But we could have 50 foot. Paul Krauss: The height of poles has been an issue on other sites and we haven't regulated that here but you may want to. Say no poles higher than 25 feet or something. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sounds good. 14 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 1 Paul Krauss: As far as the tennis court goes and the ... goes, they are set well back behind pretty significant landscaping. Now I'm not certain whether that means, they're probably going to need some... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Why are we have lighting on, I understanding the lighting for the ice rink. It gets ' dark at 4:30 but on the tennis courts. I mean it stays light until 9:00. Paul Krauss: Well I'd be speaking for Todd Hoffman but I, one time he told me that they get some of their most intense use in the evening when people are off from work. Councilwoman Dockendorf. So how late would those be lit? Any idea? Don Ashworth: The ones up at the elementary school, I'm pretty sure that's 11:00. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. I guess I'd like the issue addressed Paul Krauss: Well again, if you'd like to establish a condition on that now. Come up with a time, that's fine. You may want to... ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well see and again. It's hard to envision, I mean because we're going to have where the road sits, we've got a retaining wall and I don't know if that's going to, how big the retaining wall's going to be. Where the oaks will be. The Timberwood oaks and how that relates to, I mean I'm having a very , difficult time seeing. Paul Krauss: Yeah, and all the cross sections... You're basically looking down the hill through the trees. I Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's what I figured so would we really see those lights? Paul Krauss: Well due to the fact, I mean the tennis courts are used when the trees are leafed out. The ' hockey... Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't have a problem with the hockey lights. I understand that. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there'd be as much spillover back into your area if you keep your standards at a minimal height like 25 feet. ' Councilman Wing: I agree. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well then I'd like to have that as a condition. ' Councilman Mason: Well I know you're going to get opposition from people that play tennis to have a light pole 25 feet high. Councilman Wing: I assume your court lighting is going to have to be a regulation height, size and. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Parking lot. Mayor Chmiel: Right, those are for the parking lot more than anything else. 15 I City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Mason: Right, okay sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the ice rink ones don't need to be... ' Roger Knutson: Maybe I could make a suggestion. This facility you will own and you will operate so rather, you might consider that with experience you might want to change your mind. And so you might not want to completely tie your own hands by your approval tonight as part of the site plan but as part of your responsibilities for operating the facility, decide as you go or in conjunction with Todd Hoffman or whoever to make those decisions and change them as experience dictates. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would agree on the ice rink and tennis courts but the parking lot I would still like ' to put a regulation of 25 feet. Councilman Wing: I guess the number escapes me. Maybe it should be 15 or 30. I mean do we know? Although the issue here is we want lighting addressed. Aggressively. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Councilman Senn: Maybe say less than 30 feet. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Another issue, just because it's related and Charles isn't here and he's answered these questions before but the semaphores at Galpin and TH 5, I really want to see them before this project goes through. And what I heard last time is that we don't have those lights that were downtown. The temporaries so that's, what I'm understanding... Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. MnDot took them back. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the need is more immediate and I don't know how to address that except by ' saying, I want them in by this summer. Who takes the ball and runs with that I don't know but that's my decree. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that still will be determined by MnDot themselves as to when those will be in. With a little persuasion from the city and the utilization of that facility and having kids there, I think that's our push to tell them we want it there soon. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well even prior to that. I read some concerns about the HVAC screening on the roof but I understand that is being addressed. Paul Krauss: That's a condition that we've got in there and yeah... Councilwoman Dockendorf. And the ... out to Galpin, the widening of Galpin. Does that go, where does it ... but aren't we talking about just to the frontage road. Paul Krauss: North to Highway 5. Councilwoman Dockendorf. North to Highway 5. Is that 4 lane or just 2 lane? 16 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Paul Krauss: Four. And then there's another project that the County is working on to finish Galpin to the south. It's not directly related to this and I'm not certain... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Will they jive as far as timing? Paul Krauss: The County project may track a little bit behind our's. Mayor Chmiel: One of the things I might add on that light, it's the resolution we adopted about 3-4 months ago requesting that that light be in that intersection. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And have we heard anything back? Mayor Chmiel: Well now we haven't. I think that's what we have to do is just check it out to see where that's at. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. We'll follow up on that. I don't have any other comments on the site. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Mason: Couple of questions. Not too much. What happens if the, it says here said development is focused around what has become known as the south access boulevard on the Highway 5 plan. That hasn't been approved yet right? Mayor Chmiel: No. ' Councilman Mason: I mean what happens if that all gets shifted around? I see that as kind of potentially a significant problem. I mean if we go ahead and approve this, and then we decide ah, I mean by approving this that kind of says where the south access boulevard has to be, doesn't it? ' Paul Krauss: It does and it's in the same place here as it's in the plan. It's an alignment that's been worked out. There's not a whole lot of choice. There is only one alternative. There no alternatives on Highway 5. This is the Highway 5 plan. There's only one. , Councilman Senn: This isn't a location with two alternatives. Paul Krauss: No, and as far as where it comes off of Galpin and that's why traffic safety and the need to preserve the school site. As far as working with it on the east side, there may be a little bit of flexibility. We've got that project coming in but it's got to hook up to the south loop...so there's not a whole lot of choice. Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. I'm wondering with, you know as I read through this report and talk about Bluff Creek ... on the bottom of the page 2. City plans call for... recreational and environmental corridors along the creek. Does any plan or thought been given to having some kind of trail head in this area? Paul Krauss: Yeah. There is a trail component of this going to be built with this. It's going to be ... connection will be done but it's going to link up with a trail that's going to be on the east/west collector and that's also, what's going to happen is the trail section will come down here and basically be terminated. Down here it will hook up to the on- street trail that will be moving out to Galpin which will ... and come over here to the other 17 '�J i it Meeting - January 24 1994 City Counc ee g ary , branch of Bluff Creek because that's got a more defined channel so it will actually come down and go under there and then continue on south through the creek corridor. Since that other project, the other land masses coming in right now, we have an expectation of being able to get that trail through here in the next year or two so down south... Councilman Mason: This might be worth pursuing as long as that is an educational facility, if we can and the parking will be there and what not, if we can figure out some kind of trail head or you know, x marks the spot. Trail starts here kind of deal. Paul Krauss: One of the things we're proposing. I know that the School District has talked briefly about this, especially, an original plan had the school closer to the creek and it didn't work there for soils. In this grant application now—one of the things we're proposing to do is have an educational component between the District and the Arboretum to use that area. r Councilman Mason: Right. I hope that happens. I'd really like to see something like that there. My only other comment is, I concur with staff I think more than I do with the esteemed Councilman Wing on ornamental trees. I kind of like them. And you know I understand, well yeah kids can throw apples but you know, if a kid wants to throw something, they're going to find it. And I don't know, something I do agree with staff about. I don't think every tree in town has to be an overstory tree. Mayor Chmiel: Some other people were tempted by apples as well. Councilman Mason: And Dick, don't get me wrong. You know we need lots of overstory trees. I'm not belittling that at all but I think every once in a while we can throw something new into the pot too and I don't know, I think that would look kind of sharp when they're blossoming. So that's my counter point for the crab apples. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And if I could interject. There is a chain link fence that separates? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, 6 foot. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And on a related issue, is that going to be visible? Paul Krauss: We talked about that some. We should talk a little bit more to refine that but we talked about running... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to get that one foot of barb removed though. Paul Krauss: As far as those trees go, I mean there was a lot of discussion on those things and there is kind of a design coming through in, you know what do you want to achieve in your corridor. What ... by moving trees and speck trees to identify ... but it also tied in to the fact that the fast thing you see at the Arboretum is a bunch of apple trees. And with the first tier of this you do have a lot of overstory trees going into the site. It's really more of a design element. If this was somebody's parking lot—but it's not. I mean here we clearly have a design... whether you like it or not is for you to decide but it's something different than what we've done in the past. Councilman Wing: To be looking at a blueprint without elevations, etc, etc, means nothing. To just counter 18 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 with my esteem colleague Councilman Mason. I don't disagree with that and I'm happy with this but I think my vision of the corridor, that there be a certain amount of parkway effect. That parkway isn't created of flowering dwarf Austrian something or other. Mayor Chmiel: In your opinion. In your opinion. Councilman Wing: In my opinion fully. I don't mind you leaving this element but I think there could be a smattering of some forest style trees along Highway 5. This is a long stretch and it's a major stretch and it's one of our windows and I don't, I think this is too much of one and leave exactly what you've got but I could easily put in some overstory trees in the background to supplement. Paul Krauss: It will be in the background. What you've got here Dick is you've got the crabs in here but once you're down here, the other side of the ravine ... The other thing too is, keep in mind that the Bluff Creek corridor is coming through over here and restoration efforts for that, which is one of those ... and that's going to come across the corridor with either... Councilman Wing: Well having driven this a lot and looked at this at length, I think it's an architectural dream and an architectural theory. I don't think that if implement it's going to be real attractive here because I don't think these are going to be high enough to hide any of this to offset any of it. Councilman Mason: Just two more quick comments. I agree with the distance to the parking lot. To the door there to the community facilities. I think that, I think back to what it was like a week ago tonight and that's going to be a pretty windy, cold stretch. The other thing I'm really in favor of, and I like to see was the reforestation of the Bluff Creek as opposed to the landscaping. I think that's a really good idea. Paul Krauss: Yeah, we sure would love to, you know if the budget would allow it, to get that rolling now. It doesn't appear as though we can mix the two but we've got other ways of approaching that. Councilman Mason: I think this has been very well thought out and I know it's gone through a lot of changes and I suspect it will go through a few more before we're done with it but looks good. I think we're definitely headed in the right direction. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess really other than the redesign on the parking, I agree 100% on the elevations. I guess that was another ...that I'd really like to see something. And I guess one other question. Do you have a floor plan there? David Leschek: Yes sir I do. Councilman Senn: Could you show me on there where the community facility is? David Leschek: The community facility, we have actually 3 doors here. The community facility actually comes up. Follows a movable partition along that divides both the gyms and then extends up basically so this portion of the building, this community portion. After school hours the community then absorbs the other half of the gymnasium. But during school hours, the community has one gym available to itself. Two 3/4 court basketball courts. 19 J City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: How many community rooms are going to be there? David Leschek: We have 4 community meeting rooms, a fitness room and aerobics room as well. Locker rooms, toilet facilities, some general storage, a control point as well as an office and then the lobby waiting area as part of the community portion of the building. r E Councilman Senn: And the gym? David Leschek: And of course the gym. Yes sir. Councilman Senn: Okay, and so that's the two, that's kind of where our $2.2 million portion or whatever. David Leschek: Well that's you know, yes. You've got a significant amount of site work that's in that $2.2 million as well. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Just for keeping things even. I noticed on, just a minor thing. On page 6 you come up with a $115 and $157 per stall and $26 which is $298 but on your compliance table it shows it at $296 just to be consistent. Two stalls ... so if that can just show a correction on it. I think that a lot of the questions have been answered. More specifically the one Paul brought up as far as the contours of...flow of some of those things because of that first floor elevation being at 958, which is a little lower than some of the portions of the other parts of that site close to this. Even with the grading being done, and I just hope that we have the proper kinds of swales and things as such too to keep that flow going. Paul Krauss: There is a series of storm sewer and catch basins on the site... Mayor Chmiel: Right. And hopefully when they put those in, it will be large enough to accommodate it so we're not running into any given problems later on. I guess really a lot of the things have already been discussed by Council and some of the concerns. Councilman Senn: I have a question. Is this it tonight? Councilman Mason: It's preliminary. Mayor Chmiel: Well this is purely for the proposal of rezoning the acreage. Paul Krauss: It is also a site plan. Councilman Senn: The only thing that's preliminary tonight is the plat as I understand it. Am I correct? Paul Krauss: The plat is preliminary and ... you won't see the site plan again. Mayor Chmiel: Well the site plan I don't think we, I don't have much problem with. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I do. Councilman Senn: Well can we put off the site plan to the second reading and stuff and get the elevations and FTAI n City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 stuff so we can get a better look at this thing before we start okaying on the site plan. Plus I would really like to see the redesign on that parking and stuff anyway before we do something. Paul Krauss: We've been fighting a clock on this and that's why. Councilman Senn: Well but you have to come in for second reading on this stuff anyway, right? Paul Krauss: Yeah, but the ... plan says, ready to go out to bids. So Dave, what's your? David Leschek: Well, I mean I have no problem bringing the building back. If you could feel comfortable in your decision this evening to allow staff for instance, given your considerations for the parking lot and we would certainly work with staff as we have done at the beginning of this process. For us we are trying to issue an early site package. We need to get the site work started as quickly as possible. I think we're looking to issue documents on the site, I think February, towards the end of February. Which means we need to really get going. We could certainly bring the building back. Councilman Senn: And that doesn't delay you? David Leschek: There's going to be, the building's going to be a whole other package. The building itself and that, what we're looking to do with the early site work package is to get an earth work contractor started. Get the building pad constructed for the building and that would be the extent of that first package. The second package would include the actual building itself. And that package we're looking to issue anywhere around April 4th. Councilman Senn: That bothers me because I mean, what you're saying is let's go ahead and let the bids and then we're going to get killed on change orders if the Council wants to make some changes as a result of elevations we haven't even seen. David Leschek: Well, I guess I'm relying upon the fact, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project. Feels relatively comfortable with it. Has made a recommendation to the Council. Paul Krauss: Well in site work too, it's clear from what Dave is saying that the building details for that ..and all that, that doesn't slow anything down. But things like the parking lot. We've approved that so hopefully you can go forward with it ... a condition that those plans would be changed to incorporate that. Because that's got to . be ... site work. Councilman Senn: Paul but the site work includes the setting and setting the building footprint and so I mean really any decisions over elevations of the building, site angles, all those decisions are tied to what you're talking about tonight in the site plan. David Leschek: Well, if we were to make significant changes to the elevation of the first floor ... to the entire scope of the project. Councilman Senn: Well let's say you're not going to change the fast floor elevations but you're going to change other treatments around the building in terms of the site plan to address it. David Leschek: Such as? t I1 21 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: I don't know. Show me an elevation and I'll tell you. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm not comfortable approving this without seeing the elevations. And you know I'm willing to come back... Mayor Chmiel: What's your time frame on this that you have to have drop dead time? Is it within 2 weeks? 1 David Leschek: Yes. We have to have a number of packages put together, ready for bid, out to the contractors towards the end of February. I think we set a date in the office of February 23rd roughly, as I recall. Allow a month for bids. It comes back in March. Depending upon what the spring is like, these soils are—and the contractor would actually like to get out on the site while there still remains some frost in the ground. There's an advantage to bid it because of the soils that we have on the site. The building package, again we're looking to issue that April 4th. Councilman Senn: So the 2 weeks wouldn't hurt it doesn't sound like. Councilwoman Dockendorf: For the building. Councilman Senn: No, 2 weeks for the site plan review. It sounds like to me that still leaves you plenty of time. David Leschek: If you would like us to come back in 2 weeks, we could do that. I'm concerned that we'd be out a month. Councilman Senn: We meet again in 2 weeks? Mayor Chmiel: We meet the second Monday of February. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's 3. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Which is the 14th. David Leschek: Yeah I mean we're talking a week later I'm supposed to actually have a package that's ready to go out of the office. Don Ashworth: You'll have a work session February 7th. I Mayor Chmiel: That's right we will. Don Ashworth: I don't know what the Council's priorities are. That's the next item we're going to talk about. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe what we could do then is rather than bring it the 14th, to just table this until the 7th and look at it then and then come back with a vote at that particular time to proceed. Councilman Senn: Well Don if I could suggest, why don't we approve first reading because that's all that we're doing on the zoning is fast reading. We still have second coming back to us right? I ,_ to 22 i City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Councilman Senn: And then as far as the preliminary plat goes, that's preliminary so let's approve that tonight but as far as the site plan review goes, let's do what you said. Table that and go off until the 7th and review just really that issue on the 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I think we could do that without much problem. Councilman Senn: Can we pass on a site plan in a work session? Don Ashworth: I was just going to state ghat. If you announce at a regular meeting that you are going to take action on February 7th. The press is invited to attend. It is a legal session at that point. Roger Knutson: What you're doing is you're adjourning this meeting to February 7th. Councilman Mason: For that one item? Roger Knutson: One item, right. Councilman Mason: You know, at the risk of belaboring what everyone else has said, had we some elevations and some, and I know they're at other meetings but we're kind of put in a rock and a hard place here. David Lescheck: I understand. I understand, I mean I am as well. I Councilman Mason: Sure. Oh understood. You're in more of a hard place than we are. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I think Richard's point was well taken. Nothing gets through... Councilman Mason: Well I'm real comfortable with what's going on here. Tabling the one action until the 7th and moving on the other stuff. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, then can I have a motion to accept the rezoning from A2 to OI, Office and Institutional t District and the preliminary plat approval. And with the site plan be reviewed on February the 7th and final action taken at that time. Councilman Mason: I'll move that. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll second it. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the Site Plan Review #93 -6 until the City Council work session on February 7, 1994 at which time final action will be taken, and to approve the Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the Chaska School District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staff's proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash enclosure as outlined in the staff report. 23 t� 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site. b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff report. c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields. d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for tree species and green space. e. Address concerns on landscaping plan to insure that materials located near road surfaces are tolerant to salt spray. 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at Soccer Field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from Soccer Field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek corridor and stay out of the floodplain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Revise the plat to describe the right -of -way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right -of -way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Highway 5 right -of -way and Galpin Boulevard right -of -way and maintain a minimum 35' setback from Galpin Boulevard. 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50' setback. 8. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop -off, pick -up and turn around elements to accommodate public transit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Senn: Can we see the redesign on the 7th with the parking too please? David Lescheck: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: I think we can. We also have some of those additional conditions Paul that were brought up regarding the heights of standards. Councilman Senn: I assume a lot of that's going to come out in the elevations, that's why I didn't. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. Well, that's something that I want to make sure staff looks at. Councilman Wing: And I still stand ... firm on the northern boundary landscaping. Not that I'm opposed to the crabs or am I saying that we ought to have overstory shade trees but I'm dissatisfied with the northern 24 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 landscaping. Am I in the strong minority here, now that we've dropped that issue? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I can't make a decision... David Lescheck: You will when we come back ..that will give you ideas as to how tall those are ... we will have those ... To get an idea how tall those light poles are, or how tall the plantings are along the north side. I mean you'll have site sections showing the for instance where Timberwood Estates is in relationship to the site and to the building but those are pretty small scale. I mean to traverse that sort of a distance and keep it all on one board, it's. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you're talking a flat board. David Lescheck: Yeah. We will have a model of the building and it's just a massing model that will show you some of the forms of the building. But we do not have for instance a presentation type site model for this project. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And there isn't any kind of artistic impression of this is what it will look like from Highway 5? David Lescheck. No. Councilman Senn: Well that's what Dick was asking for. Computer imaging. I mean it'd be really nice to take some different angles from this project, whether it's Highway 5 or whether it's your neighborhood or whatever and give us a view of it. I mean we require that. We do require that in other cases. Councilman Wing: Yeah, that's got to be in an ordinance as a requirement to bring a proposal before us. It's available and there's no excuse for not having a picture with a sketch included. It costs a little bit of money but this is a, we're not putting up pole sheds anymore. This is big time stuff. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. This is a $42 million referendum. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Did we vote on this? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Did we vote on this? Mayor Chmiel: With the two as we had and to be brought back and I called the question and everybody voted. CITY CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, FIRST READING. Don Ashworth: I guess I get this one. Again I will simply refer to Todd's memorandum. The Council has seen this before. I think that this is, conforms to what you were talking about. And approval is recommended. Councilman Senn: So this is step one in approving the temporary rates we set? Don Ashworth: Right. 25 I� 1 1 t 1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Okay. Councilman Wing: We don't have agreement yet. Councilman Senn: No, this is just first reading of temporary rates and we were going to. Don Ashworth: Have a work session and talk about it. Councilman Senn: ...work session and change it or do it, whatever from there. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Any questions? If none, I'll call a question. Councilman Senn: How about move approval. Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's do that. We're moving too quick. I'm trying to hit that 9:00 deadline and we're not going to do it. I have a motion. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve first reading of the City Code amendment to Chapter 18, Subdivision ordinance, concerning park dedication requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRIORTIZE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ITEMS FOR 1994. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have an opportunity to review it? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any problems with it? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hold on. Councilman Senn: Ooops. I thought we were. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought we were going to priortize them. Councilman Senn: I thought we were going to set dates. Mayor Chmiel: That's already set here. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So this is the suggested priority? Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. I'm looking at the wrong sheet here. Councilman Mason: Can we legally have a work session on the 21st of February? It being a National holiday. Don Ashworth: Karen was not to have included any holidays. F City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Mason: Well you have a work session down on February 21st. Don Ashworth: Well then it shouldn't be. Councilman Senn: Now very many of us get it as a holiday. Councilwoman Dockendorf. I don't have a holiday until Memorial Day. Councilman Mason: Some of us do. Councilman Wing: Who is it? Councilman Mason: People in the public employ of the fine state of Minnesota. Councilman Wing: No, no, no. Which President is it? Councilman Mason: It's both. Lincoln and Washington. They rolled them all into one. Mayor Chmiel: Is that a day off for you? Councilman Mason: That's correct Mr. Mayor. Now if you people want to meet. I'll be in town. I'm just not sure if that's legal or not. Roger Knutson: You cannot conduct public business on a holiday. Councilman Mason: I rest my case. Don Ashworth: You added on February 7th. You've got your review school site. Councilman Mason: That shouldn't take. I would hope that wouldn't take too long. Of course I've said that before. Don Ashworth: The next question would be what else you might want to do on the 7th. Councilman Wing: Well my only concerns, one that I talked to Paul about, is that Planning Commission has expedited the Highway 5 corridor and I think we've got to be up to speed, up to date and informed on that. At a point in time, that simply has to be a priority. One that's near and dear to my heart ... but that's a done deal. We can do that any time this year. Councilman Mason: I agree about the Highway 5 corridor plan. I mean. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I do too. Councilman Mason: What did Planning, I'll admit. I didn't stay until the end. What did they decide to do with that? 27 1 t it] City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Paul Krauss: They actually go through with it in one public hearing. They recommended approval. They had some modest change in a couple of areas but it came through pretty intact. Councilman Wing: Well that's great. Mayor Chmiel: Was it properly put in the paper? Don Ashworth: How long will that take Paul? Paul Krauss: On a work session? Don Ashworth: Right. We're giving 30 minutes to the school site. Or do you want to give that 15 minutes? 30 probably. Paul Krauss: You can fill the rest ... with Highway 5. Don Ashworth: ...wants 2 hours so that means an hour and a half? You can do it in an hour and a half? Paul Krauss: You may decide you want more but. I think you know fortunately a lot of the Council has been very active in or following... It's not new. Now I've got to be out of town that day but Kate can be here and our consultants Barton- Aschman. Don Ashworth: Your next date is March 7th. Does anyone want to fill in any items on that? And then if we could fill in March 7th, then I would suggest we wait until either February 7th or March 7th to set the rest of them. Councilman Senn: I thought we were under some kind of time line or dead line in priortizing the TIF stuff. Don Ashworth: I made a suggestion you put it early because they have such things as the pedestrian bridge. I'm going to be passing that out this evening. Oh, yeah. You wanted to priortize what is referred to as the wish list. But except for insuring let's say TH 101 trail gets added, I don't know that there's a real rush to do that. Councilman Senn: I thought there was some kind of a time line on the wish list or something. Todd Gerhardt: Don't you want to wait until the Vision 2002? Councilman Mason: We should be looking at the Departmental goals too. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why don't we look at Departmental goals on March 7th. Don Ashworth: I think I mentioned the position classification is a natural lead in or in for that departmental goals thing. Councilman Senn: We could do both of those. Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's do both of those on that night. ti 28 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 11 Paul Krauss: For March 7th, tentatively—organized collection stuff. The first meeting is coming up next week. We tentatively... it may slip to April. Councilwoman Dockendorf. We'll add that to our list and you won't be ready on March 7th, is that what you're ' saying? Paul Krauss: Well, as I recall. We had a...and the bottom line is you actually bid it but before we do we want to get concurrence... Don Ashworth: Well we maybe could meet at 5:00 on February 7th. I don't know. I think we were talking about 5:30 weren't we? 5:30 to 7:30? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Drop dead time 7:30, right. Don Ashworth: Well, if those are alright with City Council, I guess staff s got enough to work on through March 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You're saying 5:00 rather than 5:30? ' Don Ashworth: We might do it for February 7th so Paul can give an update on organized collection. Councilman Senn: What happened to January 31st? r Don Ashworth: You're still doing that and that's this list that Don had looked at. That's your interview schedule. Councilman Senn: So is organized collection on 3/7 or not? Don Ashworth: We're going to try to get it on 2/7 and maybe start it a little early that night. Start that one at 5:00 ... We'll do it March 7th at 5:00. All others will be 5:30 to 7:30 except March 7th. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? t COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: Dick you had three quick ones. Councilman Wing: No, only two. The one, the Highway 5 is part of a work session. I won't be concerned about that. Just a quick comment for Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, toll road 212 was one of them. ' Councilman Wing: Yeah, I just wanted to ask Scott and check with the Council. I'd like to ask Scott to give us a one or two, not a draft report. I just want a one or two page position paper for the state of our police service. And in that I want him to include the current City cost for police. That includes Scott's salary, the CSO program, as it relates to police and the contract. Any police cost in public safety I wanted added up and then I'd like him to compare that to what to replace those hours to patrol, number of cars would cost if we went to �.� 29 11 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 a our own department. We don't have a current number. So I want to know what the cost of a police department would cost in 1994 dollars. Total public safety costs in the city of Chanhassen right now, directed to police. And then just a brief statement of the state of affairs as he sees it so we can have it on the record as a 1994 report. I don't think it should take a lot of time. I don't think it has to go to public safety. Just a brief update to Council on our status and costs. Where we stand. Mayor Chmiel: You're not making the position that we should go to our own police force other than the fact knowing what it is now and what it would be and what the costs would be initiated for that department. Councilman Wing: No. I don't even want to intimate that other than I think we should be, frankly if we have a need for our own department, Scott should be addressing that so in his paper I would expect him to address that issue. Do we need a department at this time or don't we. And why don't we and why do we. This isn't a secret. If we do, we should be looking at it. I don't see the need but I don't have that information so I would suggest Scott just address that issue. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think he has done that over the years. In fact the last time that we went through the contract. Councilman Wing: I'm more interested in costs and what a '94 department would cost. I'm assuming it's still big bucks and I'd like to have an upgrade so we can justify our position. The only other thing Don was, in the Administrative Section there was a letter from some Southwest Metro Coalition, Chaska we want to get a road into our city and improve things and because the State doesn't have funding, they're starting to look for other ways to fund it. And I can't think of anything, stop lights are an issue to me but a toll road defies imagination. Having been in New York and having been in Chicago, I don't ever want to see that happen in this state or in my community and I don't want to see Chaska's road subsidized by even the thought of a toll road to pay for this. So I would like to, with your permission, in the next agenda under Council presentations, include that letter and I would recommend at that time, if we happen to disagree with their position, that the Council take such a stand opposing the idea of a toll road. That's all my comment. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, we can address it later and kind of talk about it because I do serve on that coalition as well. Councilman Wing: Can I put it under Council Presentations so we can address it there? Ursula Dimler: I was wondering if I heard you right. Councilman Wing: The Honorable Mrs. Dimler is here from the County and Ursula, I don't know if you have any comments in that but I found that extremely offensive. What, do you have the proper name? I'm just curious. Who's doing that or proposing that? Ursula Dimler: It's... Southwest. Mayor Chmiel: Southwest Coalition for Highway 212. Councilman Wing: Are they being supported by Carver County? Ursula Dimler: No, but we do have some... 30 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and I also sit on that Board as well and if you'd like more information, I'll be more than happy to get it to you. Councilman Wing: Please. Mayor Chmiel: Let's have some coffee one day. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: B. LCMR GRANT APPLICATION FOR BLUFF CREEK, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Short? I Paul Krauss: Very short...grant application for the lottery money to get work going on Bluff Creek. What I handed out tonight is, they have a really weird form—We're asking for ...about $777,000.00. Now, of that most of the money would be actually doing the implementation. Buying land—There is a component in here that... The reason why I need your concurrence is that I'd like to ideally a resolution in support, which we can put together for you, but also the fact that we've been told that some sort of a local match is really being sought in this thing and what we're probably going to propose is that of the $777,000.00, it's a 2 year program starting in 1975. Is that the school ... a match of $100,000.00 over that period. Now I can't with any certainty tell you that other agencies are waiting in line—There are several other sources of monies than the ones you get from Metro Council ... wind up having to assume all ourselves. But even if we did, worst case, we're talking about $50,000.00 a year coming out of the SWAMP fund. I think the way to go, and I didn't want...the city's support of that without asking you first. I've got to turn this around quickly. We've been working on this for the last 6 weeks on and off and it's got to be submitted by February 2nd. I'll be happy to respond to any questions you have. We're looking... about $100,000.00 over 2 years starting a year from now. Councilman Mason: About all I can say is, since I took that walk with you and a number of other people, on Bluff Creek, anything we can do to protect that I'll support. And if that means worst case scenario is SWAMP fund has to put in $50,000.00 a year, let's do it. That's my opinion. It's such a gem down there. Councilman Senn: Can we use existing program? I Paul Krauss: That's the unfortunate part of it Mark. When I went there and, I'm speaking... Councilman Senn: No, no. I'm not saying ones that we've done now but we even have some program now for example during the coming year don't we down in that area? Paul Krauss: It's all got to be new dollars starting in the year of the appropriation exists. Councilman Senn: Which would be which year? Paul Krauss: '95. So anything done prior to it, they think is nice but it doesn't count. They're also looking for ... match. You know there's my time, Diane's time, there's your time, that we're going to commit of course—than the dollar match. 31 r City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Wing: I ask myself every night, what would Ursula do. I agree with you Mike. I think this is part of the cost of doing business on these projects. Anyway we can get from A to B is to go through the... Paul Krauss: Ursula and the County have been very supportive ... This is a big project where everybody gets involved... Councilman Senn: Couldn't we... 16 and hold it off until then and use it? Paul Krauss: Well, to get that last off in.... ■ Councilman Mason: Well I certainly would support a resolution. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, why don't you draft one. Resolution #94.18: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the LCMR Grant Application for Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried. C. PROPOSAL TO JOINTLY ACQUIRE A 507 ACRE PARCEL ON BLUFF CREE WITH THE RILEY- PURGATORY -BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. Mayor Chmiel: And I have a little to add to that because I had some discussions with Fiskness today. Paul Krauss: Oh good because I haven't had a chance to talk with him directly. This one ... I got a call from the Watershed District engineers 2 weeks ago who indicated that they'd be willing to, it's a 5.07 acre lot at the very bottom of Bluff Creek by the railroad tracks. It's one of the most pristine areas is available for sale. It's a lot of record. It's one where they may be obligated to do a variance to build and we talked to Roger about this lot...and we prefer that it not be built on... Anyway, it's on the market right now and the Watershed District engineer said if we come up with 25 % ... and the City Come up with 75 % ... and Todd Hoffman and I said well, it sounds like something that would be doable for us. We'll approach the Council on that. In the meantime, we called up the property owner to try to start talking about price and he told us somebody else was giving him a bid and we'd have to compete with them and it turned out the other person was Ray Haik from the Watershed District. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. He already had a purchase agreement. Not bidding. Paul Krauss: ...same thing so I called up Ray Haik and he asked me to put together a letter and basically we... a couple scenarios back from the Watershed District. One whereby, the guy's asking price was $75,000.00 and when he offered the $75,000.00 it was $25,000.00 down. The rest over some years at 8% interest. We offered tentatively, and I said in the letter that we—that we may be willing to pick up the final few years ... Another scenario we pondered was do you want to go into it as a joint venture. We'd be willing to consider that too as some sort of a joint venture statement. I wanted to bring it back before you for some guidance and ... Mr. Mayor, if there's something you can add from... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Basically Conrad called me to just, so I could bring this up this evening. Just to let Council know that the Watershed District is not pulling an end run and circumventing us. He wanted to make sure that they're willing to work with the city to accomplish what's best for the Bluff Creek Watershed District and to acquire that, and that their attorneys have already, and Ray has already made the offer and I think it's ' 32 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 acceptable to them with the periods of time that's pretty much what Paul has indicated. And so I said well, I don't object to it as long as you're not going to try pulling in any end runs as forcing us into other things once before and hopefully that we can both sit down and come out of this for the good and good for the environment as well. And by acquiring this and keeping this within the city. And he assured me that that was so and that he would like to continue to work with us on this. Total dollars were discussed but it seemed some of the figures he quoted to me are a little different than what we've talked now so that remains to be seen what the purchase was. Paul Krauss: So was there ... joint venturing on the thing? Mayor Chmiel: He didn't mention the joint venturing at all other than the fact that there was equitable solution that we could have between us and them and that if City felt like, I thought it was a direct contribution that they would turn around and turn back and give it to the city with whatever easements that their needs might be. Paul Krauss: That would be wonderful to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Well let's work at it from that aspect and see what happens. Councilman Senn: Well you know what I think, that's wonderful too so long as the city has real good involvement up front in the ... those easements and stuff because one of, you know I know that part of the corridor pretty good and that's not the best place to really look for, I'm going to have any treatment of water flow or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: Well, whatever their concern is. I think really what they were saying, if they don't purchase that part of it, the rest of it's not going to be looked at for the long run and I think that's probably what Conrad had indicated to you with any discussions that you may have had. Paul Krauss: Well if you're comfortable, I'll sure continue negotiating with them on this. Councilman Wing: For those who have been down there, if we're going to ever trail Bluff Creek, the only access to that property is to east, and then it's straight down. This parcel... access out. Councilman Mason: Yeah, we need that piece of land as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I don't see any action has to be taken on this right now. Paul Krauss: No, and as long as I know I have your support... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Item D. Don. Pedestrian Bridge. Don Ashworth: Pass this down. This is a rendering of the proposed pedestrian bridge over Highway 5. There's different shots there. Councilman Wing: Is this the computer imaging we've been asking for? Councilman Mason: You bet. 33 r� 1 `1 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Wing: There's no excuse. This really ticks me off. Don Ashworth: That went to the HRA. Initially they were a little concerned with the cost and actually reduced ' part of the size of the structure. Kind of removing the center pillar and what not. It went back over to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission said gee, we like the massing that this thing has and they like the idea of the vines, etc. And they asked the HRA to basically reconsider. The HRA was able to chop $40,000.00 out of project costs but then did reinstall the major pillar portion that you see in the center of that. And the stone work on either side including kind of a, what would you call that center area where you actually, the over the top of the pillar. You've got an expansion. Paul Krauss: ...the architect gave me the architect spiel and when this was designed the architect gave us a lot of direction as to how the ... so why pay $45,000.00 for something we can't see because there's a shadow. When the Planning Commission saw that they said the pillar, the oversized pillar was important. First of all because it gives more sense of a mass to the middle. Secondly, because ... but that floating deck stuff was silly so... Don Ashworth: So since the HRA is paying the cost associated with this, it is back with that grant application but I didn't know to what extent the City Council. I mean does it suffice to simply have me inform you as to where this thing stands or do you formally want to have it onto an agenda where you approve or deny it? Councilman Senn: Well, that's why I was bringing up, at least earlier, the TIF thing because when this thing started out, I went back in my notes. We were looking at like $300,000.00 and a grant of $100,000.00 in city money or something like that. Now from the numbers that's in this report tonight, we've doubled the city contribution out of TIF to $200,000.00 and I just have a real hard time jumping in and saying that we're going to do that and we're not really looking at any priority and quite honestly, from my perspective, I have a very hard time saying we should put $200,000.00 of TIF money into this bridge. And no money into parts of the trail system that have been in the master plan for ages. And this wasn't there for ages nor is it going to go anywhere for a while. So I'd really like to look at the prioritization of those dollars. Mayor Chmiel: I think it was sort of a firming up of those dollars. If I remember correctly, some of that were sort of estimates that were going out at that time early in the stages. And if I remember correctly, I don't think the dollar figures were fully pulled together other than going for the grant that we were requesting. And that's why some of those dollars changes took place. Councilman Senn: Well but when we were brought in the grant application to go for it, I mean the, I didn't bring it tonight. I wish I would have. Said the cost, the city cost or the maximum city cost ... was going to be $100,000.00. ' Paul Krauss: Yeah, that would have been ... but we didn't have some preliminary estimates of something on the order of $120,000.00... Grant applications, being what they are, usually they have a fairly short turn around and you can't spend a whole lot of time ... One of the things that we found out that tripped us up is that there are some ... bridges that can serve as the foundation to this thing but MnDot, bridge section refuses to accept any... bridges by anybody and every bridge has to be specially designed and ... so you have an engineer... sign off on a bridge structure, that's different from any other bridge structure, they're staking their reputation on it that it's being designed to the nth degree. And it's also obviously more expensive to build anything custom. So that did 1 add an element of cost that we were ... The rest of the estimates weren't too far off. That was the biggest chunk of it. -,:.4 34 City Council Meeting - January 24, 1994 Councilman Senn: Well, I mean we have a good opportunity here. Don't get me wrong on getting the $300,000.00 grant constructing the bridge and we're talking about $200,000.00 in TIF now going into this bridge and I just personally have a real hard time getting behind that 100% even though we do have an opportunity and then go back and tell the people up on TH 101 that sorry, you've got no money for a trail to build out of TIF. , And it just doesn't make sense to me and I think there's room for both or whatever but I think it's time that we address both rather than just go ahead and do this. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I think your issue is well taken except I think you're riding a dead horse on TH 101. Unfortunately. Resident: Mr. Mayor ... the word dead is not the word to use right now. Mayor Chmiel: Well, that's my opinion and I just stated it. Councilman Wing: I almost thing the bridge and this corridor study are far ... than TH 101. They ... years ago and TH 101 has come up more recently. I think it's part of our highway infrastructure more than it is a trail system. I think it's got to go in now. It's sort of, I don't know why we're even discussing it. It seems like it's kind of already a done deal, other than increasing the money Mark's concerned about. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But to answer Mr. Ashworth's question, I would like to see it come back to Council... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, you have direction. Let me put a clarification as a dead horse. Only because of the dollars is my concern of what's going to happen with TH 101 and with money out there beforehand is money not well spent and that's the position that I at least have taken. When I say TH 101, I think that was part of my campaign as well when I was running for office. Saying those are some of the major areas that should have that kind of accessibility to trails. But the dollars again, if we can find the dollars or do something of another nature then we can do it. So with that I'll close and ask for adjournment. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim t -,�(0 35 �I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMNIISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 1994 ' Prior to the regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Highway 5 Corridor. ' Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes ' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director I PUBLIC HEARING: CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO OI, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FOR A 107,690 SQUARE FOOT ELEMENTARY SC]R aJN/PARK COMPLEX, AND WETLAND ALTERATION ' PER 'Y IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIG S ANiI3 GALPIN BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address David Leschek Bob Rothman John Gockel Wallace & Maxine Otto Craig Harrington Patrick Minger James Domholt Roger Schmidt Hammel - Green - Abrahamson Hammel- Green - Abrahamson Chaska School District #112 Waconia 8140 Maplewood Terrace 8221 Galpin Blvd. 8251 West Lake Court 8301 Galpin Blvd. 7 L �j Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Paul, can I ask you a question? Can you give me a quick synopsis? I didn't pick this up from the report. What is the positioning of this school overall in the 112 school system? Is this seen as a long term replacement with our elementary school over here? I know that's 30 -40 years old now, isn't it? i'� Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1 Krauss: It's not a replacement at all. It's supplemental to it. Farmakes: I realize that but I'm talking maybe 20 years down the line. How is this ' positioned to serve for instance, is it an expansion situation on the landscaping, what we're looking at now, is this something that's envisioned? Does this solve current problems and does it take into consideration future growth? These are the type of things that I did not pick up in the report so. Krauss: Well, I'm working off of memory here because this goes back to this committee that ' we served on with the School District and they had Barbara Luckerman from—Metro Council ... This should handle the growth, as I understand it, that they expect to be experiencing in this part of the school district. Ultimately they need another middle school in ' this area someplace but this should handle the elementary level growth into the foreseeable future. Now when they did their projection, we gave them what we felt to be the ultimate development of Chanhassen and there in fact parts of southern Chanhassen they may still use the Chaska Elementary School because they may be closer. n Krauss: Which one? Farmakes: That's the figure in about the low 30's somewhere? Farmakes: That's the figure in the low 30's somewhere that you're talking about the ultimate development? Krauss: Right. Right. Long term the school district may well need another school out in Victoria. Victoria would prefer that this school be built in their community anyway but as long as they can project, it's my understanding, this would satisfy their elementary needs. Harberts: What is elementary? Grades what? K thru 5? Krauss: It's up to 5. Harberts: Middle school is 6 thru 8? Krauss: Yeah, except for kindergarten. Scott: Yeah, ECC. Yeah, 1 thru 5. With the City of Chanhassen getting involved in basically getting another school sited in our community, do you see the same process happening obviously if the middle school is needed? Have we gone through the same process and saying, well here's a good spot for a middle school and continue this process for that? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Well as I said earlier, initially e thought that this was going to be the middle , Y g g g school because that was what they thought they needed at the time. We later found out that in the State of Minnesota, it gets pretty bizarre. If you're going to locate a middle school, ' you almost need 70 acres because it takes so many football fields and baseball fields to accommodate it that we just couldn't fit it in here if we wanted to. They still have a long term need for a middle school site. We've shown them, they've sat down with us a couple of times to see what exactly is available but the words available and land in Chanhassen don't go together anymore and I'm not at all convinced that they're going to find a place for it in this ' community. We haven't identified one. Scott: Okay. Any other questions for Paul? ' Harberts: I have one. I don't know if this is to you or the applicant or the architects or whoever. How do they see the public transit buses integrating into this plan given the high degree of rides that are provided each and every day to the school site currently? Krauss: Well, maybe I can let them answer that. There are separate bus pull offs for this. ' It's a pretty ideal type of a site. I'd leave it up to Southwest Metro to figure whether or not we need a separate bus loading area. Harberts: I don't know if we're asking about separate. I'm asking really was that a factor into the decision making process that it's an element that's there. Krauss: I don't know. To the extent that you're working with the school district now, I've ' got to believe it was because... Harberts: Okay. Maybe the applicant can address that. , Scott: Yep. Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the applicants if we could. Just for ' your notes. I know Paul mentioned that you folks would be talking about more specifically about the building design. Roof unit detail and information on grading. So if you can just cover those as briefly as you can and then we'll fire some questions at you. ' David Leschek: Good evening. Is this working okay? My name is David Leschek and I'm ' an architect with Hammel - Green - Abrahamson. With me tonight is Bob Rothman, also with HGA and John Gockel who is a representative for the School District #112. Paul has covered fairly well the background information for the project as well as significant portions of the ' site. This plan that you have in front of you, as we refer to it in our submission to the Planning Commission, is a master plan for this site. Much as is the building at this time. We are at the design development portion in the phase of the project and we have just received i-.s 3 - II Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 back our first design development level estimate. And as we receive that estimate, we then go back, what we do to go back and value engineer portions of the building or site, whether it be vegetation or some of the building materials or the amount of case work that's in the ' building so that that budget then is eventually in line with the original project budget. What we have done here is taken an educational concept from the District #112 as well as a recreational program from the city of Chanhassen and developed those programs to their full potential and as we get into the design development and we begin to get the estimates back, we begin to value engineer those programs if you will, keeping the spirit as well as the intent of those programs intact but maybe in a smaller. ' Mancino: The execution might be different? David Leschek: Not different. The concept is there. For instance an example would be the plantings that we have indicated on our drawings were of a 4 inch caliper which is in excess ' of what the minimum standards would be for the city of Chanhassen which would only require 2 1/2 inch. So at that point then we would go back to a 2 1/2 inch for instance rather than a 4 inch, which would still be in keeping with the requirements of the city but yet less than what we have originally shown on our documents. As Paul mentioned, we have a bus drop to the south of the site. Staff parking as well as a service entrance off of Galpin to the west of the building. We have provided for, and this may answer part of your question ' Diane. We have provided for a looped drive at the front of the ISD portion of the building as well as a drop off area, for whether it be cars or buses. I Harberts: Oh good. David Leschek: Whether it be for the youngsters or even the physically handicapped. As Bob gets up here and goes through the portion of the building, you will note that the Early Childhood Family Education portion of the building is located in close proximity to this drop off on the west side of the building. I Harberts: Can you tell what the distance that is? From the drop off for the children as well as you said from an accessible perspective. And is this covered? David Leschek: I'll get that scale and then I'll answer your question. To the south of the building we have this bus drop off which we envision is the bus drop that will receive the vast majority of the students. The individual houses which contain all of the classrooms are oriented to the south and off of that bus drop. So you will have students basically entering the building from the south. Staff from the west and you will have a community entrance back on the east side. We wanted to obtain that separation for security reasons as well as that was a requirement of the educational program established by District #112. This is about, 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 well excuse me. This is about 90 feet from this drop off point here to the front doors. Closest to the. Harberts: The main entrance? David Leschek: Yes, that's correct. And we have approximately 180 feet from the bus drop up to the student entrances at the houses. One of the reasons for that was that as a part of the educational program for this building, exterior spaces wanted to be included in the educational program for the building. So for instance in this portion, this lightly colored area here that you can see has concrete lines extending into it, this is an area of prairie grasses which would be incorporated into the site plan and used as a teaching station for instance. Where a science class could go out, you know see the prairie grasses and develop some educational* curriculum that would accent this space and incorporate it into that curriculum. Again, back on the east side of the building is the major entrance for the community portion of the building and again the separation was desirable from all clients, or parties involved in the project. Again another drop off area to access not only the community entrance to the building but also just to allow parents and what not to drop off maybe their children who are participating in activities that are going on and allowing them to drop them off. Get them going and then going to park their vehicle. Either side of the building contains, at this point we have developed again some exterior educational type classrooms, or courtyards. And again I remind you that what we have here is our master plan for this portion of the project. A cafeteria located on the north side of the building. Again, a playground area that can both service not only the park but also services ISD 4112. This is the ISD #112 athletic fields. As Paul has mentioned, their need for athletic fields is not nearly as great at an elementary school as it would be for instance at a middle school and that's how the city has become involved in developing additional soccer, softball fields. An ice rink in this area. Two ice rinks in this area and four additional tennis courts. Harberts: Could you just go through that lump again with regard to the public transit. I see where it would enter in. David Leschek: It would enter in at this point here. There's a, you can see how it was sort of recessed back at this point indicating the drop area. And then you would loop back out. Harberts: What's the radius turn on that loop? David Leschek: I can't be certain at this time Diane. You know, I'm sure that our civil engineers have sized that not for a full sized school bus for instance but maybe one that would. �J ,, 5 1 1 1 0 n Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Harberts: 30 feet? 30 to 40 feet? That's what we're looking at. David Leschek: I do not think that it would be 30 or 40 feet. Harberts: Then it's not a public transit access point. So someone may want to talk to us or we talk to you about that. The only other thing is, is there the opportunity of using that turn around loop? David Leschek: There is the opportunity of using it which allows you to gain access. But again this turn around loop here has the same purpose as this one, because after hours when we require the vast majority of the recreational facilities being used, this staff parking lot would then become available to the community to use the park. Or to drop off their children and allow them access into the recreational area. Harberts: Okay. I'd like just to raise that as something to look at and to have further discussion with Southwest Metro. Thank you. David Leschek: Thank you. Any additional questions? Anything that I've missed? I do believe that we have also cut two sections. This one starting here will be up on that ridge that Paul spoke of by Timberwood Estates. The grade begins to drop down and you have that large buffer of existing trees. The boulevard area that you will see in this location, the bus drop off, our area of prairie restoration, which is this area in front of the plan. Harberts: Excuse me, where's the access boulevard? David Leschek: The access boulevard, well the access boulevard is actually here. Farmakes: Is this is an east /west angle that we're looking at the building? David Leschek: This is a north /south. Farmakes: North /south? David Leschek: That's correct. Scott: No, no. It's cut north /south but we're looking west. David Leschek: Yes, you're looking west. That's correct. The prairie restoration area. The building itself, we refer to it as a diamond terrace but that is this portion just off of the cafeteria for the building and the playground which is off to the north side. And then the R Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 athletic fields, and then eventually Highway 5. 1 Farmakes: Can I ask you a question about the prairie grass? My only familiarity with using , this and the treatment that you're using down below has been with corporate, and to be honest, over a period, a short period of time they converted it to, they got rid of it essentially. Is there precedent for this where this has been used successfully for this type of use? , Intensive children and so on. David Leschek: We have an ongoing project with IBM at Rochester. I Farmakes: I'm familiar with the building. David Leschek: A corporate client and they have asked us to develop this sort of prairie restoration at their facility and we have found that it works quite well for them and see no reason why it would not work very well for the school as an educational tool. , Farmakes: Is that location in front of the building? Or it would be facing Highway 53 then? That you're talking about IBM. David Leschek: I believe it faces Highway 53 as well as, you'll probably forgive me. I'm not that familiar with the project, although I do know that we are involved in it. I believe it is ' that portion that faces Highway 53 as well as I believe some of their courtyards are now being done. Farmakes: To the north? ' David Leschek: Right, exactly. ' Farmakes: Has it been used again in a school situation with elementary children accessing a point? David Leschek: I can't tell you that we have done that, no. , Farmakes: Okay. Does this have to be burned every so many years? David Leschek: It would have to be burned every so many years. I believe it's every 3 years ' and we have in fact discussed that with the buildings and grounds people with the District and they see no adverse affect doing that as far as from a facilities standpoint. I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994 Farmakes: How does that affect the other trees? Just curious, being that trees aren't normally in a prairie situation? ' David Leschek: Well I think what you find is that this lighted portion here is the prairie and we do have. ' Farmakes: I don't think we can see you over the podium there. David Leschek: I think the site section that you see here is a little misleading with the trees ' that I'm showing. You may be seeing, I believe you would be looking from this direction this way and you would be seeing this back drop of the trees but for the most part ... sort of on the perimeter of those prairie grasses. ' Farmakes: Actually I was more concerned about the trees in the front. The primary one here is from the northwest and I'm just curious if you're going to torch that, how that would affect ' the other trees. We do have, I think a couple of cases. I think DataSery at one time when it was CPT did prairie grasses and burned it off. I'm not sure that that's still the purpose of DataSery but I think Eckankar also does a prairie grass. It's an attempt in the early stages of ' prairie grass restoration in front of their place. ' Mancino: Well there are red oaks right in the middle of the prairie grass. There are quite a few of them according to your enlarged plan of the bus drop off sheet. That these all are red oaks in through the prairie grass so we'd have to make sure they're shielded. Farmakes: That was my concern. Because about once every 10 years we get very dry around here and just, I believe these types of maintenance issues have been problems in the ' past with other sites. And that's why I was asking if we have any precedence on this type of thing. 1 n Farmakes: Okay. John Gockel: We have not at an educational building. David Leschek: This concept has been developed along with the District at this point. That's as much as I can tell you. Any other questions? I want to get back to, I have one additional site section that takes us east and west through the site looking to the north. Galpin Boulevard in this area and we begin to slope down to the staff parking and drop off that we had discussed with Diane. The front entry more or less to the school. The school itself, the entrance to the community portion of the building and then the site begins to drop away to Bluff Creek. So we have tried to maintain that natural slope of the site as it goes and works 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1 it's way east towards Bluff Creek. And you can see the background, Highway 5 remains above our site and the trees that we would, that were proposed in the master plan along Highway 5 in keeping with the development plan for the Highway 5 corridor and again this ' area back here is where Paul had mentioned he would eventually have access underneath Highway 5 along the corridor which would run north and south along Bluff Creek. Mancino: I have a question about the landscaping and that's, it looks like on m enlarged ' P g Y g plan, between the, let's see it's facing the south access boulevard is mostly sugar maples, correct? , David Leschek: Yes. ' Mancmo: They are very sensitive to salty soils so what's going to happen in a few years when there's a lot of salt that's been snowplowed up into that area? This is a University piece that I have about the salt injury to landscape plants and the one that they list as very sensitive is the sugar maple and also the red maple, which you have on Galpin. David Leschek: I am not able to speak for the landscape architects that have developed our , landscaping plan, other than to say that I'm sure they've taken that into consideration. I can address that to Paul along with addressing Diane's concerns. In letter form. Any additional ' questions? If not, I'll turn the presentation over to Bob Rothman of our office who will take you through the building as well as the elevations. Bob Rothman: Thank you. As Dave mentioned, there are three primary entrances to the building. For the school district, for the students and for the community. I'll briefly run you through the building. The school is designed for 625 students and that is 125 students per , family cluster. Family cluster is first grade through fifth grade in an integrated program so they would be mixed within their cluster. So that occurs down south in proximity to the bus drop off. Because the feeling is the students spend a majority of their day down in that area ' of the building. In the central portion of the building, that be the INC which is the media center which, when I was growing up was the library. Across the corridor from that is the art and music. We've designed this, we felt that the art, music, is all kind of brought together in this one common area with some display cases and an open library so it's open and accessible to all students. Behind that, with close proximity to the front entry is the administration for obvious reasons. For general supervision of the school. Who's coming and going and that ' sort of thing. Also by the front entry we've located the ECFE, which is the Early Childhood and Family Education which is a 7 day a week, morning, night time sort of program. So again that desires to be close to the main entry. Also behind that we have some of the back r of the house. The boiler room. The electrical room. Smaller seating area. And located onto the main access of the building is the cafeteria with, as Dave described, playground and fields , 9 II I� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 to the north of that which the students, you know gobble down their sandwiches and get out and hit the playground. To the east of that we've got the gymnasium which is a shared gymnasium. Half of it is during the day, half of it, the southern most half would be used by the school district with the northerly most half being used by the community of Chanhassen. Also in this area we've got a series of four meeting rooms which are expandable into, can be paired or used singularly or as one large'meeting room. We also have a fitness room and aerobics room and corresponding locker rooms and some storage areas for both meetings areas and the gymnasium. One of the challenges of this building was, due to the educational program, we were left with what seemed to be the best opportunity to be a one story building. As I said, one of the challenges is with the large building of this 112,000 square foot facility, is trying to break it up in mass and form. To give it some interest so it doesn't feel quite frankly like a pancake. And so how we've chosen to do that, this is the south elevation. We're looking at developing each cluster as it's own mass who each has it's own identity so there's the four, or the five rather are all fine and it gives us a nice sense of rythym and shade and shadow as well as using these spaces for defining the entries to each of those houses. The primary material of the building is kind of a molded brick which is very traditional in feel. If you're familiar with Jonathan Elementary, this is the brick that's used on that. It was the District's desire, as well as our's, to try and provide a family of buildings within the District. This is also brick that we're looking at using on the new Chaska High School so that it can be identified as a community building. Primarily we've got a flat roof. I can turn the model here. Primarily we've got basically a flat roof building but a few areas where we've chosen, would it be better if I. Scott: Apparently if the stand, I don't know if our camera can get down low enough. Can you, should he put it on the easel? Bob Rothman: This is primarily a flat roof building. Where we've chosen at the family cluster centers to raise that. Mancino: Where are we supposed to be looking? Scott: It doesn't work in the monitor so I guess the folks at home are going to have to pass then. Bob Rothman: So mainly we've got each of the clusters defined by a half vaulted room form, which will help give it a little bit of mass and a little bit of rythym. Farmakes: And we're seeing it from the view now where we would be on Highway 5. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Bob Rothman: Right. You're coming off of Highway 5. And keep in mind that Highway 5 is about the same elevation. It's slightly higher at Galpin and then you'd be dropping down to actually below the floor level. Or below the floor level of the building as it's coming up. Some of the other roof forms. The gymnasium is just an extruded form with of course a higher building mass. Cafeteria again, because of the larger volume of the room, we've brought the roof up slightly. Within the INC, again we're going to use some bow ... trusses in there and make it kind of a nice, interesting space as again one of the harder programs being the INC. And Paul mentioned the. Mancino: Is that a glass dome? Bob Rothman: No, it's not. It'd be a metal roof. Farmakes: You're showing lighter colors there. What would that. Bob Rothman: It would be a metal roof with some clear story lighting. Farmakes: Okay. The tan areas that you're showing next to the brick, what would that material be? Bob Rothman: Those are the circulation areas. That would be a burnish masonry material. Again, to help define the circulation. Farmakes: Like Target? That's the description of that. Krauss: The burnish block? Farmakes: Yeah. Krauss: There is some burnish block. Bob Rothman: I'm not sure what Target is. We have got some samples. Some samples here. And again, that's keeping in the concept of the site with defining these lines. We've carried that through conceptually within the building also. Paul addressed the issue of these penthouses. We're looking at trying to bring those down. Those would be developed in probably a synthetic stucco material. These two and some of these other ones and this will be brick. Mancino: What's a synthetic stucco? i �- I L s 11 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Bob Rothman: It's called ethos. It's a plastic material. Mancino: You put it outside and it's impregnated with color or something? Bob Rothman: Right. So actually from where, you wouldn't see that much of it anyway but where you would, it would probably Appear to be brick. Mancino: Okay. But from what I see right here, this elevation. I mean it's almost as tall, proportionally as tall as your one level. ' Bob Rothman: The one thin g that's a little bit misleading about elevations is the fact that you're never going to see the building in that angle. Again, you're seeing everything straight on. As you approach the building from this way, you're going to be down and plus, unless you're 16 feet tall, you don't really see those things straight on. So they'll be recessed back in the background. And again we are looking, working with our mechanical engineers to bring that down. Are there any other questions? Farmakes: With the elevation of this building, to TH 5, you actually even with trees in there filled out, you will be able to see down into that a bit. Krauss: Highway 5 is pretty much at the building elevation. It's not too different... Bob Rothman: You can see right here. David Leschek: As the site goes to the east, it begins to drop below Highway 5. Bob Rothman: You see Highway 5 is approximately the same elevation of the. David Leschek: The building elevation itself is at 958 and I believe that Highway 5 at the west end of the site is approximately 960. So it's approximately only 2 feet higher than the main floor elevation of the building. But then as the site begins to go towards Bluff Creek, it begins to drop. It begins actually to step and we terraced the athletic fields to be in keeping ' with the Lake Ann complex which has been developed by the city of Chanhassen and that concept there was to try to get a little additional interest in the landform by terracing the land that the fields sit on. So we have done that same thing as something that the Parks ' Department wants to make as their signature, if you will, of their parks. To accomplish a terraced feel to that. Mancino: What about from Galpin? Galpin is lower? 12 n 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 David Leschek: No. Galpin is actually higher. I think if you refer back to the site section here, you will see that Galpin is actually right here and it is actually higher. As the road. Bob Rothman: It starts to come down at this point. Again, as Paul mentioned, this being the high point of the site and it starts to drop down at that point. Mancino: Where that southwest wall is? Bob Rothman: Right. Correct. So when you're down here, directly south of the building, you're actually what, a good 8 feet below. David Leschek: Well you're about 6 to 8 feet below the building. Bob Rothman: First floor elevation. Mancino: So when you stand by McGlynn's Bakery, you're going to be looking down onto the top of this building? Krauss: I don't recall ... McGlynn's Bakery... Mancino: I'm just trying to get perspective. David Leschek: One of the concerns that Paul listed in his staff report was the idea of the rooftop mechanical equipment and one of the reasons why we're now having to go back and adjust some of our mechanical penthouses is because we have put all of the mechanical equipment into these penthouses. So the roof is devoid of any sort of equipment that's up there. It is all self contained within the penthouses of the building. Mancino: Equipment in a penthouse. Scott: Peanut butter and jelly on the dining terrace. One of the things that, I know that a number of the buildings in the school district is currently studying is the concept of what's called multi -age grouping. And what I wanted to hear from you is how the potential of that concept being used at the elementary level, district wide, was utilized to design this particular building. John Gockel: What it is is that the houses consist of 5 classrooms. What we have here is. Bob Rothman: Grades 1 thru 5 are all in each of the clusters. 13 1 7 1 i, iJ 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: So you have five groups or 1 thru 5? ' Bob Rothman: Exactly. So instead of one of these clusters being out here as here's one all grade 2, they're all integrated with each and the school district will then develop their programs on using that notion. L � David Leschek: I have to apologize for not having a larger scaled plan. However if I could lay this here, and again we'll let the folks at home use their imagination. You asked the question about the multi -age groupings that this facility could occur, or could occur in this facility. This is an enlarged plan of two of the houses within the building and the houses themselves consist of 5 classrooms with a teacher planning area and one larger classroom in this location here which is designed to be, or could function as a kindergarten classroom in the future if they were to ever have kindergarten here at this facility. This building is currently proposed to handle only 1 thru 5. Mancino: Where does kindergarten go? David Leschek: They use the Early Childhood Center in Chaska currently. Which you know they've just done an addition to which houses first graders now but may in the future eventually contain additional kindergartners. In the center of the house then is a team center, as we refer to it, which is used by any one or all five of the classrooms. The classrooms for instance, I mean they're grouped in five because you have 1 thru 5 grades here. So when you're talking multi -age, you could have a house could consist of 1 thru 5 or it could consist of five groups of 3rd graders or they may actually mix or match 1st, 2nd grades and 3 -4 someplace else. The flexibility has been designed into each house, whether it be through the number of classrooms or the types of spaces. Whether they be larger spaces, such as this, or the smaller spaces so that they can accommodate large as well as small and function for grades 1 thru 5 or all fifth grade or a multi-age grouping of 2nd and 3rd graders. Scott: Also, another modeling you're probably familiar with is the inclusion model for unique learners. Where are the, and this is great but usually there's an area, and I think most people are familiar with special education. Where is that particular area located? I think I may have missed that. David Leschek: That particular area is located throughout the facility. So when we talk about for instance teacher planning areas, this is where the teachers are for this particular house and included in that staff, if you will for this house, could very well be a special education teacher. So that what they want to develop here is this interaction between not only the teachers of that particular school but also that special ed person who may be responsible for that person so they can better coordinate that curriculum for that person. 14 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: Okay. , David Leschek: Any additional questions? Scott: If there are no additional q uestions. Mancino: I have a couple more. Was there some stone detailing on the building? Did I read that somewhere in the staff report? Bob Rothman: Yeah. Again, going back to the, as Dave had mentioned. As we get our , budgets in, one of the things we listed was stone as with &..alternating. So we're looking at these. Originally we had hoped that these would be stone and now we're looking at burnish ' masonry but we are looking at some stone accents. For instance window sills might be a Mankato stone or something of that nature. Mancino: Chaska stone. , Bob Rothman: Or Chaska stone. 1 Mancino: Yeah, that would be really nice to pull that in. Okay. And what's the green that I saw on the. Bob Rothman: That's a metal roof. A standing seam metal roof. Mancino: Do you happen to have a sample of the color of green? ' Bob Rothman: No, I'm sorry I don't have one. I Mancino: Is it a dark? Light? Medium? Bob Rothman: Probably looking at a dark, kind of a forest type green. Any other questions? ' Thank you very much. Scott: Good thank ou. This is a public hearing and members of the general public are Y P g encouraged to ask questions, express opinions. These are the applicant, the representatives of city staff, Planning Commission members. Are there any members in the audience tonight ' who would like to address the Planning Commission or any of these other parties? Let the record show that there are no members of the public who wish to speak. Can I have a ' motion please to close public hearing? 15 M Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994 ' Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I'll go back to the landscaping, to begin with. I'm concerned, as you brought up some points here on some of the trees that are adjacent to road salt areas of the, I believe it's Galpin and the entryway for the buses to the south to the structure. And I think that that should be looked at. The Arboretum here, the report that she has here and I went to the same conference she did. There are established trees that are tolerant to salt and I realize that ' you're not here to talk about that tonight or you don't have representatives of that, but we did have several landscape people there and the Arboretum of course is a well known authority with that kind of stuff. And you may want to look at the survivability of those trees. The other issue, the prairie grass area. I think that that. sounds good. The teaching things also may sound good on paper. I'm wondering how translatable that is to practicality and I would advise the school to look closely at that. It is, it has been used and it is being used in some ' locations here in Chanhassen. They haven't been terribly successful as of yet. As I understand it, and the prairie grass area that I visited in Illinois. They have a park there that they're trying to redo prairie in Illinois where they had bison and its a lot more rolling acres ' and so on. As I understood the educational part of that, for prairie grass to truly be prairie grass, there is a lot of different species and there is a total ecosystem that goes with that. Failing that, there is a lot of artificial maintenance that has to be done to maintain it and I'm wondering if the educational value of that may be better served with a wetland or a pond. Or something of that nature that's more indicative of what's here. I also understand that for true prairie grass to thrive, it needs little human contact and as I understand it, all of the kids will be dropped off right in front of the prairie grass so there are some practical aspects to that that you may want to review. The second issue, and the city report touched on this a little bit, is how the movement of people translates to some of the park areas adjacent to the creek. Bluff Creek. And how that works up into some of the recreational facilities on the school property. And I'm not sure that I'm seeing anything there but did the Park Commission look at this? Krauss: Oh, yes. Farmakes: So they looked at this closely and they're satisfied that what they see is integrated well? Krauss: Yes. 1 Farmakes: Okay. These fields, these are K thru Little League? Is that the type of fields that they're going to be? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: The ballfields are, you're right. They're not adult size. Farmakes: They're 60 footers for baseball. The one thing that I was concerned about is the view of the facility from Highway 5. I like the view that they've done from what would be the front of the building facing south and from the east. Or excuse me, from the west. And I like what they've done with the different forms. Making up for some nice shadowing and things that you often don't see on schools. Basically they're, particularly it seems like all the ones in the suburbs here built in the 60's, are these big blocks. Mancino: And that's what you see from TH 5. ' Farmakes: Well, this happens to be what was being built back then. I like this much better. Maybe 50 years from now they'll be complaining about it. I am somewhat concerned looking at it from the north and from the east, as you come. When you look at it there's sort of flat expanse on the roof line and when you look at it from the north, it looks like the back of the ' school. And if there is something that possibly could be done behind the gym area where those windows are to take that facade and break it up a little bit. That would be on this side. Mancino: Now, isn't there a lantin there P g though? Farmakes: Well there's several plantings inbetween it. David Leschek: And a vine of sorts too. To sort of help break up. I Farmakes: A veining situation coming up the side of the school, yeah. David Leschek: Yes. And you realize too that that space being a gymnasium space requires that mass. So we tried to address that. Farmakes: Even if it was something to break up the roof line. The tangent line that runs across that large scale box. I know that from the stuff they did at the U of M works nice to that effect. The other issues I think I'll leave for some of the stuff that you talked about and I'd just be repeating it and I don't want to take it all. So I'll let you take over. Mancino: Oh thanks. I just wanted to add one more tree for you to check please on the salt ' sensitivity. And that would be the red oaks are very sensitive to aerial salt spray and you have the red oaks on the, let's see east side of Galpin in that northeastern area. So if you could check with your architect about that. Paul, a couple questions for you. How does this process work? I mean has the School Board of District #112 approved this site plan? I mean as it comes to City Council. City Council. Does it go to the School Board? 17 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: It's not a sequential process. It's not very neat. 1 John Gockel: The School Board is not, they've approved the schematic design. What you're looking at now is about 90% of design development. That will go before the School Board approximately the end of January. Mancino: And what if we have things, if the City Council has suggestions that they want changed in what they see, does the School Board recognize those changes? I mean what ' happens? John Gockel: The School Board recognizes that it's an ongoing process. One of the things to be aware of is that the, what you're looking at is two separate ownerships also. * There's District ownership and there is the city ownership. For example, the gymnasium form that you were talking about is not the District's property. It would be the city's property so there's a blending here. In order for the school to be open in the fall of '95, it has to be under construction this spring so we're going down several parallel paths at the same time. One with the District. One with the City. One with the Planning Commission and various other bodies. Another parallel path that we're going down is the purchase of the land. That should take place by the end of January. The joint use agreement and joint powers agreement and development agreement, all these things are taking place simultaneously. Mancino: Now when the City sells the land to the School District, is if obligatory of the ' School District to build an elementary school there by 1995, and that's the only use it can use it for? Is the whole contract and the whole... predicated on that? And if it doesn't happen, if there's not a school being built on it, it's null and void? John Gockel: The District is purchasing the land. That's an agreement. The City and the District will have a joint developers agreement to develop the site. To put buildings out there and ballfields and roads and so forth. That's a second agreement. Not dependent upon the first. The third agreement would be the long, the agreement with a long life and that is how the two governmental entities jointly use the property. Maintain it. Mow the grass. Plow the snow and so forth. Krauss: You're raising an interesting point. I don't know exactly how that will be ... I've got enough to deal with ... but you raise an interesting point. From what I understand about the process, there's relatively little chance of that happening ... I mean there's a $45 million bond issue that was approved... What I'd be a little more concerned about, and I'm not even too ' concerned about that is, what if the School Board comes back and says gee, this is much too expensive. We've got to go cinder block. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Mancino: Yep. Krauss: At that point, I mean the School Board is a free agent, same as a developer is. I mean you can come up with conditions that you impose on a developer and they can decide to walk. If the School Board, you're approving a project here. It's like any other project you approve. If radical changes come about, for whatever reason, between now and the time its built, then we have to make a call whether or not this is consistent with what you approved and if it's not, it's got to come back. I think that's always the bottom line and nobody's really talking radical changes. I mean it's a massive project. There's going to be a lot of fine tuning. But if something really went out of kilter, you still have the site plan approval. It still has to be consistent with that. It's being zoned office institutional so there's not a whole lot else that can go here, which is why we picked that district. Farmakes: Well if there's joint ownership, isn't also the City part of this applicant process right now? Krauss: Exactly and we will continue to own 20 acres of it. Farmakes: But also structure as well, correct? Krauss: A portion of the structure. Mancino: I can't remember, I lost it. Thanks. Oh I know what it is. If we do rezone to IO, it limits that to schools, public buildings, offices and related uses. What are the related uses? Krauss: Whatever we construe them to be. It's the ordinance gives me the authority to make some interpretations. Failing agreement on that, my call can be expanded by the City Council. It's never been a question. I mean it's a pretty restrictive district. Mancino: I just want to know worst case. Krauss: Well I suppose worst case would be an office building. I mean if you had an office building go on this site, you could say that a daycare center is ... It wouldn't be a truck transfer terminal. Mancino: Going to wetlands. On the grading sheet here, there were some wetlands designated and I assume that those wetlands that were put on the grading sheet are those that are drained. They're not operational. But they are on here and I just wanted to make sure. 19 I I u 1 i Ll Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, it's kind of confusing. They really don't belong on there and that's what we've done over the last two months, three months of clarifying. It's a very confusing subject. It's, by State law you're supposed to use the 1989 Army Corps Handbook. I've been told by people ... that they can go into your back yard and fmd there's a wetland using that Handbook. So you've got everybody and their mother out there selling services now. There's long standing firms that have been in the wetland identification business and now every surveyor, every engineer is all of a sudden a wetland expert and you're getting a lot of conflicting information. We went the extra mile on this and sent our experts out. We went back and consulted Frank Svoboda who helped us write our ordinance. We've bounced it off the Army Corps and obviously they're comfortable with what we're doing. Conrad: But these were not mapped on our official wetland map? Krauss: We had notes, survey notes of the thing. Of at least one of them on our map and we identified it as a drained wetland. And when we went back in there, the State log, the historical definition of how long had it been drained. The State law is worded so that there's a disincentive for example for authority to drain a wetland and turn around a year later and sell it as developable. But these have been drained as long as anybody can recall. We even checked the Soil Conservation Service and they said, they've been supporting farm measures on this for decades. Mancino: The south, let's see. The widening of Galpin. When I read your report it said that Galpin was going to be, there's four lanes from the south access boulevard up to Highway 5. When I read the Barton - Aschman report that we got, it's from Timberline Drive up to Galpin. Krauss: I think what's happening is the road, you don't just go to 4 lanes. You've got to taper it. And the taper does start about that point. I Mancino: Okay. I didn't see anywhere in that Barton - Aschman report ... I didn't see anything in the discussion for berming and landscaping. Krauss: There isn't and that was a point that was raised by ... City Engineer and it's going to be taken care of Mancino: Okay. The other, I thought I read it in the Barton - Aschman was that there was no mitigation wetlands for that south access boulevard where in your report there is a 5110 of a mitigation that needs to happen where it crosses the creek. Krauss: Yeah ... there may be some and the jury's, we don't have a final... grading plan. How much is going to be impacted. You know, as I say, we've been trying to figure out... exactly 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 where the wetlands are. By and large the wetlands cease to exist at the property line between Timberwood and the farm fields ... So the road may in fact not. What, the road does not cross any standing any wetlands but it does cross Bluff Creek and Bluff Creek at that point ceases to be a very channelized creek as far as ... what is a wetland. So I think there is some and we'll clarify that. Mancino: And it will be a 2 to 1 mitigation, starting in '94? 1 Krauss: We've got to figure out. It's supposed to be as of last Friday or whatever. Yeah, January 1. This is a project that's been in the hopper for 6 months. We've heard of a lot of communities that willy nilly kind of pre - approved all kinds of project before the deadline. We haven't done that. But in this case we're comfortable with the fact that we've worked... It was a project that was submitted to us in October. For a number of reasons we pushed it back and we'll have to see. Mancino: Well I'd like to compliment staff on two concerns that I had that you brought up and were very well written in the report about the penthouses and how big they are. I would like to see those scaled down also. And also the reclamation of the corridor creek. I think that's wonderful and I hope we do it north of Highway 5 also. That if there is going to be , development, that we do have that 100 foot buffer of get it back to the original native whatever that is. So I commend you on that. My last thing has to do with bees. I don't know where the bees came up but I don't know. That was very interesting. I looked at some , of the trees and said, you know crab apples, yeah. They have flowers and they're going to have bees. Lindens. American lindens have flowers. They're flowering. Washington ' hawthorns are. Clover. I mean we're going to have bees around this area. I don't know. It gust doesn't seem to me to be that important. So I like the crab apples and I like the lindens and I like the hawthorns. I like the use of them. I wouldn't want anybody who's allergic to get stung. There's no question about that. But I don't have a big problem with the flowering plants and the trees. And that's it. Scott: Alright. Ladd. ' Conrad: Not too many questions. I like what I see. The, parking seems to be a long way away from ballfields and stuff like that. I assume we've checked it out for ambulance access and it's there. It can get, we just don't have a problem. Okay. Picking up on the last point in the staff report, or just the point we just covered. Restoring Bluff Creek. Paul, your staff , report says, in the recommendations it says per the staff report but basically you are saying per DNR standards. Or whatever DNR says. So that's really what we're saying is talk to the DNR. Restore. I t� 21 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Right. If I knew the answer to that ahead of time, we would be more specific. We don't but we're working with people who I think will tell us. Conrad: Okay. I think that's a neat piece. The only other thing I've got is Bluff Creek access. I'm not a real, I really don't understand the whole corridor but I know you need access to utilize it. For real people to get there and, is this going to me? ' Scott: News flash. Conrad: It's a news flash. I can't talk and read at the same time. But anyway, here we have an education site that connects to Bluff Creek which is, in my mind, just a perfect place for a real access to Bluff Creek. Now maybe there are other accesses with parking lots and what have you so you can really utilize the corridor. Maybe there are. I don't know that but here we have one. It connects. It's at a school. It should really be integrated into Bluff Creek. Right here. So again, I love what I see. My only comment is, if we want to make use of, if we really believe in Bluff Creek and you want to put a lot of attention to it and restoring, let's make sure people have a way of getting there and a place to park their car. This looks like to me the place to do it. That's all I have. Scott: Good. Matt. Ledvina: Just a couple more things to add. I think, I'm very concerned with the construction ' of this south access boulevard as it relates to the trees along the south property boundary. Now as I read the engineering plans, there's more than a 10 foot fill in the lowest spot where that quasi wetland area is. And if the roadway is going right up within the dirt line of the trees and you've got a 10 foot fill, that's not going to work. So without damaging those trees and I don't know the extent of that tree line and what significance that would have to the folks associated with Timbercreek but I guess what I want, and I know that's not at issue here today and I know that that will all be revisited but again, I just want to raise my concern as it relates to the grade of that road and potentially the alignment. I know perhaps it could be shifted just slightly to the north to accommodate retaining walls or fill slopes or whatever is necessary there. But again. Krauss: The City Engineer and I have looked at that and we had the same question and we're pretty certain that if need be, and we need to get the details on that, that the road could be routed 15 -20 feet north in most places and not really compromise anything on the school site and just going to provide that separation in the roof lines. Ledvina: There's also some grade changes that can be done to reduce that fill down. I don't know how much but you know maybe 2, 4 feet. Every little bit helps when you're in that 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 situation. Let's see. I guess the only other thing I have to add, and we've touched on this as it relates to Bluff Creek and I see the plan calls for grading within 20 feet of the center line and I wouldn't want to see the plan move forward. The grading plan in this fashion. I think that may be too close to the center line and if we are looking at essentially an all dirt drainageway here, we are trying to restore it, well then that has merit and there would be grading right, all the way into the center line if that's the case. But when I looked at this, these plans I assumed that the channel was in it's natural condition and maybe that's not the case so, through filling, you know erosion and sedimentation of the agricultural areas here: I could see that. I would definitely support the restoration to the original conditions for the corridor. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I guess I look at it from a public safety perspective. I know schools are very in tune to the whole public safety liability. Has our Public Safety Department, committee taken a look at this? Do they need to? Krauss: I don't know if the Public Safety Committee has. We've circulated copies of the plans to the Public Safety Department. Harberts: That might be redundant because I'm certainly aware of how much it's scrutinized by school districts or schools. The only other comment I made earlier was that I'd like to see a recommendation number 8 added with regard to working with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop- off /pick -up turn around elements for public transit because it is so - heavily used by the elementary kids. Scott: What's the status of the trail system? And I'm thinking from the standpoint of having kids from adjacent neighborhoods who will be walking or will any child in this, you might now know this right now but will every child who goes to that elementary be taking the bus? Krauss: I think basically, well I don't know ... In terms of the trails, with the upgrading of Galpin ... the County does their piece and the County by the way is using city money—Turn back of TIF dollars so we can finance the upgrade of Galpin ... If that happens, we'll have a trail down Galpin. Basically from Highway 5 to Lyman Blvd. We've already had Hans Hagen build a portion of it. With the east /west collector, which is also .... by the time the school opens, we could well have the trail I hope basically over to Audubon. There's a chance, or shortly thereafter when the school opens. And with what's happening on the Centex property and the Opus property, we may have it over to TH 41 on the other side. What we won't have in the near term is a way to get across Highway 5. But you will have a signalized intersection at Galpin. 23 • Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Harberts: I have a question for Paul. Or maybe John. You know I've been working with some of the school districts with regard to the shortings that they have in school bus funds and when you put a location like this out in the sticks a little bit, has the school looked at the access by kids walking? By kids riding their bikes. You know have they looked at it from how practical will that be? Is there a safety issue that they have to address with that? Has that been part of the discussion in terms of the design like this? You know what's the current track? Is it to have the kids ride bikes or whatever, and if we're going to have community facilities like this, you know what's that element like too in terms of that kind of access because with what we're seeing for growth, with what we're seeing you know earlier tonight in terms of land use. You know some single family, multi - family even adjacent to that. What's the trail system going to be like to like I said, make that more pedestrian friendly access like that? Has that been integrated into the discussion at all? John Gockel: Yes. One of the attractive aspects of this particular site was it's proximity to anticipated trail systems. As far as, you know obviously safety is very important to the district. We, I think we almost came to blows over who was more concerned about caring for the kids and the school. Whether it was the parks commission or the principal. They both claimed to be the end all of being concerned about that. You know as far as kids riding bicycles to schools like many of us probably did. We don't live in those kinds of communities any more. We're all out in the suburbs with people spread all over the place and roads separating. So most of the kids will come by bus. Like I said, one of the attractive aspects of this site was it's proximity to the trail systems. Many sites didn't even offer that potential. So this building, this facility is not in the sticks ... as some of the sites we looked at. Harberts: Are there going to be bike racks put into this facility? John Gockel: There will be some bike racks. Harberts: But it's not the feeling that there's going to be a lot of access, at least for school class time by bike but maybe Paul by, for the community or the city rec. Krauss: Oh yeah. I think when you look, when this place opens up, by the way, we may also have the link completed if this Chan Corporate Center develops and comes in, we might have the link down to Bluff Creek railway crossing which would mean that ... and all the industrial, the people working there will be able to hop on that trail and go up to the ballfields and yeah. That kind of thing will occur... Harberts: You know recalling my younger days which weren't so long ago, right? You know with that pedestrian bridge that's going over on Highway 5, I can see people from the north side of town, central city here, crossing over and riding, walking, Rollerblading, or whatever 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 even down to that location. It's not really that far if you're out on a Sunday afternoon or whatever. And if there's activities like that in the summer, that's the kind of thing and that's why I see that pedestrian bridge being real key too in terms of that kind of trail system. I mean that's not that much of a hike. It's probably going to be a nice walk or however they want to use it. So I guess that's, and I guess part of that public safety, you know like I said, I'm very well aware of it and how well school district's scrutinize that but it's just a question. That's it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion? Harberts: I'll make a motion. Scott: Okay. Harberts: Let me look at my page 13. I'll recommend that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93 -6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions. Number 2 we would add letter (e). To revise the landscaping plan as follows. To address the salt spray with some of the landscaping elements suggested in earlier comments. Number 8. That the applicant work with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop off, pick -up, turn around element that will accommodate public transit. I just have one question for Matt before I close. Did you want to have anything with regard to supporting that it's restored to the original conditions of the corridor that you talked about? Ledvina: Sure. Mancino: Isn't that in here? Harberts: I'm not sure if that's fully covered. Scott: Well number 4 doesn't quite address, because it just says stay out of the flood plain but that has nothing to do with the restoration. Ledvina: No, that'd be appropriate. Harberts: Yep, and how would you like to see that worded? Ledvina: I would think that. Harberts: This would be added to number 4. r fl 1 1 25 t 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: I would think that we could state that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility of restoring the Bluff Creek corridor to it's original alignment and. Krauss: I'm sorry but does 2(b) get to that? Harberts: It's hard to say. Ledvina: Provide plans that respond to the goal, I would think so. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Harberts: Okay, so you're comfortable. Mancino: You could put it on page 7. Harberts: Okay, as described in the staff report on page 7? Ledvina: Sure. Scott: Is that strong enough? Okay. Harberts: Okay. So basically we want to amend 2(b) to add that in the staff report as outlined in page 7. And I'll move that recommendation. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Farmakes: What about the roof line on that gym? Harberts: On the west side? No, it wasn't on the west side. Farmakes: It'd be on the northeast corner. The gym and the city portion of the building. Harberts: Yeah, is that covered in number 1 or not? I wasn't sure. Farmakes: I'm not sure it does. Mancino: ... a little bit better specifically? W Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes: We could maybe word it, the city should look at alternatives to dealing with the tangent massing roof line created by the gym and the support areas. Harberts: Considered as number 9. Farmakes: We could add it as a separate motion. Scott: We'll skip the friendly amendment stuff. I think you're. Harberts: That would be added number 9. What Jeff had just stated. Scott: Are we all comfortable voting on that motion? Do we all understand what the intent is and so forth? Farmakes: The reason I bring it up as an intent is I'm wondering from that particular corner of the building, based on what we've been reviewing with other applicants, whether or not we would approve that. I look at it as say Target. I don't think we would approve that and why is the city any different? Harberts: Are you clarifying the intent of number 1 then? Or are we. Farmakes: Well I didn't see that as, I saw that as more towards the issue of penthouse but if you want to interrupt massiveness. Krauss: You're spanning the scope of 1. I think the ... came up with and just tack it on to. Farmakes: Tack it on? Harberts: Okay, as number 9? Krauss: Or rather as expand 1... Harberts: Oh, just expand 1, okay. I understand that intent. Scott: Okay, so basically expand item number 1 to include reviewing the external treatment of the gymnasium section so that it appears. Farmakes: Break up the roof line. Scott: Break up the roof line. 27 %Z4 D Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes: Alternatives for breaking up the roof line. Scott: Okay. We've moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think we just had discussion. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #93 -6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District 9112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staffs proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash enclosure as outlined in the staff report. Also, that the applicant look at alternatives to the external treatment of the gymnasium section to minimize it's massiveness. 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site. b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff report on page 7. c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields. ' d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for tree species and green space. e. To address some of the landscaping concerns as related to tolerance to salt spray. 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the flood plain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Revise the plat to describe the right -of -way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right -of -way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Highway 5 right -of -way and Galpin Boulevard right-of-way and maintain a minimum 35 foot setback from Galpin Boulevard. 28 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50 foot setback. S. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop -off, pick-up and turn around elements to accommodate public transit. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. Scott: And this will be going to the City Council? Krauss: On January 24th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated December 1, 1993 and December 4, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. Mancino: You know this packet, the two letters you wrote to Brad and to Mr. Hiscox. You're talking about our schedule for the next two months or, my life is planned now. On February 2nd my question is Paul, we're going to look at a Chanhassen Corporate Center concept PUD. Will that have some conflict of again Highway 5? And having the Highway 5 draft approved and everything? Krauss: Well it puts you in the same ballpark that you were in when you reviewed Opus and you reviewed Centex. That you're being asked to do something and ... a concept and anything you do would be contingent upon adoption... Mancino: Okay. Just so close to Highway 5, I was wondering if we'd want to wait and do anything on Highway 5 until after City Council is done. Okay. Scott: Okay. Any other administrative approvals or open discussion? Ledvina: I had a question on the Industrial Performance Standards. Why was this review initiated? Krauss: ...regarding documents that need ... We read a book ... so I asked Bob to check it against our standards to see if we were still current. t 29 1 1 1 7 I J 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: Okay, so this was regulating city planning type stuff? Krauss: Yeah... Farmakes: Are we still in open discussion? Scott: Yes. Open discussion. Farmakes: I have a question of Paul. At the end of our meeting here, or work session, we saw a couple of developments. I'm surprised we haven't seen something from the Mill's property. Has there been any further bringing forward of what their development would be or are we expecting to see several possible developments from the future either taking into regard the work that was done on TH 5 or totally disregarding it? Is that the, is there anything else out there in the closet? Krauss: Nothing that I've been made aware of. You know I think I reported to you that... where they thought the road should be with MnDot and ... talk to us. Farmakes: Interesting. Well we'll get a very disjointed road I think by the time we're done. It will be quite a patchwork. I was I guess surprised by the developments that were brought forward. I don't know if anyone else was expecting to see a golf course. I had heard rumors about that. I'm just wondering if we're looking, it hasn't been altered as I understand for the last couple of years. Mancino: It was never brought in front of the Highway 5 Task Force. Farnial:es: Well he said it was a possibility I believe. He did get up and mention it ... or at least as we know it. Scott: Well, and like I kind of shared with some of the other people. I'm the first one to say that I'm not a golf course designer but I do play a fair amount of golf and I'm very familiar with what the USGA specifies as far as tee to green minimums and maximums for different par lengths and just from what I know as a golfer, that golf course layout would not, he would not be able to get that approved by the USGA. And it looked like it was pretty maxed out as far as tee to greens but. Krauss: Well also when you look at that, I mean Mike needed, he has 11 homes on a private driveway. I mean he's got an existing driveway curb cut now for his home and he's entitled to have one access to the highway but nobody's going to be very desirous of having him expand that so that you serve a golf course, club house and family homes. Then he had a 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 multi family senior building with another driveway. The fact is, you need a road to serve that someplace. Farmakes: The park commission, once I saw that drawing, is the park commission, a little bell went off in my head. Have they looked into the long term connectiveness of that leg to Lake Ann, going around to the trail system that the city already has? Krauss: I know that they have. I know they've talked about it ... and I believe it's in their current comprehensive plan update. But in the past, you know there were some links in there, it's been showed ... links that got knocked out around the north side of Prince where there's kind of the isthmus between the two lakes. Farmakes: I'm very familiar with that property. Krauss: ...and I think that was knocked out 5 -6 years ago. Farmakes: Well, there's no reason to knock it out. There are current trails there following, even before Prince was there. There is a natural trail already that follows the lake and goes out to right in front of his, in fact it connects with the existing park and beach. And none of that area is developed and it goes all the way around to the creek on the north side that divides Prince's property from the park that the city owns. And there is a natural trail there. In fact there is a natural trail that goes around Lake Lucy also and connects on the other side. I assume that these were deer trails at one time and they're probably expanded by the previous owners and I know. Mancino: Horses. Farmakes: Well Larson owned the property before Prince. I believe he hired a caretaker couple and their job in the winter time was to cut out the dead fall and keep those trails open. And it is, it's an enormous asset and I know that a future asset but I know that by the topography of the land, and the setbacks that the State currently requires, much of that land would be difficult to develop. And if we do have some leeway with trails, I know that there's some difficulty putting trails in the back of people's homes. But based on what we've already invested in Lake Ann, it would seem to me that at least in the long term scope, that maybe they should start thinking about that a little more seriously. Krauss: I'll raise it again to Todd. I know it's something he's discussing... Farmakes: Because Prince owns the majority of, owns all of that property around the lake and I don't know what any pieces missing would be. 31 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah interestingly we've, I think I mentioned this, we've had some fairly serious sounding interest in developing Prince's property. I mean beyond somebody just making a wild call and saying, what would you let me do on this property. It sounded like some people... Farmakes: But the division between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, the strip that goes up there and then as it gets to the west there's sort of a rise of the land and down on each side there's quite a slope that comes out. If you take the setbacks required and any roads that would have to access that property, it's undevelopable. You cannot develop it. And if you put a road plus the setbacks, that's all you're going to get because there isn't going to be any room for a house. And at least that's really, if you take that into consideration, you've got 3/4 of the lake there already. And except for that west side that connects and that little bit of the south where, I don't believe he's developed a beach area there. It's essentially wild. Krauss: If you go on our beach and walk to the end of our... Farmakes: Right. And there is a little trail there because I've walked it many times over the years and it goes back through there. Connects back to Prince's property and then you go up a hill and then you go down and basically there's an existing trail that people have driven cars on. That goes around the lake. So it is a, it'd be a real future resource I think when something like Lake Harriet comes to mind. Scott: Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I concur with that 100 %. Ledvina: I have a question regarding Highway 5. Now to kind of change the subject but we talked about an ordinance that is going to be ready for us to review. What's the schedule on that? Krauss: Well basically the standards are in the back of the plan. Ledvina: They're in Chapter 7, is that correct? Krauss: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. So that's going to provide the framework for the ordinance? Krauss: Right. We're having the attorney just take that and put it into ordinance form so that he can review that... Ledvina: So that's two meetings... 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994 Harberts: Do you think the public hearing will go two meetings? Krauss: I hope not. Harberts: That's full meetings. Or one full meeting. Ledvina: The reason that I ask is we didn't even scratch that in terms of Krauss: Oh well the next work session next Wednesday, is devoted to that. Mancino: And nothing else? Krauss: Well, we've got to finish up a couple of these land use things. Scott: I've got a quick question too on a work session. My personal opinion is that a work session is for the Planning Commission and staff to work things out and it's nice to have people talk but personally I don't think there's any place to have outside input, unless its something that we ask somebody to do ahead of time. But I'm not familiar with what we can and can't do at a work session. But my guess is. Conrad: We have control. Scott: Yeah. Then I would rather not see any of that kind of stuff unless it's been requested by city staff. Krauss: ...when Mike Gorra says he's been talking about this for 2 years. I don't want to argue with him but two years ago the city was talking about a golf course and I believe he met with Don and said well, I might like to do that someday. Scott: Weren't they talking about potentially buying Bluff Creek Golf Course? Krauss: Yeah. Right, and Mike ... said you can't do that because I'm going to plan a ... golf course and every time we said, well you know if you're really serious, show us ... I didn't think you could squeeze one in on 140 acres. I talked to Fred Hoisington and he said you could but you've got to use up all the land. Well, he's taking 10 acres of it for those houses and then he's got that senior so I don't know. Scott: I have a feeling we're going to see a big residential development on that property and not a golf course. is 33 11 a Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, well it's... Harberts: Do we have a time on that meeting next Wednesday? Is that at 6:00? Krauss: Was it on the schedule for 6:00? Harberts: Yeah. Would you like send out a reminder or something or have someone call us.. Conrad: When do we elect a new Chairman? Scott: When do we adjourn? Krauss: You can do that right now actually if you feel like it, before you adjourn. Conrad: Brian's gone? Brian's gone. Krauss: We did not send Brian a packet, I'm assuming that he's formally off and Brian wasn't planning on coming I gather. Conrad: Oh I thought he was. Mancino: I we were thought going to wait until we got the new person to elect... g g g Farmakes: Well the seat's been taken so I don't think that Brian's going to show up anyway. Scott: I think we should wait to do anything formal until we have our new person on board. Or do you care? Conrad: No. That doesn't mean anything. Scott: Okay. I just figured out courtesy. Conrad: No. We don't care. They don't know how to vote. They'll be invalid to vote. Scott: That's kind of like when the 3 of us were voting. Krauss: Whatever you want to do... Harberts: Let's just do it. I nominate Joe for Chair. t, Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: I second that nomination. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to appoint Joe Scott as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: For Vice Chairman, Chairperson, I nominate Nancy. Scott: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 1994 ' Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Diane Harberts ' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: ' HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY ' ORDINANCE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED AT THE HEARING. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS OF THE PLAN. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DECISION. Public Present: Address Name ' Peter Olin Mn Landscape Arboretum Frank Clemmens Camiros, Chicago, IL Joyce Levine Camiros, Minneapolis ' Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Paul Paulson 3160 West 92nd Street, Chaska ' Steve Schwauke John Dobbs RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D, Little Canada James Unruh Barton- Aschman Assoc ' Barry Warner Barton - Aschman Assoc Deborah Porter Barton- Aschman Assoc Lee & Pat Kerber Chanhassen Charles & Susan Markert Chanhassen Caroline Watson DataServ, Inc. Don Honeck DataServ, Inc. Jim Paulet DataServ, Inc. Lisa & Ray Notermann Chanhassen ' Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge Mike Mason 829 Woodhill Betty & Larry VanDeVeire 4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska ' 1 i;q R Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' Name Address I Terry Forbord Jay Dolejsi Lundgren Bros. 6961 Chaparral Lane , Michele Foster Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Mpls. John Uban Brad Johnson DSU /Gateway 7425 Frontier Trail ' Robert L. Hoffman Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Center, Bloomington ' Peter Beck 1500 NW Financial Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report along with the planning consultants, ' Barry Warner, John Unruh and Deborah Porter from Barton- Aschman to outline the work that has been done on the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North ' Highway 5 Access Boulevard and the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zone. Chairman Scott then called the public hearing to order and opened up the floor for public comment. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. ' I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata, Minnesota. If it's okay, I'll use the visuals that are provided to you from the consultants. Some of you may know that ' Lundgren Bros has approximately a 200 acre neighborhood community not very far north of Highway 5, located between Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. It's been commonly referred to, through the preliminary plat process as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song property. Now ' as a part of that land holding, Lundgren Bros has an interest in a piece of property that comes down to and abuts and is contiguous to Highway 5. And that property is the property that I'm depicting with my pointer here. ' Scott: Could you do that again please? Terry Forbord: It's commonly known as the Jay Dolejsi property, which you probably will , recognize the name Dolejsi as it was a part of our preliminary plat approval. One of them anyway. Lundgren Bros obviously has an interest in what you're all talking about in regards ' to this property. I'm going to talk to you specifically about the road and the land use. We have volunteered to participate in this process and unfortunately our participation was not accepted. But being now that the formal public hearings have started before the Planning , Commission, I'm here to share our feelings with you. I know, I'm a little confused in that the land use that's described in this document and on the exhibits and the color are a little ' different than what I hear people talk about. It's our understanding from looking on the colored map here that the land use in this general area was to be medium and high density. 2 ' L r ` Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 r r However Commissioner Mancino I believe was talking about some of this area being single family. I'd like to tell you as a provider of housing, I would love to be able to share with you that that should be residential single family housing, because that's what I do. But from a planning perspective, these would be horrendous parcels of property to locate detached single family, private ownership housing in this particular area. And the reason is because ' the topography in that area is generally high where Alternative #1 is and it lowers down to Highway 5 approximately I'm guessing 60 to 65 feet. And I don't know very many people that are going to buy homes at the price that homes go for in Chanhassen and have them ' abutting Highway 5. At least for detached single family type of homes. And because of the elevation, it's going to be very difficult to berm that and even if you...on top of that berm, you're not going to be able to screen the impact of either the view or certainly providing ' the... for the sound of the highway traffic in general. So from purely a planning standpoint, I believe that these areas that would be just north of the highway should be either multi- family ownership or rental or apartment buildings or something along that line. Now, let me just editorialize a little bit about why I believe that. Before the task force was commenced with it's undertaking on the project, I think that it was clear that the City Council mentioned where they were concerned about what it would look like, not only when it was built but 20 years from now. If you put low priced, and that's what would be there. I mean I don't know how { you achieve that with the land prices in Chanhassen but if they were less expensive homes, you're not going to end up seeing what I believe that the city hopes to see in that corridor... within the highway. So I think you should just think about that before you make any decisions. Now again I'm a little confused whether it is given to medium density or high density or single family because I've got some conflicting information. As it relates to the ' roadway alternatives, I believe that Alternative #1 generally is the appropriate location. I'm just talking from a layout and if you're familiar with the site and you've spent any time out there. However I do believe that probably, and I know this is general and it's not cast in concrete. At least that's my understanding. I believe that it's probably : a little more appropriate to move that road maybe 100 yards south. I don't understand why it needs to go ' through the trees. I think you could bring that out into the open a little bit. The way I look at that, when I look at a transition zone from highway to higher density to lower density, I use that road as part of the buffer. That road actually becomes a transition zone in itself ' between lower density housing and higher density housing so, and given that there's a stand of trees that's kind of goes in this general area, I believe this road could be actually coming down to the south here and it creates an area of an upland area, kind of like a peninsula, that ' protrudes out into that wetland area. So for the record I wanted to enter those comments and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those either today or at a later date. Thank you. r Scott: Terry, let me just ask you a quick question. From my recollection you're the first land owner or land owner representative that has preferred Alternative #1 even though it i 3 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 pretty much cuts your property in half. And could you give us some comments on that. Is it because it's a buffering? Is it because you'd have to build one through there anyway to service the parcel? Terry Forbord: No. I don't like collector roads ever going through our property because they create problems but they also can be a" necessity. I look at it like I say from a land use. I always give every piece of property that I'm developing the would I live there test. Or if I did live there, how would I want it to be. I run it through that test myself. So I mean whether I was living in a townhome or an apartment or single family dwelling, how would I put them on this property given the physical constraints that exist around and on the property, how would I do it? So when I look at this, I realized that it would probably make some sense to have that collector road there. So where would you put it where it would have the least impact on the site. It will provide for a reasonable layout of the land to accommodate the various uses. Now again from my perspective I think there should be more than one use on that site because I don't think this portion is good for single family detached private ownership housing. Who'd want to live there? One of us have to do that test when you make that decision. But I think it's a great site for apartments or rental housing, and that's not a bad thing. Just because they're rental or apartments doesn't mean it's bad. They certainly do a very good job with those types of housing products. Scott: Paul that's, I mean according to this, that's medium density south of, okay. Terry Forbord: In the exhibit I see, I believe it's medium and I'm not sure if it's high because these two colors are so close. Scott: There's really only one high density area, as far as I understand it and that is the area that is just to the east of Powers Boulevard. Correct? Are there any other high density areas? That's the only one that I, okay. So basically what we have is we have medium density south of Alternative #1 and then we have low density or RSF, residential single family up above, so. So you concur with, okay. Farmakes: I think some of the confusion came from what Nancy mentioned. Rather than list it as residential, it said single family. Aanenson: Right. If you read the supporting text that follows it, it mentions that that was one of ... summary of the recommendations... Terry Forbord: As it relates to that text, under potential uses in the second paragraph, should that be west instead of east? I was a little confused. Multi- family residential appropriate for along Highway 5, blah, blah, blah, uses east of Galpin. Should that be west? 4 F 1 1 n Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: It's both. Terry Forbord: Or both, east and west. That's what I was. Aanenson: Yeah. It's both. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Thank you very much. Scott: Okay, thanks Terry. Anyone else? Jim Paulet: Planning Commission. My name is Jim Paulet. I'm the facility's manager at DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East which is the far east end of the project. We're not even on the map here. Southeast corner of the far east of the project. We are the new owners of that site. We recently purchased that site from Sunlink, which is the real estate arm of our parent company. And our plan at this time, we currently have 315 employees there. We've been there since 1988. And our plan at this time is to move an additional 350 employees from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen in 1996. And at this time, I have a letter with me that I guess is addressed to Paul Krauss. We met with Paul yesterday and Todd Gerhardt and at this time we'd like to express our opposition to the approval of the Highway 5 corridor use study until we have had a chance to conduct our own land use study. We believe that it's possible that some of the restrictions, the setback restrictions, the design restrictions, could greatly impact the developability or salability of our land. And until we have a chance to do our own study, we just don't feel we're in a position to approve this plan, or we would like to see this plan approved. So we're just asking for time to conduct our own land use study. We are brand new owners of the land and we intend to commence our study as soon as possible, which they're looking already for architectural engineering firm to do that for us. Thank you. Any questions? Mancino: What property? Jim Paulet: This would be the former CPT site. Scott: Is that the Sunlink that was right on the corner of Dell Road and Highway 5? Harberts: East side? Krauss: This entire site right here. Jim Paulet: Approximately 55 acres of land. E Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Are you opposed necessarily to a particular or you're not sure at this time whether you are or aren't? So you can study the issue. Jim Paulet: ...until we've had a chance to do our own study. Scott: And of the 350 employees, are you going to be moving out of, you have a facility in Eden Prairie? You'll be moving out of that and closing that facility or whatever and relocating all of your employees? Jim Paulet: Our current lease terminates in 1996. The intention at this time is to move those individuals or those employees to the Chanhassen site. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for Jim? Okay, thank you. Michele Foster: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michele Foster. I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I'll be brief this evening. I know that we had talked about the Opus Corporation property at Highway 5 and 41 many times before. This month celebrates the 2 year anniversary of our getting involved with this property and we hope we're starting to make some progress on developing... in what happens to this property. I know that at one of your last meetings John Uban of the firm of DSU presented to you some of the land use changes that are now considering and actually are now proposing for the property which are summarized both in a previous meeting and by Kate Aanenson of your staff. I will not go into details. Those are summarized here in this letter and in order to respect your agenda this evening I won't go into those in great detail. What I'd like to direct your attention to specifically is on page 3 which is our specific request regarding the ... some of which may be more appropriate for the City Council but several of which are obviously appropriate this evening. Our first request, probably one of those is more appropriately directed to the City Council but we are asking that the City explore all possible sources of State and Federal funding for this south access road which as I understand, would also benefit the north access road and we only ask to be treated equally as far as that road. Our second request is with respect to the land use plan. We have obviously a number of objections to the land use plan as it's currently proposed in the task force study but the task force study did prompt us and our consultants to make a number of modifications to our land use plan, which as I mentioned before have been summarized for you. That would basically result in the IOP classification being retained for all of the property with the exception of the one multi- family site on the west side of TH 41. We think that that addresses a number of concerns that were addressed by the Highway 5 task force, by the Arboretum, by a number of the interest groups that have looked at our property and we would strongly request that the land use plan, as we are now proposing it, be incorporated into the final recommendations in the study. Our third request has to do with the parks and open 0 I F %, Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 space issue and I can maybe clarify a little bit the question that was raised about that. We had originally proposed in our concept plan for the park a significant passive park area that would be dedicated as a part of the planning process. A good part of that property is wetland ' area but another significant area is also upland and wooded and would provide for a very nice passive park. As we understand it, the Park and Recreation Commission is now in concurrence with that proposal and again that is something that evolved throughout this ' process and we would request that the final recommendation by the Planning Commission incorporate the passive park element of the Gateway Business Park. The fourth item that we would draw your attention to are a couple of the design standards that are included within the ' overlay district. The setback in the task force report is recommending to use 70 feet and we would request that that be reduced to 50 feet. We feel that a 50 foot setback is more than adequate in combination with the variety of other components of the overlay district that are ' also being incorporated such as no parking on the Highway 5 side. The request and the desire for high design standards. We think a 70 foot setback is excessive and we would request that it be recommended to be 50. And the other objective that we have, and is really a more subjective standard is the requirement for significant visual relief being provided for industrial buildings. We understand what the objective of the design standard is but we also need to respect the fact that industrial programs have certain functional requirements that may not always be able to be met through steps in the building or architectural components of the building and we think that this needs to be at least modified or tailored so that we can provide architectural relief through a variety of different components but not necessarily through stepping of the building or major elements of the building being ... The fifth item is, I believe a little bit of reservation because it isn't perfectly clear to us what importance this ' particular element of the task force study has but our fifth recommendation or request has to do with Figure 8.21 in the task force study which is referred to as the parcel site analysis. There are numerous architectural design objectives stated for the property that we are ' involved in and we feel very strongly that should all of these be required of this development, there will be a significant taking of the property. There are requests and I go into this earlier in the letter but we are providing a number of or meeting a number of those objectives ' already in the plan that we've proposed for the park but if we need to provide new—provide major view corridors, resource corridors, wetland preservation, there's just so many objectives that if you actually look at that particular figure in the task force report, you get dramatic ' impacts on the developability of this property. So all we ask is that there be some clarification that these objectives for the property have to take into consideration the economic viability of being able to develop this property in a reasonable manner, and that ' perhaps not all of the multitude objectives that are being stated for this property can be met simultaneously. So with that I'll conclude my comments. I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. John Uban is also here this evening from DSU. Certainly our r most important objective have to do with the land use component for this property and we hope you'll take our request under consideration. Thank you. ' 7 i@ Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: A question I guess I have of Paul. Number one ... is the city at this time exploring possible State and Federal funding for the south access road? Krauss: No, we have not. When we originally entered into discussions with MnDot on this, they expressed a desire to work with us on the north side. Not only because of the continuity between Highway 41 and 101. The south side road we think is important and necessary but it's discontinuous because it's broken into 5 or 6 segments. So MnDot initially expressed on behalf of themselves and ... the desire to work with us on the north side. Now in fact that north side in cooperation needs to become problematic because they're pushing they're construction horizons so far away that it's inevitable that we're going to need parts of the road prior to their ability to ... There are some things that we've been discussing with Opus and Michele and I and that has more to do with establishment of a tax increment district and devoting some of those funds to offsetting some of the development costs. We need to further those discussions. It's not clear exactly yet what would be funded by those tax increment proceeds. But that's probably the only source of revenue... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. Conrad: A quick one Paul. The sketch from Opus that we saw last week and the road alignments there. Because you worked with Opus, or they responded to some of our concerns in the previous meeting. I'm not sure if the concern with the road is a response to a previous plan or is concerned as we kind of saw it last week and as our plan states. Maybe that's confusing what I just said. Aanenson: No, I think they're two separate issues. I think they're just concerned about the cost of putting that whole segment of road project and participation on the north segment. Krauss: Relative to the other design issues? Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: These things don't, I mean we're not working in vacuums. These are kind of ongoing processes. The plans, the concept plans that are in the Highway 5 plans are just that. I mean they are not hard and fast. Thou shalt design your project this way. Their goals, design goals that we wanted to adhere to, we could take a look to see if, in light of the most recent proposal which we have, they're uncomfortable with, that we should go back and tinker with that. But again it's a concept and I think we decided at our last meeting when John Uban gave his presentation that we believe that we went into this process about a year ago now with 14 -15 outstanding design items on this project and we seem to have resolved the wide share of them with their revised plan. L� r 1 8 1 i 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: I came out of that meeting last week thinking that the north/south road alignment seemed to start fitting together much better. I didn't hear any concerns from Opus about how that was fitting. I didn't hear any concern with the east/west at that point in time so I'm really kind of, I'm not sure. I hear one, or I read something that you're very concerned about it and I hear Paul saying that we can tinker with it a little bit. Now I don't know what the issue is. Obviously it's a plan and things are going to change but based on the sketch that we saw a week ago, I didn't go away from that meeting thinking things were out of whack. Michele Foster: What we think we are here this evening talking about though is the official document that's in front of you that is at divergence with where the process has evolved to ... and all that we are asking is that we have a problem with what is in the official study that is being considered this evening and we would like to have incorporated in the most recent processes that we have gone through because you're right. Today we're in a much different place even than when the task force report was done. So we're just asking that it be brought to you. Conrad: I understand. Krauss: You know it may be beneficial but I think this is a concern that's going to occur whenever we did one of these things and we did 7 or 8 of them, that when we look on ... well where Chapter 8 starts where we go into a description of what the development concepts are, that we make clear that these are just that. Conceptual studies not meant for construction purposes and ... express concerns and issues that we have ... is one way of dealing with that. Relative to Opus' specific concerns, we could go back and tinker with those. We said that the 100 % ... everybody's in agreement with it, I suppose you could... For example, the road that they proposed is kind of an amalgamum of what we're proposing here and what they had originally proposed and I think it works better than either one of those two original suggestions so, I think that's a normal process. Scott: What kind of dialogue? It was interesting I think when Mr. Uban showed the eastern side of their project and moved the boulevard and said, oh by the way the people from Centex can just move their buildings over here. I was taken aback by that but I assume that there has been some dialogue inbetween city staff, Centex and Opus or is this just another example of well we don't really care too much about our neighbor over here. We're just going to stick it here. What's the process? Krauss: Part of our job is to make sure that the pieces fit together. Scott: Okay, because that didn't' fit. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Well, we raised the, but it didn't fit but in our conversations with Opus, we thought that it was a better proposal for everybody and Centex would have seen...but a point in fact, we received notice last week that Centex is not going forward with that project anyway. Scott: So it doesn't matter. Aanenson: So the next person we can then communicate that. Scott: Okay. So then basically that road is going to be set by the Opus development. Okay Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Lee Kerber: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Lee Kerber and I have several questions. One of them is, why don't we get our map upgraded here so it's proper? You're about 45 feet off and it goes right back to the creek line back here. I brought it to someone's attention a few years ago ... well, if it takes as long to change the map, it takes that long to run me out of town, I'll be happy. By that time I'll probably be dead anyway. I'm one of the few original natives of Chanhassen. I don't know if there's anyone else in the room here that was born in this area or not. I'm quite concerned about why you're staying this far away from Highway 5 and then all of a sudden you get right back next to it here with that frontage road. You've got 145 feet between the highway right -of -way and my gardens and then you've got 20 -30 feet of garden. You've got another 20 -30 feet of house, and then you plan to come right on the north edge of my house. I particularly don't see any reason why that's necessary. Also, at the present time if you brought a frontage road up to your park property, your park driveway, that would make a lot of sense. There's a lot of traffic having problems getting in and out of the park every day throughout the summer. If you put your frontage road up to the park property, you would eliminate a lot of the possibility that they could take the frontage road and go up to CR 17. They'd have no problems getting across. It'd make a lot more sense in my opinion to do it that way. Then another question. What's the time frame when they think about going all the way out to Highway 41? Does anyone know? Does anyone have any kind of an idea what I'm supposed to prepare for? Krauss: Yeah, that's a real valid concern and any time you're looking at buying somebody's house for something like this, it's obviously where the road ... is a big issue. Two years ago when we started this, MnDot was telling us that they had the money to go ahead with this thing in 2 -3 years. They now tell us it's 6 years and what's leading, what this is leading us to believe is that certainly between Powers and Galpin this is going to, it has to be a project that is done by the city in conjunction with whoever develops property. So I can't give you a definitive date. Probably until, what we've been talking about in -house is the road needs to be built up to the park entrance 2 years ago. That needs to be done right away. Other stretches of it are going to be contingent upon when development occurs. I think at your last 10 1 1 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' meeting you heard that there's one development proposal in the near offing on the Conway property that is coming into this area from the west. And potentially a golf course or something else, a golf course with something else inbetween. We're doing the same thing on ' the south side. The road's being built in pieces as development occurs. One of the issues that's going to have to be brought up to the City Council, and I don't have an answer for this but it is a concern. We're having the same question on Highway 101 where the ultimate ' alignment for improving Highway 101 south of Highway 5 seems to need to take 2 houses. Is that we need to go to the City Council and say these people have legitimate concerns here. ' You can't hold somebody hostage for some unlimited period of time without knowledge of how this is going to come about. If the city's going to define a roadway corridor, then we have some kind of an obligation to work with the property owner to try to say if you're ' looking for an early buyout, maybe we can arrange something. If the road's going to be built on a delayed timeframe, they need to know what it is. I don't have a good answer for that right now but it is something we need to carry forward to the City Council. ' Lee Kerber: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I could live with being between the highway property and my house. It could be bermed. It could go next to the highway along here instead of taking the old house where I was born. You're not just taking my home. You're not just taking a place I built to live in for a little while. I was born on that property. You're taking my whole life away as far as a place, it's not just a house. It's home. If you ' can come back next to the highway here, why can't you do it here. Mancino: Mr. Kerber, can I see your solution? ' Lee Kerber: Pardon? Mancino: I couldn't see you. I couldn't see what you were pointing to.. Could you show me what you are suggesting? ' Lee Kerber: This piece right here, the red property is mine. And you could come down here through your tree farm. Those trees are going to be replanted anyway. All along here you're talking about all kinds of trees. Save the trees. I've got trees that are 25 -30 feet in ' tall and there's some of them this big in diameter. You're going to have to cut them down if you go through my house. The tree farm over here, those are little trees that are an inch and ' a half, two inches in diameter. They're going to be moved anyway. I think that's something that could be considered. ' Krauss: There is a design reason for that but there's also potentially an issue that needs to be looked at. This was raised with the task force. The reason the road has to bump up over there is if there's going to be an intersection of Audubon Road, for safety sake you need to 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 offset it from Highway 5. We've done the same thing with 78th Street which is where we just kinked it up and moved it back away from Highway 5. There are those on the task force who question whether or not you need the north leg of that intersection of Audubon. If in fact this connection is necessary at all. That if Audubon Road stays the way it is today as a 3 way intersection, there would not be the need from a design standpoint to bump that road up to the north. This was the recommendation of the task force I think was to keep it like this but that was certainly an issue that I recall being discussed and something the Planning Commission members counted on. Now James, is there anything ... that you wanted to add to that? James Unruh: You said it. You said it just right Paul. The only other comment Paul that you'd want to make is that the new lanes of Highway 5 are going to be north of the existing lanes as well. So you'd be squeezing 2 more lanes of Highway 5 on the north side of the lanes and then a frontage road. So it would still gets awfully tight but what you just said Paul about Audubon Road is right. It needs to be determined whether we really do need an intersection there or not. Lee Kerber: Well, if you delay it for about 10 years I might be gone anyway. Scott: I kind of wonder too then if we have development, I think that the Gorra property and some other property, how would, with no access onto Highway 5, because I know MnDot is... to add any more access points so we'd still end up in a situation where you'd have to get out somehow. Krauss: You're going to have intersections onto Galpin and Powers which will be the signalized intersections on Highway 5. That's probably sufficient to handle what's going to happen. Then after all, I mean we also questioned on the south side. When MnDot first laid out this highway 20 years ago it all went through corn and soybean fields and they said okay, you can have intersections inbetween every major street that have in Chanhassen. In today's world, looking at a town of 35,000 people at some point in time, we didn't think that that was all that good an idea. That we wanted to eliminate some of those and there's been concerns raised by any number, by the City Council on down about the number of traffic signals that would result. As an outcome of that, this entire area. Here's the school site over here and here's McGlynn. This entire area basically is going to be served off of that access boulevard down here. This is going to be a right- in/right -out only. If that. Onto Highway 5. And that serves, I would suspect, as much if not more development than would occur between the park and Galpin. Scott: And isn't the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 planned to be signalized in '94? In advance of the school opening? 1* n 12 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Krauss: Yeah, in advance of the school. Mancino: They could use it now. Scott: Okay. Conrad: Let me, I want to track something for Mr. Kerber here. Paul, basically what you just said was, there's a reason to put a road through to the park. The rest of this property ' will, the roadway will go in when developed. Krauss: When development occurs, yes. But development is occurring so fast that. Conrad: Well I think, I'm trying to relate that to Mr. Kerber. There's not a plan to come in and put this road in that we're doing other than maybe to the park. Where you live, ' somebody's going to have to come in and buy the, not the city. Lee Kerber: You mean I can negotiate with them? I'd prefer that ' Krauss: You know, I agree with you and I hoe it would turn out that way but there may � � �' Y P Y Y be a need. If everything occurs west of Mr. Kerber's property, there may be a public need to finish that road and make the connection through there. And if that's the case, then the city would have to become involved. Otherwise we'd prefer to wait for development to do it as well. Farmakes: Irregardless, this is still the blueprint. Krauss: Yes. Conrad: I guess for you to know what we're saying is, we're going to, we have some preferences so when something happens there, whether you develop it or somebody buys the land from you or to the west, they're going to have to have a road and we're going to say ' where we'd like that road to go. We're saying that right now so people can anticipate that but we're not putting that in at the current time. fl Lee Kerber: Well I've developed the way I want it. I spent 35 years doing it. I just completed about a year and a half ago putting heat in my shop. The reason I didn't do it sooner, I spend the money after I get it and I've got it the way I want it now. Where do I go from here? Then I'm sitting on the fence, don't know which way I'm going to fall off. If you're my age, I don't have time to develop another place. It took me 35 years to get where I am after I had the house built and I don't know if I've got 35 weeks or 35 months. It's tfo 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 kind of a touchy situation as far as I'm concerned. Scott: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I've got the 140 acres to the south and southwest of Lake Ann. Harberts: Could you show us please on the map? Mike Gorra: This piece here. I think most of you have heard what I've had to say before so I'll keep I brief. Just keep this for the record. I look at that plan of that road there and to me it just doesn't look right. You've got two roads. One you've already got there. It's either 4 lanes now or it will be 4 lanes in the near future and that's Highway 5. And a very short distance to the north, not a half a mile, not two miles you've got this frontage road. They're both going to the same place. The frontage road, it's going to be expensive. I can't see where it's going to serve any useful purpose except maybe to collect more stop signs. It's going to be, you're going to have to put two bridges down there because you've got two creeks to cross. They're not going to be cheap. And it's going to be destructive. You're going to go through people's homes and you're going to go through undeveloped property and you're going to go through businesses. For what purpose? What's that road going to do that Highway 5 can't do and Highway 5 can do it better. There's not going to be as many stop signs on Highway 5. It's going to be 55 mph. With that frontage road, it's going to be even without stop signs, it's not going to be 55 mph. And if Chanhassen follows through to the true to course, they're going to have a stop sign every 200 -300 feet anyway. You're going to have about 28 to 35 stop signs on that mile and a half road. And who's going to take that road? Wouldn't they just rather drop down to Highway 5 and coast into Chanhassen on a 55 mph road than go 15 or average 15 -20 mph? Not only that but you're going to, by putting that road through there, you're going to pre- determine what kind of development you're going to have there. It's a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Any intelligent developer or development would want to take into consideration what you're going to do there first and then decide where the roads are going to go. I don't know if anybody here has ever built a home, but maybe someone has bought a lot to build a home on. Is the first thing that you did was to put your driveway through the center of the lot and then go to the architect and say hey, design me a home for this lot? Or did you go to him and say, put the home in the best place and then decide where the driveway's going to be? Well that's what you're doing here only a much bigger, more destructive scale. I kind of agree with what Mr. Kerber says that if you want a road to your park, that's fine. That's not going to disturb any of the property to the west. I know it will probably take a lot of traffic off of Highway 5 of people going to and from the park. As far as the rest of the property to the west, they have access to CR 117. That's why CR 117 was put there years ago. The State 14 F- L u I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 puts roads every so often for collector streets and then they let the development decide where the rest of the roads will go. If they wanted roads through there, they would put roads every half a block or every half a mile. As far as I'm concerned, I already talked with the State a year ago and their representative, I think it was Evan Green said that they had already planned to stub access from Audubon Road into my property so I wouldn't have to worry about access to Highway 5. I have been working on a development for my property for 2 1/2 to 3 years now and I think you saw the plan last time I was up here. It was a golf course and I don't think I have to tell you what a road through the center of a golf course could do. You just wouldn't be able to build a golf course with something like that there. And even if I ' didn't build a golf course, and I decided to put other types of development in there, I am a developer. I did purchase most of this property 20 years ago just for that purpose but I held it out of construction just because I thought it was a pretty nice, unique piece of property being that it's on the lake and it has a little creek running through it and has access to Highway 5. I thought it deserved a little more than a boiler plate type development that you can find in Richfield or even Fridley. Multiply next to the highway and then maybe a t couple ... and then getting single family farther away from the highway closer to the lake. I think something else could be done with this property that would best serve the developer and the city both. And I think that would most likely be a golf course at this time. I know you ' talked about mapping this road through so future developers would have an idea of where you want this road but I don't think that's going to do any good in my case because I can't imagine any development that I would put on this 140 acres that would utilize the road going right through the center of it. And the only reason why is because if I develop this property, I want it to be a success. I guess that's about all I have to say. Mancino: Mike, might I add a comment on land use. You said that you could see it as a golf course. What other land use designation were you thinking about? For instance, single family north of the access boulevard and multi- family south? Mike Gorra: Well that's the land use I didn't want to see. I Mancino: Okay, what did you want to see? ' Mike Gorra: I want to see it one chunk of property without a road running through it so whatever I decided I could determine where the access, where the roads would be after I decided what would go in there. For example, even a higher end single family development, ' an estate type single family development, you wouldn't want a road running right through that. That's just one example. But no matter what, like I said before, I've been a developer for 30 years and I've always stayed away from a piece of property that had a heavily traveled ' road on both sides of it because it's been my experience that anything that's been developed inbetween two heavily traveled streets or roads or highways, has always been somewhat of a 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 second rate type development. The land usually sells cheaper. It's usually a commercial or an industrial type development and that would take away the flexibility if anybody, myself or if I did sell the property, take away the flexibility of determining what would go on that piece of property and Chanhassen would ultimately suffer too. If you don't have the flexibility on a piece that big. Especially when it's right on Highway 5. Everybody leaving the town or coming into the town will see what's on that property. What would you rather have them see a nice green golf course or a road running through it with multiple dwellings and industrial on one side and low end single family housing on the other side. That's the choice we have to make. It's as simple as that. Once you put a road through a piece of property, the flexibility's gone. Scott: Any questions for Mr. Gorra? Thank you. Yes sir. Morris Conway. Morris Conway, 4952 Fremont ... I wasn't going to talk this morning, or this evening but I just agree with everything Mike has to say. And just on the point of view of roads. I think that there was a vision, as I went to some of the early meetings, about the road coming in and maintaining a sense of what Chanhassen, or I remember seeing photos of German villages you know and coming into a village and the gateway concept. And I think that's a noble position. When I, you know in looking at, just taking a step back and looking at other visions. You know I remember going after some trips to Italy let's say and you come to these beautiful towns and you think what a wonderful city. You know you take your bikes right in and you have this beautiful city. And then I go to Minneapolis and I cross this moat of Interstate 94 and it's like it chops the city right in half. You know there's no walking sense that we've got a city here. Well you're putting a road, as I see it, you're going to create little islands here. You know you're going to create these medium and high density islands between Highway 5 and this other road. And I just don't, I think you're going to be creating the types of things that I was asking Brad Johnson there, what is that like Cedar Riverside. You know in Minneapolis there you've got these areas where you've got these intersecting highway areas. You're isolating people into these high fragmented, urbanized areas and then it's not a, I think that you can create bad situations and I think having people, creating a situation where you're going to force people to live within this band between these two roads, is going to be a mistake. And I don't see any really good reason for it. I just wanted to speak to that. And I think it's a very important time for you guys to really sit here too and say, does it make sense. To step back and really decide, for you to decide, does it make sense as opposed to just go along with the process. Farmakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live? Morris Conway: Yeah, I'm right next to Mike. Oh, on this map as far as where I live. I do own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Morris Conway right here. But I didn't intend to 16 n fl J L P'l Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 speak, as I say. And I've talked with different people as far as what would work out better in terms of development or not and I don't know what will sell better or worse in terms of development. Whether high density will sell better or worse, but I do think some things ' strike me as being dumb and part of this strikes me as being dumb. I just don't like to see dumb things done. ' John Pryzmus: I just want, my name is John Pryzmus and I have the property here on Galpin Boulevard that's the driving range and miniature golf course. And I guess I don't understand, I mentioned it at the task force meeting that this property all can be developed without these roads. You've got a major intersection that's going to come in here that can service this and this. My parcel and Larry VanDeVeire's can both be serviced from CR 117. As Mike said, he don't need this road for his development here and so what you're creating is really, an t expensive, expensive road that we're all going to have to pay for as taxpayers. And besides that, the City of Chan just spent like $2 1/2 million to put in a park right over here on this corner. Now you want to take and tear out my park that I put in and paid for myself with no ' qualms. Don't worry about the money it's going to cost you. Just put a road through there. Design it and I don't know that anybody ever came to my property and took soil tests. I don't remember ever shutting it down. Down through here you'll find a ... that comes down into a low area. If you're saving my parcel, would do if you ever did put a road in. But there's really no need other than coming to Lake Ann to, for any of this road to ever be done ' to develop the north side. Like Mike said, when I do sell that property some day, it can be serviced from CR 117. There's no problem. The same with Larry VanDeVeire's. You're cutting his property right in half and making it practically useless. It just don't make sense at all. Thank you. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Morris Conway as a developer for his parcel ' and as I've mentioned in the past, I live at 7245 Frontier Trail. We are in the process of developing his parcel and taking both your input relative to this plan and also in our feelings as to what should go there and then taking it to, I guess one step farther than the fellow over ' on the east side of town. We've taken it to professional engineers that have advised us as to how to develop the site, which I have with me. But before I go into that, I have two other concerns as a resident of Chanhassen. I know that in your proposed plan of the Ward 1 property and at least the, what I'll call the triangle area, it's not recommended to be 100% retail. We would be concerned about that as a retail developer in town because we feel that to have successful retail you need additional massing to attract more people so that our ' businesses are successful and we certainly object... Ward's but object to that as a developer of other parcels in town. We feel we're short on retail land. Secondly, I concur that we do need a way to get to the park, because we have a baseball program that I sponsor here. ' There probably is a reason Paul and I'm not going to, but like Park Drive was not the major interchange as I always thought it was going to be and probably the distances, we should ' 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have ... which would solve the problem for Mr. Kerber. We do need access to that. I doubt very much that people are going to enjoy driving over to CR 117, which is a fairly significant turn now to stop there and try to turn. Or all the way out to Galpin to get into the park. So maybe Audubon is the best choice but you're going to make it significantly difficult to get there but I do agree that that interchange today should be closed because it is dangerous. Relative to Mr. Conway's property, we hope to be in, and that is located as I guess he pointed out, right here. We hope to be back to you soon with the development for that parcel and as we mentioned last meeting, we're trying to deal with sort of a moving target with a time line that says we'd like to come in and get this all done with this year. Recognizing that you will be in the process and the City Council will be in the process of trying to determine exactly what you're going to do. We perceive there probably is a need for a collector road, certainly out of our property and over to Galpin. Inevitably we need a collector road someplace. We have a golf course proposed currently, or at least in the planning stages according to our neighbor, to the east and so that limits our site as far as road systems within there. Mike has assured me that he's very serious about developing the golf course and at the minimum, I know if that would not work, he is oriented towards an executive kind of home, which we do not have in Chanhassen other than on the lakes, and that would be I would guess in the $400,000.00 to $600,000.00, sort of estate type of house. I think that's how he perceives that, as I listen to you, that's how he perceives that development to proceed. Given the fact that that is not there and we can ... thinking about doing, we presented that to the planners and we have come up with basically a system of handling that and the only reason this affects you is that we do not want to have to deal with the Hennessy property at this time in our own plan because that would require the city taking it. In other words, if you came in and said we had to put a road in and the road went nowhere, then you'd have to purchase the Hennessy property, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me at this time because he's quite happy with that. By the way, we have checked with all the landowners in our area. The Hennessy's, the VanDeVeire's, and Gorra and they all kind of agree that this plan would be acceptable to them. I'm sure it's acceptable to Rottlund who's to the north because it happens to connect directly and looks just like what they're doing to the north of us. Now the issues then are what? Well ... alternate #1 which is coming through about right here and require that, it's very defundling how today, or at least until you take the Hennessy property and agree that Gorra can't build his golf course, we should put a main road through the center of this property. Mainly because it's just difficult to develop. Secondly I'm talking, I won't say it's going to look like Cedar Riverside over here if we do it that way but in talking to developers, there's a very big concern about splitting communities and types of housing by a road. And by using the Alternate #2 up here, that would be sort of devastating. Secondly, I have heard that you are trying to seek government, or State assistance for the development of the service road, and if I recall correctly the reason that they were willing to give you assistance is that that road, for a year or two, would be Highway 5. Right? And they were going to close Highway 5 and then use this road. J f l 18 1 u Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' Krauss: Let's be clear on this Brad. The reason they were willing to participate in this is it eliminated a series of access points onto Highway 5. That's their long range purpose. It also supported local trips without going onto Highway 5. They also thought yes. If they could put mainline traffic onto it say for a period of a year, year and a half, they could substantially cut, I think cut in half the time it took to build the highway. And for all of those of you who have lived through Highway 5 construction and it drags on for year after year after year, that may be worth a short term disruption. Brad Johnson: Yes, and that was proposed to the HRA I don't know who funded your study ' but they approved that based upon that was going to take and construction was going to start this year. We're now being told that's, and I had no problem with that at the time because that seemed logical. There was nothing there. We're not being told that that particular ' situation will not happen for 6 years, maybe the year 2000 or so but as highways go, at that time I think they will have fairly, at least I know Lundgren's will be developed. You're just going to have development over there and basically it's a fairly good threat to say to somebody that we're going to put a road through the middle of all these properties and that, by the way, in order for us to fund it so maybe ... and I understood the reason that the Highway 5, the State was willing to fund that was for that purpose and I was at a number of the meetings when Mr. Ashworth, when he prepared the statements like that and it was presented in that way and that was the idea and I think we all went along with that. So I'm going to say that I don't think this road will ever be used as an alternate for Highway 5 if there's any development here in the next 5 to 10 years, because the neighbors will be in here you know, then we'll have neighbors. Right now we don't. What we have done on our proposal is recommend if you're going to have a corridor, and if you're going to map this ' corridor, we'll go along with it if it's on the south side. And with our current plan we would use Alternate C to cross, our planners have said this is the proper place to cross it. To cross Bluff Creek and they've used the road through VanDeVeire's property and ultimately as our i access point for ... road on the south portion of the property. So the only, major changes that we need to see, then we'd be willing to dedicate the normal amount of roadway that we ' would be required to if you mapped it so it would cost you nothing. If we just stayed down in this area. We have gone north a little bit so that we can cross at this point which is the same point I think that they were crossing. What happens is we don't necessarily represent ' VanDeVeire's but this is one way that that could be accomplished. And we end up with then, zoning or a proposed use as you have recommended. We have high density here but a minimum of high density. There's only been about, of rental property, maybe 2.2 acres developed in the city of Chanhassen since I've lived here. We currently have under development another 8 acres of high density. It's just not a high absorption kind of thing. I don't think you need a lot of it but we'd be comfortable with about 4 acres here and we'd anticipate that would be developed over the next 5 to 10 years. But that is about as soon as that could be done, and about the time the road would go through. And then the rest would 19 ,k�rt t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 be medium density and then homes here that would go onto the proposed golf course. If there's no proposed golf course, we're very comfortable if Mr. Gorra was to develop a high class development over there. So our recommendation to you is that you amend the recommendation of the task force. Select if possible Alternate #2. Stay with crossing at C with a minor deviation at that point because we have an adequate buffer. And we too agree with the folks from Lundgren. That is you cannot put single family homes on a highway. With this type of road coming through here, this is a two family home developer. Medium density and the prices are $150- $200,000.00 per unit. He would feel comfortable but he would not build up against the highway ... and that's where we're at. We're willing to cooperate. We're willing to work with the process. Come back with a road that you know that would fit whatever you, and dedicate our normal required width for your use. All we're asking is a minor modification of the plan for Alternate #2 and thus the elimination of your recommendation or to vote against the recommendation of the other people on Alternate #1. I think that works much better with Mr. Gorra because that leaves him to have the ability to develop his site that he wants. In the case of Mr. Kerber, you're going to have to deal with Audubon sometime I guess down the line. But certainly not until Mr. Gorra gets around to developing or there's a real problem with Lake Ann. Any questions? As I said, we'll be in with this plan sometime in February. We're more than happy to work with it and we don't have a cost evaluation... Robert Hoffman: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Robert Hoffman, 1500 Northwestern Financial Center. I'm here this evening on behalf of two property owners. One, Dr. Conway who was up here a couple minutes ago and then Fleet Farm. Mills Fleet Farm. And I'm going to just review briefly some of the issues as it relates to both the Conway and the Mills Fleet Farm properties. And then specifically discuss a couple of aspects with Fleet Farm, because you've already heard from Brad and the doctor as to the specifics on his piece of property. When Paul Krauss made his introduction, he categorized the plan as a forward thinking concept. And I would certainly agree with him. The consultants you've had working on it, whether it's Bill Morrish or Joyce Levine or Barry Warner, all certainly have reputations of forward thinking in this metropolitan area and other parts of the country and I've worked with most of them over the years on a number of projects. With most forward thinking concepts, at least it's been my experience that you can achieve most of your objectives but probably have to do some modifications as to what may come from the initial concept that the forward thinkers come up with. And in the two cases of the property owners that we represent, they're really asking for some modifications. And you've heard discussions on Dr. Conway and that is a preference for the south line in order to better develop that particular piece of property. As I listen this evening, I know you certainly were aware of the considerably restraints that a planner must deal with. But those are also the considerable restraints the property owner must deal with. And whether they are landscaping or topography or wetlands or tree cover, or colors of buildings or use of materials 20 u J Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' or setbacks or traffic considerations, they all start to impact the ability to develop a piece of property in the way the city would like to have it developed, or the way the property owners would like to have it developed. And neither of us are free today to do just what we'd like to do. That's the system And as I listen to the significant list of constraints over the past year that have been addressed, I'd ask you to then think of the property owner also with those similar constraints and then at least in the case of the two that I'm talking about, asking for some modifications in order to assist them on the development. I noted that in, I think it was James' presentation, in suggesting the location of the access boulevard as it related to the park. It was pushed as close to TH 5 as possible to preserve the park. I didn't hear that ' same comment as it related to several of the private property owners. And that perhaps was a serious consideration but I've heard several property owners suggest a movement of that to preserve their property uses and I heard that being a very significant factor for a public use. ' But I didn't hear that, at least as yet, as to a private use. As you proceed with the prospect of actually building a road, which has been described by Barry as the most difficult task of ' locating it and Paul indicating that the funds are not readily available, and then looking at piecemeal development because that's what you will get as you work with individual property owners. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described, the economic aspects of that particular forward thinking concept. And as you proceed with the suggestion that perhaps now, that perhaps maybe Federal and State funding may not be available, for as available as you would like them, that the property owners will then bear the cost of that development. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described as access for sub - regional and regional trips on the access boulevards. As compared to just serving the abutting property owners and therefore again I would suggest that if you can look at some compromise, if you can find the property owners who will say yes. I will preserve the wetlands. Yes, I will preserve the trees. Yes, I'll work within that topography. Yes, I will dedicate land for this right -of -way. In fact maybe pay for it. If you move it in a way that I can now develop my property in order to afford those, that that is something at least I would suggest the city look at. Because as you're talking about access boulevards, or sub - regional trips, you're not talking about, at least in Minnesota as yet, facilities that the property owner ' has to pay for. Those are community wide or region wide issues. That the community or the region pays for. But not the immediate property owners. The immediate property owner is required, at least currently under law, to pay for that part of the roadway that the current property owner causes in the capacity to be needed. Not boulevards or trails or landscaping, that is not absolutely needed. Those are all desired from the standpoint that you get the economics of it. I think you're going to be faced with that so again I'm suggesting that, if at all possible, if you can work out this system which is definitely forward thinking, and you don't have a ready source of funds to do it in one fell swoop, then perhaps working with some of these property owners, and in particular the two that we represent, would help r facilitate that. Specifically then as to the Mills Fleet Farm piece of property, which is on State Highways 41 and 5. As you know they acquired that several years ago. They first of 21 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 all have asked and will continue to ask for a land use different than is proposed. The land uses proposed is neighborhood commercial, medium or higher density and then single family density as you go to the north. Obviously Mills Fleet Farm would like to build a Mills Fleet Farm facility at that particular intersection. I think earlier the discussion of big box uses was discussed and as big box uses like to be near higher arterials, and TH 5 and TH 41 are two of the higher use arterials that you have at least in the city. Therefore, as to a use, land use, we have in the past where we continue to request that the land use be considered for a Mills Fleet Farm facility. And the previous, not previous but the two studies, the Highway 5 corridor land use study on page 33, Figure 5.1 and the Environmental Assessment boulevard document on Figure 6.1 appeared to put this roadway either on or very close to the northern edge of Fleet Farm. And when we asked then for the legal description of that right -of -way, it showed this configuration which was basically through the middle. Therefore the preliminary study documents suggested that roadway be on the north edge of the ... and so apart from the land use, Mills Fleet Farm would certainly accept a northerly designation or location of that particular roadway. Or a southerly designation of that roadway. But the problem it's going virtually right through the middle. And as I listen to Terry Forbord discussing with you the inability from a marketing sense, to have single family next to high density arterial, then again I wonder from a land use when you have an existing high use arterial with TH 41 and the suggestion is that single family be the land use next to that. So our request is, from these two property owners. One is to consider the modification of the location of the roadways. You haven't either of them say they're opposed to the roadway. I think both of them have indicated that they would, certainly Mills Fleet Farm is interested in preserving the wetlands. Is interested in preserving the wetlands if it can develop the property in a reasonable way and is interested in paying it's fair share for such a facility. I think Dr. Conway has indicated the same. If it's located so they can develop their property. If you have any questions I'd be pleased to answer them. , Mancino: I just have a real quick on. I want to make sure I'm tracking with you Mr. Hoffman. You said that Mills Fleet Farm was fine with the northern route. Robert Hoffman: The northern route that was shown on the previous two studies. Not the northern route that is now Alternative #1. Mancino: Okay. Robert Hoffman: That's why I made reference to the three, at least I'll call them conceptual designs of the roadway, seem to hug the northern edge of the property. Mancino: Even more than the one that we are seeing right now as Alternative #1? r , 1L 22 1 F ' i Ll Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Robert Hoffman: Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay, we're going to take about a 5 minute break. We can all probably use it and we'll reconvene, well let's reconvene at 10:00 sharp. (There was a short break at this point in the meeting.) Scott: We'll reconvene the Planning Commission. Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum and also a member of the team that worked - on this plan. There's been a lot of comments about the plan and I would like to say we think it's pretty good, as coming from the team and I think there's some good recommendations. I think one of the things that we saw when we looked at this was the fact that there was an opportunity to get away from the old standard of putting the frontage road, and there's a need for a frontage road right along the side of Highway 5, on either side, creating a huge swath of pavement. The idea was to move it back a ways so that you've seen in some places that creates some pieces of land which aren't really very buildable. So the idea again then was to move it over further to make parcels of land and I think we've got 500 to 700 feet of land between the frontage road or what we hope would become a city street rather than just a frontage road and create another main, continuation of main street in Chanhassen. So there's buildable parcels between there. Exactly types of land use, I think the planners were in some agreement and we agreed with them that it could be a higher density use but single family would probably be the best use in that. I think that we did try to look at all the uses there and in fact if you looked at that road, instead of cutting these parcels in half that is serving them, it is a different point of view and it makes those parcels of land very developable. Perhaps a golf course obviously would not work but then we don't know whether that's going to happen or not. But I think we asked the same question. Is that golf course going in there, and since you don't know, this would be a better location for a roadway. I think my only concern I would have with the plan is that some question came up about the Arboretum as being a buffer and I would like to say that we feel that the buffer is a cultural, education and research institution. It's not a buffer but perhaps does need a bit of buffering. We have a national and perhaps international reputation and we are very concerned about development in our city at this point in time. As I've expressed at various points throughout this process. I think the reputation of the 30 acres on the west side of Highway 5 that we suggested be a residential use, is a little easier on us than the industrial commercial use. But I did want to get up and say that a lot of time went in. A lot of thinking. We did listen to all the folks that are here tonight and tried to make some judgments that we felt would fit the town as well as the developers as they came through. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Any comments for Peter? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the Planning Commission? Susan Marken: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I would like to really question. Scott: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record please? Susan Markert: Oh, Susan Markert. 9461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm wondering, I heard the gentlemen speak about the Fleet Farm and how he wished that the city would take into consideration all the restraints and so on and the placement of the road specifically. But you know he's saying that for certain things that you know if you could kind of loosen up on but when we're getting right down to the nitty gritty, when we're talking about the overlay. The standards. The building standards that were set forth. I'm looking through here piece by piece and I'm really not seeing very much and I don't see where you can get hardly anything that the building, that I've seen the Fleet Farm put up, would meet. Okay, I mean they want, and I'll just go through here as quick as I can. They want you know parking lots along Highway 5 so people can see parking lots that you know look like there's a nice viable business there. The architectural style, it's what I would consider, from what I've seen of the Fleet Farm store so far, it's totally incompatible with what we've set forth for the other buildings and developments that we have in Chanhassen. And according to this each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. I've never seen, I don't think, a pitched roof element there. They'd have to change that. And there are not to be any exposed cement or cinder blocks. I believe they might use that. Fabricated metal or pole construction structures. I believe that that's something that might pertain to that exterior ... but that's a possibility. Experimental materials possible. A solid wall relieved by architectural detailing. That isn't for sure. The materials and construction methods used for one aspect or a portion... significant lower in quality. You know I can just keep going on. Also with the fencing, that it says screening of service yards and I think it might be like the lumber yards that... The screening of service yards. You know you can't have a chain linked fence and I did specifically hear them mention that they would buffer our house from them by you know volunteering to put the road right at the very, you know where it just abuts our property, which I believe they already have an 80 foot easement built into that. And they were going to put up a chain link fence that would buffer us from them. Mancino: Susan, could you point to where your property is. Susan Markert: We're right here. And this is you know where the proposed northerly route would go but from what I could get from the gentleman that was speaking for the Fleet Farm, he was asking that we would move this road right up here because I've already heard this... J r 24 1 . I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 before. You know. That way that can give them more room to build and then they might even want to designate this property right here as a natural, that wetland or pond or whatever. Which would move that building you know closer to our property and totally disrupt the look of, we planned the entire road, which I believe was a good plan. The northerly route because it's very scenic and I've walked it with Nancy. And we took the time and it was very well done. It's very beautiful back there and we did not want, you know like a service road. So according to the plan, it looks nice but then when you get the comer of TH 5 and TH 41, I think that they're wishing that that road would just kind of like go right up there and just ruin everything you know basically that we've planned and I would have an absolute total objection to that. That if that's what they would want to do, then we would not wish to live there or do our home occupation there any longer and that's the whole thing. You know with ... but I really don't want to see that. As a person that lives there, I enjoy it and we're there because we like it. We preserve things. We take care of things. People that are absentee landowners have a totally different view. I like, I've used the word bastardizing the corner and I just kind of think that that might be what happen, what could happen to it if Chanhassen doesn't really hold to the design standards that were set forth. Because I believe that we're you know a very high class community and that we should keep going forward with the plan that we've developed and I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good, thanks. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Larry VanDeVeire: Hi. I'm Larry VanDeVeire and I own the property on the northeast ' corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. Right here, and I'd just like to make a comment for the record that, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that if all the landowners have been listened to throughout this process, the only landowner that would be getting what they want ' is the city through the Lake Ann parcel. And like I say, correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the people that have been here, and have either objected to or suggested changes in the way the road alignment is planned. And I guess if that's listening to the landowners, then ' I don't know. I'm missing something. If there's any type of input because there's quite a few of us. And like I say, the only landowner that isn't objecting the city themselves I think. ' Scott: Well Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros was the first person who spoke was in favor of the alignment and asked us some questions about zoning and so forth. He's probably the only one that I've heard from that was in favor of it. ' Larry VanDeVeire: But he still suggested some changes. Scott: He had a little bit of a, he was a little bit confused as to what the colors meant because the difference between medium density and low density. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Larry VanDeVeire: Wasn't he suggesting that it be pulled south towards the road though? Scott: No. Mancino: No. Conrad: A little bit. Mancino: 100 feet south. Larry VanDeVeire: Well, 100 feet would be pretty significant on my property. Maybe not on his but 100 feet is 100 feet. Harberts: Larry, can you outline how much is your property? Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. 13 acres. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Larry VanDeVeire: And I guess what I'm getting at is he eluded to, I don't know how developable some of the properties are, and I'd just like to state for the record that I have my concerns also as far as how it's going to be developed. What it's going to look like all the way through. I guess a property that I think of that isn't the same right across from the high school in Minnetonka. Right across from Minnetonka High School. There's a non - developed piece of property there that it splits off into a Y and you can call it, it's been for sale from time to time. I don't know what could be put there. Right now it's natural but I don't know if that looks, is attractive either. Mancino: Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from. If I know your property. It doesn't matter, in fact if we take the preferred route, the recommendation the Highway 5 task force made, unless the road, access boulevard goes through your property, less roadway goes through your property if we take the recommendation from the Highway 5 task force. Larry VanDeVeire: I guess my concern is the supposed inflexibility of the road where Terry Forbord was ... right now you have it going through the tree line and I'm not so sure that's good for me or good for the city of Chanhassen. Mancino: So how would you change it? 26 LI 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' Larry VanDeVeire: I don't know. I'm just suggesting that I'd like some flexibility and that there should be some flexibility through this according to development rather than stamp the road in place and then say now, try to make something fit. I just don't know that that's the ' way it should be done. And I realize that something has to be done as far as guiding it but I still think there should be some flexibility allowed and still meeting what you people want too. And I guess like I say, and I think, I forget who said it but oh, it was Mike I think with ' the driveway. No one builds a house around a driveway and that's basically what you're looking at here. Trying to make stuff fit with what's left and that's why I suggested the property across from Eden Prairie High School. I don't know what they're going to do with ' that. It's for sale from time to time but nothing, you know it's a pie shaped lot and it isn't real wide and not that this is what this will turn into but I do think that you limit what can be done with it when you all at once you set restrictions. And then again with the wider ' setbacks, all of the other restraints that Chanhassen would like to see, it further limits what can be used. I guess that's it. Thank you. ' Scott: Would anybody else like to address the commission? ' Peter Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'd just like to briefly reiterate the request I made at the workshop last week. That the Commission adopt the recommendation of the task force and guide the Eckankar facility portion of the ' Eckankar property for institutional uses. As I mentioned, the Temple is one integrated site. It will never be subdivided or sold or built into any multiple family residential use so we request the addition ... And I don't intend to belabor the point any more ... answer any questions ' and to address that issue in greater detail. Scott: Okay. Go ahead Sue. Susan Markert: Susan Markert speaking again. As I sat down I realized, people, any time there's a change people get afraid and this is real obscure. You know you see a road coming ' through our town. And for 2 years I've dreaded the thought and I've, you know I've actually gotten sick over it when I'd have to come to these meetings and try to make a conscientious decision for the city. And it became a process where I kind of became desensitized to it but I'm still very sensitive. So as a landowner, I can speak from both sides. As a landowner I would prefer not to have any roads and have the rolling hills and all the beauty forever. As a person that came up here to plan for the development of Chanhassen, I say that we definitely ' need a plan and this is what has been implemented and we're not putting the cart before the horse. We're not putting the driveway in before the house. We're putting a plan so there can be good development developed off the plan. If there was no road and we allow people to put their driveways in and whatever they wanted to do, we'd have a mish mosh and then we'd have like a can of worms that nobody would know what the heck was going on. It 27 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 certainly wouldn't follow, any plan whatsoever so what I'm saying is I really do believe we need the road. I would love to you know go down this road without getting onto Highway 5 because I was one of the biggest complainers of trying to make a left onto Highway 5 out of TH 41 with people getting very angry before they did have that turn lane. And also, if we did not have that road in there, I have gone to Galpin Boulevard. I had left something at ABC Daycare Center, which is I think what is it, Lake Drive or something? Scott: Yeah. Susan Markert: It should only be like a minute away but you know like at night when the traffic was coming, it took me 15 minutes to go down to Galpin Blvd and make a turn to come back to get to ABC Daycare Center to get what I needed to get so you know. Somehow if we would have had this road I believe I could have done that quicker and much more safely. So I do believe that we need the road no matter what a lot of other people think. It's just, it's progress and that's what you're paying for and it's better to have a plan than not to have a plan. That's just the way it is. Scott: Good. Thank you Susan. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development Company. I would like to speak just briefly to page 7 of the memorandum handed out this evening, and specifically to the following land use issues still need to be resolved. The fifh one down, that Heritage Development West. Harberts: Wait, wait, wait. Where are you? Scott: We've got to get there. Conrad: Page 7 of the staff report. Harberts: Thank you. John Dobbs: Fifth one down. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek, south of frontage road, multi- family should be considered as an option with industrial. I would like to say that I would like to concur that we would like that as an option very much. We currently, we are the owners of the residential property south of the frontage road east of Galpin. Next to Timberwood Estates. We also own, and I believe this comment speaks to a piece of property that we own on the east side of Bluff Creek. We currently I think McGlynn Bakery is there and also to the north it's proposed to be industrial. We are proposing and we are very 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' tentatively scheduled on February 2nd to bring in a multi- family and single family detached concept for your approval and I'd just like to say that we believe that it is a transition zone between existing industrial and what will be single family detached residential. I recognize that there are a number of issues associated with this particular piece of property in that there's the Bluff Creek corridor and industrial on one side and residential on the other and that transition needs to be dealt with sensitively and we are in the process of looking at a ' variety of options to do that. But as it's slated on this plan and ... we'd like to see that. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing no other members of the public who are interested in addressing the Planning Commission. ' Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Scott: Because of the complex nature of what we have to deal with, I'm certainly open for suggestions but it appears that the least controversial thing we have to do is to pass the EA document onto the City Council. Are you? ' Aanenson: Except part of that is to select an alternative of the road. Scott: Okay. I guess I'd be open for suggestions as to how we can, perhaps instead of having general comments on everything from the Planning Commission at the same time, ' perhaps focus on specific pieces. Now what those speck pieces are and in the order which it seems like the land use kind of drives the alternative for the access boulevard. Conrad: What are we recommending for passage here? Scott: Well, according to the staff report we've got the EA document, which has the. Let's see the EA document has got the alternative associated with it. And then the corridor study has got land use and the architectural standards. ' Farmakes: Are we going to do all three or are we going to separate them? Scott: I'm just trying to think so we can perhaps focus. I don't know, maybe we can't focus ' on one particular aspect. Do you want to go at this as just making general comments? Harberts: Well I have a question. What's the desire of the commission here to look at some of these issues in which the commission is not in concurrence with the task force recommendations as outlined on page 7? Do we need to have some kind of basis? Do we 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 want to have some kind of basis of concurrence? Scott: In my mind that'd be probably the easiest thing to get started on because it is pretty concrete. Mancino: Yeah. And we've had some more input tonight so maybe we will come to some resolution of some of the areas that we weren't before. Makes you look at those again. Scott: Because these are basically all land use. Harberts: Well, except it's going to impact development in the future of Chan. Scott: Well why don't we start with the first topic with regard to how large should the commercial zoning extend, which I guess is do we have our central business district, a retail district cross Highway 5 to the south? Mancino: Which specifically is the Ward property. Scott: Ward property, right. Krauss: Which and Brad was talking about ... not recommended. What the plan showed was the possibility for commercial along the first, I think about 20 -25 acres. Aanenson: Predeveloped. Mancino: Actually that is in Figure in your chapter 8. Figure 8.13 -8.14 -8.15. Scott: Perhaps the philosophical question is you know, do we believe that you need to have retail across Highway 5 from what is known as our central business district? Farmakes: Is this open discussion? Scott: Yeah. I think we can have open discussion. Farmakes: My feelings about it, again I think we discussed this in the study group. I'm open to extending retail. I don't see a compelling reason. I am told from a marketing standpoint that it would help. I think Brad made the comment that more retail development is good for all retail, although the last retail development that we had in here he wasn't in concurrence with that. We really are looking at two issues it seems to me. One is do we serve Chanhassen with retail. Or do we look outside of that to the sub - region issue? And if so, �I r I I 30 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' how much additional space do we look at? I'm not sure that there's a compelling reason outside the half a million square feet that you said for retail space that we need to expand that. I think it's important that it would be in the central district. That we don't have a ' bunch of malls going off all over in our community. I don't see any compelling reason not to bring it down below the highway but I'm not sure we need the additional service. I haven't seen any information in our study group that has compelling, that says that we ' definitely need that other than to have a developer come forward and say that we need more retail property. They happen to be in the business of doing, developing retail property so that would make sense that they would say that but I'm not sure the community needs that. ' Scott: Oka so our position is you could o either way but you were not resented with a Y� Y P � Y g Y Y P ' compelling reason why. Farmakes: I'm looking for a compelling reason that would serve the community good. ' Scott: Okay. Alright. Personally I don't see that need either, and I've always been a proponent of a very concentrated central business district. I will continue to oppose, as most ' of us would, any sort of major retail development anywhere outside of the central business district. And I would look very carefully at any sort of strip mall save a neighborhood business in an area that was fairly heavily developed. So I don't see a need for retail space south of Highway 5 either. Anybody else like to comment on that? Conrad: But then you do think that office space is essential? Scott: Well, having. ' Conrad: Which we have a fair amount of so. Scott: Well, you know having just expanded our business and looking for office space, there ' is, you know I haven't and I've checked into the buildings. I don't sense that there's a lot of vacant office space in town. I don't have any statistics but if it's anything like our rental, we have about a less than a 5% rental property vacancy right now in Chanhassen from an apartment standpoint and my sense is that the office space is fairly tight as well. But I personally don't see the need to go across the highway with retail. ' Conrad: That's not what I've heard but you and I are not experts in the business. Scott: No... 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: So I won't even push that. It's a matter of, it's sort of a gut feel. Right now I don't know but I think we need retail space. We're out of it, period. It's like, it's a decision. And I'm not sure that you know, I made some points the last time. Or now that we've got the traffic, should we do something to convert that traffic into retail sales. We don't really have the land to really do that so the verbiage and the time we spend on this right now is probably not worth a whole lot. We don't have much and unless we'd be committed to really getting out of the downtown area, I don't think we have a chance to really tap into the, it's really a resource. A traffic resources coming to Byerly's and Target. We really won't utilize maybe as much as we can. And I think the city of Chanhassen, the residents that I've talked to, they're comfortable with that. On the other hand, on the flip side of that coin, I see that the downtown doesn't have any more area for retail and therefore the Ward property looks to me to be the right place to put any kind of retail space. Mancino: What do you mean there isn't any more retail area? What about behind the Frontier? There's that whole vacant land that a huge retail development could go back there. It could also go where the bowling alley is at this point. Conrad: I guess a little bit of it, yeah. Mancino: I think there's a lot of space there for retail. Conrad: I think you could pick that up but a finite, there's a limited amount. You know how many people do we have in Chan right now, 12,000? And what are we going to grow to, 35? Mancino: 35, yeah. Conrad: That's triple. And I'm saying as we grow, there's probably different needs that we may need in 5 years and really you've got one parcel behind the Dinner Theatre that's owned by one person. They can develop it the way they want and I guess I'd like to have some flexibility in town to think that maybe we have some other parcels. Sooner or later it's going to, there's a limit. You know we're limiting retail in Chanhassen. Where you see red and that's it. There ain't going to be no more and I think that's fine. I think that's what I've been around for is to make sure that we keep it in one place. But I'm just saying, right now it appears to me in a gut feel that we need retail space just to satisfy maybe some of the needs of the residents that could be here the next 20 years. As we sell out in Chanhassen and I'd like to have that opportunity to do that. Farmakes: What I question with that kind of thing, and I agree with almost everything that you said. But what I question is, is how many liquor stores do we need? How many mail box type operations do we need and how many, when you transcend into soft goods retail and J u 1 32 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 you come into stores that are selling clothes, we don't support that type of foot traffic and destination, the specialty type shops. It's more of a service to a suburban community and how many duplications do we have? Conrad: Well let me just throw that back. And they're good questions. How many places do you have to put a restaurant in Chanhassen? How many restaurants do we have? How ' many do we need? Probably more than we do today. Probably is such a nice supporting feature to a population of 35,000. Where are we going to put them? I Mancino: 212? ' Farmakes: Actually per capita we probably have the largest restaurant space in the United States I would guess, short of Manhattan. Conrad: But that's just one. You put restaurants in places like what I'm talking about. That's where, and where do they go? They could go behind the Dinner Theatre but that's one spot. ' Farmakes: Two of them over by Target. ' Conrad: Yeah. My guess would be, and I'm not an expert in the field but if you have 35,000 people, you don't have enough space to put a restaurant. A couple more that might give us a variety of options other than some fast food you know. And maybe that's what ' we're going to get anyway after we program some more space. We may end up getting more fast food. ' Scott: So you're for expanding the retail south of Highway 5? Conrad: Yep. ' Scott: Okay. Conrad: Thanks. Scott: Should I start down here since you... ' Mancino: Well I don't know. I like havin g, q I mean the unique part of Chanhassen to me right now is that we have a centralized downtown. Centralized retail right there and I like that. I mean I can go shopping anywhere, but I can't get a sense of community any other place. And I like it in one area. I can go to malls anyplace, anywhere, anytime and I still ' 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 don't get a downtown feel like I get when I go to Chan and I'd like to keep that. So I would not like to see the retail go over across. I'd like to keep it over here. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I would also be in favor of maintaining it north of Highway 5. I think if it is located in that area, that that fragments what we call the downtown. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I think I'm torn. I think you can stand on either side of this issue. I guess looking at it broadly, I like everything on the north side because it would I guess hopefully induce more of a higher concentration that pedestrian oriented type of development that everybody in Chanhassen seems to want. But on the other hand I certainly support competition and when you have that free enterprise, the competition, it's good for the community. I guess I'm concerned about are we just envisioning like another strip mall in terms of if something happens on the Ward property or would there be something of desire for the community in terms of retail. I guess my biggest concern is, do we have 3 more dry cleaners or something like that or will we get something in there that actually will benefit the community? I like you know just myself as a resident, I certainly like to run down to the corner store or whatever and pick up whatever I need. So I guess I, I have mixed feelings in terms of one way or the other because I think there's issues on both, there's support on both sides. I don't, you know when you look at the fact that the Ward's is probably the last piece of opportunity and if staff has the, oh I don't know what you'd call it. It's not really the control but has the opportunity perhaps to in a sense put something in there or help ensure something goes in there that's going to benefit the community rather than just be another fourth liquor store or dry cleaners, I would certainly be in favor of seeing that Ward's property develop in that way. Mancino: But we have no control over that. We can't tell you what in 5 years is going, you know how that's going to change hands. Harberts: I don't know that, yeah. Scott: Is that part of the Rosemount TIF district or does that stop at TH 101? Krauss: It's part of the downtown TIF district. So is Rosemount and... Harberts: So would you say you have that opportunity to...? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: In the next few years you do have the ability to ... financial support. Scott: That's until '97? ' Krauss: Well, it's until 20011 think. 2000. But the program has been to do 3 years of increment and you kno:,° it's 1994 right now so as time goes on, there's less ability to do ' something. But in terms of tools, that's the whole purpose of this exercise. The plan you're looking at, the ordinance is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you that you ' get a...book store or something like that. But then again, you're not going to have ... I think it's inevitable that if you provide a little more opportunity, you're going to get a little better mix. Exactly what that mix is going to, there's no way I can tell you and we don't operate in an environment... ' Scott: Well I know we're talking we're going to be building a pedestrian bridge across Highway 5. If you think about why people would want to cross Highway 5, they're probably not going to have as much of a need to do that if, our central business district and the i services and so forth is the draw to pull people across Highway 5, why would we stick more retail down here which would kind of short circuit the reason that they would use the bridge. ' Harberts: Which way are they crossing? North to south or south to north? ' Scott: Probably coming from a residential area into the central business district I would think. Rather than going from residential to CBD and back again. But I don't know. I don't know if I could be convinced otherwise like that. But by my scientific calculations here ' we've got 2 who are leaning strongly towards adding more retail south of Highway 5 and 4 who are quite strongly leaning the opposite directly so do we need more discussion on this particular item? Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's - a mix. ' Aanenson: It's a mix, right. What we're saying is do you want to take commercial that's already... ' Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you don't want retail, you've got to take it out. ' Mancino: So it'd just be officeNinstitutional without retail. ' Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations. 35 z� Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Now is that office retail or... Mancino: What's high tech industrial? Krauss: ...high tech industrial kind of walks like an office building, talks like an office building but if you go inside it could be warehouse and manufacturing ... high tech buildings, you know along 494 in Minnetonka that ...Pond project on one side and. Scott: There's Baker Industrial Park. Mancino: Those are high tech buildings? Krauss: Those are high tech buildings. They're glass fronts. They look like offices from the street frontage and a lot of them are 70 -80% office but the interiors are flexible. And there's loading docks ... in the back. Mancino: ...and that would come under office, high tech industrial? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: Just think Nancy how nice a retail center this could be. Where you have wetlands and you have some character that we're striving for in downtown that everybody wants but is not really there. Here's an area that might just be something with some character. Farmakes: Well the issue of office, where we say office, use it as a word for a zone. I always get a little cross eyed at that. The issue of the two developments that we have down here that are office, the bottom floors are retail. Would that use then be acceptable in this if it's office? Krauss: I don't think so but it depends on how you do it. The Comp Plan, the '91 Comp Plan actually has one area, it's on the Ward property that's shown only for office uses. Solely for office uses which I suppose means that it would be zoned office institutional is the only use that can go there. In that district that's all you can do. Then again if somebody came in as a PUD, which the last 25% of the uses could be something else, it is possible to get a mix. I agree with you and I know, I remember the conversation very well with Brad where the line gets real blurry. Are these retail buildings or are they office buildings? I think you can be more specific than that. But again... Scott: Well if we, I'm just kind of looking across old Highway 101 from that area. If we're talking about putting some sort of a hotel, park and ride kind of a complex over there, it is 36 r 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 conceivable he said we're going to have, it looks like that hotel development will probably be a little bit more substantial than Country Suites, maybe? Yes? No? Might there be small retail associated with that project? I suppose anything's possible but I'm just thinking. Krauss: That's a project that hasn't coalesced yet. We're still working on that. If it did happen in it's current incarnation, there's already a little strip mall there right now, and it provides a nice mix. The only other additional retail that was thought of is a restaurant, free standing or attached in conjunction with the hotel/motel. r I s Scott: Okay. Well, on this particular issue do we go with the staff recommendation or do we remove commercial, which I would understand, would we remove retail? If we remove commercial designation from here, that remains retail? Aanenson: Except as Paul mentioned, if they came forward with a PUD. Scott: With a PUD it could be 25% but then that would give us the opportunity to look at the plan in it's entirety and if we felt at that point in time that some small retail would be appropriate, maybe that's the bottom line. Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that? Mancino: Works for me. Scott: Works for you? Ledvina: That's acceptable for me. Scott: Matt. What do you think Diane? Harberts: Yeah, it works for me. I think that enables more of an influence by the city and community. Scott: Okay. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: No. Scott: It stinks. It still stinks. Conrad: Yeah, you know. My position would be, I'd really like to see some nice retail go in there. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: What's nice retail? Conrad: Well we've got to get moving along but we don't have a lot of control on that. I just, really my bottom line is, I don't think you can afford to take retail out of, we need some retail space and I'm not convinced we need the other space that you're zoning it for. That's really my bottom line. Scott: Alright. Are we. Farmakes: Is that property in or out of the TIF district? Krauss: It's in and it was included, at least part of it. Farmakes: So the odds are we would probably be seeing the PUD no matter what anyway on this particular piece of property? Krauss: Again, if something happened... Harberts: Ladd, are you maybe hedging that you'd rather see most of this retail rather than the office? Conrad: I like the mixed use and I'd like to see a real nice. To tell you the truth, I'd like to see a real nice retail shopping center there. Harberts: Versus high tech office? Conrad: But what are the chances that, the chances are minimal that we'd get it so. Scott: Yeah, on 7 acres. I mean if we went with a 25% PUD, we would get probably 4 or 5 acres of retail. Let's say 4 acres of retail versus 7 acres, which is obviously about 75% more. Mancino: Ladd, you could just as easily get a discount store there. Scott: Can you get big box retail on 7 acres? Conrad: Can you? Scott: That's, we don't want. I mean I don't want that. Target's 10? r L I'� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Target's on 10 ... we'll have to check. Scott: Yeah, so I mean so it's conceivable. Personally I don't want to see these big box retails but. Mancino: K -Mart. Wal -Mart Scott: I don't want it. I don't want that there. Conrad: Just a clarification though. Based on the current zoning, a discount store could go. Or based on the map that we looked at, a discount store could go in. Krauss: You're right. Conrad: And maybe it's better what you're doing. Scott: Okay, are you okay? Mancino: We're all in agreement. Scott: Anyway, so we're done with the Ward property. Harberts: What about the Fleet Farm? Mancino: It's not a very clear recommendation so the City Council knows. Farmakes: Well, which one are we on right now? Scott: Still the first item. So anyway. Basically what they're, the zoning that we're going to recommend is all office. We call it office, IOP. Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Office institutional and that is, in the vernacular of planningese that is what? OI? Krauss: That would be one of the zones in the appropriate. Scott: Yeah, and what would you call it? OI, office industrial? 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Okay. Office institutional. That's for the whole thing. Farmakes: How long does that remain in TIF by the way? Is it the end of the decade? Does TIF run out, is it 2000? Conrad: 2001. Krauss: There's also an industrial. Mancino: Just office institutional. Not office industrial institutional. Krauss: Oh, if you consider changing two things. Mancino: Well there was never office industrial on here. Scott: Yeah, because we've got office institutional. Krauss: That's one with the stripes. Mancino: Oh, I'm looking again at this site plan. Scott: Well, because I'm looking at I think maybe the same thing. At least according to this Figure 8.14. The 7 acre parcel was retail office, high tech industrial and what we want this whole thing to be is office institutional. Two different things, right? Mancino: Yes. Pink and blue. Scott: So we nailed down our recommendation is that we want to see the entire property, the land use office institutional. Aanenson: You're eliminating the high tech type, smaller footprint industrial? That was one of the uses... Harberts: I think, it was my understanding the only thing we're doing is removing commercial out of the staff recommendation. Am I right on that? Scott: Okay, so we're removing commercial. 40 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Did you get that? Krauss: You wanted to clarify in the text to say that. Scott: No commercial zoning on the Ward property. Harberts: Period. Krauss: No, that's not what you said though. As a part of a PUD it could possibly have some. Mancino: That's true. Farmakes: ...have to say that is that a PUD allows for... Aanenson: If you turn to page 21 in the document and it talks about... Scott: Which document? Aanenson: It says it's the Ward property. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: Potential uses. Scott: Yep. Aanenson: We're eliminating retail commercial but we're saying office industrial and add institutional. And then you say PUD ... may be considered under a PUD. Scott: Would we agree with that? Why don't you restate that? That was good. Aanenson: Okay. Under the potential use—the first one will be retail commercial. Scott: So we strike that. Aanenson: Strike that out. Scott: Okay, that's out of there. t4 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Residential... and office industrial/institutional. Scott: Okay, because it does mention institutional in the text but you want to have it all office industrial/institutional. Aanenson: Right. And then say commercial may be permitted under the PUD. May be considered. Scott: Yeah, may be considered. Yep, that's important. May be considered. Okay. Is everybody clear on what we've done? Farmakes: We're eliminating industrial. Scott: Ah no. We're eliminating, for a potential use retail and commercial. It's going to be all office industrial/institutional and commercial may be considered as part of a PUD. Not to exceed 25% but I guess that's the PUD ordinance so. Okay. Have we finished that item to everyone's satisfaction? I'll say yes. Farmakes: Yes. 0 Mancino: Yes. Scott: Okay. What about the Opus? Mancino: I have some notes. Scott: Oh okay. These issues affect the option for commercial zoning on the Ward property. Which I understand, and the VanDeVeire. Okay, let's talk about that: Mancino: What are we talking about? Scott: How does this affect the option for VanDeVeire? Aanenson: These are the other commercial pieces that you're looking at. This portion of Fleet Farm and the question that we talked about, potentially including in a park. And the other one is the VanDeVeire piece which ... so that ties back into—and if there should be some ancillary to service the neighborhood. And support commercial. Scott: Let's talk about for VanDeVeire. Right now we have what? Let me see with the Song/Carlson property and some of the Lundgren developments, if we add all that stuff 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 together with the existing people living in that area, we're looking at 400 -500 single family houses. I'm just trying .to get an idea. Mancino: No. 200 Lundgren. Krauss: If you're looking at a service area for neighborhood commercial, add the 144 homes in the Hans Hagen and the 70 homes in ... but they're not turning the same corner. So I think... we think that's where your trade is. Scott: So we have the same question on that property. Is that something that, I guess Diane, how do you see that particular corner? Do you see that as a general commercial or something like a neighborhood business kind of...? Mancino: ...is that what it is? Farmakes: Is that the property? Harberts: Is that what he has and then he has that commercial? What's this commercial ' proposed as neighborhood or ... something else? ' Krauss: At this particular time... Conrad: I think it should stay neighborhood. Harberts: Ditto. ' Scott: Neighborhood commercial? Conrad: Yes. Scott: What is the zoning classification on that? Neighborhood. Harberts: That's what that represents now. Krauss: Actually we've shown it as a mix. Neighborhood commercial, medium family residential and I believe... Mancino: ...I don't have a big deal with the way and I like the three suggestions. The medium density, multi - family, the neighborhood commercial and I think we even said on the task force open space. You know it's across from the school. It's surrounded by the Bluff 43 J Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Creek corridor, which I think is an amenity to that whole area, and so I think it's important where we do have that corridor amenity there, that we do have families living around it that can use it and not to put either institutional right up to this wonderful nature trail and corridor that people don't use it, or to put a lot of commercial around it. Because I -think that homeowners and family members will use it so much more. So that's kind of my concern and I know we're just getting started to work on the Bluff Creek corridor so I'm concerned about that. I'm also a little concerned about having commercial across the street from a school but it also serves neighborhoods in that area too. So I don't have a big concern either way. Farmakes: That's one of the properties that I thought, at least next to the creek there that I thought that the city should try and acquire some of that. The development that I saw up here tonight goes right up to the limited borders of that creek and if it is a multi, I don't think you're going to see much of that creek from the highway. To be honest with you. I'm fine with some limited commercial, neighborhood commercial. I guess from a planning standpoint, I guess any of these other uses that were listed are also fine. I do think though that that's another one of the areas that does have some wooded areas or it's adjacent to wooded areas. That we should try and preserve that. Scott: So do we have a consensus on neighborhood business, multi- family, open space. So there would be no change there. Okay. Are we okay with that? No change on the VanDeVeire? Okay. Okay, how about the westerly piece of the Fleet Farm site adjacent to the limited access road? I was going to ask, what page is that on? We've got these great maps here. Harberts: It's got to be on TH 41 there where the TH 41 and TH 5. Aanenson: On page 48 of this. Ledvina: Can you point out what's done on the westerly part of that? Mancino: Look to your 8.7 and 8.8. Aanenson: Easterly. Is that the one we're looking at tying with the park? As we stated, we're not sure that that will be a full intersection at that ... We're having Opus doing a traffic study and stated that that may just be a free right only. It may not be a full intersection. Harberts: So, that would make a difference. Scott: Yeah. ME 11� fl Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Well when we went out there and drove it, if this is what happens with the road system. I don't know, I thought I kind of liked it. Mancino: Which part? Farmakes: Like it is? Harberts: Yeah. At least from what I've seen. Mancino: You can't have that west city road go up north? Harberts: Well with the development or potential development there, with those access. Mancino: I think this northern part between Galpin and TH 41, and I said it earlier to Ladd, absolutely gorgeous land. I mean it's got these wonderful wetlands and you look up north . there, just beautiful, beautiful land and rolling hills. Farmakes: I'm fine with the uses being proposed for those two smaller parcels. Obviously I'm not for the Mills section. Conrad: Would you be though if there's not a road there? Farmakes: For large scale commercial? Aanenson: Look at the development parcels. We're looking at really three 3 to 5 acre parcels on either side of that road. I think the reason that got raised ... go back and look at the site analysis, and in the development design that was done for both parcels, commercial was never mentioned on the easterly portion or evolved from this plan... Farmakes: What I see here on the map is 3 acres to the east that says office institutional and then 2.5 acres to the west that says alternative land uses. Office institutional, neighborhood retail. Those are the two parcels that we're discussing right now? Or are you expanding that out to the entire area? Aanenson: I was looking at... Krauss: Well yeah, you've got 3 questions on there. Two of which we raised in here and one which was raised in the... Farmakes: Right. I'm just wondering what, you know are we going to discuss them as a 45 Ll Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 group or are we going to discuss them each as a, it seems to me that they're, from my standpoint anyway, a couple of those uses are fine. And some of the alternative uses that were being discussed by Mr. Hoffman here ... that's a different animal. Scott: Well the size of the parcels obviously could change depending upon if that west city street actually becomes a full intersection and the street goes up and intersects with the access boulevard. Because then we'd have what, a fairly large parcel. Aanenson: It'd still be just a free right to get in there and then come back out. And then if you wanted to proceed, a free right to get onto the frontage road and then come back out on TH 41, but that may not be a full intersection is what I'm saying. Scott: But whether or not that street's there will have a lot to do with what happens on that property. Farmakes: Sure. But that might be 10 years from now. Scott: So do we have any, do we want to guide that for something else or are we comfortable with the? Ledvina: That's okay. Harberts: I think generally it was okay. The issue is going to surround with the, what type of intersection, if any, as I understand it. Will the city be able to consider? They won't have that information at the time this is moved ahead so it's just one of those transition pieces. Is that correct? Or this goes ahead until that traffic study's completed. Krauss: You know the traffic study is going to tell us whether or not Opus needs an access out onto Highway 5 at that point. Whether or not that should be signalized. It's not going to tell us whether or not we need the north leg. It's the same kind of a thing I was talking about on Audubon. Realistically this road is perfectly adequate to service that entire area without that intersection on the north side. Scott: Yeah. That's so close to TH 41. I can see where the traffic study of ingress and egress from the development but not for that other... Krauss: Whereas Opus needs it from a traffic standpoint—is to their probably benefit by not having it. You're not chopping up parcels. You're keeping neighborhoods together. LJ j{ F11 L t [l 46 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Well maybe we should consider, at least consider it as a contiguous piece of 7 to 8 acres ... and look at it that way. So how does that, does that change anybody's thoughts as to the applicability of the zone guiding on it? Harberts: I guess I don't, I'm not against what you're saying Joe. I'd like to, let's just leave the road system in until the traffic study's done. Krauss: Maybe there should be some language in there because the only reason why there was a commercial use in there is because there may be an intersection. No intersection, there's no reason for a commercial use there. Mancino: So then having an alternative if there isn't a road, I would go ahead and continue the multi- family. Aanenson: Or the park option. ' Scott: Okay. So okay. So if there's no extension. So if then if there's no extension of the west city street, then it's multi- family park? If there is an extension, then it's neighborhood business? What's the second piece here really? Harberts: Well I was under the impression that if there is no road extension, that the commercial element is just removed as an option. Scott: Which would make sense. Harberts: The other option is park. Krauss: The ... would be like a church site. Harberts: Right. The other option would be a park and then was there a third option for that piece? No, guess not. Aanenson: Multi- family. Harberts: Multi- family, so there's three options. Scott: I think we're through now with the first piece. Opus site should be left IOP except for the most northerly portion. Get your maps out. The most northerly portion west of Highway 41 which shall be left medium family residential. That's up against the 10 acre 47 ti� Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 parcel that's a single family home? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Now where's medium family again? Aanenson: It's right here. Mancino: The piece behind? Aanenson: All of this will be zoned IOP. And we've always stated that commercial will not be permitted at this corner. That commercial under a PUD, if they have 25% and if they were to put it in ... down in this corner and not on this side of the street. And the PUD would guide this to be office type uses ... design, the lighting be compatible with the acreage. Scott: And then multi- family would abut the 10 acre parcel. Aanenson: Where the wetland is adjacent to the house? Scott: Yeah. That kind of, the wetland kind of bisects that parcel. Let me ask a question. It says the PAD. Aanenson: That should say PUD. Scott: That's kind of what I thought. Another acronym I didn't know.. Okay. What do we feel about that? Conrad: It's perfect. Mancino: Not for me. Scott: It doesn't work for you? Mancino: I would still like to see all the, the land that touches the Arboretum multi- family. I went and looked at a land use map and looked through the city and looked at our city parks and what kind of land use was around you know Lake Ann, Meadow Green Park, Greenwood Shores Park. You know all of our parks are surrounded, except for Lake Susan Park, but most of our parks we have tried to, at least from what I can see that predecessor's have done, ER L am' r n Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 have tried to put them in those green spaces in single family or multi- family areas. Scott: From my big packet, that's a park deficiency thing. Mancino: And I think that's done for a reason. I think that there are green spaces. If you look at that map that's up in front of us, besides Lake Ann Park, if it weren't for the Arboretum, there wouldn't be a lot of big chunks of green open space. And I'm very concerned about what we do around those big green open spaces. To preserve them. To keep them as a place where people want to go and walk and see vegetation, etc. And so I would like to see medium family surrounding the Arboretum. Scott: Well isn't the trailhead for the Chaska trail system is actually right across from what is now ... as IOP, right? And if we brought multi- family all the way down, that might make. Mancino: Which is what they've done in Chaska, and what abuts the Arboretum in Chaska is single family. ' Scott: Yes. Along with the road coming in. Now correct me if I'm wrong. Everybody... that actually the folks at the Arboretum would prefer industrial office because of the activity being predominantly 8:00 to 5:00 and nothing going on on the weekends and so forth when there'd be people at the Arboretum versus multi- family. The times that the multi- family are going to be the most active would be when the Arboretum's most active? Krauss: I talked with Peter Olin on that after our last meeting. No, that is not his position. I think it was the position of the people, the residents in the area, who are Chaska residents... ' Aanenson: That's what Peter Olin spoke tonight... Scott: Yeah, I heard that and that didn't make sense to me. ' Aanenson: Just to go back to the park issue. One of the most successful parks we have in the city is in an industrial park and I think Todd's preference is, is his desire to have the park in an industrial parks. Scott: Lake Susan? ' Aanenson: Lake Susan is a good example and for scheduling and then the traffic. It works better than trying to impact things on the neighbors who are concerned about lighting and 1 traffic through the neighborhood and it's been very successful. That's why he was pushing so hard to get it into the Opus site. Where it benefits both large industrial users where they 49 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have a place to go on their lunch hour, after work or ... organized activities. Scott: Do the customers or does Todd think his customers for Lake Ann, or Lake Susan Park, is there a lot of activity from the leagues from Rosemount, Roberts? Krauss: A tremendous amount. Scott: Okay, so his view is that it's something that kind of suddenly dawned on me is that this could be basically you're putting the park where your customers are. For organized. Their vision of the park is active, scheduled type stuff where we tend to lean more towards the passive, wetland. Okay. Anyway, what do we all think about having multi, bringing multi- family all the way down to West 86th Street? Aanenson: 82nd. Scott: 82nd Street. And having a multi- family strip there instead of IOP down there on 82nd. We know what Nancy thinks. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: I think it's nice. Farmakes: I've never seen a compelling reason to bring industrial across the highway. But tempered with what comments I have heard from the Arboretum, I'm open to whatever the residents that abut that property would like. From a planning perspective, this is like really kind of a back closet in Chanhassen. It's a corner and it's, I think it's an issue of buffered use at this point. It's not really a planning issue. I'm open to vote either way on that particular item. Scott: Okay, good. What do you think? Conrad: I think we're treating this like it's an access park. You can't, your multi- family folks can't go into the Arboretum. That's trespassing. Mancino: Sure they can. Conrad: But you made some parallels between other parks and that doesn't count. They can't go there. I think, the issue is buffering the Arboretum. Flat out, that's the issue. My perspective, and the second issue is doing what the local residents who have single family care about. Single family folks would rather put the office institutional in there is what my feeling was when I heard them talk. In fact, my feeling is, the best buffer, the best visual control we have is putting in. Making it IO in that area. I think we could just do a terrific 50 fl ' I Ll FA I 1 L e i fl Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 job for the Arboretum in terms of visual impact if we left it IOP. Because we've got control. We've just got a ton of control. We can put some, we can do so many things that just make it unobtrusive to the Arboretum. Maybe you could make the same comment about putting in multi- family but multi- family is real, I'll tell you. If you put multi - family in there, it doesn't, it's like you're putting it in the middle of where? You've got office. You've got industrial to the south. You've got industrial IOP to the east. It is kind of nice to put it up against a park but they can't use the park. Mancino: Sure they can. They can walk to the. Conrad: You can't walk through. Mancino: It's right there. But you also have single family right south of them. Conrad: It goes south but not in the park. Mancino: No, but there's single family. The Chaska zoning is single family. Conrad: But anyway, bottom line for me is, I think the residents would rather have it the way, the IOP. Ledvina: Well, can I just try to recollect my thoughts on that? I think they were thinking that if we were going to be doing multi- family there, they'd rather have the IO, the industrial thing application. But we had it set up here as a recommendation for single family and that's consistent with what they have. Am I right there? Aanenson: Well the way it's shown here, a portion of it's single family and a portion of it's strictly office. Scott: But is that square that's single family, that's one single family home. Aanenson: No. It's 30 acres. Farmakes: There is an existing single family home. Ledvina: So I think in comparison to multi- family and industrial, light industrial, they'd rather have the industrial but I think for single family, I don't think they would object to single family as well. I mean given the hierarchy of land use. Farmakes: The single family though were looking at developing the property. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: Right. Farmakes: As industrial. Ledvina: So whatever. I guess overall I'm pretty comfortable with how the staff has laid it all there. The parcel to the east, that's pink there on the map. The reality of that chunk is that there is a very large wetland on the northern part of that that buffers the Arboretum and I don't know what, even if you could possibly do anything with that single family orange, industrial so I'm not, I'm pretty indifferent to any classification on that. So I'm comfortable with it the way it is. Scott: Okay, so what you're saying is single family up above, multi- family on 82nd or IOP on 82nd? Krauss: I think if you look at Figure 8.21, you have that recommendation. It shows medium density, office and medium density down on the street. Ledvina: Okay, so it isn't single family? Aanenson: No. Ledvina: I guess considering that, I would agree with Ladd then. Kind of flip flopping but I thought that was, right along 82nd there was single family on our maps but that's incorrect. ' Scott: It's IOP. Aanenson: No, it's shown as... Harberts: It splits. Farmakes: Industrial, medium density residential. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I guess I'm comfortable with the way the staff has laid it out. Scott: You're not. Jeff's kind of Mancino: Well I'm comfortable with the Highway 5 task force recommendation, which is medium density in that. LI it 52 1 a Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Adjacent to the Arboretum and then office... Harberts: I support that staff recommendation. Mancino: Which? Harberts: Medium. Conrad: Which is the task force? Harberts: Yeah. Aanenson: The modified...? Harberts: The modified. Medium density. Aanenson: With the rest all IOP. Harberts: Yep. Scott: Yeah, I would agree with that as well. Okay. So we're clear. Are you guys clear on what. Aanenson: So was there consensus on that? A show of hands? Scott: 4 of us liked it as indicated. Jeff was. Farmakes: I'm comfortable as it's written. Scott: Okay. And then Nancy you wanted to see multi- family brought down to the, you're snickering. What are you snickering about? Okay. You got that? Aanenson: Yep. Scott: Okay. Eckankar property. The owners are requesting that in addition to the multi- family, that institutional be listed as a permitted use. Diane. Harberts: Now as I understood from our work session, that the multi- family would be the underlying designation in the event something happened to the current owners. 53 114 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: So your concern is, it's okay to have it institutional but if something happens to the institutional use, it would revert back to multi- family? Harberts: Right. Now the only question that I have, what's their current, how is it currently guided? Krauss: I think it's medium and high. Harberts: Okay, so we're not changing it. Aanenson: You wouldn't rezone it. Krauss: The only proposal in here was that, I think it covers both bases because basically you leave that yellow up there... Harberts: Okay. Aanenson: The zoning would still remain the same. Harberts: Yeah, and as I said at the work session, I don't have any problem with it. I thought it was fine. Ledvina: Well I didn't attend the work session but I think that's a reasonable way of amending it. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Perfect. Scott: Jeff. You're okay? Okay. Okay, so am I. Okay, so that's a yes. Okay, about what? Farmakes: Well we discussed the parcels next to it, I'm wondering about the issue of commercial scale on the corner of TH 5 and TH 41. Scott: But recommending an access boulevard alternative do we, and then also recommending the design standards, doesn't that take care of the Fleet Farm use on that corner? Farmakes: Well yeah, I'm sure it will be brought up to the City Council and I'm wondering if philosophically. 54 1 F J Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: You're looking for a statement. Farmakes: A statement and the issue of expanding large scale commercial outside the business district. Scott: Oh, well. I think we can take care of that. I mean I stated my opinion but I guess, we'll take just a quick, actually sort of a detour but as Jeff is stating, as I understand it, that as Planning Commission I think we may need to make a very specific statement about the use for the property on the Mills Fleet Farm property. And your thoughts are? Farmakes: My thoughts are that the large scale commercial use would be inappropriate in that area. Scott: Okay, I would agree with that. Nancy? Mancino: I agree. Scott: Ladd. Diane. Ledvina: I agree. Scott: Okay so just for the matter of record, the Planning Commission is unanimously opposed to any large scale commercial use of the property northeast on the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 5. Otherwise known as the Mills property. Okay. J.P. Links, which is 15 -20 acres may be considered as a park site. Aanenson: ...another option. Scott: Fine, fine? Okay. That's a yes there. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek. South of the frontage road. Multi- family should be considered as an option with the industrial. What do you think Ladd? Aanenson: That was the piece we were just talking about. Scott: With Mr. Dobbs, correct? Okay, Dobbs? John Dobbs: That's correct. Conrad: I think that's fine. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Fine. Nancy. Mancino: No problem. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: No problem. Harberts: Fine. Scott: Just because of it's proximity to the Bluff Creek corridor, obviously this is coming in as a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Is it going to be industrial on the outside and multi - family on the inside? Farmakes: Sounds like a candy bar. Scott: And crunchy too. Conrad: How many acres are we talking about right there? Aanenson: 120. We'll have three different ones. Single family, multi- family and industrial. Conrad: Okay. Good. So by doing what we just did, giving them the option, how many acres are we taking out of? Aanenson: You're taking it out of the industrial. Conrad: How many acres would we be taking out? Aanenson: We're not taking it out. We're saying... Conrad: It could be but more than likely... Scott: And then we'll be able to, we're going to see it anyway so. 56 I 1 1 r Ij Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: My only point is, you know industrial's a high value. Do we have enough of it? Krauss: You have to remember that's also a flood plain. Scott: Okay. Possible locations of a 15 -20 acre park of the easterly portion of the Fleet Farm property. Aanenson: We talked about that already. Mancino: I actually think it would be a wonderful viewpoint into that area, into the wetlands that are north of that. Scott: Okay, that's a big yes on that one. Okay. Now we move on into development and design standards issues. Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts, the central business district (HC -1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers on the west And that was something that just came out of our discussion at the work session. Krauss: That was something that when we expanded the CBD district... Scott: Which will definitely impact the DataSery looks. Krauss: I think it gets to a lot of the ... I don't know what the concern is but that was one of the things we discussed. Scott: But that's the gate, the eastern gateway to the city and I think it's appropriate that we do something. So we're all in favor of that? Okay. Now here's a big item that we'll be debating for a long time. Application of these standards for public transit, is there flexibility? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay. Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added. So that's. Aanenson: We'll put that in there ... we asked for 3 different typicals ... Not all pitched roofs depending on the same of the building ... so different applications. Scott: Okay. Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logos. Scott: Yes we will. Aanenson: That was raised by Jeff. 57 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: You want to put that in there? Scott: Yeah, I think so. Conrad: Why? Harberts: Yeah. Scott: Well, because we talked about accent colors and that we want to have accent colors to break up the monotony but I don't consider a Hardee's sign an accent color. So it can't be part signage. Ledvina: What I'm thinking of, what if they have an admiral blue as part of their, one of their logo colors. They can't use that? Scott: Well, I think what we're trying to get away from is someone saying we're breaking up the monotony on our building by using our signage. Krauss: I think Rapid Oil is a good example where they have their red barreling as part of their logo. Or Burger King which has a neon orange stripe around the building. If that's an accent color... Scott: Yeah, we're looking more at architectural elements and not signage. Aanenson: I think what we did is put it in context. Ledvina: You're telling them not to use their color. Scott: No, no. They can't include the color as, see if we're asking them to break up the monotony of a surface on their building or their structure by using accent colors, generally they do something with tile or brick or something like that which is great but by putting or using, holding their signage up as a conformance to adding accent colors to break up the monotony, signage should be. I don't know if you want to. Aanenson: ...context of looking at the ... of the ordinance about ... Those are questions to make sure we... Scott: Okay, and then the height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are limited to one story and it shall be neutral in color. 58 f! 11 - 1 I� Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: So you want that added? Scott: Do we? Yes. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Harberts: As opposed to what? 3 story? Ledvina: Is it appropriate to do that? I mean in all cases to limit it to 1 story? I don't know that that's. Krauss: Well, you're going to wind up with more poles, which raises cost. Ledvina: Yeah. Which there's more lights. Scott: Well then we have our landscape, our parking lot landscape stuff which is going to cause more islands. Ledvina: How tall is one story? 12 feet right? That means you're looking at a 12 foot light? Scott: How tall is Target? Ledvina: Those are 40 feet. Krauss: Those are 40 feet, yeah. Ledvina: We want something inbetween. Scott: What are we looking for here? Mancino: Well we didn't want anything taller. One of the things was it wasn't any taller than the building. Like the ones at Target are much taller than the building. Krauss: Well there you have a 25 foot high building. Scott: So is Market Square and it seems like every, I think you go into any commercial parking lot and you can see. Mancino: You can see them over the heads. I mean you can see them 3 miles away. ,; 4 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: Yeah but one story, is that overkill? I mean that's what scares me. Mancino: I don't know. Conrad: You know actually I think you're right because I'm not sure that that makes sense. Scott: Should it be 1 1/2 times the height of the building? I mean is that what we're looking for? Mancino: Well that could be 3 stories... Farmakes: We toyed there about whether or not it should be any higher than the building, similar to a pylon issue. Then there was a discussion that you would have too many lights because they don't, the arch of the lights does not give off enough, it's not high enough to give off enough light coverage. So can we get, it would seem to me again that that's a professional response to what's appropriate. I think the issue is, you don't want to drive in and see these kind of arched lights that are far higher than any of the buildings... Well they lend too much visual pollution from the standpoint of it kind of becomes signs in a way. Ledvina: I understand and I agree with that but can we just, instead of saying these shall be whatever, 12 feet. I mean can we say that they're going to be. Mancino: In proportion to the height of the building. Ledvina: Yeah, right. Scott: What does that mean? I mean I was more comfortable when it was like 1 1/2 times. Farmakes: I'd like to see a specific gap similar to the way that we do pylon signs. Scott: What is that? Farmakes: I'm not saying it should be the same. I'm saying that something that is reasonable for the economy of lighting a parking lot. But no more than that. Scott: Why don't we say 1 1/2 times the height of the structure and if somebody comes back and says, watts and all this kind of junk and they can say well. Mancino: But 1 1/2 times is still higher than the structure. .1 r [I 1 L, I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Scott: 1 1/2 times so it's 16 feet on a 12 foot building. Farmakes: But you could have a maximum building though of more than 40 feet. ' Conrad: We really don't know what we're talking about here. Let's stop this. Somebody's got to tell us. The intent is real valid but we don't have a solution. Ledvina: Let me get back to that just a little bit though. I mean if we can't say that it should be in proportion or use a qualitative term like that, then the whole, then we're taking the wrong approach to this ordinance because we go through this throughout the ordinance in terms of being subjective and having qualitative measures and all of that. So if we're trying to do that for light fixtures, I think we've got to take a real deeper look at that what's in here and how we're doing it. Farmakes: No, I disagree with that. I think that there are qualitative issues on there. There are issues such as how many materials are being used in comparison to build it... There are other issues where you don't want to be quantitative and the issue of the height of something, I think you should be, should say specifically what the maximum is. And the issues of aesthetic things, that becomes a far more difficult issue. You talk more about the end intent of what you're looking for. Ledvina: Isn't the height of a light fixture aesthetic though? 1 Farmakes: Not necessarily. Not if you're going to qualify it. If you want to qualify it, and you say in proportion to the building, define the word proportion. Many of the definitions that are in there, that may seem ambiguous are defined. And I think in the purpose of the light fixture, or we discussed that issue. You were concerned I think about the ... and issues of things that are already currently in our ordinance. I think the purpose of it was that you did not get disproportionately huge lighting situations going on. Scott: But I don't have any problems specifying something and it doesn't have to be 1 1/2 times the building but I think when you put some language in, the ... who would be impacted by it, would take a look at it and if they can come back and you know with reasons why this isn't going to work. I mean I don't know, quite frankly on that issue I don't know what we're talking about but I think we do need to put something in there that's specific. So as part of the next step of the process, if somebody should come back and say here's why or why not it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: Currently I believe don't we have a height restriction on lighting? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: I think we just have a candle. Krauss: Now we have a half a foot candle at the property line. Farmakes: You just have a power restriction. Krauss: And the problem always comes about, that when they take these plans to an electrical contractor... to bid, that can save you $25,000.00... Farmakes: Well, I would entertain just getting a professional responses to what would, the economic... leave it to that. Harberts: I think it's a public safety issue too perhaps. Scott: Yeah. Let's do it. Mancino: I have one quick question. Kate and Paul, on Chapter 8 with the standards related to architectural designs. It says standards governing all these architectural designs shall—both new and renovated buildings. Do we need to say what a renovated building is? I mean does that mean when somebody existing on Highway 5 let's say, I don't know the storage company who has rooftop equipment that shows now. It's very visible from Highway 5. Wants to screen and do a little bit of building renovation. Do they have to comply with these standards now? Krauss: I think we should have some more specific language. One of the things we talked about, a couple of years ago ... you want to work with your existing business community by encouraging them to expand or improve and a way to do that is not to throw, not come down like a ... you're adding a window, therefore you've got to add $75,000.00 in improvements to make it proportional. We can probably put in some language there that says just that. Ledvina: I'd recommend that. Scott: Also too, this is on page 12 where it talks about in locations where plants would be susceptible to injury, so on and so forth. Possibly something in there about the salt tolerance and I may have missed that if it was in here but we spend a lot of time talking about that in all of our developments. This would be good to have use of salt tolerant species. Krauss: ... over the summer we had the ordinance that... 62 d 11 f! I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Good. Okay. What about the comment that came up about any development, and I don't know whether it's going to be at the conceptual plan would show not only all the elevations but some sort of a computer aided design or a computer generated simulation of actual, the actual visual impact and as constructed. Not in 15 years when the trees are big. It seems like when we see these plans, first of all and I got quite excited when I saw that, the bridge because I think we were able to jump on that and make some better decisions. I think we would be better served if we had that as a requirement of all projects at a certain point. Aanenson: ...you may want to amend the ordinance to say any large scale parcel... Scott: Okay, so that's a different spot. Okay. Have we satisfactorily dealt with the land use portion and the design standards? Mancino: I have one other design standard question for people to talk about and that is, q P P there's nothing in here on neighborhood commercial. And I would like to see something about how neighborhood commercial is different than a regular commercial area, meaning does it, how it fits in with the neighborhood better. Does it have more residential type materials being used that reflect the neighborhood that it's support to be part of? Scott: Good point. Farmakes: Won't that be part of the zone though? Scott: I don't think it is. Aanenson: In a PUD certainly when we looked at that with Opus, certainly that would be something to put in a PUD development plan. Do you want it to be architecturally compatible so it looks as one cohesive unit, and that's one of the goals. But certainly if you had a separate case that's not under a PUD. 1 Mancino: Yeah, I mean what about Galpin and TH 5. Aanenson: Right, and that is built separately without any other project, right. Do you still want it to go under the residential, so it looks like it's part of that neighborhood. Mancino: Yes. Because it is neighborhood commercial. I mean it's not general commercial. Aanenson: I know that's in the intent. I think we'll have to make sure that, even the intent when we adopt the plan. I mean that's in the goal statement there but how we put that into 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 the ordinance, we'll have to get some clarification from the City Attorney on that. That was an issue that was... Scott: Any other comments on design standards or land use? Seeing none, let's talk about ' the access boulevard. Harberts: I'd like to maybe broaden that a little bit. Just with regards to the comments we ' heard this evening. I think some of the comments that we heard tonight we've addressed through some of this discussion. And there seems to be other comments. I don't know if .they're really our role to address such as with the roadway, moving it 100 feet south or, I guess what really concerns me is some of the comments made by the, well the fact that the comments made by the landowners in terms of not supporting the whole access boulevard concept. I'm not saying that, I certainly recognize the need for development and I think the best thing that this community can do is put a plan out there. I think we've all sat on this commission and pulling the hair out of our head in terms of, give us a road map. An infrastructure plan so we don't have this pieces here, pieces there of roadways not connecting. I like the idea of putting the access boulevards out there as a guide plan so that we do know what way development is going to go. I guess I'm going to defer to the task force of where the alignment is for the corridor because of all the time they spent on it. I guess when we look at DataServ, I don't know who's role it is to consider that request with regard to you know 600 employees. That's somewhat of a major development for Chanhassen. So I'm just t sharing my, I guess my comments in terms of what I heard tonight. Farmakes: I would qualify that. I was on the task force and we had known that, the task r force was made up of many divergent interests. The same divergent interests that you see here tonight. And it's similar to this commission I guess. They don't always vote alike. ' Sometimes it's 5 to 4 and sometimes it's 10 to 1. I mean there were a lot of different things to look at on this issue. Many of them, particularly the landowners, obviously they have a divergent interest. Their properties are all shaped differently. How they can maximumly develop them to get their return on their property. Where their access roads would be. Each property owner, if left to decide that, it would be different and obviously you can't build a corridor like that. And the other spectrum of that process. I Harberts: And did the corridor task force hear these same comments or similar comments then? I Farmakes: Oh sure. Yeah. Harberts: And that's why I'm saying that I certainly defer to what's being recommended by the task force because of the detailed work that you folks went through, and overall like I 64 J Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 said, having a plan for a roadway system that's going to help enhance the mobility of our community is important. And I think with what's being planned, I think it's good. i Farmakes: I just wanted to say that the task force was in disagreement just like we are here and the issue of what was voted on of course is, in some cases there was no disagreement whatsoever and in other cases there was disagreement. Scott: And also too, as necessity is the mother of invention, I think left to their own devices, I think any developer, and rightfully so, would take the path of least resistance, the least creative, the least costly and you get basic stuff, which is what we don't want in our community. You know we need a plan. I happen to prefer the alternative as proposed by the Highway 5 task force and after the hoopla dies down, this property is still going to be developed. We're probably going to see the same people coming back in here with similar plans. Tweak those a bit but they're going to have to think and they're going to have to stretch and they're going to have to be creative, and isn't that what we want anyway. Farmakes: But you would expect that though. I mean this is in use now as agricultural property. So it's much more of a free for all than on the east side of TH 5 where it's much more defined and city zoned. And as I said, each individual property owner has a different expectation. And rightfully so. That's their prerogative. They own the property. Scott: So Y ouve g y' got, you support your recommendation. I support the recommendation. Each of the guys that are on the task force, you guys were on opposite sides or? Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I obvious I'm in the minority of the issue of the access y Y road. I believe it's 2 between Lake Ann and Galpin Road. I support the southern route ' solely because I think that the city would be able to control more of the property. Whether the city buys it or whether the State buys it. Whether the money's there or it's not there or if it was there 6 months ago and now it's not. 6 months from now it might be back. I think that it's logical to assume that by controlling that property between Highway 5 and the access road gives you more opportunity to landscape out and buffer TH 5. The issues of land use, it seems to me it's convenient to slice off that chunk and essentially make a strip of high density housing. And I've already talked about this with everybody so I'm not going to repeat myself again about my issues there. Failing that, I do support the northern route around the Bluff Creek area which is not currently on the recommendation. I'll just give you my opinion. I don't think that the task force spent a considerable amount of time with that issue. We spent more time arguing the north and south routes. That's my personal opinion anyway. And I feel if you go and look at the property, there's a lot of compelling reasons to run it to the north. There are some issues of crossing over residences. if you look at, there's 4 for on either route and this is a sensitive issue. But if you look at the long term ... one 65 L� Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 would have to say that there's a limited short term life span for those uses. Based on what's coming in there. So if we were looking in terms of, long term planning and we're looking at essentially a highway network that's going to be here for the foreseeable future, I would say that it would seem to me that protecting that creek corridor, where the trees are, and going around it rather than through it would be in the best interest, long term of solving the intent of the original statement which was to keep Highway 5 from becoming a wall with no landscaping, no trees and no separation. Scott: That seems to be a wash with construction cost anyway. Mancino: Yeah, I'd ditto Jeff on that too. I mean ... and did like the northern route. In fact I think the site plan that's done for that parcel between Lake Ann and GalPin, it'Ha very good one that shows some view so that we won't have a medium density just lining g y There's some good site plan analysis in here. But so I do agree with him on taking that northern route and not cutting through Bluff Creek in that heavily wooded area. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I agree with that. Ledvina: I agree with the proposed alignment and again I would support the northern route right at Galpin there avoiding the crossing at friendly waye that as a severe crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as the most e of tackling that feature of the terrain. Scott: Say that again. Conrad: Yeah, say that again. Scott: You support the A -C connection or just number 1? Ledvina: No. I support the northerly route. Conrad: The blue. Ledvina: Right. Right. Scott: Blue all the way. Ledvina: I think that you know I feel bad about displacing people and that but again, we are M 1 r LI I J P [71 t n Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 talking about long term planning issues and that's really the key. And if we stay with the objectives of the task force and what was laid out for us as the ground rules, I think that northerly route at Galpin satisfies those objectives. Scott: So the recommendation that we will then pass to the Planning Commission would be the complete Alternate #1 without A -C. Just the blue line that we see here with the northerly connection at Galpin. Harberts: That's basically what Jeff indicated in the beginning? Scott: Yeah. Harberts: Going around Bluff Creek. Farmakes: I disagree with another section but yes. No crossovers. Just go up to the north. Scott: I had some concern about that too because I was thinking, if it's dollar for dollar and such huge soil stabilization and so forth at the head waters for a pretty benign and fairly flat connection versus a tremendous amount of landfill and re, I think we had 200 or 300 feet of. Farmakes: It's still all essentially a wash. Any of the routes that you go and from an environmental impact. Or at least that's what the recommendation. Scott: So we'll pass the complete alternate #1 without the A -C connection. We've gone through the EAW on the design standards. Farmakes: I'll dissent on that one. Scott: Okay. Oh, because of your. Farmakes: Yeah. I support no crossovers and that issue but I just don't support the northerly route from Galpin to Lake Ann. Aanenson: We can break these out into three separate motions. Scott: Yeah, can I have a. Farmakes: I'm not sure, are we voting on this or are we just giving recommendations? Scott: Well, we're going to now. 67 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 difference to me. Farmakes: It makes no Conrad: Let's not vote yet. The northerly route, does that eliminate the possibility of the golf course? Scott: Well, my personal opinion is that the golf course is not real. Farmakes: I would not be opposed though to leaving in an option in there that should it the west and it becomes a viable issue, become real, or should he acquire another 40 acres to it forward. Let him bring it forward and let's see it. I mean it does support the let him bring intent. stuff but you Conrad: I'm not sure how we do that Jeff. It's like. I think we can revise a golf course? You can put a golf course in a know. On the other hand, where can you put we would have it, even though we've already talked about residential. In our zoning, as zoning, we don't have a zone for a golf course but they're permitted where, in our proposed zoning, would a golf course be permitted where he's got the property? ' Krauss: Actually 1 I don't think we'd permit it practically anyplace. We'd probably have to... the zoning ordinance to do it but in itself... the developer is going to have to pick up the cost for the road Farmakes: Since the city or p from a matter of practicality if anyway, when it does go in from that section, I would assume he comes forward with a golf course, it doesn't stop him unless there's a zoning issue that would stop him from proposing that. Scott: Plus the fact is that the, there is not going to be any access to that parcel off of has to come off of the access boulevard, right? Highway 5. All access to that parcel got Krauss: Well yes. That's the way we see it ... MnDot will see it. Scott: So, I think you can take the senior housing would have to be serviced from a different 15, we've got 30 feet. The total right -of -way for way. And still, you know having a actually the access boulevard is what? Aanenson: 80. Scott: 80 feet? I can think of 5 golf courses right now that have major, major like University of Minnesota golf course has got Larpentur Avenue. That's 4 lanes. Minnekada. Interlachen. I mean the list goes on. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah. I don't think a road would preclude. It will take some property but I don't think it's going to preclude putting a course there. I think the total amount of land is more an issue than the road going right, you know separating 3 or 4 holes from it. ' Scott: He's got to have. ' Farmakes: Another 20-40 acres. Conrad: He probably does but I guess my only issue, and again my only issue is I don't want to not, I don't want to force that as not a possibility by whatever we're doing and my perception is, the road is not the thing that's going to keep it from happening. But I want to make sure that we haven't done something zoning wise that is keeping that from happening. If he can make it happen. Actually if he can make it happen I'd rethink a lot of stuff. What makes the northerly route valid in my mind is that it's not only, it's transit for people to the northwest to downtown but it services some high density area that we really are putting in between the road. It's really a very functional street and that, once we drop that street down to right next to Highway 5, then it's nothing in my mind. It's nothing. It's just not doing a great deal. Farmakes: But what's right next to Highway 5? 80 feet? 100 feet? 400 feet? Conrad: You'd end up with not a functioning piece of property. Farmakes: Something that you could develop as a medium density or high density. 1 Conrad: Basically a service road concept doesn't ve you much to work with between g Highway 5 and. Farmakes: Well in the case of TH 7 or 494 there's nothing. It's right next to the slope. g Pe . Conrad: Right. And I think we've got a great opportunity to do something different and that's why I like what we've got but that's why I want the road to the north to make it. I need to justify it cost wise and that's not our decision here. Price is no object to the Planning Commission. We kind of want a realistic solution but we don't really weigh it against some price options. We typically don't. But from a citizen standpoint, I can justify that road and when it's servicing some people, plus it's also a corridor for the community. Farmakes: It would seem to me then that the only thing it would restrict, since they're not... 1 the road, would be an issue of how much time we're looking at or the timeframe we're looking at here and whether or not the zone that we're committed to or give a guideline to is t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 going to include that. Does the fact that that's going to be single family and multi keep them from putting in a golf course there? Scott: Wouldn't you think though that if a proposal like that came forward for a golf course, that would be able to be built on that property, I'd be willing to bet that any Planning Commission who saw that would say, well oh you mean we have to rezone this to have them build a golf course. I would think that most Planning Commissions would go fine. Let's change it. That's definitely something you want. Farmakes: But what happens when you get some piecemeal development going on there? Maybe they don't want a golf course. I can't imagine that but maybe they don't. Scott: Well I. Farmakes: Are we committing ourselves here? Are we essentially zoning this to the effect that nothing else can go in there? Where we have it as multi- family and single family, I think on the comp plan it's listed as residential, is that correct? Aanenson: It's guided right now for multi- family and single family. That's how it's guided right now. Farmakes: Okay, but what I'm saying is there isn't, is there a line on the comp plan that shows exactly where multi- family begins and single family ends? Krauss: Pretty much. Farmakes: Okay. Krauss: I mean arguably it could slide a little bit one way or the other but the line was put exactly where Mike Gorra asked for it to be put several years ago. When he says he was never consulted on this, I mean... Farmakes: When you submitted the comp plan. Krauss: Yeah. Scott: Yeah he was, yeah, I read through all that stuff. On the July 23rd meeting. He talked about ... but are we in a position right now. I see we've got three things to adopt. Should we make that into three motions? I think we all have them in front of us. I'm not going to make the motion since I'm not supposed to do that. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Paul, I thought of something else that I wanted to add to this whole thing. Scott: It says approval of these things, like the corridor land use study as modified. With modifications. I supposed you want to get the modifications in before your motion tonight. Harberts: Yeah. Just real quickly. 1 Aanenson: Those that we took notes on, and I'm assuming there are modifications. Scott: Yeah, but if anybody has any more, let's get it in before we made a recommendation. Mancino: The only thing I'd like to add is to the park and trail section which is Chapter 5. I'd like to beef up the Bluff Creek corridor specifications. You know when we had the school site and we reviewed it, one of the things that I commented to staff I thought they did a great job on was proposing that the applicant meet with the DNR to determine the original landscape along the corridor and also to have a 60 to 100 foot width set aside for that purpose of getting it back to it's original vegetative state and we all kind of talked about it. And I think that would be really good in here. Some sort of specifics on the Bluff Creek corridor and how it was treated going through the Highway 5 area. Does that make sense? ' Krauss: Well I think it ties in real well with the ... the way the routing should go on the north side. By the way, when you touched on this golf course thing too. There's some issues that were raised tonight that we're going to want to address as staff ...but it may be appropriate to add some text to the plan that says if a golf course is legitimately demonstrated to be a viable option, then that's something that will be considered. 1 Fi Conrad: I would like that very much. Scott: But it's not going to change the alignment of the access. Krauss: Well I don't th ink it will but since we don't have that ... coming down the pike immediately, it could. I mean if Mike came in with a proposal and said look. I really need to slide this thing over. Over to here because it's going around the 14th hole. We always work with people on stuff like that. Scott: Is it going to go down the line and down the line and down the line and then all of a sudden the road's looped all over the place? Krauss: Well yeah. It obviously has to meet our parameters and the longer Mike waits to do something, the less flexibility he's going to have if the die is cast on either side. What I 71 t planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 heard Mike Gorra saying was, don't do anything and I'll tell you what I'm going to do when I'm ready to tell you. But if you want to keep your foot in the door and say that the golf course is a possibility. Conrad: See Joe, if somebody brought in a golf course that was real, it's a terrific community asset and it's equivalent if not better than where this road goes. I'll just tell you, if you can get a golf course in Chan, if somebody's willing to put it on this high potential property, if that's what he wants to do, I'll slide roads wherever they want them because I perceive that to be a very definite community resource. But I'm real comfortable keeping the roads the way they are right now until that comes in but I do want to communicate to them that I'd sure consider it. That's real valid. I just ... the course next to the park, it's just really neat but I considered it but not until I see it. Scott: Yeah, I'd go with that. We want to see something that's for real and we haven't seen it yet. I mean I think we were all took it as waving the golf course around to try and get the road to move so something else could be built there. And I think it was pretty obvious that's what was going on, at least to me. But I would agree with Ladd. If something for real comes in and it's something that we're comfortable with, we're not going to, I mean I'm personally not going to shove the road all the way down to Highway 5 but, as Ladd is saying, if the layout is such that you need to put a bend in there or something to get it around a hole, I can see that minor modifications but nothing major. Farmakes: If we were talking about his proposal exactly, I would not entertain any other uses though except a golf course. Conrad: Correct. Farmakes: He had some other uses that were envisioned there including a large space, building yet to be determined. Conrad: Well there was some strange stuff. Farmakes: But recreational golf area between... Scott: Why don't we take this, can we take this as one motion or three? Ledvina: No, three. Scott: Okay. Well, who wants to start? 72 L I A Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: What would you recommend? Aanenson: Obviously number one's been amended... Ledvina: Okay, well I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Number 1. Affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton- Aschman. Scott: It's been moved. Harberts: And second. Scott: Is there a second? Yes. It's been moved and seconded that we affirm the preferred Alternative #1 as stated by Matt. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton- Aschman. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: And your reason? Farmakes: I don't support Alternative #1. Scott: Same as during the discussion prior to this? Farmakes: Correct. For reasons already stated. Scott: Okay. Is there another motion? Ledvina: I would move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Recommending approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as discussed in detail this evening, and we had several discussions on the items that were identified by the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 73 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study as extensively modified. Is there any discussion? No discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as modified during the previous discussion of the issues outlined by the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Ledvina: Well I'll finish it off. I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion for the approval of the Ordinance Establishing the Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications as discussed this evening. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the ordinance of the corridor districts. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ordinance Establishing Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications discussed during the previous issues outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: And your thoughts Diane? Harberts: Public transit needs to be further flushed out and we'll do it at the Council level. Scott: I'm sure you will. Motion carries. Due to the hour, unless there's some significant administrative approvals or first of all, we'll accept the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 1994 as presented. Scott: Unless there's any objection. Yes ma'am Mancino: We just need a calendar for our attendance at City Council meetings for '94. 74 P 17 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Scott: Good. Matt mentioned that. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss ' Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 75 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION t REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1994 `" ` `' [I Ll 1 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Planner H; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO S UBDIVIDE 37 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 57 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AN D LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Public Present: Name Address JoAnn Hallgren William J. Wiele Larry Wenzel Dave Headla Keith Bedford Charles Cruickshank Jeffrey Adams Bonnie & Terry Labatt Harold Taylor Janet Carlson Sue Morgan Linda Scott Jerry L. Kortgard Allen Karls Paul Harstad 6860 Minnewashta Parkway 6860 Minnewashta Parkway 6900 Minnewashta Parkway 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 3961 Stratford Ridge 3921 Stratford Ridge 3960 Stratford Ridge 3981 Stratford Ridge 3861 Stratford Ridge 4141 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 3901 Glendale Drive 3920 Stratford Ridge Harstad Companies Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay. This looks almost identical to the same subdivision or preliminary plat that was proposed, I think we looked at this in. July? Aanenson: June. Scott: June of last year. Did you make the applicant aware of your objections to the preliminary plat? Aanenson: They were given the original staff report with our recommendation of denial on the. Scott: But did the applicant come back to you offering to adjust lot sizes, re- situate the ' proposed park, provide any alternatives for access to the three lots that abut Lake Minnewashta Parkway? Have they responded in any way to those? Aanenson: The one issue that they did respond to, as you recall the issue on Kings Road ... the only right -of -way we have through there ... So they did establish where that line was ... and from that line have gone, gotten 35 feet of right -of -way. So that's one issue that we...resolve. As far as the other issues... Scott: Okay. So we haven't gotten a response from the applicant, or are they basically of the opinion that this is the way it is? Aanenson: Yeah, except the location of the right -of- way... Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Mancino: ...100% identical to the way it was presented last June. Have there been any changes whatsoever? I'm kind of reiterating I guess. Aanenson: Except for the Kings Road. Mancino: Except for that, okay. Ledvina: The lot sizes, street layout, everything is the same, right? Scott: Yeah, because Matt pointed out that the plans that we received in our packets are dated 6/7193 so that probably would indicate. Any other questions or comments from the Planning Commissioners. Would the applicant or the representation choose to address the Planning Commission? Please state your name and your address. Paul Harstad: I'm Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. Our office address is 2191 Silver Lake Road in New Brighton. We are aware that we resubmitted the plat with very little, if any changes and frankly as a representative of the company I'm here to tell you that that was done intentionally. It was intentionally done because, as we understand it there are, of what we consider the two larger issues, namely the park and I suppose the right -of -way, but mostly the park. We were informed that the park, there were a number of different options and the purchaser- developer suggested this as one of the three options and got the ball rolling in terms of the design aspect of the project and then brought it to the city and was rejected on i Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1 that ground, among the others. In fact in the literature of the staff reports, I believe by the Park Commission, it says that final plat approval will be denied unless this change regarding the park takes place. If that's to be done, then we consider it a condemnation case and it is ' no longer in my hands, or frankly my company's hands. It will be in the lawyer's hands. So that's our intent and that's the reason behind it. I'm sorry that the people that were notified for the public hearing have to waste their time going through this again. It's not our intention I to inconvenience people. Farmakes: Are you stating that your sole intent on bringing this back again, it's your belief I that the only stated objection to this plan was the park issue? Paul Harstad: I'm aware that there are a number of different issues with the lot layout and ' that sort of thing that frankly are somewhat common in developing these things. I'm sure the P!., ming Commission is aware that these things happen frequently. But we made a decision ?o even go ahead with making any changes until we resolve the larger one, namely the ' k. There was no sense in our wasting the engineer's time, or really even the staff's time in re- reviewing the plat. ' Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and could I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved Ledvina seconded too en the public hearing. All voted in favor and � P P g the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. ' Scott: If there's anyone here, if they'd like to speak in favor of or against this particular preliminary plat ... state your name and your address and if you happen to have any exhibits that you'd like to bring, we have a couple of cameras. We'll try to help you position your exhibits so they can be shown for the record. So, if anybody would like to speak, please come forward. ' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments? Matt. Ledvina: Well, this is the same plan so I share the opinions that the staff has regarding many of the deficiencies. I don't know that it's appropriate for me to comment on the park issue. I don't have a good feeling for all the information and the philosophy of the requirement for ' that and we defer generally to the Park Commission on those items so I guess beyond that I don't have anything else to say. Scott: So you would support the staff recommendation for denial? . I Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1 Ledvina: Yes. I Scott: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendation of denial. I Scott: Nancy. ' Mancino: Ditto. I also support the staff recommendation for denial. Scott: Okay. I also support the staff recommendation for denial. Can I have a motion ' please? Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission deny the request for the Harstad Companies ' Subdivision #93 -11 based on the following findings, which is 1 with a, b, c, d, e, f, which are all the staff's recommendations. ' Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. ' Mancino moved Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny the request for Harstad Companies Subdivision #93 -11 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the following Zoning Ordinances: a. Chapter 20, Article VII Shoreland Overlay District, Sections 20 -476 and 18 -60. There are 20 lots that are deficient in lot area or frontage requirements. b. Section 18- 57(1). Three (3) lots have direct access onto a collector street. c. Section 18 -57. Kings Road and Street "E" are not consistent with the city's Street Design Standards. I d. Section 18 -63. The drainage plan is inadequate to accommodate runoff generated from the subdivision. ' e. Sections 18 -40 and 18 -61. The applicant has provided insufficient data to review the adequacy of the subdivision; specifically, for determination of tree preservation and potential environmental damages. i Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 f. Section 18 -79. Parkland Dedication. The applicant has ignored the city's Park and Recreation Commission recommendation for parkland dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Could you please tell us when this will be at the next? ' Aanenson: February 28th. Scott: February 28th? Good. PUBLIC HEARING: I ANDREW HISCOX TO REPLAT PART OF LOTS 14.15 AND ALL OF LOT 16, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #2 INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND VACATION ' OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7500 ERIE AVENUE, HISCOX ADDITION. Public Present: ' Name Address I Andrew & Catherine Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue ' '- Betty McAllister 7510 Erie Avenue .i!Lhony Doppler 7508 Erie Avenue Larry J. Anderson 400 Cimarron Circle Tom Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. ' Scott: And could you please explain what a torrens proceeding is for those of us who may I not know what that is. Generous: It's a legal way for a property owner to clear up the legal description of their property basically. It says that on anything up to this point has been certified and we're registering this and this is our property boundaries. Scott: Okay. Just a show of hands. How many people are here regarding this issue who have concerns about where the actual property line might be? Okay. Should we approve this particular issue, one of the conditions is going to be that no construction or anything is going to happen until the actual legal description. So what's going to happen is that, as a condition, Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 if for some reason the issue of property boundaries is not resolved, the development will not be able to go forward. Okay. I still see some kind of quizzical looks. Why don't you take a swag at that. Generous: They will not receive any final approval until the legal question about the ro e P P m' lines has been resolved. And so they 'couldn't build another home there. They couldn't move ' forward with the subdivision until that issue has been resolved. And it's supposedly, I _ believe the applicant said, has stated that they believe that their case is later this month but I'll have them... Scott: Okay. Any commissioners have uestions of staff? Seem none would the applicant q g � PP like to address the Planning Commission? ' Andrew Hiscox: M name is Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. enue. The last time I was here on this issue was I think in 1987 when we started this process. And at that time the city asked us to go start a registration on the property to clean up a bunch of title issues. We've successfully done that over the last few years and feel that we're in pretty good shape ' here. The only issue that really is outstanding at this point that we don't have agreement in principle on, or in fact by talking is the association. Frontier Trail Association which adjoins our property. There is a dispute. It showed the drawing in the original ... If you look at that ' upper, the north corner of the property where the straights line across. We are registering property to the straight line which, if you look at that, there's a gravel path or boat launch that goes across the property. If you look at the requirements of subdivision for lakeshore ' property, we meet all those requirements without that piece of property so we feel like we're moving forward with something that, that that really should be a non -issue because we're not asking you to consider that. We're asking you to consider, what we show there, which gives ' the minimum requirements and exceeds them and I guess our opinion anyway is that we should be allowed this. That's all I've got to say. t Scott: Is there a possibility, depending upon how the lot lines get officially mapped. Is there a possibility that the people from the Frontier Association are going to be denied access to the lake? What's the, you know from your point of view, what is the issue as you see it with regard to the homeowners association? Andrew Hiscox: The issue was in '86. The then Carver County Surveyor, Ted Cavanaugh ' from Schoell and Madsen, told us we could go ahead with this. He was okay with it and approved it subject to easements for the actual boat launch. We proceeded with notification of...and the Frontier Trail Association answered and we hadn't negotiated the easement on it. That was really the issue. But the easement really, and the issue seems to be anyway, from what we can tell, the boat launch and where their dock is and that sort of thing. Last year the Frontier Trail Association approval hearing, when the city went through and reviewed all the associations around Chanhassen, this one came up. It does not have enough lakeshore to L� Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1 �1 ' meet the minimum requirements but it was approved because it's a nice association. It works well. In fact we are members of the association. So we're kind of in an interesting position where we're kind of fighting ourselves. We have 1 /20th, I don't know whatever it is now. ' Maybe 1/22 interest in the association, yet we're kind of at odds with them over this issue. So we're just trying to get it resolved. We've talked to the association. We've made some offers. We're kind of in negotiation right now on how that gets closed but at this point we're ' nit asking to consider that. If you look at what we're going to register and what's shown O z _ c� � , it should be a non - issue. The boat launch and the dock are on their property. 're not questioning that... , Scott: Okay. Bob, could you sketch that in a little bit better to maybe help orient us as to what's going on. Generous: Well the dock area is somewhat over here and this is that gravel road, the boat launch that they're talking about. He's showing the line for his subdivision actually south of , where that boat launch area is. I believe the contention is in this area in here. How much the association believes should be provided them. ' Mancino: Go over and above the 12 foot drive area. They think it should come south even more? , Generous: They think they should have more land to the south. .;; . A,nd the easement sir that you're talking about is the ability for you to leave, or res t L. " 4 .- ve the subdivision and have an easement to the launch that is part of the homeowner -> < � ­_-i.ation? ' Andrew Hiscox: No. The reason the easement was proposed was for the boat launch to go through our property. We are fee title owners of the property per many surveys showing that we do own the corner. The City has agreed with us, at least at some time. Yes, it looks like ' you're the owner. Yes, the association does have a boat dock on your property. When we went to register the property, they answered. Therefore, I mean we're trying to avoid going ' to court on this. We tried to work it out with the association and quite frankly since last summer, haven't gotten a lot of feedback from them. So we've decided to move forward. We were able to acquire enough property to meet the minimum requirements and thought that , this would be kind of a moot point. The association, as I understand it, is trying to be in the process of going out and getting their own survey done. There have been at least 4 different surveys of this property done over the years and consistently they show that this is where the ' lot line's running. Rather than fight and go to court and then spend a lot of money, both my own and part of my own for the association, we thought this would be a good compromise. It should resolve the issue. We're not asking that you consider that piece of the property. ' That is where, I think, the controversy would be. �1 1 L u� fl 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: So then, following the good neighbor doctrine. If the torrens proceedings show that you in fact own the property across which the association has access to the lake, then you would be in a situation of negotiating an easement for them. Andrew Hiscox: We've already offered that. Aanenson: ...when we were talking about the beachlot. He was willing to agree to that... Scott: Okay, good. Okay. Any other questions? Farmakes: I have one question. On the narrowest part of the property, when you're talking about access paths down to the lake. The narrowest part is 7,500. I believe it's the property then on the left as I look at it. What is the width on that narrowest part? What are you talking about, 30 feet? Generous: I think it's 63 feet, wasn't it? Andrew Hiscox: I have a number on this. It's to scale. I think we could guesstimate it pretty easily. Farmakes: Is there currently access there? How do you access that property? Andrew Hiscox: How do I get from the house down to the lake? Farmakes: Yeah. Andrew Hiscox: There's a path. Farmakes: Is it an unimproved path? Or is it just kind of a deer trail down through the woods? Andrew Hiscox: Yeah. It's a rather steep hill. Mancino: It's a very steep hill. Andrew Hiscox: We also have access via the road. Because we are members of the Association, there is an entrance to the association off of Frontier Trail and for the most part, we typically go down there. Farmakes: Do you envision expanding that trail or no? Not necessarily. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1 Andrew Hiscox: One thing I should mention. We show on here, kind of by mistake, that , there is an easement up on the top of...and down that path and that, at one point we had offered a couple of the neighbors the use of that easement to get down to the association in , exchange for vacation of another easement they own. ...made a financial settlement instead so that really probably should be erased from there. In fact that will be taken off the final plat. Mancino: And where are you talking about the walkway easement? ' Andrew Hiscox: Yes. , Mancino: The 10 foot that goes through Block 1? Andrew Hiscox: Correct. , Mancino: So that's not going to be built? ' Andrew Hiscox: No. , Mancino: And you're not going to give them the easement, okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Do you have anything else you'd like to add? , Andrew Hiscox: No. I just want to encourage the, you folks to approve this and sort of get ' going with it. We've been working on this for about 7 years now. And the last time we did this, I think one of the statements in the findings was that the city welcomed this ... we're adding lots to the value here. We're giving you another property that you can collect taxes from and... Scott: Okay. Thank you for your comments. If anybody would like to talk to the Planning ' Commission, please step forward. Give us your name, your address and let us know what's on your mind ... welcome to speak. Larry Anderson: I'm Larry Anderson ... ex-President of Frontier Trail Association and just ' wanted to clarify on the map, if you could throw it back up for one second. Basically what the dispute is, as far as with the association. I've got a couple of copies to share. Basically ' the original plot that we had showed the line at 156 feet. When Mr. Hiscox laid it out the first time, in I believe 1987, was the first plot you had done. He adjusted that line to 158 feet and if you look at the current plot that he's got now in front of you, he's adjusted that ' line to 169 feet. Continually moving over. Whatever he's needed to get required frontage. That's the dispute. I only wish to call it to your attention and I believe with the attorneys and others, that's what's going to have to be resolved in the torrens proceedings. Thank you. n L Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? I'll let the record show that no one else would like to address the Planning Commission. May I have a motion please? To close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Bob, I have a question for you. I wanted to get your opinion on something. In the staff report on page 3, you made a suggestion that our preservation easement would be a benefit on this parcel. And I think it's on that back half that's so steep for erosion purposes, etc. And in your final recommendations you didn't include that so I wondered why. Generous: There were two reasons. We did have a discussion on that. If we made it a conservation easement, they would not be able to do any clearing for view or anything to gain access from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill. So instead we took the shoreland regulations put strict requirements on what vegetation can be ... We're also, as one of the recommendations say that before they come in for any permitting to gain access to the lake, they actually develop a tree removal plan and we think that will preserve the majority of those trees ... access to the lake from their property. Mancino: So they could put a walkway system down to the lake. Aanenson: There's also view corridors. Mancino: The views, okay. But you'll keep a watchful eye with the erosion. Other than that, I'm just fine with the subdivision. I went to the property and it looks like a gorgeous place to have a home. Scott: Good. Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this issue. I Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Just following up on Nancy's comment. The shoreland ordinance. Now that's not passed yet, is that correct? That's in the works? Okay. Aanenson: We adopted the DNR standards though. Ledvina: Okay, you have? Alright. Mancino: Which were stricter. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. We're in the processing of modifying the new city ordinance... I Ledvina: Okay. So there is an ordinance in effect at this point. And what is the setback requirement as it relates to vegetation? In terms of pruning and things like that and limited. Generous: Well it's half of the setback of the building which is 75 feet is the setback. Shoreland setback... After that they can't do any. Ledvina: Okay, so whatever. It looks to be about, roughly 300 feet so there'd be 150 feet , then right? Aanenson: No, it's the building setback which is 75 feet from the high water mark. Generous: The conditions that we're putting on the subdivision require them to have a larger ' setback than the building. They have to actually stay above the 958 contour. And then if they did anything below that, they'd have to come in for... Ledvina: Okay. So in that instance we're really concerned about, well first of all from the , high water mark, we don't even make the hill. So we're really relying on our tree ' plan in terms of getting to make sure we're preserving the vegetation there that we think is important or significant. Okay. Well that's fine. I dust was wondering about that. Other than that I would support the staff recommendations. I Scott: Okay. And I support the staff recommendations as well. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ' preliminary plat Case #87 -31 SUB for 2.88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of road easement to create three single family lots subject to the recommendations in the staff report. ' Recommendations 1 thru 10 with the addition of an 11th condition which states as follows: The torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 1 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation. Is there any discussion? I Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat #87 -31 SUB for 2.88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of ' road easement to create three single family lots subject to the following conditions: �1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Drainage swales should be constructed to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed building to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel. 2. Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to construction and maintained ' until the site is fully revegetated. 3. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection hookup fees, the city will extend the sewer and water service to the southerly property line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to. 4. An existing overhead power line should be relocated underground along the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedicated drainage and utility easement. ' 5. Final plat shall dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing 15 foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. The final plat shall dedicate 5 foot wide side yard and 10 foot front and rear drainage and utility easements ' on each lot. 6. The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. Additionally, a development contract containing these conditions shall be entered into between the developer and the city and be recorded with the final plat. 7. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. 8. Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas and permitted water oriented accessory structures is permitted below the 958 contour. 9. The house pad shall be limited to an area above the 958 contour. 10. Park and trail fees are required of this development. One -third (1/3) of such fees shall be payable at the time of building permit application at the rate in force at the time, less any fees paid at the time of platting. 11. Torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval. ' All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ; PUBLIC HEARING: I CITY OF C IS PROPOSING TO MITIGATE A WETLAND FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF I YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LANE. Public Present: Name Address Steve Syverson 760 Preakness Lane Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: From reading the staff report here I know there's a number of people who have got property there and there's a nice view. At least in my mind it doesn't feel, it doesn't trigger me that after one growing season that anybody's going to be able to tell really that you've done that work, except one of the area's going to be open. It's going to be a lot deeper. So , the visual impact of that particular wetland is not going to be significant. Hempel: That's correct. It's our intent to go out and actually stake it in the field to minimize any kind of tree loss. Vegetation in that area, there is a variety of underbrush. There are some willow, there are some older trees. There are no significant trees which you're removing from the project. It is our intent to, these ponding areas that we're going to ' be creating are to NURP standards where you can have a ... create a habitat of vegetation or the wetland characteristics. That will be a 3 or 4 to 1 slope so approximate depth of 5 to 6 teei in the middle. You're correct. One growing season of vegetation it should re- establish ' itself and create more open water into two areas. Provide more... Mancino: I have a question Dave. This is going to filter and clean the storm water runoff so ' that in so many years, in 10 years do you have to go back in and do the same thing? Excavate and is this an ongoing process that is going to take place as it fills back up? ' Hempel: That's partially correct. That's our purpose here is to create three water bodies. The major collecting area will be a sediment pond proposed just east, or excuse me, just west ' of Carver Beach. Collect the bulk of the storm water off of it right now just drains directly into the wetland area instead of...It's our intent to create that holding area just on the edge of the wetland to collect these sediments so that is the area that we constantly have cleaned so ' we don't have to go back into these other larger open areas to maintain and clean out them. Trying to collect the ... before it gets further down in the downstream. ' Mancino: Do I want any of this excavation on my garden? I can see that it's going to s r Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 wear... Scott: Al Klingelhutz' property. Yeah, 86th Street. Hempel: Actually I have a couple of sites proposed. That would be one that would be proposed. Also ... home being built and there's a back yard that's going to need a lot of fill type of materials... Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing. If any members of the public, if you two would like to address the Planning Commission, please do and just let us know who you are and where you live and you can say whatever's on your mind. 1 r� Steve Syverson: I'm Steve Syverson. I live 760 Preakness Lane. I've just got a question as far as if there's going to be any standing water that you anticipate in these ponds or if they're going to be kind of what's there now. Kind of a wetting, kind of weeping... Hempel: There will be movement through the ponding area as the rain and precipitation occurs. These will be essentially the holding ponds and water will be filtering or migrating through the soils as well as the vegetation downstream. Steve Syverson: So there will always be water in them or will they be basically weeping on down? Hempel: We envision that they'll be containing water 99% of the time. Steve Syverson: My concern was like during the winter when we've got a drop in water and the ice is up. Kids fall down there and we've got about 45 -50 in the neighborhood and they all like to come down there and play. I just didn't want to make any hazards out of them so that was my concern. Hempel: That's a good point. Our thoughts were... continual migration of ground water through there that the ponding area should maintain that level through there. Scott: Also that, it's usually a 10:1 slope so it's from the edge of the pond. It's got a fairly gradual slope and then it goes to 3:1 or 4:1, depending upon what you need to accomplish. Steve Syverson: Right, but at times we're going to be up to like 5 feet. Hempel: In the middle. There's also a ... control structure on ... areas that provide us some latitude to adjust the water level. If necessary if we needed to clean the pond... Steve Syverson: Would that be a fixed place or would that be something that you'd either Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 adjust... Hempel: I've got a diagram of it here actually. It's the storm sewer manhole, it's a board that controls the height... Mancino: Do we put signs up you know in the winter to say be careful for water? I Hempel: Essentially there's like a wire type structure in the middle of the manhole that controls the water. The water comes in one end and has to come up over the boards to go ' over so this controls the elevation of the water in the pond. So if you take the boards out, the water level also goes down. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? ' Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved Farmakes seconded to close the ublic hearing. All voted in favor and ' P g th motion carried. The public hearing was closed. rarmakes: I support the staff recommendations. I have no comments. Ledvina: Do we have an estimate of the cost of this project Dave? ' Hempel: My understanding, the entire projected cost for this is around $80,000.00. ...as we ' go out to stake and field these sites, these ponds and excavation may be less. Ledvina: Will this be a big project? I Hempel: This project is, in an effort to preserve our funds in the SWAMP budget, the public works department will proceed to rent equipment to dredge out the material with the labor I and manpower to do the work. Ledvina: Okay, and are there other funding sources? This is an environmental improvement ' project essentially and as I'm aware, if we have the lottery and there are, or I should say the purpose of the funds generated from the lottery is to be for these types of environmental improvement projects. Have we looked at that at all? ' Hempel: To be honest, no. I haven't... potential of. That's a very good question. I will pass it onto Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator to research... ' Ledvina: Are those funds distributed through DNR then or how, I don't know. I guess I'm ignorant about that. ' Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Hempel: To be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable. Ledvina; Okay. Well, just whatever. This is pretty innovative in terms of city's going ahead ' and doing these types of projects and it is a public works project and I believe those funds are for this type of activity so maybe there's a potential there. That's it. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Just one quick question Dave. Do we ever put signs out that say, designs for ponds in the winter to make sure that the ice is? ' Hempel: I can't think of any in the city that we have any ... Surely that's something that we could do. We're in the process of requiring some of the developments of these wetlands. Buffer strip edges. We're going to be putting up monumentation to every other property lines essentially to denote the edge of the buffer. Mancino: That might be something for us to think about. Hempel: It could be. ' Mancino: Because it could be such a natural wildlife area in there too. Ledvina: What, you're talking about the ice in terms of safety? I guess we have ice everywhere. I mean we have lakes and all this and we don't put signs every 50 feet all along the edge of the lakeshore. I think that certainly there's hazards there but there's also. Mancino: I think sometimes when there hasn't been any ice there before and there's just been ground water. There hasn't been a pond. I'm just wondering if that would necessitate putting it there maybe for the first year or something so the people know. It's different than it was. Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and if there was a specific hazard associated with the ice with the change in water level or something like that, that would. You know not your normal ice hazards. Thin ice hazards or whatever, then I would say yeah. We should take some special consideration but if, you know I think it's, as Dave has laid out the design for us, I think it's a pretty safe design as it relates to the shallow slope along the edges and that type of layout so I understand the concern but personally I don't see the need for it. Hempel: I also believe that after the first year this area is going to be pretty well grown in again and if you've been in the area, it's not very conducive to walking. It's very heavily underbrushed and so forth. It's difficult to get. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ' Scott: Okay, can I have. a motion please. Mancino: Let's see. I move that the Planning Commission approve the Wetland Alteration ' Permit #94 -1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993 with the following conditions. 1, 2 and 3 attached. ' Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: I second it. ' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation.' I Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. A grading and land alteration permit be obtained from the Watershed District. 2. A permit be obtained from the Corps according to the federal rules listed above. , 3. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval. ' All voted in favor, except Joe Scott abstained. After the following discussion, Joe Scott changed his vote to in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' Scott: This is going to the City Council? Ledvina: Who abstained? Scott: I did. It's adjacent to my neighborhood so I'm not voting. ' Hempel: February 28th. Scott: Old Business? New Business? , Aanenson: Would you like me to just walk through the Director's Report? I Scott: Sure. We have a few minutes. Ledvina: I ust had a question. If you abstain from voting, do we have a quorum? , J 1 u r F_- J Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: I was going to raise that same issue. Scott: Well, we have a neighbor from the residence. A neighbor. Are you from? Audience: No. Scott: Okay. Well, probably the authority would be Mr. Syverson and if you have a, we won't be able to get this through our proceeding unless I vote and I abstained because I live in the neighborhood. Would you have a problem if I voted on this issue? Steve Syverson: No. Scott: Okay. Let the record show that the resident of that neighborhood does not object to my voting so I will change my vote from abstain to aye, which would mean that it passes unanimously. Thank you sir. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Okay. Just go through the Council issues... administrative packet. The Council recommended denial of the Papke variance. Scott: We didn't see it. Aanenson: That was a Board of Adjustments. The issue there was whether or not ... sewer extended. That's the island across from the Arboretum. Council felt that it would be best to have sanitary sewer and thus denied the request. Council authorized staff to submit the RALF loan application...Frank Fox property... Powers Blvd. Council reviewed the elementary school site. That same night they were also, HGA was also giving a presentation to the School District so unfortunately the graphs or renderings for the meeting were at the school site so the Council tabled it and they will be on their work study session, which Paul has on here is the 31st but it's actually February 7th. Next Monday they will be there. Council actually went through the analysis of the project but they didn't have the site plans so... Matt, this goes to the question you were talking about. The conservation money that's available through the lottery. A grant application has been submitted. Paul has put a copy of that in your packet here. It's $777,000.00 and that's for the Bluff Creek corridor study, and that's where Paul is tonight. He's meeting with the Watershed. There's a copy of that. Whether that ... over that Riley- Purgatory Watershed District with the acquisition property ... they've already purchased. They would also want...at that time a trailhead access as really an important piece and we want to do a joint venture and make sure that we can... Ledvina: Now who are the applications made to? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ' Aanenson: It's in conjunction with the DNR. I Ledvina: So the DNR... I Aanenson: We asked for specific acquisition and we identified the Bluff Creek Corridor... and Diane and Paul put this together so you can see the... I Mancino: Education? Aanenson: Yeah. The natural flora fauna out there. Education. The fact that it's a real ... and ' it's got some unique vegetation. Ledvina: When is the next meeting on the Bluff Creek corridor task force? Do you know? Aanenson: This group? t Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: I'm not sure it's kind of ad hoc. People that are putting it together. I think if we get some funding, there will certainly be some, are you talking about the city? Ledvina: Yeah. The city task force. ' Mancino: Because we went to one. ' Ledvina: Yeah. ' ,zvas hind of ad hoc to put something together. I'm not sure. This goes back .i w' clam: Shay an environmental commission, I think it may come out of that. Or if in conjunction with recreation... engineering, so I'm not sure that that's going to be constantly ' ongoing or how Paul sees that as coming together. Mancino: I got the impression it was going to be. ' Ledvina: Long term. 1 Mancino: It's a long term project obviously but it's going to be a Bluff Creek task force to work just on that Aanenson: Right. Mancino: At one time. I mean that was about a month ago. Maybe it's changed. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Ledvina: I was just wondering what's the status there. 1 Aanenson: It's kind of a kick off too to get this going. To get the grant application going SO. Ledvina: Okay. That's fine. I'm interested in knowing more and keeping up with that so I can attend meetings. ' Aanenson: Okay. I mentioned number 5, the purchase of that property. And then number 6. After our grueling last Planning Commission meeting. The Highway 5 plans are going to the City Council also on that work study session. So they'll start that document and they have not yet set a date for their reviewing at a formal City Council meeting but it's... Mancino: Kate, would they want people that were in on the task force from the Planning 1 Commission there or is it much easier just? Aanenson: This one was not noticed out as far as, you know they're trying to keep it just a 2 ' hour and they've got several things on that night. There were City Council people there that night too. You may just want to call the Mayor and see what he says. That's all I have as far as administrative. ' Ledvina: Is there, as it related to the review of the new elementary school, was there any discussion about or regarding our discussion of the Planning Commission? I mean there were a lot of things that they looked at in terms of the site plan and I'm just wondering why they got so deep into it. ' Aanenson: Yes. Paul, did tell them as far as the presentations needed to be modified to go to the Council because there was obviously, they didn't a good job of communicating what the issues were. And something I can understanding with landscaping but also... Mancino: Landscaping and the parking lot. Scott: Parking for the public recreational facilities. ' Aanenson: Right. And Paul has been working with them and that has been resolved so I think it's a clear understanding. It will be ... school district's obligations and what's the City's going to...My understanding is that has been resolved. Ledvina: Okay. I Scott: Any ongoing items? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 , Mancino: This is a list of ongoing issues? I Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: When are we going to be seeing the sign ordinance? Aanenson: That's on for the first meeting in March. And so is temporary sales and we've got a couple of the ordinances, make some changes to the wetland ordinance that need to be corrected and also there's—that you wanted to see on large scale projects. We're trying to find that working with the attorneys office, whether we want to use computer ... or some videos and also with that... recommendations. So you'll see those four and at least the two. The temporary sales and the sign ... The other two shortly thereafter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: Alright. Can I have a motion to approve rove the Minutes of our January 19th meeting. g Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission a.ing dated January 19, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. -ji-EN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. ' Scott: Open discussion on structured care facilities. Aanenson: Given the ... to look at this issue almost two years ago. State law requires group homes of less than 6 ... We looked at possibly expanding that and developing a definition of what we call a residential care facility, vis a vis maybe foster homes for charity, women , shelters, residential programs. We didn't want to look at juvenile, criminal type things but maybe expanding that where ... so we proposed an amendment to the ordinance that would allow these in the single family district. We have ... and the Planning Commission was reluctant to adopt it as ... We're now required by State law to do that. Well since that time, most recently I've given you a letter from the Church—There's a group called Westonka Intervention that's looking at a site over, a women's shelter. Right now they're operating out of an individual's home and this serves, it's my understanding that the Chaska, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Chanhassen area and they're looking for a location. It just so happens they found a building, a church in Mound, a Catholic Church has a building that they can relocate on this site. The site we're talking about here is Holy Cross Church, which is just south of Highway 7. Scott: So you'd physically move a structure. Aanenson: It's like the convent. The old convent. They actually take that building off of LI I Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 that property and move it onto this site. It provides a women's shelter. Scott: What is that site zoned, RSF? Aanenson: Residential Single Family. So right now there's no mechanism to allow that to happen. It's not a permitted use. It's a residential care facility which is not a permitted use or a conditional use in our city's ordinances. Scott: How many residents? Aanenson: Well I didn't ask that question ... What we looked at before was allowing up to 6. Scott: But that's the State mandate. Aanenson: No, no, no. Scott: In RSF. Aanenson: Group homes. A residential care facility is a womens shelter which doesn't fall under—group home. Scott: Yeah, it's extremely important because when someone, and I was very happy to see something in here that said that if a Judge says you have to be there, we don't want any of those. And I think it's extremely important that as this moves forward, that we do not use the term group home at all and only use licensed residential care facility and I thought that that's an excellent description. I think it's extremely important. Maybe what you could do is take the last sentence. This definition does not include any person recommended by Court order or otherwise to such facility. That sentence needs to be the first sentence in that thing. And I think, I mean I appreciate the fact that we're being proactive on this but I think resident's reactions to group homes, and even though we do have a group home in the city, most people don't know about it. But I think that's real important. Aanenson: Well the reason for bringing that to you tonight is one, get your feedback is one. Do you want to consider amending the zone to allow this type of thing because it's not in place right now. Two, I know you're concerned about amending an ordinance based on one specific application and we put together that criteria here on as far as phasing ... and I'm not even sure it meets those criteria. I haven't sat down and put those together. Put the measure to it. But what we're saying is, is this something you want to think about and he wants to know if there's a window of opportunity here or not so what I'm asking is some sort of direction. Scott: Comments. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ' Mancino: I have some questions at first. This is a big thing. I Aanenson: It is. Mancino: I believe philosophically we are our's brothers keeper and that there are a lot of people out there that need help. And it shouldn't be all done in the city, so yes. I would like ' to support some sort of a care facility. What I need though is a better or clearer definition of what a supportive living center is. What a residential program is. What a womens shelter is. Does that include children. What are schools for handicapped children? I mean we're talking about such big terms to me and I don't know what all that means. Farmakes: The ordinance and, from even coming up at the State level. I was here also, as my memory serves a couple years ago we dealt with this. A lot of the discussions are really frocked with spin doctor words on what these are and often they use different terms to refer to the same type of thing to make it more palatable. The issue of the intent that we discussed from the mandate from the State was, as you said, the community has an obligation to take care of it's own rather than send it to another community or concentrate it in another community. An allegation, the example that was used was the area of Chicago just south of Hennepin County Medical where there's a large congregation of group homes and halfway houses. We're talking about roughly a 6 block area. Ignoring the fact however that these are adjacent to the clinics and Hennepin County services that serves these areas. They happen to ' be geographically located there because of the county facility is located there. But using that as an idea, when they produced this law, what concerned me about it at the time was the 4 ts.c, and even from the Federal government on down has essentially turned it's back on , s signifiI;:nt portions of our population. The issue of mental health first. In the interest of economy, they have de- institutionalized many of the health facilities that we have. And my concern about this issue that we look at here is, is it in the interest of the State to turn it's back to the community as they have so often when they come up short on the economy front. And they turn the problems back to the community and that was my worry here that that really was what was happening and that was not listed out in the intent statement. There are obviously issues of handicapped and group shelters and stuff like that that go beyond that. But what I was concerned about is the institutional cost of some members of our community, ' and I'm referring to the State in general, of sort of throwing these people to the wind and letting them go because it happens to be cost them 3 times less to stick them in a single family community. That a single family community has the ability to deal with that. I'm not sure that in some cases that we do. It concerned me that again, it was dictated down without the time or care to consider do we have the ability, in some cases, to deal with some of this. And I'm talking about policing and enforcement. It's just putting people on board it seems to me in some cases would not be sufficient to guarantee safety. And in responding to the issues, well if they violate or they run from the program, well they're out of the program. That doesn't do it for me. There are issues of defining, I'm not sure this was ever answered for me. Mental health. It's a very broad term. I mean does that mean sexual offenders? - 1 L Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Does that mean people who are depressed? You know I'm not knowledgeable enough about the group home industry to really give an answer to that and I'm not sure in the discussion that we ever were able to get definitions for these issues and that really worries me because I see the State trying to divest itself, some of their responsibilities and when I see that coupled with for profit, that concerns me. Aanenson: I think you're right. I think that's why it just got left the way it was and there were too many unresolved issues. Mancino: Where do we go to get, I mean social services, where do we go to get definitions on you know, what these different groups are? What they're called so we could be, so that we can make the definitive list of what we feel comfortable with or at least recommend a list. ' Aanenson: M understanding these are State terminology. Y g Mancino: But then they must have a definition of exactly what. Aanenson: Right and that's... talking of the earlier model ordinance. Where this came from and the City Attorney reviewed this when we looked at this before and what we tried to do is have some criteria you know for spacing. So you make sure that they're not in the middle of a residential. That they're near a collector ... and the instance that we had on the ... at the American Baptist over on Highway 5 ... talked about the Highway 5 corridor study is Rolling Acres has a couple of homes and ... for mentally handicapped children. We had one that went in last summer that caused a lot of consternation for some of the neighbors... Mancino: If, I mean my other and my first issue is getting a clear definition of exactly what ' these area. My other one is that when I asked a few people, just friends what their and neighbors, what was their immediate response. The first one was obviously safety. The second one was property value. What does happen, perception is reality. Is the reality the perception that property values will go down if the group home comes in? And so, if it does, do we want to expand that to include other group homes than what is already legislated? I mean because we're opening the universe up, is what you're asking us correct? Aanenson: Yeah. We are expanding the definition. Mancino: And expand the definition or open up the universe. So what is it with, as I said, with property values and a neighborhood when a group home comes in when you have an established neighborhood? Aanenson: I guess that's... Scott: Could you, for next time. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ` Mancino: Isn't there anything quantifiable? 1 Scott: I'm just thinking, could you run, I thought that the ordinance of the proposed guidelines that you had were pretty good. Could you run that against the property? I mean I just kind of skimmed through this letter. It didn't really give me a sense for what's going on. ' Aanenson: No. I didn't raise this because I did spend a lot of time. I had someone come in and say you know, can you just give me an answer. Can you run it past the powers that be , and so it's really here just to get some sounding from you. If you want something pursued. If you say I'm uncomfortable with this. I don't want, I really don't want you to spend any time—or if it's something you want us to investigate. ' Scott: Yeah, I'm just looking here. It says we have until the end of March this year to move the structure. I mean that's a fairly tight time line. And if we do nothing, they won't be able to site the. Aanenson: They'll have to find another location. Scott: Okay. I guess my, knowing how long it takes to do, to get through something like this. At least having a sense for it. We won't be able to resolve it or make any changes by that time frame so I guess, my recommendation would be, and please. If you don't agree, :::ase speak up. Would be to get back to these people and just say that there really isn't any way that we're going to be able to meet their time frame by the end of March and that it would probably behoove them to look for another location because that's really not enough time for us to react to it. Even with, when you think about having it come back in a public hearing. Then going to the City Council. It's going to be past the end of March anyway. ' Mancino: But I am still interested. Scott: Well yeah. That's why we could use this as a test case to say, here's a real piece of property in a real situation. But I wouldn't want to have them spend any more time on it. , Farmakes: There is a home I believe in Prior Lake, or Shakopee, that went through this I think a year ago. In a large residential area and they brought a group home. You may want to follow through with that and see how that was resolved. It was in the paper of an issue on the government level of public hearing but it was not, did not make the paper on how it was resolved so I didn't follow that through. But one of the things that I was able to garnish, in talking to some people that are in community health, the issue of institutional costs. It cost the State something like 80 some thousand dollars to institutionalize somebody. Mancino: One person? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: One individual. It costs them approximately $18 to do this in a group home facility so. Ledvina: Per year you're saying? Farmakes: Per year. So that's a generalization and they didn't define what that institutionalized cost was. Were they, what type of offender. Chemically dependent or group home type of situation. But my point to this is that we continue to get laws back from the State on this as they unload themselves with the cost of institution and typically what the State has done in the past, both in criminal justice and community services. They often have these mandates that follow down and it's usually in their financial interest and we pick up that burden. It continues to worry me that we get sort of the cart before the horse on these type of directives. And I'm not sure how we're ready to digest this. I know my questions weren't answered when we dealt with this 2 years ago. It certainly doesn't. Aanenson: No, I agree. There's a lot of issues. ' Ledvina: I think, I mean this is a real important ordinance and it's even more so for our community, as you mentioned with the type of individuals that live in our community. They're here for the single family residential life and they, many of them are not receptive to these types of things. But I guess what I would like to see done is say, now you mentioned the Minnetonka example and apparently the ordinance that we have in front of us represents a hybrid of that. I guess what I would like to see is more research done. Maybe even go back to the city of Minnetonka. Ask them where they have group homes that have been established under this ordinance. What actually are the case histories for those. For those sites and then I don't know if that will give you enough information. Maybe it really hasn't been tested there. Even almost to the point of going back to the Minutes and public hearings and things like that. Otherwise I'm sure you could do more research. I realize I'm just loading some stuff onto you in terms of your staff but. Aanenson: Actually we do have a lot of that stuff when we put the original, I didn't put the whole packet together for you. I just wanted to know if you wanted us to ... as far as getting the location. But as far as a lot of data ... we do have that and Roger wrote lengthy details on, Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, wrote a lengthy detailed analysis...so we can certainly provide you with that. ' Ledvina: So Y ou've done some of that research? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. But how about the case histories? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ` Aanenson: No, that's something we could use more info on... I Ledvina: And I'm only making this as a suggestion. I don't know if this is the appropriate way of going about it but it seems to me, to say how to you know just go back and look and see how things worked out. Farmakes: There was another intent issue. A directive from the State, as I understood it. The community has the obligation to take care of it's own community service type needs rather than burdening another community, defacto Minneapolis. I'm wondering also why the State then did not leave the window open, particularly in conjunction with for profit group facilities, to exclude residents from outside the community. In other words to, if you're going to allow a group home, to say well it's going to be for the residents of the community and not ship in people from elsewhere. It would seem to me that that would be in line with the intent of the State. The other thing that disturbed me, I believe the one in Shakopee was a Missouri based corporation and they were bringing in people from outside that community. Basically they were looking for a location. The other thing that worries me, we don't have this here but there are, I would think possibilities for this. Is that as we grow and perhaps maybe our medical facilities expand, that this type of thing may follow as a greater demand. nneapolis and this area is known for it's medical care. And in the foreseeable future I'm sure what those needs are. I know that the congregation of the one south of Hennepin , County is there because of it's location to medical facilities. And in many of these cases, both in the handicapped and chemically dependent, those are an issue. Ledvina: The thought of developing group homes for those within your community, I think that's a real good idea but I don't know how you can legislate that people not come in from other areas. Farmakes: I'm sure that that's why that was not part of the intent. However, on one hand it makes it palatable to sound good as a reason for the legislation. On the other hand, it leaves it open for profit. What you have here philosophically is a for profit enterprise coming into a single family zone. A business. And the owner does not necessarily have to be from the ' community and the patients don't necessarily have to be from the community. And I find that unpalatable. That it seems to me to go against the intent of the legislation. Ledvina: It's like taking a business and putting it into a RSF zone. i Farmakes: And the cost is greatly reduced so there are factors there that are in place that could make it a growth industry. You have certainly other institution parts of the State, both the prison system and chemical dependency and mental health that could create certainly concerns to both residents and the city's ability to police them. Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 1994 ' Mancino: Limit it to non -profit organizations. ' Aanenson: I was thinking the same thing. I can check with the City Attorney on that. Ledvina: That would be nice if you could do that. Scott: I think the two big things that I'm kind of getting out of here is, I think the people who move to this community probably are not so much so attracted to our community as leaving someplace else. And we all know why people like to come here and live here but I think the important points here are number one, having the not for profit. Number two, somebody who is sent to a facility by a Judge. We don't want that kind of stuff. And then number three, if there's some way where we're looking at, I don't know if you want to use regional, local. I don't know but the idea of like Minnetrista, Mound. I mean that I think is, fits the intent of people from the community area. I think if we had those three things. Farmakes: That would be legal I believe. Scott: Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking. And it could be, you know Roger I'm sure ' could work that out but are we at this point in time are we, have we discussed this to the point where we can give you some direction to get back to us? 1 Mancino: I still want to see economic bottom lines to property owners in the area. Aanenson: I think Matt made a good point when he... Mancino: What about Chuck, bringing Chuck in and talking a little bit about his. He certainly has the experiential level. Farmakes: The difference with this however is that that is a sort of a farm house situation. Mancino: Yeah, it's perfect because it's isolated. Farmakes: The difference here, and I believe the one in Shakopee is a corporation came in. ' Selected a rather large house I believe because to get several, up to 6 people in you're going to need a fair amount of home. It excited the issues that you just talked about. The neighborhood and the issues of property value and so. But what I can't resolve here is if the ' State law has mandated this, and I am a corporation. I come in here and want to put in a group home. Even if it conflicts with existing ordinances prohibiting this, can't I take you to ' court? Aanenson: Well, we're saying the definition right now, if someone came in with 6 or fewer people such as Rolling Acres, they could go in a single family home and we have no jurisdiction. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: So if you've got 6 or fewer, you can come in and put up whatever you want? Aanenson: Well, you're looking at medium density for a group home in the zoning ordinance currently. Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, has the City, must the City follow State legislation at this point? So what I'm saying is that, even if our ordinances have not caught up to that. Aanenson: They have. Farmakes: They have caught up to that? Aanenson: Oh yeah, we have. Farmakes: So there's nothing currently to even stop a group home from coming in. Aanenson: Oh yeah, that's what I said. We've got them in the city right now. Mancino: But right now it has to be a home for retarded, mentally ill, physically handicapped or chemically dependent person. It cannot be a home for battered women. Right now as it stands by State mandate. Farmakes: And see, I don't understand what mentally ill is. Aanenson: ...6 page report and definition of family ... we can certainly put that together for the next go around if you want to bring it back. But ... group home that a State mandates that every city must adopt and what we're talking about is broadening that definition. Mancino: This is just thinking off the top of my head but I don't, you know I'd like to see about expanding the definition for 1 to 6. I have a little bit more of a problem going from the 7 to 16. Expanding that in multi - family areas and it's just that I think 16 people in a multi - family area is just huge. Aanenson: What you see on the map ... is multi - family zone and maybe you have a separate building where maybe there's apartments surrounding it anyways ... individual apartments but they're supervised... Ledvina: It is a CUP. Aanenson: Yeah, it's a conditional use. Architecturally it's compatible with... Ledvina: There's just a higher degree of review and you're right though. You want to make 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ' sure that that is just right. There's going to be a very limited spot for that type of situation. I agree. ' Aanenson: But we see it more as being... different component. Now maybe something like what Mr. Gorra was presenting on his property. That piece sitting right there... ' Scott: Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I guess we'd like to see some more on that. ' Ledvina: Well I just want to say, I think that it would be a good idea to keep this thing moving. I support that and. ' Mancino: I do too. Ledvina: And it will help us in the long term. Scott: Right. ' Ledvina: And it will also enable us to look at these other types of facilities that do have a place in our community so. Scott: I have one last comment and if anybody else has got any other comments. I appreciated this last issue of the Planning Commissioner's journal with -the Riggin's Rules and I would encourage our other commissioners to read this. Basically for the record what ' this is, is there's a listing of 39 suggested do's and don'ts for conduct of public meetings and it applies to members of the Boards, Commissions and other bodies and I wouldn't suggest that we adopt all of these because some of them are, don't really fit with what we're trying to ' accomplish but what I would encourage everybody to do is take a read through here and this would, if we can think a little bit about if we want to set a particular tone for this commission. I don't know. I personally think we're doing a fairly good job but there's some ' good points in here. I underlined about a half a dozen of them to pay closer attention to. So any other comments on anything before we adjourn? Mancino: Oh yes. I would still like a schedule of who's supposed to go to what Council meeting when. Because I think right now there isn't anybody, is anybody assigned to a Council meeting from the Planning Commission? Ledvina: I don't have any assigned. 1 Farmakes: I went to mine. I Mancino: But you don't have a schedule for this year. � Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 ` Farmakes: I haven't gotten a schedule, that's correct. 1 Scott: Also, do we know how our recommended applicants? I Aanenson: ...the Council did on their January 31st work session interview all the Park and Rec, Planning Commission, and Senior Commission. Ledvina: All of them? Scott: Yeah. Aanenson: Although at the end of the work session they couldn't formally make a motion to put them on the appropriate boards. That will happen at their next meeting which is the 14th of February. So hopefully by the next meeting we'll have somebody. Scott: Okay. So we'll be meeting on the 17th? Aanenson: 16th. 1 Scott: 16th? Okay. Well then so our new commissioner will be attending that meeting. If you could let us know who that might be and I'd like to at least contact them and just chat ;pith them a little bit so they don't come in completely cold. Any other comments? ncino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the mo-e =S carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss ' Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim ' C