The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Dev Plan for Rezoning PUD for Gateway West Business Park C ITY 4F i 0 PC DATE: 11/2/92 6 CllAHA!E N CC DATE: 1/11/93 • CASE #: 92 -6 PUD - By: Aanenson/vc 1 • 1 STAFF REPORT . , 1 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Development Plan for Rezoning 178 Acres of Property from I A -2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development for Gateway West Business Park IZ V LOCATION: SE quadrant of Hwys. 5 and 41 and NW quadrant of West 82nd Street and Hwy. 41, Gateway West Business Park. 1= f APPLICANT: Opus Corporation 1 Q 800 Opus Center 9900 Bren Road East Minnetonka, MN 55343 I . , 1 PRESENT ZONING: A -2, Agricultural Estate I ACREAGE: 178 acres DENSITY: Not Applicable 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A -2; vacant I S - A -2; vacant Q E - A -2; vacant b W - A -2; Minnesota Landscape Arboretum I 1.1 WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer will be available with Phase II of Upper W Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project. I PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: This site has varied topography, including 22 acres of ( n wetland and 10 acres of upland wooded vegetation. There 1 are 3 existing homes on the subject site. One will be removed and the other 2 homes are shown as exemptions. 1 / 2000 LAND USE PLAN: OI, Office Industrial 1 1 I Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 7, 1992, for conceptual review. At that time the Planning Commission recommended tabling this item until issues raised in the 1 staff report and the public hearing could be addressed. One of the major issues of concern was the use west on Highway 41 and adjacent to the Arboretum. The applicants have made modifications to the concept plan as well as further articulated the uses proposed for the rest of 1 the property including Lot 1, the 29 acre parcel. The proposal was also reviewed by the Highway 5 Task Force and their input was gained. 1 Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, Opus Corporation, is proposing to develop a 178 acre office/light industrial park. The subject site is located south of Highway 5 along Highway 41, I south to the Chaska border, and west to the Arboretum. The applicants are requesting conceptual PUD approval at this time. This proposal includes 22 lots with approximately 963,000 square feet of building square footage. There is also a 29 acre lot located at the intersection of Hwys. 1 5 and 41 for which 4 alternatives have been proposed. This property is currently zoned A -2. Staff is recommending a PUD zoning for the site. I Because this project is located on one of the major gateways to the city, the design and layout of this proposal is of utmost importance to the image of the City of Chanhassen. Concern about community image is part of undertaking the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Highway 5 Task I Force has been meeting to develop the plan. The purpose of this plan is to review the uses allowed in the highway corridor, site design standards, location and design of Hwy. 5 and proposed frontage roads, trails and gateway treatments. Staff recommended that the applicant 1 meet with the Highway 5 Task Force for their review of this proposal. This meeting took place on November 12, 1992. The applicant reviewed the proposal and addressed the questions and issues that were raised. Again, the uses proposed for Lot 1 and the uses adjacent to the I Arboretum were of paramount concern. There were concerns about visual and noise pollution, land use and traffic generation. I Lot 1 of this proposal, which is 29 acres in size, is being proposed with four alternatives. This lot is located on the southeast corner of Highways 5 and 41. The applicants have not proposed any definite uses for the corner at this time. Due to their belief that this is a major corner, they 1 wish to reserve their options until some point in the future when the most optimal use can be determined. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for light industrial and office uses. Staff is uncomfortable with some of the uses proposed, in particular, a major shopping center. We 1 would like to keep the door open for innovative uses of this site. It is probably the premier location in the corridor and could support a corporate headquarters or some other campus type of use. Staff is recommending that this 29 -acre lot be platted as a part of this office/ industrial I park. This will include showing how this area will be accessed by internal roads. Of the four alternatives proposed, office /industrial headquarters, hotel/apartments, retail and institutional, it 1 • 1 1 Gateway West Business Park � October 7, 1992 Page 3 appears that only the office/ industrial headquarters is a probable use at this time. We are PP Y q P recommending that the retail option be deleted. The site lan shows approximately 8.8 acres of support commercial. In the PUD Ordinance, it P PP Y PP states that the "PUD shall be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit up to twenty-five (25 %) percent of the gross floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land uses for which the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan, if the City Council finds that such uses are in the best interest of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section." Staff feels that support commercial may be appropriate, but on a limited scale. A restaurant or convenience store may be a permitted support commercial use; but a 50,000 square foot building for retail commercial would not be. The applicants have proposed three uses for the commercial lots. These uses include a financial institution for Lot 7; day care, restaurant or business service for Lot 21; and a service station for Lot 22. Staff is recommending that the support commercial be limited to a line that follows the westerly extension of the wetland in Lot 21. There are 22 acres of wetland and 10 acres of upland vegetation. A wetland alteration permit will be required. The majority of the wetland and wooded areas are found on Lots 17 and 18, which are being proposed for park dedication. The revised concept as proposed still does not meet the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission. An additional 1.5 acres of property is requested along the westerly portion of Lot 14. Because this project exceeds 750,000 gross square feet of new office/mdustrial development, an Environmental Impact Statement is mandatory. The city will be the Responsible Governmental Unit. The EIS will provide an opportunity to develop detailed information about the project and potential impacts. The proposal shows a water tower located on the easterly portion of the Wrase's property. The applicants have made an offer to buy the Wrase's property but they have not come to terms on the value of the property. Staff has proposed that the city buy the Wrase's property allowing them to live on the site and thus allowing the water tower to be placed on the rear portion of the property. The Wrase's are uncertain if this proposal is acceptable to them at this time. The other option would be to move the water tower to another site and leave the Wrase's property alone. In speaking with the Wrase's, they would like to remain living in their house. With the city owning the entire 3 plus acre lot they could remain living in their home. The applicants will have to work with the Engineering Department to ensure the appropriate location for this water tower as well as acceptance and purchase of the Wrase's property (if they are agreeable to this 1 location). The city would buy the Wrase property only if this project is a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) project. i property developed as a PUD. While this Staff is recommending that this p op rty be site warrants a PUD p s zoning for reasons such as traffic management, comprehensive storm water management, wetland protection, architectural control, etc., this plan as proposed needs to be further developed before staff can make a recommendation on the proposed design. The site size, prominence and 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 4 potential for coordinated development are major opportunities to create a high quality, sensitively designed corporate environment. This proposal and the review process will allow for the incorporation of numerous refinements. Thus, we view the concept as the beginning of the design process, not its end. Staff is recommending that the PUD concept be approved. We have ' provided a list of concerns in the report and expect the applicant to respond to them along with those raised by the Planning Commission/City Council, Hwy. 5 Task Force, and through the EIS procedure. r Since the first concept plan, the proposal has been further defined with a better narrative. At this time, conceptual approval is required to allow for additional standards, traffic, wetlands, etc. to ' be developed. These studies will guide staff as to what other issues need to be addressed. Site Characteristics ' The property is approximately 178 acres in size located south of Highway 5. Highway 41 splits the property into two parcels. The westerly parcel is 28 acres and the easterly parcel is 150 ' acres. The property is currently cultivated with one farm homestead along Highway 5. This home will be removed from the site. There are two other adjacent properties being exempted from this project. There is a farm homestead along Highway 41, owned by the Wrase's, that is ' 3.15 acres in size. The other residence is owned by the Paulson's and is 10 acres in size. Staff is recommending that these exemptions be included in the proposed layout of this project. Future street and utility access to these sites need to be assured. If possible, they should be acquired. ' The applicants have proposed moving the water tower to the Wrase's property on Lot 7. More than likely a total condemnation of the site would be necessary, if this is not acceptable, staff would recommend moving the site to another location and leaving the Wrase site as an .1 exemption for this proposal. This site has varied topography with rolling hills, wetlands and wooded areas. There are 22 acres of wetlands. They are mostly found in the eastern edge of the property. A large wetland, 6.5 acres in size, is located west of Highway 41. Ten acres of upland woods consisting of maple, basswood and oak is located in the southeast corner of the 150 -acre parcel. The plan proposes to include the largest wetland and wooded area (Lots 17 and 18) into a 29 acre park. This property is currently zoned A -2 (Agricultural Estate). The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for a future land use of office/industrial. The proposed land uses, office/industrial, includes those properties exempted from this proposal. The University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is the adjacent property use to the west of this proposal and it is zoned A -2. Property to the north of this site it is zoned A -2 and this area is currently cultivated; to the east it is also zoned A -2 and is a cultivated field. The property to the south is bordered by 82nd Street and the Chaska city limits. The property in Chaska has been developed as an industrial park. • 1 Gateway West Business Park '' October 7, 1992 Page 5 I Overview • The city is currently in the process of developing a Corridor Plan for Highway 5. Barton I Aschman is the consulting firm hired by the city to spearhead this planning process. The Highway 5 Task Force has been meeting to assist in the development of this plan. Some of the 1 goals and objectives of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan are: - consider amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (future zoning), if necessary; - site design criteria including landscaping, parcel access, building orientation, preservation of natural terrain and vegetation, parking lot placement and configuration, placement and I screening of loading facilities, and pedestrian amenities; - location and design of proposed frontage roads; I - bicycle trails and pedestrian crossings; - gateway treatments; - work with MnDOT on final refining the design of the highway extension. 1 One of the major issues of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan is to develop the frontage/parkway roads that will run on either side of the highway. The location of the southern frontage road directly I impacts the design of this project. The proposal shows a full access onto Highway 5 approximately 1600 feet east of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 41. The applicants presented their proposal to the Highway 5 Task Force. The issues discussed by the Task Force II were whether or not there should be any commercial at 82nd Street and Highway 41, the uses adjacent to the Arboretum and the proposal for Lot 1. The Task Force felt that of the uses proposed for Lot 1, the office/industrial headquarters is the only probable one at this time, the 1 retail commercial was definitely unacceptable. There was concern voiced by the Task Force about the uses adjacent to the Arboretum. This proposal calls for an industrial use that would have limited night and weekend hours. Access to the Paulson property was relocated with this 1 site plan. Staff is recommending that if the future use of the Paulson property is anything but residential, the access should be relocated to where the current easement is. At this time, staff is recommending the Highway 5 Task Force further visit the issue of commercial zoning on the I western portion of the Highway 5 Corridor. At the November 12th meeting of the Task Force, there was a discussion that neighborhood commercial zoning may be warranted in this area. The I Task Force needs to determine whether neighborhood commercial should be located at the corner of Highways 5 and 41 or 82nd and Highway 41. This project will require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The mandatory 1 requirement applies when there is new construction of 750,000 square feet of gross floor area. 1 • .1 • I Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 6 1 This project proposes a total . of 911,100 square feet, excluding the 29 acres for future development. The city will be the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). As a part of the EIS, staff is recommending a study of the traffic issues for this area be completed. Staff also recommends that the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of this study. ' The sewer for this area will be serviced by Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site will be serviced via gravity sewer line from Chaska. This past year, the city took a proactive role in a joint Chanhassen/Chaska Water and Sanitary Sewer Agreement. This agreement provides for an area in Chanhassen to have water and sewer service provided through the Chaska utility system. This service area, on the southern portion of the site, will be the area the applicants are proposing to 1 develop first. The Comprehensive Plan shows a buffer around the Paulson's home because it is a residential 1 use adjacent to an office /industrial use. Because the Paulson property is guided for office/ industrial, a buffer may not be necessary. Staff would recommend that the use and timing of the development of Lot 20 be considered before the buffer is required. The original narrative prepared by the applicant licant addressed, to staff's satisfaction, the issue of P P Y adjacent westerly neighbor, the Arboretum. The applicants have stated in their narrative that "the ' development adjacent to the Arboretum has been designed to provide minimal amount of development by locating both a multiple family development and an office/industrial development ' in the areas close to the Arboretum. The designs of the facilities would locate any parking away from the Arboretum. Loading and other activities would be carefully screened from the Arboretum by the building itself." The applicants have also stated that the noise from adjacent ' development would come from Highway 41 and that various on -site noise from the development would have a minimal effect on the Arboretum. They further suggested that lowering Highway 41 will help minimize the noise impact that exists today. Staff is recommending that the 1 Highway 5 Task Force review the proposed future uses. REZONING 1 Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone 178.3 acres from A2, Agriculture to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. 1 Section 20 -501. Intent 1 Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 7 variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In e,change for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher Quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are realized as evaluated against the following criteria: • ' Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands. lakes and scenic views. ' Finding. There are 10 acres of upland wooded vegetation including box elder, willows and green ash on the eastern portion of this site. This wooded area is adjacent to a wetland that will be preserved through dedication of 29 acres to the city. In addition, there will be a 30 plus acre site with the vast majority of the site left in it natural state. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. This is a large area of property, and when it is approved for subdivision, it will have a master transportation plan, and a sewer, water and storm water management plan. If each of these parcels were to develop separately, they would not have the comprehensive utility and traffic plans. It will also provide a cohesive and unified design theme at one of the major entrances to the city. ' 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual building plans for each development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well- planned manner so that a higher quality of development will result. Note - plans need refinement to reflect highway exposure and Arboretum issues. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. 1 111 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 1 Page 8 Finding. The Comprehensive Plan shows a required landscaping buffer with the l residential property to the east. The majority of this property is a wetland. Therefore, staff feels that the existing topography meets the buffering requirement. The Comprehensive Plan shows a buffer along the Paulson property located west of Hwy. 41. ' Because the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for office/industrial, staff would recommend that buffering be considered at the time this lot is developed. The plan was revised to show multi- family on Lot 19. The uses proposed need to be further defined 1 with the guidance of the Highway 5 Task Force. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. i Findine. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for office and light industrial use. The applicants are proposing a business park. They are requesting a mixed use area that may 1 be commercial, educational, office or industrial. Staff is recommending that support commercial may be approved if recommended by the Planning Commission and City Council as defined in the PUD Ordinance. The location and uses proposed adjacent to 1 the Arboretum should be consistent with the goals of the Highway 5 Task Force. Of the four proposals for Lot 1, the retail commercial is unacceptable at this time and should be eliminated. 6. Parks and n Space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. � P P Pe P Y �l Y t3. ' 1 Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a community park be developed on the site. This park would require dedication in excess of the 29 acres, which includes Lots 17 and 18 as proposed by the applicants. The revised site plan does not reflect the desires of the Park and Recreation Commission. Additional acreage is requested from the easterly portion of Lot 14. ' 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Not applicable to this proposal. 1 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The conservation element will evolve as the wetlands, roads and building orientation are established as part of the standards for this PUD zone that staff will be developing. Provisions for ultimate service of the site by Southwest Metro Transit should be incorporated into the plan. 1 • Gateway West Business Park 1` October 7, 1992 Page 9 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Staff is recommending a traffic study be completed for this site. The applicants shall reimburse the city the cost for this study. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements, and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexible standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for modifying the standards, the city will receive the following (after outlined plan modifications have been incorporated): • Consistency with Comprehensive Plan; 1 • Screening of undesirable views of loading and parking areas; • Corridor sensitivity on Highways 5 and 41, including building orientation; • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands and trees); • Improved architectural standards including, uniform signage and architecture; • Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts; • Improved pretreatment of storm water; • Gateway treatments; • Design modifications to protect the integrity of the Arboretum. 1 CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL General Site Plan /Architecture The applicant has stated that the standards for this development are critical to the quality of the business park. Opus has developed many such parks in the past, and proposes to use similar standards and development techniques for the Gateway Business Park. The applicant proposes that this business park will be identified at its major entrances with monuments and enhanced landscaping. In addition, to the entrances on Highway 5, Highway 41 and West 82nd Street, special attention will be given to the perimeter along the highways. The applicants have stated that they will be careful that the development of parking and loading areas will be screened with landscaping. Each site will have to proceed through site plan review. The applicants have stated in their narrative that they anticipate that typical buildings within the 1 business park will average approximately 15 -20 percent office and 80 -85 percent industrial/manufacturing warehousing. Staff is proposing that those buildings that have Highway 5 or Highway 41 frontage shall have greeted design standards. 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 1 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS • a. Intent The applicants are proposing to develop 178 acres into 22 lots that would form a business park. Staff envisions this area as a well- conceived, cohesive light industrial office park. This area has , a varied topography, wetlands and upland woods. It is bordered by two major collectors, ' Highway 5 and 41. The applicants are proposing that 50% of the highway frontage will be open space. It is adjacent to the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. All of these features should be designed to make this site an assent to the community. Some of the site design issues include buildings of brick or better material on visible sites, screening of parking lots and loading areas, orientation of buildings along Highways 5 and 41, and the natural terrain and vegetation should be preserved. • Staff feels that a PUD zone is the appropriate zoning for this area to ensure a higher quality of design and a more sensitive development. The plan as proposed needs to be further developed to reflect these concerns. b. Permitted Uses The proposal calls for office, warehouse, manufacturing, and some support commercial. The plan ' has a 29 acre lot (Lot 1) which shows four alternatives. The comprehensive plan guides this area for light industrial and office use. Staff is recommending that some support commercial be approved as part of the permitted uses for the zone. They should be limited in scope to support and not free - standing retail commercial. Of the four alternatives for Lot 1, it appears that the office /industrial headquarters is the only probable one at this time. The industrial uses shall be limited to those uses that do not emit smoke, have no outdoor storage, result in excessive truck 1 traffic, and do not emit excessive noise and 'vibrations. Office uses should be the primary use against Highways 5 and 41. 1 c. Setbacks The plan, as proposed at this time, is too conceptual to review the setbacks, although staff will be working with the Highway 5 Task Force to develop appropriate setbacks for Highways 5 and 41. The applicants are proposing a 50 foot setback from Hwys. 5 and 41. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Not able to review at the time of conceptual approval. 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 11 e. Building Materials and Design • I Because this will be a large business park, there may be many types of building materials being I used. One of the major concerns that staff will be addressing is building orientation along the highways. Lot 16, as proposed, shows a 30 -foot front setback along Highway 5. Staff feels this is too close to the highway. Staff will also be looking at which uses, office /industrial, should be adjacent to the highways. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. The block I shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted or broken face. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone textured or coated. Metal standing seam siding may be used as support materials, curtain wall on office components, or as a roofing 1 material. All roof top equipment shall be screened, however, wood screen fences are prohibited. f. Site landscaping Screening I g g Again, because this is a large business park, the landscaping will be a significant unifying 1 element. An overall landscaping plan needs to be developed. This plan shall take into consideration the adjacency of the Arboretum, views from Highways 5 and 41, and gateway I treatments. All lots with in the PUD will be required to submit a landscaping plan consistent with an overall landscaping theme. The applicants are proposing a European round landscaping feature at the intersection of Hwys. 5 and 41. The city needs to be proactive in this area. A I design competition or the city should retain a consultant to work with the Hwy. 5 Task Force to help in defining this design feature. All outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of- 1 ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. g. Signage 1 The PUD shall develop a cohesive sign theme consistent with the building architecture. The signs shall be limited to one monument or ground sign only on each lot. In addition, wall signs shall be permitted to no more than two per street frontage. There shall be no freestanding/pylon signs permitted, especially along Highways 5 and 41. 1 h. Lighting Lighting again should be consistent throughout the business park. This would include street I lighting and building lighting. 1 1 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 u Page 12 Compliance Table Acres Uses Bldg. S.F. Parking I Lot 1 29.8 Office/Industrial - Institutional - I Hotel/Apart's Retail Comm 1 I Lot 2 6.8 Industrial 90,000 209 Lot 3 5.6 Industrial 45,000 150 1 Lot 4 1.3 Water Tower Lot 5 7.4 Industrial 80,000 254 1 Lot 6 5.3 Industrial 63,000 180 Lot 7 5.6 Industrial 60,000 197 1 I Lot 8 2.0 Support Comm 10,000 37 Lot 9 4.9 Industrial 62,000 179 i Lot 10 5.6 Industrial 85,000 232 Lot 11 6.4 Industrial 48,000 139 1 Lot 12 7.0 Industrial 70,000 200 Lot 13 5.1 Industrial 42,000 121 Lot 14 6.7 Industrial 63,000 185 I I Lot 15 3.7 Industrial 30,000 86 Lot 16 7.8 Industrial 80,000 232 1 ; Lot 17 5.9 Park Lot 18 24 Park 1 Lot 19 9.05 Industrial 90,000 290 Lot 20 2.2 Support Comm 9,000 103 1 Lot 21 1.6 Support Comm 4,000 41 Lot 22 13.4 Industrial 50,000 165 I Total 963,000 S.F.* 3,000 stalls * Total excludes any development on Lot 1 which they are proposing as mixed use. 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 13 Streets /Access 1 The proposed street layoilt is fairly consistent with the City's comprehensive roadway system. The access points to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 are subject to MnDOT approval, which apparently the applicant has been in contact with. There is a home on 10 acres, the Paulson's, located west of Hwy. 41. This home has access off 82nd Street via an easement. This easement is shown as a 60 foot right -of -way. Staff is recommending that this easement (shown as a cul- de-sac) be used as the public street to serve Lots 19, 20, and 21. A concept plan of the future roadway alignment would be compatible with the topography on the adjacent parcel. The revised concept plan shows access to the Paulson property along the Arboretum, this is acceptable only if the Paulson property is to remain residential. Another roadway alignment concern is between Lots 10 and 11 where the proposed road connects to existing 82nd Street. The proposed roadway is skewed and should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. The concept proposes a number of median islands with landscaping. It is recommended that these islands be eliminated except those necessary for traffic delineation. The applicant should explore the use of an entry-type monument on one of the corner lots at the two main entrance points of the trunk highways, and not on any internal streets. This will also reduce the amount of landscape maintenance required by the City as the corner monument will most likely be maintained by the property owner. A traffic study should be prepared either by the applicant or by the City, with the applicant responsible for all costs to define traffic warrants for signalization, turn lanes, etc. The concept plan does not indicate the right -of -way width. The roadway should be constructed in accordance 1 with the City's designs for industrial/commercial type use. The road right -of -way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52 -foot wide pavement section. Typically, this collector - type roadway system would include a sidewalk or trail system adjacent to the street within the right -of -way. With this type of use, it would be prudent to include a sidewalk or trail system to promote pedestrian traffic through and around the park system. The traffic study should also look at where the location of the major entrance off of Hwy. 41 should be. A light should be 1 considered at 82nd and Hwy. 41 and whether the other access should be right - in/out only. The applicants have stated that they have worked with MNDOT to secure approval of the proposed access points. The proposal also calls for the lowering of Highway 41 at the crest before the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. They are proposing that the lowering of the road take place in conjunction with the building of the water tower. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The eastern portion of property is covered with vegetation consisting of mainly box elder, willow and green ash. This area will not be altered as it falls into lots with wetlands which are being proposed for park dedication. 1 • 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 14 1 Landscaping, especially the treatment along Highways 5 and 41, should be given special 1 consideration. The landscape design needs to include consideration of the adjacent Arboretum. Again, the Highway 5 Corridor Plan will be addressing this area as the plan develops. This is another issue the Highway 5 Task Force should review. • Wetlands There are 22 acres of wetlands located on the project site. The wetlands are found primarily on the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to a larger wetland to the east that the DNR has jurisdiction over. These wetlands are proposed to be preserved with the preservation of the adjacent upland hardwood. A portion of the wetland in Lot 17 in the northeast corner of the site needs to be filled for roadway purposes. This road is the proposed east/west collector frontage road that needs to cross the wetland area. Also, a small wetland between Lots 10 and 11 is proposed to be filled for a roadway. The mitigation for filling these wetlands is a proposed wetland and pond to be established ' directly adjacent to the wetland on Lot 18. The mitigation will be at least 2:1.. The wetland in Lot 1 will be left, but may be required for Hwy. 5 dedication. The wetland found in Lot 22 runs north and south through the entire lot. The applicants feel it is a marginal wetland, and proposes II to fill the southern portion of it and create an enhanced wetland on the remainder. A portion of this wetland was filled in the past with the construction of West 82nd Street. The City is currently reviewing amendments to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. These amendments were initiated due to the new state regulation and new information on treatment and protection of wetlands. The applicants will have to provide further detail on the type of wetland 1 and alterations proposed. This process will require a wetland alteration permit. Grading and Drainage The concept plan does not provide any preliminary grades for the site. It is assumed, due to the topography, that extensive grading will be necessary. Appropriate erosion control measures should be employed in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook. The concept plan, again, does not provide data in regards to storm runoff from the development. It is assumed that the wetlands or pond area will be utilized for storm water retention. The applicant 1 should be aware of the City's water quality standards and 100 -year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the subdivision codes. Pretreatment and retention ponds may result in reduced size of lots or potential elimination of a lot. 1 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 15 Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service will be available to the site from Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site may be serviced via a gravity sewer line from Chaska. This site contains a very high knoll adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. The City has programmed " into its comprehensive water study to construct a future 2 million gallon elevated storage reservoir in this knoll. The applicant is proposing Lot 4 for the City's future water tower, 1 although the location proposed is not in accordance with the City's comprehensive water plan. The water tower should be located at the highest elevation, preferably 500 feet southwest of its current proposed location on the concept plan. Although there has been some discussion with regard to lowering State Trunk Highway 41 to improve the grade for truck traffic, this may result in grading this site which, in turn, would lower the highest point elevation. The applicant should be aware that the City is intending to utilize the highest point on the site to install a future water reservoir tank to service this quadrant of the City. Park and Recreation 1 The applicants have proposed dedicating two lots (Lots 17 and 18) which includes 29 acres for park dedication. The Park and Recreation Commission met on September 22, 1992, to review this proposal. The Commission recommended that the applicant provide a community park site. This site should be sufficient is size and suitable character and topography to include a natural vista, sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site, with picnicking and viewing areas, and the street plan and sidewalks. The park should be sufficient in area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This would require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desirable that all park and components be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress /egress. The revised site plan does not reflect the additional usable acreage the Park and Recreation Commission is requesting. The Commission would like additional property on the easterly portion of Lot 14. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This item appeared twice before the Planning Commission. It was tabled at the first meeting on October 7, 1992. This issue was then heard again on November 2, 1992. The reason for tabling the item at the first Planning Commission meeting was that the commission wanted a 29 acre lot 1 1 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 16 at the corner of Hwys. 5 and 41 shown with some development alternatives. In addition, they requested that more sensitivity be given to uses adjacent to the Arboretum. 1 A new site plan was prepared for the second Planning Commission meeting. Four alternatives were prepared for the 29 acre lot. The Planning Commission recommended that the retail commercial alternative be eliminated from the alternatives. Several other issues were also clarified at this meeting: 1. Mr. Peterson, who owns the lot in the northwest corner of the site west of Hwy. 41, wants to be included in this development proposal. This would eliminate one of the exemptions from this development. 2. The Wrase's would prefer to have their property purchased so they can relocate. This would eliminate the other exemption from this development. 3. The residents of Chaska located west of Hwy. 41 and south of 82nd Street would prefer the development across from them be an office/industrial use with limited hours and truck traffic, and a lower profile building. ' 4. The Arboretum still has concerns about the scale of development for this project and uses adjacent to the Arboretum. The applicants have submitted a revised site plan for the City Council review. This site plan is the basic plan previously submitted before the Planning Commission. Except for a few modifications, this site plan does not reflect the changes or concerns raised by the staff and the Planning Commission. Most obvious is the omission of the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation for the park to be located on Lot 14. Lot 1 is again ignored as to its inclusion into the site plan and future use. Staff has been trying to convey to the applicant their desires and it appears they are seeking to circumvent the staff to get to the Council. The staff is hopeful that the Council will be forthright in their expectations of this property. Planning Director's Comment Staff has been working with this developer for almost a year and we have honestly found the process somewhat frustrating. In the Opus Corporation, we are clearly dealing with a high quality developer who is fully capable of producing the type of development that is warranted on the site. The site is clearly one of the most important business parcels in the southwestern suburban area. It has excellent access and visibility and a moderate amount of environmental features that can be incorporated and utilized. It is also located in a community that is recognized as being progressive and well managed and one that has a bright future in the 1990s and beyond. Lastly, it has the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum is a neighboring use that offers 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 Page 17 significant opportunities for both to mutually benefit from a concerted design effort. We therefore find it difficult to understand why we have been unable to reach a better degree of understanding as to expectations of this development at this stage in the review process. It is difficult to tell the developer explicitly what would be acceptable in the Highway 5 corridor since the study is not yet complete. However, a significant amount of input has been given to them, much of which has either been rebutted or ignored. There are also other issues that could have easily been worked out such as accommodating the requests of the Park and Recreation Commission and the elimination of one of 4 options for the Hwys. 5/41 corner that shows a large scale shopping center. Staff wishes that we could have indicated to you that we are comfortable with all aspects of this proposal, but the fact is we are not. We still believe the PUD is the way to proceed and we still believe that you have every option to get your wishes across to this developer. Not only do you have the tools offered by the PUD ordinance but we also have the additional leverage provided by the proposal that a tax increment financing district be established and by the possibility that a moratorium could be imposed until the Hwy. 5 study is completed. We are recommending that the PUD process be allowed to proceed. We have clearly reached a point at which significant progress will not be made unless the concept review stage is passed. However, we are recommending that the City Council be explicit in conveying their expectations to this developer. If these expectations are not met when plans are formally submitted for preliminary approval 1 before the Planning Commission, then there should be no misunderstanding that the application will be denied. Within normal legal constraints, we have an obligation to process development proposals. We should by no means believe that it is important that this site develop this year or next because assuredly it will ultimately be developed by this group or someone else. We believe this developer has put together a team that we can work with and I have successful experiences doing this with them on many occasions in the past. We are therefore recommending that this concept be approved with conditions of the staff report and we encourage you to add any other directives you may feel warranted. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval to Gateway West Business r Park PUD #92 -6 as shown in site plans dated September 8, 1992, subject to the following conditions: , The Planning Commission expressed discomfort with this plan but understanding that it is a conceptual plan approved it with the following conditions (conditions in bold are different than staff's original recommendations): 1. There is a great discomfort with the plan that has been presented, but based on the remarks made by Michele Foster (Opus), in that they are not asking for anything 1 1 Gateway West Business Park October 7, 1992 ' Page 18 that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the city to protect the topography and natural features of this property, the Planning Commission will ' consider this as a PUD. 2. The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Arboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation ' seriously. 3. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed ' development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent topography. 4. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100 -year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's subdivision code. 5. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. 6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project 7. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. 8. Dedication of park land as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. 1 9. Delete shopping center, or any other retail option from Lot 1. 10. Work to incorporate two exemptions (Wrase and Paulson properties) to the site. 11. City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway 5 and 41 intersection area and Opus should 1 be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan. 12. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non - intrusive and non - intensive. They should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it. 13. With regard specifically to grading, it is the intention of the Planning Commission, or it is the intention of the city to protect the natural topography of the site. 1 1 Gateway West Business Park 1' October 7, 1992 Page 19 I 14. This project shall be designed with the highest standards, including building materials, location and orientation; landscaping; traffic management; and preservation of natural features. 1 ATTACHMENTS I 1. Narrative from Opus dated January 5, 1993 . 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 24, 1992. 3. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 6, 1993. 1 4. Planning Commission minutes dated December 2, 1992. 5. Site Plan dated January 6, 1993. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 DAHLGREN SHIOW ; AND -IJ13V I CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCIIITECTS 1 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH I SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN iS401 612 .139 .3.31)() 1 5 January 1993 1 Mayor Donald Chmiel, City Council I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 I RE: Gateway Business Park Concept Plan Dear Mayor Donald Chmiel and City Council Members: 1 The owners of the Gateway Business Park and the developer, Opus Corporation, have been working with the City of Chanhassen since the summer of 1992 to develop a concept plan for the Gateway I Business Park. In all cases, we've been working with City staff to determine when and where our services would be available and developing a road system and a land use master plan consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, we initially proposed a city park on the eastern portion of the site to include the prime wooded rolling hills of an otherwise totally cultivated site. This idea I was embraced by the City to the point that the Park and Recreation Commission would like even more land for park purposes. We believe our concept plan shows a good balance of park land to development with the understanding that additional properties in the area will be developing and I contributing to park needs so that a larger park can be assembled in the future. As we have met several times with the planning commission and the Highway 5 task force to produce a concept plan that follows the requirements of the City. A plan for future development 1 guidance with some specific details to address some individual concerns has been created. Our concept plan has been adjusted several times to meet these requirements with the understanding with the City that full urban services will be available to the site. The amount of services and the timing I of these services has changed significantly over the last six months because the cooperative City agreement with Chaska is limited to the southern edge of the property along 82nd Street. We have petitioned the City for services but according to the latest report these services may not be available I for up to six years. Obviously our approach to this property has to adjust to that time table and will be limited for the near future to development of a few lots along 82nd Street. We would much prefer that the City of Chanhassen extend full services to the entire property this year. I We will continue to work with City staff and the Highway 5 Task Force as the entire Highway 5 area is studied. We propose with this concept plan to plat and develop lots along 82nd Street and complete general development plans and environmental studies on the remainder of the property 1 when urban services are made available. 1 1 Gateway Business Park Concept Plan 5 January 1993 Page 2 1 As a number of conditions were reviewed by the Planning Commission, we would like to clarify our '. response and concurrence with the direction of this project and the expected cooperation with the City to develop this area. Response and clarification to the Planning Commission conditions from November 4, 1992 are as follows: 1 1. Planning Commission had a great discomfort with the plan, based on not enough detail or too much detail at the conceptual level of approval. We responded by- saying that we were certainly going to work with the City on the development of this property because we are pursuing development through a planned unit development. This planned unit development process offers the City a much greater level of review which is not afforded through normal zoning. We have volunteered to go through this process with very little benefit to the developer and property owners. This level of comfort with the City's own approval process should assure everyone of the best development possible, especially considering the past developments that have been completed by OPUS Corporation. The aspects of the conceptual plan are as follows: 1 a. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates all the property as industrial uses. Within the Business Park, we anticipate 15 to 20 percent of the buildings' use will be for office with the remainder for manufacturing and warehousing. This is consistent with other OPUS Business Parks. b. The street pattern developed on the site follows the collector road system shown in 111 the City's Comprehensive Plan. Barton- Aschman, traffic consultants to the City, has reviewed the basic road layout for the Highway 5 Task Force and have found that our concept plan is a reasonable arrangement of roads fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan's requirements. c. Over 32 acres of park land have been designated on the concept plan incorporating wetlands, all the wooded hills, and upland areas for court activities. d. Lot 1 of the development, located at the southeast corner of Highway 5 and 41, will be held from development in anticipation of a future best use which is not readily evident at this point. e. Service base commercial is proposed at 82nd Street and Highway 41 which will provide services to area employees, residents, and general public. No retail is proposed in this service area. f. The concept plan accommodates future Highway 41 and Highway 5 improvements. g. Concept plan has been adjusted to coordinate the location of the water tower with the City and City consultants. h. The Plan accommodates the exception parcels into the overall plan anticipating similar development and access. i. The site grading will protect the natural features through preservation of wetlands and wooded hills in the park and adjustment of topography to the surrounding road system. Each site will be developed in a custom fashion to meet the specific requirements of each office /industrial site. Generally the site will be terraced to make each lot usable and efficient for the proposed uses as anticipated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1 2. The landowners and OPUS Corporation will continue to participate with the Highway 5 Task Force to develop reasonable standards for land uses along Highway 5. The developers will continue in their cooperation with the Arboretum by providing a common access through an easement off of Highway 41, preserving open space on Lot 19, and buffering the adjacent publicly -used areas of the Arboretum. II Gateway Business Park Concept Plan 5 January 1993 Page 3 1 3. We concur that the City will need to explore a future road alignment to the east of the proposed Business Park. Barton - Aschman, consultants to the City, have been reviewing the frontage road location in this area and have not found a better alternative. The road 1 alignment is based primarily on minimal impact to adjacent wetlands. 4. The developer recognizes that additional City standards concerning water quality will I need to be integrated into the wetland protection and mitigation as applied to the site. We anticipate that further ponding may be required and the ponding may in effect reduce the developable land available on a site. Future ponding will be incorporated I into individual lots as specific development proposals are presented to the City. The goal will be to put the ponding as close to the source of run -off as possible to minimize the size and extent of piping in the development. I 5. The developers will continue to work with the City's engineering consultant for the appropriate location of the water tower. Our understanding to date with the City is that the proposed location of the water tower is presently the most reasonable alternative. 1 6. It is quite possible that the full development of the Gateway Business Park would trigger the threshold for the preparation of an environmental impact statement. That environmental work in addition to traffic analysis for the project is a very expensive I undertaking for the developer. Timing of this study should take place at the time sewer extensions are made for the development of the full property. This would most appropriately balance the development expenditures with the ablility to develop the I property in a timely fashion. At this point, it is apparent that only the most southern edge of the Business Park along 82nd Street can be developed. This would not need any new streets nor would it have any significant impact on traffic or wetland systems in the I area. The environmental studies would be best developed when the remainder of the site is served with a sewer. The environmental studies need to be coordinated with the developer and the City with special care not to duplicate costs. I The City has an opportunity with its existing consultants to study not only the proposed Business Park but other properties along Highway 5 in a combined EIS for the corridor. The City's consultants, Bonestroo and Associates, could prepare that for them and I coordinate it with the Met Council and EQB as an alternative environmental review taken on by the City. This type of pro - active involvement by the City would help landowners and developers with the environmental review of their projects. 1 7. The development of the Business Park will conform to City regulations and appropriate wetland permits will be applied for and secured from the City. These permits will address the wetlands and use the City's wetland delineations which are reflected in the I Concept Plan. Each of these wetlands and their impact have been stated in previous material submitted to the City. I 8. The developer will cooperate with the City in dedicating park land according to the City's ordinance. We understand that the City does not include wetlands in its park dedication formula and our plan shows 19 acres of upland park which is 13%. Our intent has always been to hold the most scenic and environmentally sensitive areas for 1 inclusion in a public park. As the City wishes to add additional recreational area within the Business Park for public uses that land will have to be purchased. We feel the City will obtain an excellent park following its ten percent dedication policy because the I adjacent land which is undeveloped will also contribute park land. A combination of these two areas can easily satisfy all of the City park requirements. 1 1 Gateway Business Park Concept Plan 5 January 1993 Page 4 We believe the City should prudently look at the method of obtaining parks through dedication versus purchasing park prematurely. Additionally, should the City wish a park in a different location we will be glad to withdraw our park designation and pay the normal park dedication fees. We believe the park as designated in the concept plan to be a reasonable approach to providing public park facility to this area of town. 9. The developer recognizes that Lot 1 of the Concept Plan is a highly visible site and a 1 focal point at the crossroads of Highway 41 and 5. Because of this unique attribute, we propose to hold the land from development until sometime in future where we can do the right thing, in the right place, at the right time. At this point, we anticipate some mixed use type development would be the most logical for the site. A mixed use development would include some retail and commercial as a component of that development. 10. We have been working with the two exception properties to include them in the business park development. We have met with the Wrase's several times and have submitted several offers to them to purchase their land. We are proposing to give the Wrase's access off of 82nd Street and work cooperatively with the City as necessary to secure the Wrase site for a future tower. Mr. Paulson has a single family home on the west side of Highway 41 which has an 1 access easement through the Gateway Business Park accessing 82nd Street. We are proposing that the access easement be platted as a road at the time Mr. Paulson wishes to develop his property. He stated at the last planning commission meeting that he would like the option of industrial development in the future. 11. We will work with the City, Highway 5 Task Force and MnDOT to develop a design for Highway 5 and the Highway 41 intersection area. 12. Lot number 20, which is the westerly most lot in the Business Park is being planned with special consideration for the neighbors to the south, the wooded slopes of the Arboretum to the west, and the future development aspirations of the landowner to the north. The office portion of the proposed building on Lot 20 will be on the south side showing an attractive facade toward the south. Proposed parking will be to the east of the building, the furthest away from the adjacent single family areas in Chanhassen. The loading area as well will be on the east side of the building so that all activity will be fully shielded by virtue of the building mass from the areas to the west and southwest. Additionally, the west side of the lot will have a 50 foot buffer area which is landscaped and will provide a quiet edge toward the Arboretum. To the north will be the portion of the site set aside for future expansion. This then will provide some natural phasing and interim buffering for the landowner to the north as well as provide a development pattern which can be repeated on his property. 13. It is the intention of the developer to protect the most sensitive portions of the site, those being the wooded hills and wetland areas in the park area. The remaining cultivated areas of the site are planned for normal business park development. The land will be graded as is necessary for efficient development of business facilities. The grading will accommodate the proposed Highway 41 grade changes and terrace the individual sites as needed. 14. Lot number 19 is presently planned to be multi - family. The multi - family designation was developed to take advantage of the aesthetics of the adjacent wetland and the Arboretum as an amenity. The multi - family entrance will be developed so that the 1 1 1 Gateway Business Park Concept Plan 5 January 1993 Page 5 1 Arboretum may also use the entrance as access from Highway 41. It is fully anticipated that the structure will be built to industry and community standards. We are not I proposing a warehouse use in this area and fully anticipate that the structure will reflect the high quality of the Gateway Business Park. I Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. I r 1 John Uban, Principal 111 CJU /saw 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF ClIANIIASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 • TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician /if DATE: September 24, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Gateway West Business Park Southeast Corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk Highway 41 File No. 92 -15 LUR 1 Upon review of the concept plan dated September 4, 1992, I offer the following comments: STREETS The proposed street layout is fairly consistent with the City's comprehensive roadway system. 1 The access points to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 are subject to MnDOT approval which apparently the applicant has been in contact with. The dead -end street to the east side of the plat remains somewhat of a concern due to the direction the roadway alignment is intended to proceed after the site. A concept plan of the future roadway alignment through the adjacent parcel to the east should be explored to see if this alignment would be compatible with topography on the adjacent parcel. Another roadway alignment concern is between Lots 10 and 11 where the proposed road connects to existing 82nd Street. The proposed roadway is skewed and should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. The concept proposes a number of median islands with landscaping. It is recommended that these islands be eliminated except those necessary for traffic delineation. The applicant should explore the use of an entry type monument on one of the corner lots at the two main entrance points of the trunk highways and not on any internal streets. This will also reduce the amount of landscape maintenance required by the City as the corner monument will most likely be maintained by the property owner. A traffic study should be prepared either by the applicant or by the City with the applicant 111 responsible for all costs to define traffic warrants for signalization, turn lanes, etc. The concept plan does not indicate the right -of -way width. The roadway should be constructed «� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Kate Aanenson September 24, 1992 i Page 2 I in accordance with the Citys designs for industrial /commercial type use. The road right -of- way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52 -foot wide pavement section. Typically, this collector -type roadway system would include a sidewalk or trail system I adjacent to the street within the right -of -way. With this type of use, it would be prudent to include a sidewalk or trail system to promote pedestrian traffic through and around the park system. 1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE I The concept plan does not provide any preliminary grades for the site. It is assumed due to the topography that extensive grading will be necessary. Appropriate erosion control measures should be employed in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook. The concept plan, again, does not provide data with regards to storm runoff from the development. It is assumed that the wetlands or pond area will be utilized for storm water retention. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standards I and 100 -year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the subdivision codes. Pretreatment and retention ponds may result in reduced size of lots or potential elimination of a lot. 1 UTILITIES 1 As mentioned in the narrative, sanitary sewer and water service will be available to the site from Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site may be serviced via a gravity sewer line from Chaska. I This site contains a very high knoll adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. The City 8h adjacent � Y tY has programmed into its comprehensive water study to construct a future 2 million gallon I elevated storage reservoir in this knoll. The applicant is proposing Lot 4 for the City's future water tower, although the location proposed is not in accordance with the City's I comprehensive water plan. The water tower should be located at the highest elevation, preferably 500 feet southwest of its current proposed location on the concept plan. Although there has been some discussion with regards to lowering State Trunk Highway 41 I to improve the grade for truck traffic, this may result in grading this site which, in turn, would lower the highest point elevation. The applicant should be aware that the City is intending on utilizing the highest point on the site to install a future water reservoir tank 1 to service this quadrant of the City. 1 1 • 1 1 Kate Aanenson September 24, 1992 Page 3 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent 1 topography. 2. The southerly road extension which connects to existing 82nd Street should be redesigned to be perpendicular with 82nd Street. 3. The median islands should be eliminated except for those necessary for traffic 1 delineation. 4. The applicant should explore placement of an entry type monument on one of the 1 corner lots off the trunk highways in lieu of landscaping medians. 5. A traffic study should be prepared to determine traffic warrants for signalization, turn 1 lanes, street widths, etc. 6. The street should be constructed in accordance with the City's design for 1 industrial /commercial uses. 7. The roadway improvement should include a sidewalk or trail system located within 1 the street right -of -way. 8. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100 -year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the City's subdivision code. 9. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM - TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' ✓� FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director ' DATE: January 6, 1993 SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Site Plan Review, Gateway West Business Park, ' Opus Corporation ' The Park and Recreation Commission formerly addressed the aforementioned land development proposal on two occasions, September 22 and November 24, 1992. Staff reports presented to the commission and the minutes of the resulting discussions are attached. As you are aware, the city and the applicant have not been successful in reaching a consensus on the amount of parkland which should be retained as a part of this development. As such, the issue of parkland dedication remains unresolved as we enter City Council review of this proposed development. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the portion of the city which the Gateway site encompasses as park deficient. The acquisition of a significant park area which incorporates as ' many of the natural features offered by this site, i.e. tree cover, topographic diversity, developable land, vistas and wetland areas is highly desirable. The applicant, in their original sketch plan, identified approximately 30 acres of property, specifically Lots 17 and 18 of 5.9 and 24 acres in size as "parkland." The majority of this property, however, is wetland. The "park" is also shown as the chosen location for a holding pond necessary to mitigate the filling of wetlands and for ' stormwater retention. It remains uncontested that retaining such areas as Lots 17 and 18 in a minimally disturbed fashion is beneficial. However, labeling these areas as "park" is not necessary to protect them and park fee credits are not given for the dedication of wetlands. In ' addition, land dedication for park purposes shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit developments. Upon consideration of these findings and upon conclusion of discussion by the Park and Recreation Commission on September 22, the commission made the following recommendation: A motion by Chairman Schroers and seconded by Commissioner Berg that the City Council require the applicant to provide as a part of their proposal a community park site. The site shall include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas affording sufficient area for viewing and Afry 1 tof PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Mr. Don Ashworth 1 January 6, 1993 Page 2 1 picnicking; a designated 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access I points connected to wooded and upland portions of the site; with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks; sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 -ft. fences; a basketball court; a double I tennis court; and sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out in the sketch plan, however, it is desirable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This I park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress and a concept plan of this recommendation shall be prepared for presentation to the Park and Recreation I Commission and City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried. In an attempt to pacify the Park and Recreation Commission in regard to their recommendation, the applicant presented an altemative park plan to staff on October 5, 1992. This plan, however, depicted the vast majority of park components on park property not under the ownership of the applicant. This depiction was presumptuous and obviously of interest to the adjoining landowner. 1 Finding this first alternate plan unacceptable, three requests were made of the applicant: 1. That the applicant was to slide the proposed Lot 14 to the west to allow for a larger ' PP P P g active park component on their property. 2. The active components park of the ark should reflect the requirements as outlined in the staff I report and recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. I 3. That the active components listed in the recommendation be accommodated within the confines of the applicant's property. I In attempting to respond to these requirements, a new concept plan was developed by the applicant. Again, the second alternate did not Meet the requirements made known by the city. I In an attempt to resolve the issue, a compromise position was proposed by staff- -a position which would require approval of the Park and Recreation Commission in an amendment to their original recommendation to the City Council. This compromise would have required the applicant to I dedicate approximately 1.5 acres of additional park property. This compromise position was formally addressed with the Park and Recreation Commission and the applicant on November 24, 1992. However, Mr. Howard Dahlgren, speaking on behalf of the applicant, rejected any I compromise stating, "We are not going to dedicate additional land here. "' Mr. Dahlgren also spoke of the applicant's opinion that acquiring additional parkland adjacent to their project would 1 'Park and Recreation Commission meeting minutes dated November 24, 1992, page 9. 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth January 6, 1993 ' Page 3 l be beneficial and that any fears the city had over passing up the opportunity to acquire additional land as a part of the Gateway application were unfounded stating, "It's not essential to move this line over any further and get another 11/2 acres of industrial land when you can get the flat space ' that you need for active ballfields over here contiguous to the east. To say that that is a pig in a poke and you might not be able to get that, that's really not true. You've got all the power in , the world to require dedication for some of this land.i Staff found it ironic that Mr. Dahlgren ' was advocating administering "all the power in the world" on the adjoining parcel, but was unwilling to compromise on the dedication of approximately an additional 1.5 acres of park property as a part of 178 -acre development. At the close of the discussion that evening, finding the applicant unwilling to compromise, Commissioner Lash moved and Chairman Schroers seconded to uphold their original motion of ' September 22, 1992 (printed earlier in this memo). All voted in favor and the motion carried. As can be seen from the most recent sketch plan (delivered to the city on Wednesday, January 6, 1993), the applicant continues to disregard the standing motion by the Park and Recreation 1 Commission and again chose not to reflect a compromise position on the acquisition of additional parkland in the area of Lot 14. ' Trails In regard to trail construction and/or trail fee dedication, it is the current recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept full trail fees as a part of this development. As addressed in the staff reports, the trail segments adjoining this parcel as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, will be developed under separate projects. 2 Park and Recreation Commission meeting minutes dated November 24, 1992, page 7. 1. 3 C ITY 0 F -- , *4 .0EANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM i TO: Park and Recreation Commission • FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: November 17, 1992 1 SUBJ: Land Development Proposal, Site Plan Review, Gateway West Business Park 1 This item was last formally reviewed by the commission on September 22, 1992 (see attached staff report dated 9/22/92 and corresponding minutes). Action taken by the commission that evening was put in the form of a motion by Commissioner Schroers and seconded by Commissioner Berg "....to recommend that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant provide as a part of their proposal, a community park site. The site to include 1 sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking; a designated 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks; sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 ft. fences; a basketball court; a double tennis court; and a sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out in the sketch plan. However, it is desirable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress, and we would like to see a concept plan of this recommendation. .All voted in favor and the motion carried." On October 5, 1992, members of city staff met with Michelle Foster of Opus Corporation and 1 John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DSU). As documented by the attached minutes prepared by the applicant of that meeting, the requests of the Park and Recreation Commission were again confirmed. As mentioned in the minutes, DSU did present an alternative park plan which depicted the vast majority of many park components on neighboring property. A proposal which I labeled presumptuous, and for which the applicant was again chastised for at a meeting with the Highway 5 Corridor Task Force as being misleading. The consensus of the October 5 discussion was: 1. That the applicant was to slide the proposed Lot 14 to the west to allow for a larger active park component on their property. t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Park and Recreation Commission • November 17, 1992 Page 2 • 2. The active components of the park should reflect the requirements as outlined in the staff ' report and recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. 3. That the active components listed in the recommendation be accommodated within the ' confines of the applicant's property. In attempting to respond to these requirements, a new concept plan was developed by the applicant. The plan was presented to staff members for discussion last week. The moment I saw the new concept plan, I could conclude that the applicant had not gone far enough to satisfy the requirements being requested of them. My discussion that day with Ms. Foster of Opus ' Corporation and Mr. Uban of DSU was very straightforward. I stated that if the easterly line of Lot 14 was moved to the west to a point where it matched the easterly line of Lot 15, the commission would consider accepting the newly created parcel for parkland requirements (see ' attached plan for a visual description of this). As discussed with the applicant, the precise credit, and if need be, financial compensation to be given for this dedication of parkland will be negotiated at a later time. I would like to note that the applicant did allow for a very serviceable trail connection south of Lot 11 to access the wetland preservation area as a part of the new concept drawing. 1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission require the applicant to dedicate 1 parkland as depicted on the attached diagram and as previously described in this memo, and that all other borders of Lots 17 and 18 remain constant prior to approving the concept proposal for Gateway West Business Park in regard to park and recreation related items, and making any 1 recommendations to the Qty Council. , Trails: In regard to trail construction and/or trail fee dedication, it is staffs current 1 recommendation to accept full trail fees as a part of this development. As addressed in the previous staff report, the Highway 5 trail will be developed initially on its north side. Ia regard to the Highway 41 segment, numerous questions pertaining to future road improvements in this area currently remain unanswered. The ideal time to construct a trail along any roadway would be in conjunction with the improvement of Highway 41. 1 1 1 1 CITY OF PRC DATE: 9122/92 A- • a 4417 C H AN H A S ' �� CC DATE: HOFFMAN:k I • STAFF' REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Concept Review for an Office/Industrial Planned Unit Development on 178 Acre of Property Zoned A2, Agricultural Estate 1 Z LOCATION: The Southeast Quadrant of Highways 5 and 41 and the Northwest Quadrant of Q West 82nd Street and Highway 41 1 0 APPLICANT: Opus Corporation - 1 U. 800 Opus Center 9900 Bren Road East Q Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9600 1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2, Agricultural I S - Qty of Chaska (Industrial) . E - A2, Agricultural W - A2, Agricultural Estate and U of M Landscape Arboretum I Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: I Q The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of tbe.city as parkland deficient. Specifically, th plan labels the area which encompasses this proposed development as park deficiency zone 7. Th W acquisition of a significant park area which incorporates as many of the natural features offered by this t.. site, i.e. tree cover, topographic diversity, developable land, vistas, and wetland areas is highly desirable The applicant, as a part of their narrative, has currently identified slightly less than 30 acres of pro per<y� vi as parkland. The vast majority of this land, however, is wetland. The area would also include a holding pond which is necessary to mitigate the filling of wetlands on the site, and for storm water retention. The open space areas identified on the current sketch plan are comprised of two separate parcels- -Lot 1 1 Gateway West Business Park • Septemt er 22, 1992 Page 2 17 and Lot 18 being 5.9 and 24 acres in size, respectively. It is uncontested that areas such as those being identified as park are beneficial. However, labeling these areas as park is not necessary to protect the wetlands found here. No credit of park fees are given for the dedication of wetlands as public space areas as a part of a development proposal. The wooded and upland areas of Lot 18 would earn the applicant partial credit of park fees. Excluding any park fee ' credits, this proposal would generate a minimum of $350,000 is park fee revenues. The city's standard for a community park calls for a site of 25 to 50 acres which affords natural features of varied physiographic interest. A community park is an area of natural and/or ornamental t quality for outdoor recreation such as walking, viewing, sitting, picnicking, and may incorporate areas for field and court games. A proximity to community facilities and resources is also ' important. The concept plan submitted takes the first steps in creating an area offering these qualities. Just as the city recognizes the need for well planned recreational park and open space amenities, I believe the applicant does as well. Recommendation It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant to provide, as a part of their proposal, a community park site. This site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas, affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 ft. wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site, with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks, sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 ft. fences, ' a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desirable that all parkland components be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress /egress. ' COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for the location of 8 ft. wide bituminous off - street trails on the north and west perimeters of the main site. The northern boundary being State Highway 5 and the western boundary being State Highway 41. We can anticipate that the section of trail to the north will be completed in conjunction with the next phase of construction on Highway 5. This trail, when constructed, will lie on the north side of the highway. In regard to Highway 41, the applicant has not incorporated into their sketch plan the section of trail identified here in the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan. A representative of the applicant has voiced their desire to delay the planning of this trail until the state improves Highway 41. Dependant upon the likelihood of the state doing so, and the proposed time frame, the city may concur with this position. However, in the realm of highway improvement time tables, better safe than on the back burner. This section will, at its south terminus, be an important link with Chaska's trail system. Internal pedestrian traffic routes (sidewalks) are necessary as a part of this plan and will • 1 1 Gateway West Business Park 1 Septcmter 22, 1992 Page 3 be addressed by the Planning Department and Commission. The minimum amount of revenue 1 this development would generate in trail fees upon completion, excluding any credits, is $ 114,000. 1 Recommendation 1 It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant to incorporate into their proposal and plan for the construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the east I side of State Highway 41 beginning at State Highway 5 and extending south to West 82nd Street. This construction is to be completed by the applicant in accordance with the city's standard specifications in regard to trails. In consideration for this construction, trail fees will be reduced 1 accordingly. Upon the Commission's requests being incorporated into the Gateway West Business Park Plan, 1 the Park and Recreation Commission will be presented an amended plan. 1 Attachments , Vicinity Map 1 Sketch Plans Applicant's Narrative I Park Deficiency Map Trail Plan Map 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •111 on NE am am am Aim no - 7 . 0. if ;. IF l - "Li .... =--' • 1 / o OC f1' All R t � R \N I% 3300 ■ (1) —+ to 3200. ' - - ■ 0 0 z 3t00 dII b. t 11 I ‘ �o 3C 00 v / ; < iI 3 7 .�. ' o n . o 2 °100 ID Z n 1 i ; 0 0 1111111111111 0 1P.! '— ar . e .% .: 1 ! 2900 - 7G C 0 C 0 e a 0)2700- a o °o IMMO ~IP I . • I M ®( ` °° I 1 4 \ . : _ AL pIN : U e - --1-- - jr r cR is ) (.........................L . # . ' ' . il nr .. 7 "... 7 .S... ■ A 1 ni a. *. • _ 1 _ ♦ y O _ 4i � 0 ~• C1 0 Al2, n • > fin -_— . I _ 1 0 ° Z::i* ::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : D D . 111i;titiititi`tititif 1 .• !r Z fil 1 -I a M W !r,iit ittit tttttt tt v,;, x up ,f y P es n 2. a i= t t•!i!i!i E.t •!i • F 1 .%-- : - 01*--12 -441 4: 1F ail - ' +•- - , 1_I . (-.-0 1 • ---_� .'' " = r; _ ,• , ..,„...,....:„.r.,..,.,.............,.. 1 1 ;. .1-4 •••11.,.,, ... ' �' �i e •-- ° +::. ,iii... •. ? ••1 1 • I 'm Y ,.. 40.,• ,. 1 • . 4 . : •1•d ' + EI 1 1 11 ` �� ` 'r ' 7/. .t 4.. .� ' 1: 1E1 i i a IiiiiiT, 1t I�� :.„..f..; I I. � e . • ` : f ,i 1 ___. _____-,1114, .. , .----: .1 L , • ,,.. fri-N, . i if ,. .„ •• ' 1 D I i' - All tilm* IFA . . . "'". • I • :r i : • . 1J I /I k.. 1 „ --. , ii ;h. i . ; fi i . 1 11 • °' a \ 1 r. n. , . c: i---!._ 1 ..= 1;,.1 1 t 7:.ezi, '.... i 1 \ . , % iik 1 .. CI , C V .. � ..1 - c •.1.11 it . 1 ♦ . . ! y oill 1 t \ . t " ' A 71 I 1 1 1 ..A...f 1 1 \ 1 I • I . (.13;r C.f. . ' 1 1 - . 1 P p < g 1-1; :pim — • f i l il 'PI In 2 I -* F. r. g 01 i ..,* 0 0 cn * m x ITI .4 ltfi, g CC • ...! 61 V IP AI p 0 p .. - 111 - A A " z 1 z: • • co r.1 cn 1 t./ ..___... - /1 4 1) X• .. IIIIIP . • / k.: .. , 1 1 \ `■:"..**zr,,: -.. ,/ A . 1 3" 1 I 4 ■:L.,,,T., s., r . ____., Is•'- - •.:// ;21,' • .. i .? , ... rz---. / ,, „.• ------ CI- .i 1 :' .....-:.-.:..-'-----,....---• -..-- ■••••= ............... ..._,;■■•".4-•■••1 1: 17:-' ... :■■■■ ::: ,, A - -- \.\ -..„..... . ) .............., ...--. I - ...j 4' •:- • ...,..-3=3...... ,- .., i 3 ril,00ww I- - 1:, i :.: ; . ..,•••• s • . ' \ a.. 40 .... • ) 10 11141 ,, • 4.. .:. ■'... ••'.!•\ ....40 • , V .:•',.;. ,. M , •• • '.. - N.A.1,:'..` '.....■?....•.` I ,to..' .9 1'1 c l'', •..74.:•'•ii.,10.•;.; ..vi'' '1 _ '', - .1,■'.,. • • Al .4-... ' . ." / 2 1 1 14 -' - '!'z • -...=:•,:-.• •-••• "'' .4. Mame el •, • . ..- .. a. . ' . . . • ." ... .' . --.----111 1.1..... ''..."."'"".•••■••■"... ...' •• .7 ...... . '.■■■., ril H . ''' • . '...• .....""'.... .I .'•••••''... . _ 7 ' t A 4 . ‘ t • t(Gs; ': , I 't '''' ' 4 ‘,/•,%:: • ......-■■••-% N , ; ,....7 . , _.... . .. i . .. • =r...= 1;# 4 . *:: ) . I/ . 11 - 1 ' p r • ):1.: ;di, :r-;.tt, ; .;,'/,',. . ' ---". 1 .,. 41 4 Y l ' i la '7-11 . I I I , 4 .. 1 .. ' . . : . ( • 1 I. . 11, ,II;.',. ..1::, ... I.? 0 : •\,/' "q• 117 I =-1 ,: . .• :Tinf,.. . ( ',1 ( '47 4 ' .t? . .. :.s..:,.:i,.. -,... L. -- . — . i ..--vzb.•• 77 - .. :.. Z... - ' .. .V; ..' • F.. .. / i I 7 .____,i.,..„..,,,,,,,.. I " 1 ° d ' ; ' ' ‘ ."*.:=:. T .—:-. 1 1;:i . 1 : i ! ..1 ,...4f • I ' • ill1 ' . b 1 ................ 1 1 11 1 ; " ;::,-- - 77 : - . 1 1 /Z" ..-74 .. - -A. ) . 1 %,:■ 1 . ... . ... .F. ii10 t ..) i t ; '1 f1 1 ,Y:'....).T , 1 .. Z .-' ,4!' .;,•, <39.1k1....•.:* .. lt --- - :. . %,.. . •, . .. i r. . .kl ,../;. i?.. ....::: . v,t, r L h ' r . , • „ i • , ..,,, ,,• I. . "ii.1 •••• i ...... -,,) : r d. . ,-.4 . -I • s. ....I "N j■ r';,:,. '. ' ,ii„.,• . : . ' al,. , r , 1 , , : • ip .. . ir ..•.. .i. . 1 1 a ?" i . %.7 : I ;, „ .- - % - it --‘:•• i. I 11 . h - - • ..'111% -• All • 1 / ;•" ".;;')_'•••• 1 4C . l;%■•:;1• : •••' - s'; s• • .• .e , ; .• it ___,. :z ,,,, N ..1),ii4:,. -.., i -: - %. •A •,...,.. li. . : .• 11,, 1.., _„ -„,...._ •....,N 7 , ID . i ,„..,././. .. - N...."7" * nrsam.. ', .::....,,. • .: ... . ... ....• : • • • I' • kfi )11;fr,v, 'A 1 • : : . r t ‘,,, \ i IIII(Vt P - I . of 4 • K. I / • ,, .0 ; . „,,,,• es 0%ly .?. 1 • .4 . t e i *0 .. • % : \ 1. -. I ...1.1: , 1 ja? 4" I A 1 • . .. . 1 i ... 1 r' nni. - - _ :.... - ..:.) AV 1 • "go. r. N.\,•-■ \ . -+ ■ ,,,,•• / ‘ i • .. 1 I IC I ■ 01 .. di . "(p . 1 • ' •'' 1 .I. ,..-. '""•=••••••• ‘ 1, j,' . '' ."0, „,„,•:, ibi ... —4...4... - - 1f: )1.' I , l, ‘ , • \ u. .''•-• .. — i ,..,r7. g S ..." 4 .... ' :11■L?'/.1•111■1•MP 1:17iir: ......lb a 1 . iM 1 0 . - ..•,,. . . .. ; \ a, I :117. 1•11 V; • 1 . 1 10111111414.1 , . • All EE — • :,.11116,* s 7 Th.,....._ \.:46. .. Lmr27,:....z,„..4,-.7,7,-,,, . i t . , „ mi ......:.... .2 _______ .....A. fAll ........u.s....r. 1 • ', , ,, •,, .- • . — • . ...., IIIL. s. . : • ... .s.' 1,1 . 0 4141/ i /. 4. , . 1 , . . ../ . r is • Illtl--, • -.•:, ..g e t i 1 Opus Corporation 1 O D! PUS. 800 Opus Center Mailing Address - r �J 9900 Bren Road East P.O BOx 150 • Minnetonka. Minnesota 55343.9600 Minneapolis. Minnesota 5544D0150 612.9364444 fax 612.936 -4529 1 September 8, 1992 1 Mr. Paul Krauss ' Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Gateway West Business Park 1 Dear Mr. Krauss: On behalf of the Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, Op us Corporation s pleased to 111 submit the enclosed PUD Concept Plan for the Gateway West Business Park at the intersection of Highways 5 & 41 in the city of Chanhassen. The subject property covered by the PUD Concept Plan is the property of approximately 150 acres located in the southeast quadrant of Highways 5 & 41 as well as the land located in the northwest quadrant of West 82nd Street and Highway 41, consisting of approximately 28 acres. The property currently is utilized for agricultural purposes. It consists primarily of rolling farmland with significant wetlands along the eastern boundary of the easterly parcel and another wetland area on the westerly parcel. Gateway West Business Park envisions the development of a quality mixed use business 1 center. It will contain approximately 960,000 square feet of total development including approximately 937,000 square feet of office, warehouse and manufacturing space and 23,000 square feet of commercial development to support the businesses locating in the park, In , addition, 29 acres in the northwest part of the park has been reserved for a special mixed use development that will reflect the quality and standards consistent with the high visibility of this site and the objectives of the city of Chanhassen. At this time, the exact nature of the 111 land use is not known but could include institutional, educational, office, industrial, or commercial uses. We request that a mixed use land use designation be given to the property at this time so that the highest and best use for the property can be found. Park covenants will be developed to assure quality development. • The plan respects the natural features of the site to the utmost atent possible. The plan has been developed in order to create a unique business park setting, which consolidates the wetland areas into park areas for preservation and serve as focal points for the development. The important wooded areas to the south and east are also preserved. The internal circulation for the park is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan by providing a parkway like extension of the Highway 5 frontage road, connecting to the existing Opus Corporation a to "hint of the Oxus group of to'nantes — Amon:ttts. Common. Oaatooers Austin. Chap. Dallas. Denver. Huston. Milwaukee. Mmrwpolrs. Pervatola Phoenix. Swett. Tyro 1 OPUS. 1 • Mr. Paul Krauss September 8, 1992 1 Page 2 1 West 82nd Street ai the Chanhassen /Chaska border. Only one major intersection is provided with Highway 5 and another with Highway 41 in order to provide access into the park. We are requesting that improvements be made to Highway 41 to lower the elevation of the roadway which will allow for safer ingress and egress into the site. ' Utility service for the development is requested u of Phase II of the Bluff Creek District sanitary sewer and ater main improvements. It is anticipated tha t interim services ' can be provided to the southerly portion of the site through a cooperative agreement with the city of Chaska. A site for a future water tower has been incorporated into the plan to be located along Highway 41. 1 We are requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the Gateway West Business Park PUD Concept Plan and rezoning as the first step y ccP g ep in the governmental approval process for this project. This approval will be followed by a request for preliminary plat, approval of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Tax Increment Financing, and the extension of utility service. 1 We request that you accept the enclosed application for sketch plan review and rezoning for consideration on the October 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Please call me if you 1 have any questions or require any additional information regarding our application. ?hank you for consideration of our request. 1 Sincerely, 1 Michele Foster Director Real Estate Development 1 MF /k 1 cc: Paul Steiner /Steiner Development, Inc. John Uban/Dahlgren, Shardlow & Ubsn 500 oe/crr "We ■e/ 1 �� <f ssitj 1 1 1 1 f 1 DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PUD CONCEPT PLAN Properly Description The total property consists of approximately 178 acres, of which 150 acres are south of Highway 5 ' and east of State Highway 41. The westerly parcel is 28 acres located directly west of Highway 41 and north of 82nd Street. The property is under cultivation with one farm homestead along Highway 5. Approximately 22 acres of the land has been mapped as wetlands by the City of Chanhassen. Ten acres of upland woods consisting of maple, basswood, and oak are located in the southeast corner of the 150 -acre parcel. The property has about 1R mile of frontage along Highway 5, 3/4 mile of frontage along Highway 41, and approximately 1/2 mile of frontage along 82nd Street. Wetlands Twenty-two acres of wetlands have been mapped on the property and are shown on the Existing Conditions map. The wetlands are as follows: a- 16 -4(2) 4.7 acres a- 16 -7(1) 7.2 acres a- 16 -7(2) .2 acres a- 16 -7(3) 2.5 acres a- 16 -7(4) .4 acres a.16 -6(1) .2 acres a- 16 -1(2) 6.5 acres a-16-2(1) .4 acres The wetlands are found primarily on the eastern edge of the property, adjacent to the larger wetland and drainage system that continues to the east. The area to the east is also covered with vegetation consisting of primarily boxelder, willow and green ash. These wetlands are proposed to be preserved with the preservation of the adjacent upland hardwoods. The unique character of this area forms a natural preserve suitable for public park purposes. A portion of A- 16-4(2) wetland in the northeast corner of the the needs to be filled for roadway purposes. The road is the proposed east -west collector frontage road that needs to traverse the wetland area to the east to complete the City's comprehensive transportation plan. Approximately, an acre would be filled depending on final plans. Also, a small wetland A- 16 -6(1) on the southern edge of the property also needs to be filled for the alignment of the collector. 1 To mitigate the filling of these wetlands, we are proposing a wetland and pond to be established directly adjacent to A- 16 -7(1) wetland and to be part of the proposed park system along the eastern edge of the property. The mitigation is proposed to be at least 2:1. Wetland A- 16 -2(1), which is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highways 41 and 5, is proposed to remain the same. It is quite possible that the Highway Department may need to 1 amend this wetland as future highway improvements are made. 1 1 1 Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 2 Wetlan: A- 16 -1(2) runs north and south through the property west of Highway 41. This has been described by the City's wetland specialists as very marginal and would need enhancement to bring it back to a wetland condition. We propose to fill the southern portion of the wetland and create an enhanced wetland on the rernaihder. A portion of this wetland was filled in the past with the construction of 82nd Street in preparation for development to the south. The design of the eventual storm sewer system will include ponding for the purposes of catching water before it enters the wetland systems. Specific wetland mitigation details will accompany the preliminary grading plan and the preliminary plat. , Existing Land Use 1 All of the property is presently used for agricultural purposes — the residential home site on Highway 41 is an exception. The Gateway Partners are presently negotiating with the owner to include this property in the overall development. ' The University of Minnesota's Landscape Arboretum is located to the west of the property. To the south is the City of Chaska and primarily Industrial land uses. The boundary between the two cities 1 is 82nd Street. A large wetland complex running north -south from Highway 5 and drained by a rural drainage ditch is located to the east. County Road 117 is located east of that wetland. Undeveloped Agricultural land is located to the north of the property across Highway S. Our concept plan shows that the proposed intersection with Highway 5 would serve the property to the north. The entrance to the north considers the location of the existing woods. 1 The City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Industrial. The land use designation is consistent with the surrounding land uses and road system. The business park is located in a prominent area, important to both the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska. At the intersection of Highway 41 and 5, the City of Chanhassen has expressed concern about community image as a gateway to the City. We agree that careful consideration should be made as to the overall image of the proposed business park. Transportation Plant 1 The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes an east -west collector road connecting 82nd Street east from Highway 41 to County Road 117 south of Highway S. The plan also shows a north -south connector between 82nd Street and Highway S. Our road circulation plan includes all of those connections and routes as indicated in the City's plan. Eighty- Second Street serves development in Chanhassen as well as Chaska and curves to the south serving additional industrial land within the City of Chaska. It will directly serve the southern border of the proposed business park. 1 Access to the interior road system includes one access onto Highway S and one access onto Highway 41. We have worked with MnDOT to confirm points of access. The access points have been determined to be appropriate distances from the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 to handle future traffic concerns. 1 We are also anticipating a future safety improvement project on Highway 41 that would help eliminate the steep grade coming off of the Highways 5 and 41 intersection. MnDOT indicated that the steep grade slows truck traffic through the intersection, and a lowering of that grade would also improve overall capacity. The lowering of Highway 41 through the area would improve overall 1 circulation and would better match the grades of future development in the business park. This 1 1 Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 3 work c.tn be done in conjunction with the City's future watermain and water tower project that are 1 planned along the Highway 41 corridor. Proposed Land Use The Concept Plan illusrates the road system contemplated in the City's Comprehensive Plan facilitating the development of industrial lots along the collector road while preserving the eastern edge for park and natural area. The road system is developed to create T.-intersections, which form safe intersections for traffic. The T intersections also focus business park visitors toward the amenities and the entrance to the park area. This entrance experience is an important part of the image of the park and is incorporated in the design of the circulation system. Part of the road , entrance design includes landscape islands to define traffic movements and create an enhanced image "• for the park at critical points. Primary entrance points will be off of Highway 3 and 41 with a 111 secondary entrance off 82nd Street. The plan has developed into 22 lots, including Lots 17 and 18 for public park purposes. The park area is proposed to be approximately 30 acres in size. Lots 8, 20, and 21 are proposed to be the initial phase of support-commercial for the industrial area. These uses may include a bank, service station, restaurant, etc. Approximately 29 acres are in Lot 1, which is proposed as mixed use to be determined at a time in the future when the business park matures. This location is very prominent in the City of Chanhassen and should be held for the best use possible. Often the temptation is to develop the best sites first, however, we believe that it is to both the developer's and the City's advantage to bold onto this site for a mixed use development that could include office, a hospital or specialized medical clinic, research center, educational facility, commercial and other uses complementary to the business park and the City of Chanhassen. 1 Along Highway 41, Lot 4 is proposed to be the she for the City of Chanhassen's water tower. We have located the water tower next to our western entrance in anticipation that its design will be of high quality and a recognizable landmark. Overall, we anticipate the develop will consist of approximately 960,000 square feet of industrial and associated uses. A majority of the site will develop within the next 10 years, with the first phase of development beginning along 82nd Street on the southern edge of the property. The road system will be built as development moves northerly and to the east. The phasing works ID unison with the installation of utilities. It is anticipated that the southern portions of the site can be served through the City of Chaska, with the remainder of the site being served with a future extension of sewer from the southeast. Amenities 1 Amenities and the standards for development are critical to the quality of the business park. Opus has developed many such parks in the past and proposes to use similar standards and development techniques for the Gateway West Business Park. In order to integrate the business park into the natural surroundings and adjacent land uses to the east, the development plan indicates a 30-acre public park to include wetland and wooded areas for the purpose of public enjoyment and long -term preservation. The park area would extend from the wetlands and woods along Highway S to 82nd Street. As land is developed to the east, the City can add additional land to this park preserve system. 1 1 1 Gateway West Business Park Narrative 4 September 1992 Page 4 I • 'The business park will be id;ntified at its major entrances with monuments and enhanced landscai.ing. These areas will be designed in conjunction with the traffic islands to create a prominent entrance and identifiable image for the area. Details of the amenity designs will 1 accompany the preliminary plat for each phase of development. In addition to the entrances on Highway 5, Highway 41, and 82nd Street, special attention will be ' given to the perimeter along the highways. The perimeter plan will include groupings of plantings in recognizable blocks rather than stretched out in a linear fashion, which is the typical street treatment. The use of tree groups will enhance the road character and still provide visibility to the attractive buildings within the park area. Also, care will be given to the development of parking and ' loading areas so that ample screening is provided to *minimize the visual expanse of large parking areas lots. The perimeter plans will be completed as each area develops and based on the eventual design and reconstruction of adjacent highways. 1 Each individual industrial site will develop according to specific site development standards that will be included in the development controls for the business park. These standards will include the design and location of entry drives and parking, buildings, signage, lighting, and site grading. The ' landscape treatment of each site will include boulevard plantings in public streets 6 feet from the curb, with emphasis on winter attractiveness, spring blooming, and fail colors around the building and parking lots. Perennial plantings will be encouraged in highly visible locations to add more summer beauty throughout the park. Where appropriate, native grasses may be used as part of the landscape treatment. 1 Architectural standards for buildings will be developed to cover building materials, utilities, screening, lighting, architectural design, loading and signage. These standards will discourage the use of outside storage, metal buildings, and other less desirable components of industrial development. 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 1 - . 1 I 1,-.942,41 i j am' -•E -�$ � �:� _ w . � '.'e 17 L. amin Rearm" yr _ -. _ ; �� = s eA lliff ••.. l - - ,.r .aE _ 40.M 117 114 �� -, • ti :: '_t ° - � ri , 6 Alb' . 7 a O - -,; . _-:___ 4,a1.4 - Il k gi -.. &V . , ......... it ....,.... -2 .... . . ; * „ . . - „...... ...„. . _ . i - : .,... 4 :: ... 1 1. 1 , — - - . _ _:•±... fi t a [tea i , __� -4 _ - -_{ /MU al Go : tra,Yout..4.-- 4 P tror - filt3 116 .0V er - .: ...E.: i isim s • ; . lit--011 • : ri �: , � tt - - , _ -- -,Iimil ._...,- . Alt ; .,,,,,. /. .ris- ; ,, ,,,,, .... ..' l 1 —` : -�• 1 City Of ��i I ' Chanhassen :•, _ " .., .. • Minnesota j Park Deficiency Areas , : -�„ N. 8 _. • Existing Parks and Service Areas : - '-v- : t• ; -- 1 1 1:1:1 2000 MUSA Line 1 IIU I • ,.--,:-- le • r . , ________ Ila - • ar - T T 1 lit . i eaw 1 A 1 111 1i x . 4- 1 !ti. E , o :. . -•-:.-.. ■ _ r � j ' Q - ..y - 1 '.. . '' y — —_ iii „, 1 4111 464If .,,,,-.... . _,.. . ii,,.... . • lir alls 3 0 , ......-- ■ . 0 • 1 . it- i • .; F 2r • ; • I . 1,- I Or ilej•-...- or ...... • — .:.•:•--7 1 t - ) : ' : .. . :3 . aII• MOM d 1 1 1! i 1 i t! t t L. N '` • - am �_-.� t – 1• " � 4 CRT o f -- I • __i - ' ' 4 .... Trail Plan --1 -� - = _ ....7. — in rj 111.1.111.11. Walkway /Bikeway ----1 •.• -- = 'ilia — • C • . -• • • • Nature Tail I • • • �� • : , • Connection Points ......d ' o ; - .. ` `y am , • L �r` !� - t .....L......i.. ild j -- OD - .n.' - T • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ease - 1989 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 22 1 The joint Park and Recreation Commission and City Council portion of the meeting was adjourned. Chairman Schroers called the regular Park and ' Recreation Commission meeting to order at 8:30 p.m.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Berg moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes I of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 11, 1992 as amended by Randy Erickson on page 33, deleting the first sentence in the sixth paragraph, and on page 38, changing the phrase 'Nerf Hockey" to 1 "nerd hobby ". Also, approving the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated August 25, 1992 as amended by Jan Lash on page 40, changing the statement under Fall Recreational Schedule attributed t Lash to Hoffman. All voted in favor and the motion carried. LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. CONCEPT SITE PLAN REVIEW: GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK. OPUS CORPORATION. ' Public Present: Name Address , Michele. Foster, Opus Corporation, P.O. Box 150, Minneapolis 55440 Tom Kordonowy, Steiner Development, 3610 So. Hwy 101, Wayzata 55391 1 Howard Dahlgren, Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban, 300 1st Avenue No, Mpls Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers and Park Commissioners. Before well begin I believe it would be appropriate to introduce the folks that we have here in the audience. Michele Foster in the second row is the Director of Land Development at Opus Corporation. The other gentlemen, I'll let them introduce themselves to the Commission and let them addres with you what their connection with this project is. Howard Dahlgren: My name is Howard Dahlgren. I'm the past President of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Land Planning Consultants...Tom Kordonowy who is the President of Steiner Development...partners. Tom Kordonowy: ...resident of Chanhassen. 1 have four Chanhassen and ' I enjoy the City very much. Hoffman: Thank you. The concept review which you have before you is fo an office /industrial planned unit development on 178 acres of property currently zoned agricultural estate. The location, as you can see by your location map, is the southeast quadrant of Highway 5 and 41. In the. northwest quadrant of West 78th Street and Highway 41. We reviewed this map throughout the meeting but I believe it would be appropriate... significance in size. Again, the proposal is in that southeast quadrant" of Highway 5 and 41. The boundaries to the west would be Highway 41, State Highway and the Arboretum... This also runs directly into the City of Chaska... Back to the east you have a vacant parcel of property 1 slated for high density residential to the north and lower density or single family residential to be developed immediately east of that where we run into Timberwood... As you can see, it's a significant... To go through the adjacent, the current zoning again to the north is agricultural estates. To the south, the City of Chaska and their 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 23 industrial park. East, agricultural and then west again, agricultural ' and the U of M Landscape Arboretum. In regard to the City's Comprehensive Plan, it.identifies this area of the city as park deficient. Specifically the plan labels the area which encompasses this ' proposed development as Park Deficiency Zone No. 7. The acquisition of a significant park area which incorporates as many of the natural features offered by this site referring to the tree cover, topographic diversity, developable land, vistas, wetland areas, is highly desireable. The applicant as a part of their narrative, as you have read, has currently identified slightly•less than 30 acres of property as parkland. The vast 'majority or so be it, the majority of that property however is wetland and currently is in that state. The area which would also include a holding pond which is necessary to mitigate the filling of wetlands on this site, and for storm water retention. The open space identified on the current sketch plans are comprised of two separate parcels. Lot 17 and Lot 18 being 5.9 and 24 acres in size respectively. Nobody contests that area such as those being identified as parks are beneficial. However, labeling these areas as park is not necessary to protect them as wetlands. As you know, no park credit fees, no credit to park fees are given for the dedication of wetlands as public space areas as a part of a development proposal. The wooded and upland areas of Lot 18 would earn ' the applicant partial credit of park fees. Excluding any park fee credits, this proposal would generate in the area of $350,000.00 in park fees revenue. The City standards for a community parks call for a site ' totally in it's entirety, 25 to 50 acres. Community park affords natural features of varied physiographic interests as we discussed earlier. A community park is an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation such as walking, viewing, sitting, picnicing and may incorporate areas for field and court games. Proximity to community facilities and resources obviously is also important. The concept plan submitted to date, which you have before you. takes the first few steps ' in creating an area offering these qualifies. Again, just as the city recognizes the importance of these areas. I believe the applicant does as well. we just need to work through the process of coming to an agreement of what that all exactly means. In addition to your packet you have ' before you an aerial topographic view which shows you in better clarity how this site lays out. The large blue line which you have laying before you, that will show you a little bit better exactly the areas which are 11 currently identified as parks and open space and how they actually look in the field. So please feel free to refer to that as we go through this. As far as the recommendation in regards to the City Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission request the applicant provide, as a part of their proposal, a community park site. This site to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas, affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicing, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicing and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks. Sufficient area for the possible construction of two balifields, a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities, very similar to what you see at Lake Susan Park in the community at present. This will require the designation of considerable more property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable that all parkland conformance be contiguous or lie next 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 — Page 24 1 to each other, meaning both the active components and then the wetland components as part of this proposal. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient egress and ingress and parking areas. Conversations today with some of the representatives we have here is that, this may certain" be possible that it needs to make economic sense and we don't dispute that. Any property the City would be desiring to acquire, the applicant would certainly be compensated for. Which fund that comes out of may, still not answered. As you discussed tonight, the applicant will come for a financing plan under TIF, Tax Increment Financing. A portion of the park or the facility which eventually is realized here, could be financed as it was at Lake Susan with those TIF dollars. A portion of II could be financed with park fees as eluded to that this development wou eventually maintain at *350,000.00 or better in park fees. So I'll be interested to hear what the commission, what your thoughts are in regarll to the comprehensive plan and what that means to this area, as I'm sure the applicant will as well. Comprehensive trail plan is somewhat simpler. More simple. The comprehensive trail plan calls for a locati of an 8 foot wide bituminous off street trail on the north and west perimeters of the site, being Highway 5 and Highway 41. We can anticipate that the section of trails to the north will be completed in conjunction with the next phase of construction of Highway 5 as we II discussed this evening. This trail when constructed, will lie on the north side of the highway. In regards to Highway 41, the applicant has not incorporated into their sketch plan the section of trail identified!' in the City comprehensive plan. There may be good reason for that in that the applicant has had conversations and the City would certainly be interested in entering into those as well with MnDot so that the desire of lowering the road level there at Highway 41, when you turn south off of Highway 5 and you directly begin to ascend that steep hill. It woul be to everyone's benefit to bring that down. At the time that that road project would be undertaken, that would be a very reasonable time to go 1 ahead and put that trail system in. But again with the timeframes and the forecasts of MnDot, I'm not sure that we want to hang our hat on that. Those roadway projects can drag out for 5, 10, 15 years dependin on funding sources, etc. Dependent upon the likelihood of the State doing so, at the proposed time we may concur with that position. It's to the Commission and City Council to decide. This section will at itself terminous the one going south on Highway 41. It will be an ' important link with Chaska's trail system. In regards to interal pedestrian traffic routes or sidewalks, they are necessary as a part of this plan and will be addressed by the Planning Department and Commission. The minimum amount of revenue this development could generate in trail fees upon it's completion, excluding any credit, is *114,000.00. The recommendation in regard to trails is that the Park Commission request the applicant to incorporate into their proposal and 11 site plan the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of State Highway 41, beginning at State Highway 5, extending south to the existing West 82nd Street. This construction is to be completed by the applicant in accordance with the city standards, specifications in regard to trails. In consideration for that construction, trail fees will be reduced accordingly. That recommendation can be amended as a part of my previous comments in regar' to the lowering of the road and that type of thing. If you would like to 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page.25 1 see the trail go in at that time, I would amend that recommendation to elude to that. Upon the Commission's request to being incorporated, into the Gateway West Business Park plan, the Park and Recreation Commission will have a second chance to look at this and review their proposal. Schroers: Thanks a lot Todd. I think that staff laid this out very well. This is a familiar format that we've seen before. It's ' understandable that unuseable area such as wetlands would make good parks and good natural areas. However, we need property that will also support ,active use as we are park deficient in that area so a balance of both ' natural area and active use area I think is what we're going to be striving for here and that was put down quite well in the recommendation I believe. I'm looking for input or discussion from other commissioners. ' Lash: I have two quick questions for Todd and the applicant I guess. The first one would be, is there any timeframe that anyone knows of for TH 41? Do you have inside information? Michele Foster: We have had conversations with MnDot, with Evan Green at MnDot as far as road improvements for Highway 5...and our request to include the access on Highway 41. There's no definitive time table, ' although he has indicated that they are looking at the 1996 timeframe but feel if there is significant interest on the part of both the cities of Chaska and Chanhassen, that there may be some pressure that can be ' brought to bear to find funds in order to move that up on the schedule. We are certainly very interested in having that happen because we feel it's very important to the development of this property to improve that ' access and I think from conversations with both the Planning Department of Chanhassen and with the City of Chaska, that there would be significant support for seeing that, those improvements made. But until we get further along in this process and the City has taken some more definitive approvals for the concept that we're talking about, we haven't been able to bring that pressure to bear at this point but we are prepared to do that... Lash: But the farthest down the road would be 1996? • Michele Foster: That's what they say today. Berg: Is that tied in at all with the completion of 212? ' Michele Foster: No...it's a separate issue. There may be some improvements there now. I think they...to be more improvements there and it's a question of I think...to make that priority for the State, as they are open to that discussion. Berg: Because I was under the impression they were going to be looking at redoing TH 41 when 212 connected. Have you heard anything about that? I'm wondering if the way that 212 is being. Michele Foster: To the best of my knowledge, no. But again, that issue still needs to be addressed in terms of timing, both from our interest and I think the same for the City as well. II Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 26 II Koubsky: Michele, for this development would you wait for that improvement before you developed or would you develop and then II incorporate MnDot's plan? Michele Foster: Well I think we need to understand what their timing ill going to be for those improvements. It really is our goal to see those improvements made sooner rather than later. But no, this project is not going to wait for the Highway 41 improvements but it is our goal to get those done. we can and that's why it's our position that we would like that portion of trail not have to be installed immediately. When -from a planning purpose it makes sense to understand that but I'm not sure that it makes sense to require the installation... It may also be I possible then to use State or Federal funds to install that portion of trail as part of the improvements. It would be nice... Koubsky: That looks like a pretty small issue on this whole thing. , Michele Foster: In the whole scheme of things, it is but. Lash: Then Todd my question for you is, in your recommendation regardin1 the trail it said, in consideration for this construction, trail fees will be reduced accordingly. Do you have any idea what it would be? II Hoffman: Again, in regard to the construction of the trail, upon finishing my report the discussions came out about lowering Highway 41. il would not be an advocate of pursuing development of the trail with park development fees by the applicant in light of recent information being brought forward. Chairman Schroers, I believe it would be valuable at this time if the applicants do have any prepared statements, that the I Commission could take those. Schroers: Yes. Okay, thanks. If there is anything that any of the applicants or the representatives of this project wish to share with us," we'd be happy to hear it at this time. Michele Foster: Well I'd like to defer to Howard Dahigren at this point" His firm has been the planning consultant firm for the project and we'd like to give a brief presentation on what our rationale was in developin the concept and then I can Just make a few brief comments after that really about, clarifying our position on the staff recommendation. So with that I guess I'd like Howard... Howard Dahlgren: Thank you very much. We've put together a few 1 transparencies that I thought might be helpful for the Commission to understand our proposal... By the way,'I want you to know that it is our objective here to do this park pretty well. It's a great piece of land. ' It's important to the city of Chanhassen and Chaska in the sense that it's the gateway to Chaska from the north and gateway to Chanhassen from the west. That's why we're...we want to do the right thing in the right II way at the right time. There are some things we can do and there are some things that we cannot do. But working together, we want to have the . best results here. That's why... II 1 -- Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 27 (Mr. Dahlgren's presentation was not being picked up on the tape as he was standing away from a microphone.) Schroers: Okay, could I ask for a little interpretation on that. When you say that the 15.9 of useable land, are you talking about the high ground and treed area? It's the forested area? Howard Dahlgren: Some of it, as you can see from the photo, some of it has, much of it has trees. Some of it does not. As you can see here, I think the land that showed trees... Here you can see, the wetlands are shown on here in the dotted line. The trees are shown on here in the lighter green. That shows the relationship of the trees and the overall park site... 5o the answer is, there's high ground with trees. There's high ground without trees. ' Schroers: Is there high ground without trees sufficient enough to have playing fields, in your opinion? ' Howard Dahlgren: Well I think if we leave•this as it is, if you move this pond somewhere else, maybe in here or somewhere, there would probably be enough room to put one ball diamond in here. This we can do ' without your acquiring any land. Now if you're going to extend...then you'd have to acquire it. We don't really want to sell more land since this is the only industrial land that's out here on the west side. We ' feel that it's in the city's interest to develop this tax base...for it's best useage which we think is for - industrial purposes... If you want additional parkland, perhaps it ought to be...residential areas or a pasture area...east and to the north. I'm not trying to plan your park ' system. What I'm saying is, our intention here is to develop a fine, high quality industrial park. And because of the economic...it's difficult for us to not...we'd like to be able to develop this over a ' period of time...so it winds up to be in the interest of everyone, the City and over time... The bottom line is though, we want to do a fine job here. We cannot, we weren't even aware of the fact that you wanted to have us provide a 25 to 50 acre park. We simply can't do that. We ' could do this. Maybe there could be some adjustments...but we cannot provide a 25 acre park here... I would suggest that perhaps land that is designated for residential might be acquired cheaper than land that's well located for high quality industrial... Schroers: Okay. Is anyone, have you done any kind of concept in regards to what type of park you think that's going to be? I mean for me sitting here looking at what you're proposing, basically what we have there is what we would have to call a passive use park. A natural area. It wouldn't be a real high active use type park. It would be a natural area ' and our mission is to kind of look at our comprehensive plan and to acquire areas that are needed in park deficient areas and assign those parks a purpose and I think that when staff is asking for a community park here in the recommendation, that what we're looking for is a park that offers a balance of amenities where we have some nice natural areas, like you're talking. The oak forest but we also, for it to be a community park it has to be something that the residents of the city are going to want to come out and enjoy so there's going to have to be some 8t}r3rtart �h•r- ��r +"..4 �.n!�.. rr-r Lea •.. • 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 28 1 They're becoming increasingly more important every day and we wish that we could afford to have just natural areas set aside just to be left as , that but I think our need indicates that we are going to have to provide some form of recreational opportunities in this area of the city. Howard Dahlgren: Yes, I think you're right in that all the ingredients ...However, it may be that a park like this perhaps in conjunction with some...it may be that your playfields are in another location. They ma be contiguous to the school site. In Mendota Heights, they just bought new parkland contiguous to the school site on purpose and they use the 'facilities together and it's working extremely well. Everyone is savin money...and it's a concept that has a lot of merit... But you are righ This site is not...but there's a lot of land out there yet on the west end of Chanhassen. Perhaps there's a site...that doesn't infringe on high value... , Schroers: We have been looking in that area for quite some time and there is still some space available but whether or not and when it can b acquired is I guess something that we don't know at this point. Are there any questions? Lash: I have a question. First I'd just like to make a comment on your' presentation in that it's one of the best presentations I've seen. The visuals were excellent for me to see where the wetlands and the tree coverage are. I've never seen one this good so I thank you for that. III have a couple of questions about the development itself. What type of buildings are these? Are these similar to what we already have in our industrial park over here? Sort of a one story type building or are the more office building type things or what's it going to look like? Michele Foster: As you may know, Opus Corporation has developed a number of mixed use business parks in the Twin Cities. Opus II in Minnetonka. Eagandale Center in Eagan. We're developing a new park in Plymouth called Bass Creek Business Park. We were involved in the development of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, although we were not the initial I developer of that park. We consider this to be really an extension of that. Of all of that experience. But it is primarily going to be an office and industrial park. We envision most of the buildings being mor low rise kinds of buildings. The office market is really not in a very healthy state and not likely to return to a healthy state for a long time. But we view it as a quality business park. I think we envision it as probably a step above the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park that we have been involved in. But it is going to be a mixture of building types and' building materials but we consider the design standards in the covenants that are going to be implemented for the park are going to emphasize quality design. They're going to emphasize open space. Landscaping. III is our intent that we will be designing and building most of the buildings within the park and so we will have the kind of architectural and design control that will help ensure that that level of quality is II maintained throughout the history of the park. So that's basically what we envision at this point. Lash: Okay. thank you. And then Mr. Dahlgren, you said you were 1 talking. thinking of doing this in stages or phases. Do you have any 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 29 idea over how many years? Howard Dahlgren: Well,.it will probably take a total of 10 years to do the total project.. Generally we'd start it in.the south. We want to get this road up through here as quickly as we can... Depending on the timing of the utilities, how much of this would be... ' Lash: Okay. And then looking at how this is divided up into lots I guess, what would you say the average size is of just, they all look like .they're somewhat close in size there. I'm not very good at judging that. Howard Dahlgren: Michele...! haven't done that. Have you done that Michele? Michele Foster: No I haven't...I'd say around 5 acres it looks like from just the listing of the separate parcels. It's probably around the average of 5 acres. Lash: Okay Todd, then I have a couple of questions for you too. On the east side of where this stand of oaks are, down in that southeast corner, ' you said that was zoned low density? Hoffman: Residential? Lash: Yeah. Hoffman: Correct. ' Lash: And then just to the north of that is high density? And have you seen anything come across for any developments in that area at this time? ' Hoffman: Not to my knowledge at this point but again, if you refer to the aerial which you have you'll see, as Mr. Dahlgren has mentioned, the extreme difficulty which is going to be met when that area comes in for ' development. The entire, let's just look to the plan. You can see the fence line which is...and the wetland area which we are currently discussing. This wetland goes over the property line down into the O'Shaughnessy property. Lash: So okay. I mean you're reading into what I'm saying here which is fine, because that's just what I'm saying. We wouldn't be able to just collect the park fees here and use the money to buy property on the east side of the wooded area, because it wouldn't be developable? Hoffman: ...acquire as part of future development this knoll to continue with the preservation of the open space but contiguous to this site, which identifies park property there would not be, in my opinion, ground which is suitable for an active park. Schroers: And that is what you're, excuse me. That is what you have in your recommendation is that a parcel that will accommodate both. Active use and. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 30 1 • Lash: My thought here is pretty obvious of course was, could we just split it and have the park be on the residential side of this developme with the oaks as the background to the west of it? Are you following me? But we couldn't do,that? Hoffman: It doesn't work, no. Lash: Okay. Then how far is this from the slated school site that's o� TH 5? Hoffman: It's relatively close. Again, if we refer back to the... Thil current property line is that line right there. This is the O'Shaughnessy piece and then the school property. Lash: So it's right on the other side of...? 1 Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Thank you. That's all my questions. 1 Howard Dahlgren: .this is the O'Shaughnessy parcel...I'm not sure th that that knoll would be undevelopable for a balifield. We did not investigate that... Schroers: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? 1 Erickson: I have a question for that yet mapped out corner of that right at Highway 5 and 41. Right in the corner there, which is obviously a very prime site. What kind of things did you envision? How many acres is that empty space? Just roughly. Michele Foster: It's about. a little less than 30 acres... 1 Erickson: What kind of, what range of things would you envision? I mean that seems like a very prime site. A Radisson hotel. Kentucky fried Chicken or what? Howard Dahlgren: No Kentuckey Fried Chicken. A Radisson hotel possibly Maybe a use that we don't even know. 1 Erickson: Fleet Farm has what corner? Hoffman: Directly to the north. Erickson: To the north of that. Howard Dahlgren: So we just don't know but we wanted to keep it r accessible. Maybe it's industrial. Maybe by the time we get here, the office park is packed and we can put a first class office building here surrounded by industrial. What we're saying is whatever it is, it's something that... 1 1 1 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page-31 Schroers: Are there any more questions or comments from Commission members? Koubsky: Todd, could you outline on there where exactly, you mentioned Lots 17 and 18 in your recommendation there. Can you kind of show us on one of these maps how that fits in. These are kind of filled with half copies and stuff. Hoffman: Lots 17 and 18...two locations which they outlined as open space...all the areas that we've been talking about the open preservation areas... Koubsky: Okay now, for something that's 178.3 acres, what's the I dedication requirement for that as far as land? Hoffman: It can be based on a premise of 10% of land value. Of land which is there. Or you can reverse the calculation and take a look at I what type of revenues you're going to be receiving off of this and then go back into negotiations to purchase parkland at the land value which was paid here prior to improvements. That is why the Commission has the I chance to review development prior to it being developed because once it's industrial park, you certainly wouldn't want to pay $1.50 a square foot to buy property out there in an industrial park for park purposes. Koubsky: So basically the volume of area of land we're looking at as potential dedication is 17.8 acres. Hoffman: Sure, potentially. Again, this 15.9 acres which is pointed out here has not been verified by the city. It does include the ponding area which is currently included in there and would bring that figure down somewhat. Comments based on the information you've heard this evening is that, I would agree that those areas set aside, the best uses for parkland but from the eye of a developer it's certainly the only use that that land could be used for so keep that in mind. As well the impact. I The idea that this land is very valuable in the sense of industrial ground. Again, I will not dispute that but if that is our premise, why do we have Lake Susan Park? Community Park. Why do we have the Lake Ann Park, which is some of the most desireable land that we have on the Highway 5 corridor. We have those simply because of action which we discussed in our previous meeting. That somebody had the foresight and the thought to go ahead and acquire those properties. If it was the desire of the Commission simply to accept the park dedication in this regard and take the $350,000.00 and pocket it and spend it, 10 or 15 years from now we're all going to forget what that money was spent for I and we're going to have some open ground and ponding areas but we would not have a ballfield which can be utilized by our community for the next, or in perpetuity if it's an open park property. Those are some of the I things that, as Commissioners you need to mull over. It certainly is not to the advantage of the applicant to sell that property. The additional property, whether it be a 5, 10, 15 acres of additional land, back to the City prior to developing it as industrial park because they're going to 11 get paid less money for it as park property as part of your requirement and your review of this site than if they develop it as industrial property and sold it at $1.50 a square foot for instance. We have not I 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 32 1 talked about it. It's unfortunate but as we go through and we talk abou open space and industrial sites and how nice they are it seems we never talk about the actual employees. The people who will be working here. I'm not sure what we have on site. Some 14 odd buildings with 200 to 300 to 1,000 employees per building. Those are the people we're addressing this evening. It's not the industrial site. It's not the land use. Those type of things. It's the people that will be moving here who will have an interest, not only if they work here but those people who will choose to move to this community since they have jobs in this industrial' site. 5o those are some of the issues that, as Commissioners we have to ,keep in mind as well as we move forward with the concept review of this proposal. 1 Koubsky: It seems to me, I guess the point we're trying to get across in this development, addressing the developer, we do have a system at Lake •' Ann that there's quite a bit of industry around that area. The industries do utilize that property for recreation. Their own ballteams, picnicing and luncheons and what not. There are quite a few employees down at that end of town. We don't have something similar up at Lake, it Lake Susan? Or Lake Ann? Hoffman: Lake Lucy to the north? ' Koubsky: Yeah, I'm thinking just right out here on CR 17. Anyway, what we're trying to incorporate here is, I'm not quite buying this wetland • park or passive park. We do appreciate passive parks. We have just actually moved on one southeast of here but with this many people moving in, I think we need to provide some sort of recreation facility for them and their families coming in here. I think it would also improve the j i development and possibility sellability down the line for this if there' some area in this development and adjacent developments for people to recreate. For people to take lunches and practice with their ball teams Softball teams. These guys are going to sponsor softball teams. They'r� going to play somewhere. They're going to also have a demand on our current park system which is being stressed now for ballfields and recreational facilities. I guess we're looking at this development potentially to help us out in that regard. To give back to the communit a little bit which I think they're going to expect when they do move out here to reside and work. So I guess my feeling is, and I'm not in a position where I can say which are of this development I like best. I dc, understand your sewer. Your utility requirements. However, 1 think we need something a little more active in this area. It is a park poor or park deficient area. Granted we are going to have a school but that may turn out to be an elementary school. And how we're going to utilize that land really isn't up on the table at this point. So I guess personally I'd like, now that you know the recommendations of the staff, kind of follow along that line. We do have an option to ask for 17.8 acres and II not accept any of the wetland as those acreages. It looks like we're possibly looking at 25 to 50 acres. We may be willing to purchase some properties. I'd kind of like to throw it back and have you digest these recommendations and thoughts and maybe let you strategise on how that would fit your development and come back. That's how I feel. I'm not willing to accept this proposal. But I'd like to work with you. 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 33 Schroers: I think that that is pretty much getting to be the general • conception of the commission here. It would be nice if we could just put away, put aside natural area and say this is nice. This is beautiful but the people who currently live here. The people who are coming here. The ' people who are going to be your clients and customers who are going to be working in your development are going to ask for something I think more than just woods and lowland. In our other community parks, two of our premiere community parks we have lakes, a beautiful beach, boat landings, ' that sort of thing and I think that we would be definitely lacking to accept an area like this as a community park and basically what we're offering, what we have to offer as a park here is forested area and lowlands, which are nice natural amenities but offer very little active recreation use to the people in the area. Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman? Schroers: Yes sir. Howard Dahlgren: Could I just comment on two points? Schroers: Sure. ' Howard Dahlgren: First of all, in terms of the calculations...that if you disallow wetlands for park dedication, you also take the wetland out of the total acreage because the intent is to provide park area to serve I the developable area. Whether it's residential or industrial. You cannot develop a wetland... That's why these calculations, we've taken out the 22 acres... You see it's kind of unfair to have us dedicate 10% of wetlands when we can't use them. Then if you don't count wetlands... Koubsky: Well that was an oversight on my part. I mean I'm certainly ' not here to. Howard Dahlgren: The other point is that not every developable park... necessarily provides active recreational space. I understand that Ryan...here in Chanhassen has no parks at all... If you want the money here, we can give you the money too. Schroers: See what it would have to do is fit into our overall comprehensive plan for the city park system and we have that laid out and it is defined where we need parks and whether they need to be active or ' passive or a combination of both and we are following a format here and trying to stay and remain consistent. If we accepted an area that was basically unuseable and we're not able to offer recreational activities in the area, the people who are living and working in the area I'm sure would find that an unacceptable. They would be standing here in front of us asking us to explain our actions why we did that. That has happened before. Lash: The Ryan development was in an area that was not park deficient. This area is park deficient so that's the difference between these two developments. Howard Dahlgren: Maybe we're the first 5n the area to develop... 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22. 1992 - Page 34 Schroers: To put things a little bit into perspective, how many acres Todd do we have at Lake Susan? Just to give us a general idea of what II kind of space we're talking about. Hoffman: Total acreage, including the fringe woodland areas, the pond and then the active components is approximately 35 acres. • Schroers: 35 acres at Lake Susan. Lash: Okay and my question is, to provide the active part that you have' in your recommendation, what would we be looking for just to provide the active area? Hoffman: Again, as I've commented in my narrative there, it depends on how it Lays out with buffer areas and that type of thing and topography but better than 10 acres in addition to the 30 acres which is there is II probably a starting point. Schroers: I hope that Mr. Dahlgren and the other representatives of the developer here understand our position. A lot of the information that , you're providing us is what you're going to have to sell to the City Council. We deal only with the park and recreation issue and that is th point that we have to look at. Our goal is to best serve the park and • recreation needs of the city of Chanhassen and that's the criteria that we're going to follow. So whatever our recommendation is, it is certainly not to create difficulty but is remain consistent with our program and to try to develop the best park system for the City that we II can as you are trying to develop the best industrial park that you can. Is there any further discussion? Erickson: I have a question Todd. And I think I know the answer but I want to hear it. Can you say with any kind of certainty what we can do with the new school site? Assuming that it would be elementary. Can yoil make any predictions? Any educated guesses as to what we'll have available there to make an active park? • Hoffman: I can say with certainty that something will happen. What that incorporates as far as outdoor recreational activities, ballfields, soccer fields, football, soccer, is unclear at this point. It really depends on the design of the school and how much of the site it does consume. And then as far as indoor recreation, we need an additional gymnasiums. Those types of things. In conversations with the School District and the long range facilities task force, we certainly all agrell that the city of Chanhassen is in a position of being able to assist in the funding of those type of components. So something will be there. It will be more than you would typically see at an elementary school site. But it might not be very dissimilar to what you find at City Center Park. Lash: But we're talking youth facilities, more than an adult ballfield. Softball field. 1 Hoffman: Correct. 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 35 11 Lash: I mean my suggestion would be, I can tell the direction that we're going here and I'm certainly in favor of preserving the oak stand and the wetland and stuff but it would make a nice area for trails and that kind of stuff if we can acquire enough acreage abutting that to facilitate our active fields and then your wetlands the trees behind it would be sort of your backstop to the whole thing. You know it probably could turn out to be something very nice and would not require 35 acres of prime property right in the middle of your whole development but could be all incorporated together. That's just a suggestion if you guys go back to your drawing board of trying to figure out how to put it all together. I :mean I would certainly want to see it incorporated somehow to preserve the oak area there. Hoffman: Just to back up a few comments again which came up which I ' jotted down. In reference to the Ryan site which you reviewed. The City did acquire slightly less than 10 acres of open space or park property as a part of that development. That's in addition to the park 11 and recreation trail fees and park fees. If you recall, that is the site which is part of the Bluff Creek preservation zone. The purchase of that property is being coordinated through tax increment financing dollars. As TIF was used in that scenario, tax increment financing is the ' enticement for this development to occur. Without that financing package, the folks here this evening and the Gateway Partnership would not be before you. So the City certainly has more resources in addition to park and trail fees in the 10% calculation. If you would wish to purchase an additional 10 or 15 acres up and beyond what we can receive through the dedication process, tax increment financing money will be ' there to purchase it. But if you're in the applicant's shoes and you. have a parcel of land sitting out here and you could make even money or slightly better selling it to the city, or you can double your money selling it to a perspective buyer, again which one would you choose. ' That is what I see is the stumbling block that we face here tonight. Lash: What Ryan development are we talking about? I don't think I'm ' talking about the same one as you are. Koubsky: It's the one off Audubon. Hoffman: Chan Business Center. The triangular piece. Lash: Oh, okay. Okay. I thought you were talking about Target. That's Ryan too isn't it? Hoffman: Correct. This one is just off Audubon. ' Koubsky: South of Timberwood. Hoffman: Kind of this area. The piece of property we just acquired is right in this location. Schroers: Okay. Well we are not going to accomplish anything unless we do make a recommendation and pass it onto Council and you know were at a very preliminary stage here. At this point, if there's no further discussion, I would ask if anyone is ready to entertain r recommendation Park and Rec Commission Meeting September 22, 1992 - Page 36 on this and I guess my opinion would be consistent with that of staff i regards to their recommendation. Lash: Are you moving that? Schroers: No, I'm asking if anyone else will. If no one else wants to I will. Erickson: So you want the trails separate from the... 1 ,Schroers: Yes. There needs to be a separate recommendation for the park and trails. , lash: Now this is going to City Council or are we going to make a recommendation that the applicant comes back with a different, what are we looking for? 11 Schroers: Yeah, I think we're going to ask to see a concept of what we are recommending. So, does anyone want to make a recommendation? If 11 not, I will. I recommend that the Park and Rec Commission request the 'applicant to provide as a part of their proposal a community park site. The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking. A designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and , sidewalks, sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court, a sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress and we would like to see a concept plan of this recommendation. Is there a second? Berg: Second. Schroers moved, Berg seconded to recommend that the Park and Recreation j i Commission request the applicant to provide as a part of their proposal community park site. The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography, to include natural vistas affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas and the street plan and sidewalks, sufficient area for the possible construction of two II ballfields with 300 foot fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court, a sufficient upland areas to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called II out on the sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as. well as allowing for sufficien ingress and egress and we would like to see a concept plan of this recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 MEETING MINUTES October 5, 1992 t:: ; i o Present: i 1992 Kate Aanenson ,- ,\;- -'� - P` Don Ashworth 1 Chuck Folsch Michele Foster Todd Gerhardt ' Todd Hoffman Paul Krauss John Shardlow The meeting was called to discuss a number of issues relating to the development of Gateway West ' Business Park. A summary of our discussion on each of these issues is summarized as follows: 1) Utilities: The Joint Powers Agreement with the city of Chaska is in large part agreed to and is expected to be resolved and approved by both cities within the next 30-60 days. Upon approval of that agreement, the city council will be asked to authorize the city of Chanhassen's consulting engineer to study the feasibility of providing utilities to the Gateway West Business Park including the option of servicing part of the property through existing 1 utilities in Chaska. This study will determine how much of the Gateway West property, if any, can be serviced through Chaska. The determination can then be made as to the timing of the trunk utility improvements planned for in the second phase of the Upper Bluff Creek project. One of the city's key concerns will be the city's bonding limitations. At this time it is 1 anticipated that the city's S5 million maximum will be reached in 1993 by projects that are currently planned and do include the second phase of the Upper Bluff Creek project. One alternative would be to issue taxable bonds instead of tax exempt bonds. 1 Another consideration will be the expected timing of development for the O'Shaughnessy property to the east. If development is not yet ready to occur on that property, there could ' be difficulties in getting utilities installed across that property to get to Gateway West Business Park. 2) Highway 5 Task Force: The Planning Department plans to refer the development plan for Gateway West Business Park to the Highway 5 Task Force for comments in probably late October or early November, after the City Council has reviewed the plan. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the appropriate role for the Task Force. They will be looking at a variety of issues including set- backs, building orientation, building materials, the roadway alignment for the proposed frontage road, and the proposed park plan. The ' possibility of a moratorium was discussed. The opinion was given that a moratorium would be unlikely. 3) park Dedication: A lengthy discussion was held regarding alternative layouts for the r proposed park. The plan prepared by DSU was presented and discussed as well. It was agreed that a modified park plan should be looked at which incorporates both Gateway 1 1 1 Minutes 1 Page 2 West Business Park and the property to the east. It was requested that DSU look at a plan 1 which slides our proposed Lot 14 to the west to consolidate the park area. The active component of the park should reflect the requirements as outlined in the staff report, and an attempt should be made to include some active components on the Gateway West Business Park area. 4) Wetland Issues: Kate Aanenson provided us with a letter from the DNR which is attached. 1 City planning staff and DNR staff walked the site which resulted in the attached correspondence. 5) 9 Acre Mixed Use Parcel: cel, The Planning Department would like the owner to present potential alternative layouts and uses for the property. A commercial center would not be considered an acceptable use. 6) Arboretum: The planning staff would like to see an acknowledgement of the Arboretum reflected in the proposed plan. This includes buffering along the common property line, landscaping elements, and possible entrance features. 7) J3uilding Materials: The planning staff indicated that the language in the staff report which 1 would require precast "finished in stone textured or coated' material is not accurate and will be changed to permit standard textured precast wall panels. The Highway 5 Task Force will look at the building material and building orientation issues with respect to the sites along 1 Highway 5. 8) Environmental Impact Statement: An Environmental Impact Statement will be required for the project. It will focus on wetland, traffic and water quality issues. It was agreed that the scoping EAW will define the issues as narrowly as possible. Paul Kraus asked DSU to prepare a proposed EIS process for the project. We have requested that the city advise us as to the process and schedule the project can be expected to take after the City Council meeting on October 26, 1992. We are to let Paul know the status of our consulting work on the EAW which has already been undertaken. 1 cc: Those present John Uban • Paul Steiner Howard Dahlgren 1 1 1 1 1 - .I .. j . -....._ ...:,- ..-.....__ a l. . „ . . 4 . 4 "'a ••• . . , ...- I . ./"? ,- ) 1 •-.." , .. ••■••.:...., s . _...t.i . . ...• .. ... • 1 1 \\.; t i 1 jr__ 111111 ... .,,.. A i . L. : . ) ...Y 1. > -- --..... .-e-..,,...... . . ( I 1 r -----4 \ 4....„-Amerar-. , 1 _, • I t 1 . ■ Fair ' , - -; k . .-.. .;._ 4.4.,-, - --...-.•• - i . ; .....- _ - , !S.......4.;.": • 4 ,,ki / / . • s I - • ; \ I ( n 1 . 1 • • ' - .--1.- ., - • -. -.-, . ' --- . .::---- (I,/ , .., ..... , , - - ... .,... - • - ... 1-,.. -- :.:,..........,...-- - 1 1 . .,.. _...., -:.--,. -.1.- • .,-, -,-, -, • i / / • ' i •-". • '14.-, - .....i. 0.- ( _... J 7 4,.. .- . 1 IP - `, .... r ...A .' ,:t .., • . i . ..../ ••■ . •s. ■ .. , . : • 112.”•: ■:, .. / Cr. . ' , ; ( ..../4 ....: ; • ' i: I I I '''' . . . ' s .. ; - ". ••••; -' ' ...----:-..' • i ■.,_ AO - .• 1 Ti' 1 1. _:-. • :5 ; -,- ii ,.... ..... .., 1 / 1 i • 4 1 .. I . I . • . i i , 10 • - -r_ L j , . ,,: • I. I _.1 • • . . 1 ..ijI•10 : II E.: /MK - " ' '44;;;■14Z... Pei ma.4.4 me 4.1 • - ,... i . .. I . . 1 - - I =4 1 . 1 •• - - - . ‘.71'.: • ... • -- • i . .."4:4■......■.....___._... -N t , : , 4 .., .... • , :-...,.-.„-- _____„..- .! , - "i---..- - - .,•-..-, -- 1 , . -,, .1,-;.. • 1 iii ------ . . . . - . • .1 I, I . . "" • .. ; i ..i ..1 .. • , a .; e , ., • ...„ 4 • r.i. • i 1 -1 r - ...- :.-- -. --111 * tp • - - 1 •--, . • ,* . I ! b • n .; "- I: I* ( i . 1 111 -11 ) • I I . 1 1 . -". - I - •4 s•I . . ..: _ • • I I • I . '.• I 0:1 1 ' tir• — - \:/:.- -- .A.1 • : ." . ? .. i 4 11 • A -, • ,I A ,. - . ...--.... . - ... —r : „ , .1 .. z ‘ . s i • 'i . . • .i. I A • • . .' -• • •0 1 t. . . ... • • ... , • • 1 • • - 11114■411 -, .- 1 • • • t .." ■ • .: ...-L-1•. l' -- e . . • --,. : 1 , - , ,r. I. ... :... , .: - IT2.:f:v .'• . , . , ! • - i , If I , ] 1 1 • i - 1 ' '.- _ : ,'-. -- . .2 . ,r.- -• - . . • ., - s • . 'S : _ ••••-• - ••••'..• • • .:.: ' .1 .' . - : '........4: '•.' .f t: I • .:: • j.7 s , ._ '" " ' I • . . i IF • '''' ' • '''•-• - •• A ■ B '_ ,,!- .' • r i . • , , : iiiir , •,- III * • '• ' _ . — , i. - ,- ::: -•AWSFA • • ' . ''. ! • • • r: I i rAs.„,, .4. -i- . 1 ,, -,,,-; \Nir . I * A .. , ,, .,. : , : it 1 I . g •Eg. J . „...: • l • „." /. :1,. .. ,3/4 .„, • ■• • - 1, ••-- elk ,„ \ _ -- I .,. - -.- :: _- ' __ . _f•,! „,? ' , j, e ' \ • • . i ; ..„,7r.„. 'r • ,, _ I ...• " . • !SA '. „ ...1 / . 4 a , . -....• • ../." i 2 sip ..• . .. • .„ .. ..:, -N 1 . -... • .. _ , ...:_ . -.721" , 7 ---.-- ' ...:z 7 -.:7.: =:-.--:...:-;- ' - ; " . ' •/. i \ - at•-••—••••-• , `F.: .% t . ,Q •0_ 1 :1 - 1 V . :- ' . " : ( k ......, 1 •:- ' im , - t. . . , • • - . - -u rzr 1 .: ',$ ■• ... . '----. N ) \ ‘ • ......... a • _ 'fit ...," . . ; • - l • ... V )61/4,.... -.. ,. •-...! ._.-f . _ , - ------ ,. . .e•--..„ , . *- - . ).,„... : , . :- ,. .. v . ft .... • • A 7 ..,.„..,•,...:, r _ z i . ,,,,,....„74--.--- -`,_ .■1 I- •--- .,-- 1 41•Fric• r..•-, • /:. - 1 . - ': /- 7 •.ei . ...7- 10 ,-, c l, ,....t:t... s.'A -tt.,7p142__.. --. .`:'•i :,. -AL. i o .„. / . ..7 4 1:: r .. , ' ' .! .,- ....."••:4 -. -',., .,: -,,,, - .• •••,.,•\ ,-,,- . --.4 ' , t ...,;... I . . i. ,. 4 .. r .. 4 ,. 1 •:„ -4 . v,--.• .—r•- ' --- '7-f-'- - -•-•--- - ' i'!.': . 3: '''':... ---r' ; ' •. \ ' k!. ..... ,, i ' : 1 '•:-... . .. . • . - ....f : . ill • i4 411 1 ti-.. r .: . . I,.4 F. I . _ a . i. v .:....„...„, /,..... a% 10 _,.3_‘ , ii .m, 6, ___E. I . .. v , • ....... ., . 'v i • iTl , rirls-- .._k 1 • , L 7 ,,...) . L ( . ... . d . .. i . , I! . . 1 • ,*____ ,diet f"" i:. ,....., ), , 1 1 .... . 1 . l 7 • 4 .. ! t; . : .. .; A •-•■ i --•• - - . . 1 ;•,./ ) I . 1 ' .. t''''' -'' • • •• . ) t ,............„.. • I 1 ) k iii . ' • , , •'.. .: ! 1 1 ' i `,....... •■ .......) ‘ k k : 1 ..... war M L___. , : i 1 .. _.. 4,g ; % t . •,. -•;.- tt• • , --, ..t- .. • k / i ._ • 1 •••-■ -. ' • ' •'• •.... - '.7 — -.■.- • .. - ii - \4( ^ • ,.... ,......• .........,....x, :,.. - - - ,., ,,,,, . 1 • - --_,..4,- ..• • ... ...•. •.. , /.., , , , • ,,,......,..„ ,.,..........: „....... { '' r.:...--. ,----,.. t , ; „, / , .,• -••..... .. -_----- ... L ........_ „,.....„(,_.. i .: / , , ....., .....__, • • ... . .. 2 ! : . I . , 1 0444: , : . r c....„-....-_, ,....• ... i . . ../ , I: - ‘,-, ....7 ......, , . , t : .-.-- - - , , ir • . .h. ,. 1,,,,...-",' ; "...Ai' --- ' ''' , ..., -- - I 1 I t .; z a . ...5..., ..., .. . , 2....... ..., , .. I .- it -s'it ..r - MO . - . • - • -.. '.• - . - - , : • 1, i ; • , . I : II LtlfsEVI - --' ----,---= ; ,;;;:-......._ ri .-- ./ 8........" ..;, , ...., ... .. 4 ... _ _.. .. . _ ...„, .,._...._ __ ........: , ... ,,,. .._.,,___._...,, t .,..,, ,,,,. _-A -ir - -----; • --- I. ■ 4 - fik .1 •.• : ' . , ■ 1 . ■ 1 1 1 ss.,.. s • .. :• 1: 1 •-, _ . _ .-:„..._...:.. . . i 0----0 r ... ? , . :', • • _ . -- I •:* • li . t- 1 4 61I ; i / ' / b---•-• ,,: • , 11 • . ) ? t .s.....- • . : . 0 : ./.... .i , , . • 1 t . . I I I d ' •• ! .' i gi 1 . =V ' , --r 1 . " -4_ • i i ,....... , ..: • •... li 1 _. .t ,,.." i ...• • _ ....N.... _..,..._. . .... . .. ... .:._. ,,, 1 1.,,!!:.„..--:_.7: 4-_... -_ . 2 . -IC •_-;,---73,. .... . - - . . „. 2 ,I ..,.. • • ,! : 41 •-•, •,) Ns ‘; . - •:k- z - - -....itt •AFL-- '- :. --•:- 4 - : , 4-, ... ....-_,-,---, • . :. ' ''''. ■ : , I " : • NW ' :I - IR': , - ----=----- - • :,-...- :411 . : •. .. -..--,i• .:". • ••• ;•••••t: .1 1 1 111 . . . • ..• •••- i Il . i ' ' . Ai_ -..;..,. -•, r-7.-:,- ...,, ii. ..„, -- . : :-••:.N. _ ,..r-4 ,,- - .. .. , :: --_ .si..i. . - I ' • If itz i: . ' 1 -.. ' --. A l/. .. : -- -4 . ..-.. i, 1 • 1 ,k *--...,- - 4- ,. .4 • I : 1 k I • Ofi ) --- :: I 7 k , '':', V. " . 1 . '", 014 .) • - a 0 ,,, ii _ „ 1,. •■ - *.r ••• ..r." 4 I ) , 1 • , , --__ --. 0 .: .. -. --,--- - .i-.--. - i N _-.---- .., _ \-„...„ i I ,..,,,-- I • - 2 \ _ , . . ' '' 1 . • ,. :-.„ • ! .... .44....--v .. . --; ,, c -, I 4. •i. , • r .41-77.7. .. . „ , g v 1 :;:.1, _ ....1 . • -: -. --\ .:.. - \ (.... _ t , - I.q.. -I % \‘ 1 r , '• ' ,:.' 4 1 -7- " -- -4:2; 4 1 I, - j!'; i ''' - : : .. • • - 1". := - _ . ' '.:4 :c." .r; ,,,• ....k,r / ) \ , i . ..." ' ''. " . ,-.--"— . _ -,.• ' .. _ . _. 41 • ... *- r . 0*.; • • :.- --" 4 if , *. il i )''.....s. l' °' • . h 7 ...! '" ,-__,,{ 1•711/4,.. , .. 1 , ,•:.,2,`: ,..•■• ........."; ;-:—..... \,,, „1 c :' : \ • ! ‘ %• ••: -.,4:%,..k.; 4.,-• • • , . ‘-f. - r ' :•,,,,. ..... • ... . ....- ,.... --- Z Is•- • 1 /C , - - 1 cow' , -- ik - 'N 71-4 1 . , . :- -o- ,,,,... .: : --,,-;_- • A --, -. .....-..„.N 0 . i •X..;- — .,.' i'.4 :%e ' ' 4. " ,-- - — - 's ''-•'- -..---- \.f - -/ ) .....-: • 1.. - - :.., t_I le t . . .. . ,, _ . . , 4 i- $ . • =•. . ., ...rk,,....,, a . i ' -,:', - 4‘ OMI: IV .‘ . . . ‘ •-*-•?':- . "y • ' - --% i ' -, ) in` . ' • ) • • 41... ‘ ' •.•• --------irmelm-- -"■7111. . ;:... ( :. , "I " • L .y. .. . 4 i■ ; 4 rr1*-- • ._ ... -1- . I I 2 I 1 1' . Allgt i f IP: 1 7 76(_______or4 iii• t i 1 ...__ 1 1 • . ._. 1 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Larry Schroers, Dave Koubsky and Jan Lash MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Berg, and Wendy Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 27, 1992 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR COMMISSIONER VACANCIES. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. Essentially I ran ' out of time for advertising for vacancies. The first two weeks that I had requested the Villager, include the notification, they did not so up about 2 weeks ago was the last time the vacancies was the last time the ' vacancies were posted in the Villager. Since that time we've had really one unsolicited application and then one application from a person that came into the office and asked about a position. So we have two applications on file at the current time. We will continue to keep ' those, the application process open until a later date, which is not even listed. We can interview on the 15th. But we'll keep it open until the week prior to that time. I don't see a date on here. 5o again we have Jan who has potentially voiced her interest. If there is not sufficient interest in those positions, that she may consider running for re- appointment so we'll just keep our eyes out and look for some members 1 for the Board. Schroers: Wendy and Randy definitely are not? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Randy has already been through. Hoffman: Yep, Randy has resigned. He's still in town but he resigned as of October 30th. 1 Schroers: Maybe if we up the salary a little bit. Hoffman: We might have to. 1 Schroers: Okay. Thanks very much and since there's no need for anything further on that, we'll move along to item 3. 1 LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK. OPUS CORPORATION. 11 Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. As you recall, this item was last formally reviewed by the Commission on September 22nd. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 November 24, 1992 - Page 2 Action taken by the Commission that evening was put in the form of a motion by Commissioner Schroers and seconded by Commissioner Berg. That recommendation as you're familiar with it is listed there. On October 5th, following that meeting, or the meeting of the Commission, members oil the city staff met with Michele Foster, who is here this evening of Opus and John Shardlow o' Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DSU). As documented b the Minutes which Ms. Foster prepared at that meeting, at the request of the Park and Recreation Commission, were again confirmed at that meeting. DSU did present an alternative park plan which depicted a vast majority of many park components on neighboring properties. We've had various II discussions in that regard and as it is true that we may in fact, as lan develops to the east of this parcel, be able to gain additional park property, at this time we feel it's proper to address the Opus property keeping in the back of our minds the possibility of acquiring additional land in the future. But what we're really doing at this point is the property in question. The consensus of that October 5th discussion was that the applicant was to slide proposed Lot 14 to the west to allow for' a larger active park component on their property. The active components of the park should reflect the requirements as outlined in the report recommended by the Commission and that the active components listed in the recommendation be accommodated within the confines of the applicant' property. In an attempt to respond to these requirements, a new concept plan was developed by the applicant. The plan was presented to staff members for discussion last week, which is now two weeks ago. The momen I saw the new concept plan I could conclude that the applicant had not gone far enough to satisfy the requirements being requested of them by the Commission. The discussion that day with Ms. Foster and Mr. Uban of DSU were very straight forward. I simply stated that if the easterly line of Lot 14 moved to the west, this is the last page on your item 3. The diagram. Their latest configuration showed the park boundary right 1 in this location. Simply from a size and space feeling, if that lot lin was moved to the west until it met the lot line to the north of Lot 15, that would allow for this open flow of space through this corridor. The Highway 5 corridor feels very good about it because it allows for all expansive view off of Highway 5, not into this business park area and then through to this open park space and then back further into the wetland to the south. I have not calculated the acreage. Potentially II the applicant will discuss that this evening nor have we discussed the compensation for that property. I have not dealt in any calculations of wetland area. What portion of this property in Lots 17 and 18 are high ground and what portions are wetland. So again we left that meeting wit the applicant agreeing that they would take a look at that and bring it to the Park Commission this evening for discussion. Again it is staff's recommendation that the Commission require the applicant to dedicate parkland as depicted on the attached diagram and as we discussed. In addition to that, that all other borders of Lot 17 and 18 remain constant prior to approving the concept proposed for Gateway West Business Park ill regard to park and recreation related items in making any recommendation in this regard to-the City Council. In regard to trails, trail construction and /or trail fee dedication, it is staff's current recommendation to accept full trail fees as a part of this development. As addressed in the previous staff report, the Highway 5 trail which wil be developed initially on the north side of Highway 5 but certainly at some point we would want to look to trails on both sides of Highway 5. 1 1 II Park and Rec Commission Meeting 9 November 24, 1992 - Page 3 That is a major divider of the city. In regards to the Highway 41 II segment, numerous questions pertaining to the future road improvements in that area currently remained unanswered. Obviously the ideal time to construct a trail along any roadway would be in conjunction with the I improvement of Highway 41. Therefore at this time I do not feel that it is proper to recommend or to require that the applicant construct that trail until such time when those questions over the lowering of improvements to Highway 41, those questions are answered. II Schroers: Thank you Todd. I think before we ask Gateway to show us "their new information, I would like to know how much adjacent area south II and east of that Highway 5 is zoned residential. Hoffman: South and east and then east of this parcel? II Schroers: Yes. Hoffman: It's all zoned residential. High densities. High or medium 1 densities to the north and then lower density to the south. The particular parcel of property is somewhat difficult if you're familiar with it. It's high toward Highway 5 and then it drops off sharply down II into, somewhat of a wooded wetland marsh type area. So the site has it's limitations. Schroers: Okay. I Koubsky: That's east right? 1 Hoffman: Right. Koubsky: North is kind of excluded from the. 1 Andrews: The area. Koubsky: Isn't that, the north of this, isn't that what Fleet Farm? II Hoffman: Yeah, north would be across Highway 5 and across a natural or manmade barrier which you would not want to cross for...park useage areas. Lash: How much acreage are we looking at? ' Hoffman: In total? Lash: I mean for the park area. 11 Hoffman: For the park area, I've not taken a look at the calculations separating those two. If you compare it to the one of the lots, I think II we're probably, contiguous property there in that one square...probably Lot 15 which would be about 4 acres. So the flat spot which you're looking at there is somewhat limited in size but if you take into account the total acreage of Lots 17 and 18, it's approaching 35, 36, 37 acres. II Lash: 5o for the active area there, that's what you figured around 4 ? 1 4 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 4 Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And how, I'm not good at visualizing. How would that compare with' Lake Susan? Hoffman: Lake Susan Park, the total area there is about 30 acres so it's, nowhere near that. Schroers: Probably more comparable to City Center. Just the active use II up there. Hoffman: Correct. Real comparable to that. , Lash: And then can you fit two softball fields on this one? Koubsky: That's off the property. , Andrews: That's not the applicant's property. Hoffman: Correct. Yeah, so if you were to, the softball fields there II are to scale. If you were to move one softball field onto the proposed park area you would fill it so. Schroers: Yeah that was my concern when I asked about the zoning. If we have high density moving right basically across the street, and then II single family south of that, it could, the park could generate a lot of active use. Andrews: I'd agree with that. ' Koubsky: So Todd, what does this extra parcel of property gain us? Hoffman: Somewhere over an acre and a half. Koubsky: And if we can't really put a softball field on there, which is something we were looking for. Originally we were looking for two. I , guess again where is it getting us? I see it a compromise but. Hoffman: It is a compromise. If we were to, the Commission wished to I aggressively look to a larger site in this area, we would need the assistance again of the HRA through their negotiations pertaining to negotiations dealing with tax increment and financing packages similar t Lake Susan. Lake Susan would not have happened without the purchase agreements and the dealings with the industrial park as it developed dow there. My presumption is even with this proposal and this comprmise, we're already over what we, the Park and Recreation Commission could require of dedication. We would probably need some cash compensation back to the applicant. If you want to continue to look for additional land, obviously that cash compensation increases. ' Lash: So if we looked at this little extension that you have in mind, would we then be able to push everything.over and not be able to fit the two ballfields on? 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 5 Hoffman: Not onto this. No, not onto this piece. At that time it would be a waiting game. That's one of the difficulties here. If you accept this and you wanted to *o ahead and develop this site as a park, you would have to make decision on what facilities went in first and try to ' establish some timing pertaining to when the adjacent piece to the east would develop. How much pressure we would get to develop this park on the Opus site would depend obviously on how fast their business park ' progressed and those types of things. Schroers: And also when the parcel to the east developed, would that bordering property in fact even, would we even have an option to get that specific property that we wanted, depending on how it was designed? I think that's like buying something that you can't see ordering something from a catalog and you're not quite sure what it is that you're going to be getting. Hoffman: Correct. Those were some of our comments back to the applicant during discussions is that we have no guarantee. We can certainly attempt to do that. We don't know how large a parcel will be brought before the city for development. If it will be subdivided. Where the lot lines would be. Those types of things so there's a lot of unanswered questions pertaining to that adjacent parcel. That adjacent parcel and that's why simply portraying a nice park facility adjacent to this property and proposal does not... ' Schroers: Okay. Well at this time why don't we give Gateway an opportunity to address the Commission and after we've heard what they ' have to say, we can continue our discussion and hopefully make a recommendation. Howard Dahlgren: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Howard Dahlgren...As you recall we met with you back in September. With me is Michele Foster who is Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation, and I'm sure all of you are familiar with that organization. We feel they're the best industrial developers in the metropolitan area. That's why we...gateway to Chanhassen to the west and also a gateway to Chaska from the north. That's why we call it Gateway. It emphasizes the fact that this is a very important piece of land...very important that we handle it well. That we handle it efficiently and we make the best use of this land for the mutual interest of the developers... We have tried very hard to work closely with the city...trying to do this carefully and well. Now the question of the park, which you know... We realize that dedication is required so in coming up with the plan we felt it was important to take the best land 11 that had real park potential, that has natural park qualities, and give that to the city. Not just lowlands but hill land and trees. The land in that southeastern corner. Those of you who have gone out there, I hope you all have, you can see that that's very fine property that has a II lot of qualities. Now it doesn't have a lot of land...for active, for playgrounds. For that you need flat...land that you can buy for less price than you're going to have to pay for this prime industrial land. We're not relunctant to have you have a...park. We think that's fine. But where our concern is that you're taking valuable industrial land here and demanding that we sell some of this land in addition to the 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting g November 24, 1992 - Page 6 • dedication to create this large area. And the reason we did the plan that you have seen showing what happens next door is because it's important to the City to look at what's going to happen next door to plan' for this park in the future. Before I get into that, let me just show you this plan and talk a little bit about some of the adjustments that w have made based on the meeting that we had with you back in September. First of all we added additional property to the, about 3 acres of land and added in this corner. We've added land down here which is a heavily wooded area which gives us access to the trail system to this southeastern quadrant contiguous to this roadway. You recall this roadway is all set up to conform to the city's comprehensive plan requiring...east /west thoroughfare to make that alignment. So we're II doing that. Then we're making a connection out here to Highway 41 and out here to Highway 7 and that's it. It's a simple plan but based on those connections to the highways...city's desire to have that thoroughfare proceed easterly. This creates a plan that we have. We think it's the right one and will work well and do a good job for the city and do a good job for development of the land. In addition to this acreage down here, where they have this wooded area, we had an area here which opens so when you drove in here you'd see this open space. And at ' this meeting last time we talked about, staff suggested that they'd rather see that open space contiguous over here to future parkland on th east side. So we've taken that out and moved Lot 14 over. Added additional acreage here to give you some of this highlight. Now in term of the overall park, it is now 32.9 acres. Previously it was 29.9 so we've added exactly 3 acres. All of that addition has been high ground. 14 acres of this 32, approximately 32 acre park is wetland. The rest ofil it is high ground. So the remaining acreage is about 18 acres. That's about 10% of the total acreage, which is 178.3. That's the total acreage" of the site. So 10% of that would be about 18 acres so we're giving about 10% of the land of high ground as part of our proposed park plan. Now it's been said that we were presumptuous in drawing a plan showing a park on the contiguous property. We did that because somebody should dol it because for the purpose of the city looking at for your future park needs, and how you're going to handle it, the City probably should have drawn that plan to take a look at what happens next door because you knot" that someday that land's going to develop. The City had to come up with a sewer plan to bring water and sewer to this property...been done. The cost, all of that's been set up. It's going to happen relatively soon. Now when that happens this land will develop and with this portion of land designated for park, obviously it would make sense to get contiguou property to the east to enlarge the park if you so desire. You're not going to get a 50 acre park by dedication totally so then you have to II decide which area are we going to buy land to get the park that you want And you should have the park that you want. But the question is, where is it smart to do it. What's the right thing to do here so that the cit gets what they need and we get the best potential out of the land. Thi land over here is zoned low density residential. This is high density residential. What we're saying here is that in this land, much of which is marsh, if you want to buy additional land, flat land, this is the place to do it and that's why we drew up this plan. We're not trying toll throw the onerous on someone else and say, get it from them. That's not the point. What we've done here analyze -for you a park development plan" that shows you how you can get the large park that you want by buying a i ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 7 residential land. Low density residential land instead of expensive industrial land. That's why we did this. Now it seems to me that makes some sense. One of our park planners did this. We've design hundreds of parks in this metropolitan area. We just did a big park for the city of ' Rochester. We do it all the time. We have a staff of 10 landscape architects. We have more landscape architects than any firm in Minnesota next to... They design parks and a lot of other things. But parks is one of the things we do a great deal of. So this is a suggestion for ' you. It's for you, not for us. It's a suggestion how you can expand this park. There are other ways to do it and working with the topography -and the lowland as we were able to determine it from the topo maps, the ' wetland maps we had access to, this is a park that can be built. And it would make a marvelous park. It doesn't have to be that large necessarily but because so much of this land down here is marginal, and this land is flat and developable for park purposes, it's an ideal place to put ' ballfields. The view then as you come across Highway 5, all of this would be quite visible through here. It's not essential to move this line over any further and get another acre and a half of industrial land when you can get the flat space that you need for active ballfields over here contiguous to the east. And to say that that's a pig and a poke and you m n4 be - ° *^ oet that. that's not really true. You've got all the power in the world to rre uire dedication for some of this land. Irbil as much power an ad n opportunity with s eveloper to acquire land at a more reasonable rate than the high cost industrial land that we're giving you. So in the overall interest of the community, it seems ' to us that it makes sense to try to develop this land for it's best potential...take the land in it's natural state and use it for it's best potential. It's great residential land. Use it for...use it for ' industrial. Do it well and use it for the land for the use that makes the most sense. And if it's great apartment land, then use it for that. Of course get your parklands so it serves all these people. Residences ' will someday be here and high density. Those folks and the people over here to the east as well as folks who live and work in your community, having a park here makes a lot of sense. We're just saying that why don't you look ahead and buy the land that you need. You're not going to ' get it all for dedication but you'll get some of it. We'll do our share here. But the land that you need, it should be flat and it should be cheap. That's your best shot. And here you've got an ideal condition. We're willing to dedicate this whole contiguous southeastern area. We're able to, and I'm not saying we'll dedicate every bit of it. I'm saying that we are proposing in this plan to put up 32.9 acres of land. And I understand that determining who's and what's going to be dedicate and what's going to be purchased is something we've got to work out between your staff and...but I'm sure we can work that out with the Council... All we're saying here though is that we are relunctant to give up 11 additional industrial land to expand, to force this expansion to the... have high potential industrial land. That's good for you and good for us. So we would request that you accept this plan knowing, planning ahead for the future and that at some point in time when this land will come in for development, that you'll be able to acquire cheaper land... purchase to get the park...in addition to this wetland system... Now we know, we've not worked with this owner directly. We're not out there telling her what to do. Her name is Betty O'Shaughnessy. But we know that the land was for sale. A number of developers who have talked to Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 8 IF her and want to buy it and contacted us and talked to us about what's happening out in Chanhassen. What's the sewer situation. What's the II water situation. We refer them of course to the folks at City Hall to explore... We would welcome development because this... The land will come up for development in the relatively near future... If you have anii questions, Michele perhaps can answer them. She knows a lot. She's good. She's the Director, as I said, developer of the best industrial developer in the Twin Cities. I've had the priviledge of working with II her now for months on this project. Even though I'm retired from the firm, I come back and do occasional things. I get to do fun jobs. But ,-just want to point this out that Michele really knows what she's doing. She's first class. I know she's a lady. You don't often find a lady in� that kind of a position. She's Director of Development for a first clas operation and that's Opus and the reason she's the Director...we're happy to have her on our team and I'm sure if there's questions, we will be glad to answer them if we can. Schroers: Any questions from the Commission? Koubsky: Todd, have you gone over this with the Planning Commission at II all? Is this zoning issues here? Have you talked to the HRA board members? Would they be willing to buy into any property purchases down the road? Hoffman: To the east? As you can see from this plan, that eastern II parcel on this plan is shown about 2/3 of it as park property. No land is cheap and as part of a tax increment district, which this Opus development would be, we have the financial means, the financial tools to go out and purchase that property. Adjacent to this, when that came in II under single family development, you would not be able to pick up what you could from park dedication. The rest of it would be cash out of your pocket. Out of your park acquisition and development fund which does no have the financial resources that the tax increment district would be. That is one reason land purchased and negotiations for additional land for Gateway proposal is a good option. 2/3 of that area is park on this plan. We, as a city, unless we go out and hold a bond referendum or something, are not going to be able to purchase that as it's shown on thil plan. Koubsky: I guess I'm just thinking more Todd about the ballfield area. 1 The woodland down to the south, I haven't been down in that area. I'm not quite sure how that would develop. I have driven past here since ou last meeting. Hoffman: The wetland to the south there is about, under about 2 -3 feet of water at this point. 1 Koubsky: So that's up to the owner to get rid of it. That may sit there for quite a while. Hoffman: Correct. This is all wooded swamp. Wooded wetland. Schroers: That is now flooded? 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 9 Hoffman: Correct. ' Howard Dahlgren: That's why we show it as a park. It's not a question of vast acreage. It's a question of making more sense. The amount of park we've shown here... You don't have to buy all of it. We're just saying that because of the terrain, it makes some sense. Schroers: The potential is there. I mean we do appreciate your interest ' very much and showing us that option. The position that we have that is kind of awkward is if, at some point in time down the road, for whatever reason, the way it was subdivided or for whatever reason, we could not ' acquire that park, we would then be in a situation that we have been in the past. Where residents who have bought expensive homes, have paid expensive taxes, have marched in...the way we wanted to and we don't have the money to purchase it for you. And at that point they tell us that it ' was very poor planning. That we should have planned ahead, which is the same thing you're telling us is to plan ahead. I guess it's difficult for me to say that we are going to be able to acquire that because I've 1 been here for a long time and I know what our financial resources are as far•as the city being able to go out and buy park property and it is extremely limited. Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Schroers: Certainly. Howard Dahlgren: Wg_Le not to --deck te asid l -_lad here. .isle do not believe that we should._move this line... This land is shown on comprehensive plan. All that land to the west is shown as industrial and we propose to make it industrial. You are not...position to force us to try to buy that additional land. Why should you. Can you buy land easier from us than from someone else? The land is shown low density residential and where the land is...? Why do you select to... acquire additional land of us...does it really make sense? This low density residential. This is industrial, high quality industrial. I 11 don't understand the logic. That's my question. Schroers: The logic here is that this is available to us now and the other parcel may or may not be in the future. We can't sit here and say that. Howard Dahlgren: We don't propose to sell this land... Schroers: Okay, I may have stated that incorrectly. That that isn't available but the other right now, we don't have an option. We can't do anything on that property right now because it's not been sold.. It's not being developed and we can only guess or hope at what's going to happen with that in the future. 11 Howard Dahlgren: Sure but you know the land has to be developed at some point. You know the city has total control through the plat or PUD... you have the same controls there as you have for our land. The whole essence of planning intelligently is to look ahead. If you can look ahead and see that this land is going to be available for less. It's 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting II Pa k i n Nov mber 24, 1992 - Page 10 It flat...and it would be a fine additional to the park that we started off here with 32.9 acres, all that makes a lot of sense. To say that we don't...do that, I don't understand that because...all the time. As loll as the land is vacant, it's going to be developed in the future. Sewer and water is planned. The MUSA line...it's going to happen. You'll havi your chance. So to say that you want to do it with us because we're her now and someone else will be coming in later, is that really the way to plan for the best park ?...that's the question. Andrews: Todd, can you tell me how many acres would be the normal 1 .dedication out of this size parcel? Hoffman: Again, as Mr. Dahlgren has stated, an approximation of 10% of II the land acreage is a good starting point. Andrews: 5o that's about 17, almost 18 acres? 1 Hoffman: Correct. Then again, it may be true that 18 acres of this is high but it's fairly scattered. The commission thought it was to the II city's best interest to get that 18 acres contiguous, all in one chunk. The applicant would be standing here in a much more awkward position. A couple things which I need to reiterate is that moving the lot line agaill is a 'nimum requirement which I feel comfortable with. That's not at all in opinion asking too much of the applicant. Mr. Dahlgren and I • ha - d this discussion in the past. It's his opinion that parkland shiul b_ flatland, fairly cheap. Something that is not good for much II el�e. I ve stated that if that was the city's position, we certainly would h.ve Lake Susan Community Park. We certainly would not have Lake Ann munity Park. Two fine community parks which are well respected, II not only in the city but across the State. In addition Mr. Dahlgren seems to have different ground rules for the property to the east, stating that the city has the wherewithal. We would hold the cards in I asking that applicant. It does not seem that he agrees with that same opinion in regard to the... Andrews: I'd like to make a couple comments. I'm kind of agreeing withll Todd that we were looking for 18 useable acres. As a Park Board we have a problem and that is we are park deficient on the western edge of our city and we have a responsibility to the City Council and to the city to look out for the best interest of the citizens. I think it's a beautifu� park. I think, it seems to me that it's being presented to us in a somewhat one sided manner. I feel like the main purpose here is to develop all the industrial suitable land and whatever is not buildable, J1 to give that to the city and call it park. There are some trees that yo will be giving us which we appreciate but they seem to be mainly helping to create landscape opportunity for the development itself and some benefit to the park plan. But I'm not very satisfied that we're really getting very useable parkland here at all. • Howard Dahlgren: Chairman, could I correct a point? I didn't say that 1 parkland should all be flat. ...saying that you pointed out that you wanted...play space for a ballfield. Well that use is a flatland is... II 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 11 Schroers: I think we all understand that and I think that we would very much appreciate having the luxury of having the more natural open space environment. I personally would prefer that and I would like to see just green space. More green space that's not developed at all and it doesn't make me personally particularly happy to see a whole lot of industrial 1 development come in. I mean I know that that's happening and I appreciate the fact that it's being done as well as possible but I used to be able to hunt out here and I won't be able to any more and I hate to see losing opportunities like that. I would love to see the green space just stay just that and undeveloped but as the community grows overall, we don't have that luxury. We have to provide active use as well as some natural green space and we have to maintain a balance of that. Andrews: Just as a question. I'm participating in the Highway 5 board as well and there was some discussion from that group that they were a little concerned about the industrial development next to the Arboretum, which would be Lots 20 and 21. And 19 I guess. The three in the southwest corner of the quadrant. I don't know how well it will work for our purposes and I can't tell by looking and how big those lots are but would there be any consideration in using those, that portion of the development as park space, which might reduce the problems with the 1 Arboretum and it might provide us with more useable parkland? Howard Dahlgren: We proposed to have all the way along Highway 5, we propose to have a 50 foot corridor... Andrews: That's Highway 41. ' Howard Dahlgren: On 41...We feel that that is...along TH 41...We don't propose that to be parkland or given credit for parkland. We're just saying that we are suggesting a 50 foot corridor of landscaping as a transition to the Arboretum...Of course then a great deal of money... We don't have any driveways coming out on that highway. We serve all of the development on the interior. So you'll have this corridor all the way along that highway. We propose to do the same along Highway 5... 1 corridor of open green space along the entire area. Most of those setbacks are around 30 feet... ' Schroers: If I remember correctly from our first meeting, the area right at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 there, the space that no building is showing in now, that's open, the reason that that is not planned at this point is because you consider that your prime developing area and are waiting to see what actually you are going to be able to put in there. Is that correct? Howard Dahlgren: We're being perfectly honest and straight forward. We could show the industrial... What we're saying is, in our opinion...we feel this is our best site. It's best to leave your best site until last. This land probably won't be developed until maybe 10 years from now. We don't know what the best use is in 10 years. It could be an institution. It could be a hospital. It could be a lot of things...and we realize that. We're just saying that we'll leave it until last. Ultimately whatever happens there is going to have to be approved by the City... We just don't know what the best use is...We do intend to handle 1 IF Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 12 IF the corner, and this is just a suggestion... We're going to keep this open and natural... So that's our plan. ' Andrews: The point,I was trying to make was that there's Lot 20, which is the lower left hand corner of the drawing. Across the road on the other side of Highway 41. Yeah, right over there. Those were the lots that the Arboretum was concerned about. They do appear to be pretty prime land. Howard Dahlgren: Well we made changes there. Here's what we've done. II We've proposed this land for residential development. We've taken it out of the industrial. We propose it to be residential...put a multi family" housing structure here...and leave all of this land...This is a single family home. Here we propose to leave a corridor of green space to the north and a corridor of green space to the west. We will move, his road II now goes up here. We will move and build a new road for him over here and all of this industrial area will orients towards the east. So as to create a buffer here to the north side and lining up with these houses over here so that all of this is green space in this area. , Andrews: I guess my question is, could that be an area that we could look at for park space on that corner? Over here. Howard Dahlgren: I think your concept of having a large park in this area is fine. I wouldn't you'd get a small park here...but the retail next to another city without a park... I think getting all this land, which is very attractive. A lot of it's wooded. Just a small park... This whole thing is a natural addition to the land to the east...but to move, put more of this park function on highly developable land... You're going to have to buy land to get the larger park. And you can bull it cheaper next door. Lash: I want to see if I understand the logic of it myself. Is the point here that we could get HRA funding to buy that because it's in tax increment district? Whereas if we wanted to try and buy it on the other side, on the east side, that would have to come out of our park fund? , Hoffman: That's the basic logic, sure. You could extend that district potentially. We do not even know at this point if we will need additional ability to compensate for this park property. As you see on the plan, they show in a holding pond, they are going to, the applicant is going to construct a holding pond on the park property. There will b some compensation back to the city for... There's so many variables at this time in regard to what the bottom line is on acquisition of that property. Lash: Well if we were to try to get the extra acre and a half, do you II have something in mind that we would be putting there? A need that's not shown on... Hoffman: As a design? You could simply leave the functions that are shown on this plan, that being the tennis court and totlot and the basketball area I believe has been shown Or you could simply leave it with no master park plan at the present point awaiting what • 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 13 would happen... Or we could go in a design phase similar to this, taking into account additional acquisition to the east and then... Lash: Do you have any ballpark idea what the property that's zoned I residential would cost? An acre. Koubsky: $10,000.00 an acre. ' Lash: $10,000.00 an acre, or is it higher than • that now? Hoffman: Probably higher than that. Lash: And how many, from what they have shown there, how many acres would that amount to? For a couple of ballfields. r Hoffman: Well again it's, I can't venture. Maybe Mr. Dahlgren could. Howard Dahlgren: That is this area here that we've shown to develop is 8 acres. 5o if you took this area, this here where we've shown the ballfield...that might approximate 8 acres. In terms of it's value, because it's flat and relatively low, the value for high quality residential is considerably less. Hoffman: So if I could take a ballpark figure at $100,000.00 or less for that 8 acres. You need to build 200 homes on that site to acquire that through dedication which you... Now if the piece came in as a single parcel under a combination of multi- family and single family, the multi- family would generate considerably more park dedication...much better. Lash: I like, personally I like this idea. The way it's shown because I think it makes a really nice buffer between the residential areas and the industrial park with the wetlands and if there would be a way to...put in a couple of ballfields in there. I think that would be a really nice buffer. Our problem is that we don't have $100,000.00 to buy that and we can't, as Todd said, if a development comes in, it's not going to be ' large enough for us to require that amount of property. So we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I like the plan but we don't have the money to make it work. ' Howard Dahlgren: Remember, if you're going to get additional land from us, you're going to have to buy it. Is this industrial land going to be ' cheaper? Koubsky: The question I have Todd is, right now they're proposing 32.9 acres. We kind of have rights to 18 acres. They're proposing 18 dry acres and about 14 wet acres to come up with the 32.9. Can we say, show us 18 acres of continuous property that we would have the rights to or ability to develop into a park system or a park area? Has that been done or do we have. Hoffman: It has not been done Commissioner Koubsky but as Mr. Dahlgren has stated himself, we, the City, you, the City have all the clout in the world to ask for what you would like to see. It would be my position as we enter into the negotiations over whatever becomes the park property of 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting IF November 24, 1992 - Page 14 11 this area, that that 18 acres of scattered high ground is not going to meet the dedication that we need of the high ground in that corridor. 1 Koubsky: Yeah, that's why we have an additional 14 added in here to compensate. ( II Andrews: It's not buildable. Hoffman: Wetland is not entered into the. 1 Koubsky: Well that's the off word. Lash: So if Mr. Dahlgren, you were to say that we would have to buy thil extra acre and a half, and I don't know that we all agree with that, but say that we did, what kind of a price would be on that? I have no idea what industrial property goes for. 1 Howard Dahlgren: Michele, what's the industrial land worth? Michele Foster: We've not established any prices for the property at 1 this point but in looking at comparable land prices for industrial property that's on the market today, my guess is it could be anywhere from 90 cents a square foot to $1.25- 51.50, depending on the location an the price of the property. 5o even assuming some middle ground, say it' $1.00 a foot, that's going to be $43,000.00 an acre or more. Schroers: We're dealing with a bunch of factors here that we don't know" about. We don't know when the land to the east is going to develop. Sometime in the near future. Sometime in the near future. What is the 1 near future? Is that next year or is that 5 years? With the new administration coming on and a fluctuating economy, you don't know what the land value is going to be worth and what's going to happen with this 5 years down the road from now. It may be somewhat reasonable and it mail be absolutely untouchable. So you know, I think we're dealing with something that we don't know. Lash: What I was trying to get at here is the difference in the price 1 between the industrial properties and the residential properties and the impact of us requiring an acre and a half of industrial property of the developer and if we have the power to do that. And it doesn't sound likil everybody's in agreement on that either. But what I'm trying to do is figure maybe there's a compromise here where if Mr. Dahlgren thinks it would be beneficial for us to have the park extending into the east, mor41 towards the residential area, maybe we can cut some kind of a deal where'll they'd be willing to offset the cost of us buying that property at this time and then, so we would still get the property. They would still get" to have their acre and a half in the middle of their industrial development but it wouldn't have to come out of our pocket. It would be more out of their pocket and that would be a compromise where we could still get the property. They would get their property and it would be 1 more in the residential area where I would like to see it anyway. Andrews: I've got two comments. Is this a PUD? II 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 15 Michele Foster: Yes. Andrews: It is? 11 Michele Foster: Yes. Andrews: The way I understand a PUD is we're working with some assumptions that we're not going to deal with minimums here. There's an exchange of flexibility and development in exchange for flexibility and what we require. My second comment is, if the land is worth $40,000.00 'an acre as an average low point as industrial land, why wouldn't we just waive taking any of the property. We'll take our $720,000.00, which is the value of the land and we give you back and we'll buy the property next door lock, stock and barrel. Lash: He suggested that at the first meeting. Andrews: Did he really? Well I think it's making some sense. Because we're looking at a tremendous disparity in land value. Koubsky: I think too Todd, we kind of agree as a commission I think that ' some type of recreational facility is needed in this area of the city. And I think we agree that although open land is nice, and it does provide a nice buffer between residential and industrial, that isn't suiting the needs we perceive. We perceive a recreational facility of some sort out here. Can we, we don't have buying power. We can't speak for the HRA and the Planning Commission who can zone things around the city. Can we express our needs or perceived needs to the Council, the Planning 11 Commission and the HRA and let them take what we have come up with and see what they can do to jockey around and to get a longer term plan going here? If we need 18 continuous acres or if we're looking for a 50 acre park facility, then that's what we should tell the city we need and then let the Council decide if they agree with that need and determine ways to work with the developer to obtain that. Lash: Well if we were to have, if we were to have the 14 acres of wetland along here, their 4 acres. No, how much is that? An acre and a half or what? No, it was 4 acres I think, of the useable land and the developer is willing to go and buy the other 8 acres from Mrs. O'Shaughnessy and dedicate that to us to save them their acre and a half, which might be kind of a fair trade -off, we end up with a nicer, we end up with way more property to develop than their other little extra acre and a half. That really isn't going to gain us that much anyway. We're not going to be able to put a ballfield on it. A little more green space but what we want down there is to be able to have space for a couple of 1 ballfieids and we've got to figure out how we can do that and that's about the only way we can. Koubsky: If that's what we think we need then we tell them we need 18 acres of continuous property. That's not going to set well you know with the developers. That may or may not cancel this deal but I mean if that's what we need, I think that's what we need to tell the Council. This is what we perceive is a park and recreational need in this area of the city. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 16 1 Schroers: We would be very ill advised to accept park property that doesn't serve the needs that we need. I mean it's just as simple as that. Michele. Michele Foster: Well, at the risk of being called presumptuous again, which I don't want to do. One of the things I'd like everybody to remember is in the PUD process, which is what we're in, we truly are jus at the sketch plan level and that's why a lot of these questions aren't being answered. And I think the goal for this stage of the process should be to come up with a concept that's not necessarily where all the 1 details are ironed out and we know exactly who's going to pay what and where the money's going to come from. But what we're trying to accomplish is to come up with a concept that everybody feels is worth pursuing and then try to figure out as we go through the remainder of th PUD process, negotiate those items within the context of what everybody's trying to accomplish. And if people feel that this is a concept that could work subject to certain conditions being met, which is you know th Parks Commission feels that there needs to be assurances from the Planning Commission and City Council that there are ways to make sure II that you can get additional land from the adjacent property. Or that a funding mechanism be developed. I guess I hate to see us get all tied up in the details of where the money's going to come from because we're really at the very initial planning stages for the property and I hate til see us start compromising the plan for what's best for all of us, if we think that is best, subject to certain conditions. Then what I'd like to see us do is try to make something like that work. Maybe we can't or we're going to have to come back and say, those conditions can't be met II because we weren't smart enough or creative enough or didn't have the tools to pull those things together. But that's I guess what I'd like t suggest is so we're not just in a tug of war about who wins and who lose . but if this is a concept that seems to have some merit, can we go forwar on that basis and try to figure out a way to make it work. This is only the sketch plan model. We still have to come back with a preliminary plan and the final plan and all sorts of details that none of us here know tonight. And I think we're trying to have so many suspenders and safety pins and have everything protected that we really don't know. Non of us do I think. But we'd sure like the opportunity to try to make thi concept work within whatever constraints you feel you have to put on it. And whether that's sufficient guarantees for acquisition or sufficient ways to feel that you've got the funding mechanism, then let us go and II try to make it work instead of sort of pre - judging it because it does seem sort of hard and it's early in the process. Lash: I sort of feel like that's what we've done. Last time we met and 1 we said well this is what we're looking for and now the plan has come back and it shows a tennis court, or enough property for tennis courts 1 1 and a volleyball court you know and that's just not going to cut it. Michele Foster: I think in the context of a larger regional park which we really didn't have before. All we knew was there wanted to be a park" and quite frankly this kind of a concept came out of meetings with some of the other city staff who said geez, the City Manager included said, geez maybe we ought to look at this on amore global scale. And so I do think that there is some merit and a big distinction between what we wer� 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 17 looking at for, without just looking with blinders on our property and not trying to figure out what's best for the whole area. Lash: But what we have to do tonight is decide if we're willing to ' accept this as it is. Michele Foster: ...and I'm saying, buy why can't there be conditions ' placed on that. Andrews: We have no control of that eastern parcel. None We have none. 5o it's real, we're in a catch -22. We'd like to develop it globally but that's not the reality that we have today. Lash: And these things can come back. �. Schroers: We've been here a while and I've seen it in the past. Your point is well taken but with anything else, when you're going to build a ' house you need, if you're going to end up with a good house, what you have to start with is a good solid foundation and that's what we're doing here tonight. We need a good solid foundation. We need the assurance that we are going to have enough developable active use property within the park dedication that we can service the needs of the community. And to do or to recommend to Council anything less than that would be totally irresponsible on our part. We have to work with what we have here to work with. We can't work with what we would like to see in the future. I mean we have to deal with reality here and now. That what we can do tonight and for us to propose or to recommend to the Council to accept this plan without enough developable, active use park space, I know 11 would come back to us in the future. Lash: ...what would happen if we would say yes, this is fine. Assuming that this would work out in the next 5 years or whatever and then it doesn't work out. Then what we've got at the edge of this industrial development is a tennis court. You know and that's it. Then what do we ' do with that? That's not what we wanted at all. Then we'd have no control anymore over doing anything. Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, surely when you and your comprehensive plan just said someplace you need a park, you were confident that you'd be able to work with the property owners to accomplish that. ' Schroers: We were hopeful. Howard Dahlgren: But the point is now you're saying you're not sure you can do it. But you should be able to do it. You've got another contiguous...you're saying you're not sure you can do that. I don't understand. 11 Koubsky: Well us as a park board and commission have limited. Schroers: All we can do is recommend. So when you're telling us that we can't do what we want to do with your parcel, then how is it that we can do what we want with other parcels? • Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 18 II Howard Dahlgren: I'm just saying that the land, the additional land you need for a regional park, you assume from the beginning that you're not going to get it all from dedication. You're going to have to buy some o it. What I'm saying is you can buy it cheaper and more appropriate flat land on the contiguous property. It's a known fact. Why can't you deal with that? Why can't you accept that? To say, well we don't know if till will happen. Lash: Well it's sort of the same reason why you can't accept the fact that we want, we say we want 18 prime acres of your property and you won even give us that. You can accept we're unreasonable and so what happens is we have different goals here. And we know what your goals are and I think you know what our goals are and what we have to do is figure out a good compromise that we can all live with. And I think that we can come up with that but right now we, I'm not comfortable with the idea of leaving tonight with just an open ended thing unless you guys want to goll back to the drawing board and come back with a whole new thing and give AL to us. That's fine with me. I'm willing to do that. I'm not willing to just...and make a recommendation that we accept this as it is tonight. Andrews: It seems to me we're trying to get a piece of property that is contiguous that can be developed perhaps with some of the adjacent. I • think one of the problems we have right now is we're losing this land toll dedication, which is pretty land. It's really accentuates or amplifies the value and the beauty of the land here but it takes away the buildable land that we could get somewhere else in the development. I think what go have to look at is, if our goal is to somehow hook onto an adjacent pies is we have to maximize what we get for sure now. I think we're losing some of that power here by giving up some pretty trees and some hills. 11 And I'm not sure where we can take on some better land. It might be a rectangle in this area here. That would be flatter and it's prime land. I know that. But at least it would give us something where we could put ballfield if we had to put it there, assuming that this property didn't work out. And we've got a problem. I like the basic plan the way it is If we could pull this all off, I think it'd be great but my concern is the 10 years from now, if I'm still handing on this Park Board, that soil neighbor is going to come over here and throw rocks at me because it didn't work out. That we developed this in small pieces and every piece was too small to get...and we have not had the funding to go out and buy ' land. We're out of money. Schroers: It's probably not you or I that's going to get the rocks thrown at us but it will be something like the Pheasant Hills development was II where people who previously sat on the Commission didn't plan for what w going to happen then and we were the ones that ended up catching it for that and that ended up costing us a good deal of money and it was a real difficult, awkward situation and we hope that at that point in time that we had learned something from that and cover our bases. Lash: Are you interested in going back and coming up with some other suggestions? Koubsky: It might be up to the city. Todd, what's the, I'm sure Planni Commission likes this because they like that we've gone over this with. 1 Park and Rec Commission 'n � sion Meets g November 24, 1992 - Page 19 Michele Foster: Planning Commission has not seen this. It goes to the Planning Commission on December 2nd and then it will go onto the City Council after that. Koubsky: So if this something that needs motions at this point or is this something where we've already made a recommendation on what we think we need in the area. It may be up to the other factions of the city to weigh out, where does our plan or where does our vision of a regional, if it's a regional park or not. I'm not sure if it's big enough to be that but where does it fit in with maybe the Planning Commission's outlook on this .area? We're just telling them what we think ought to be incorporated somewhere in this area of the city. Hoffman: To address that question and your previous question, the motion ' which you made at your September 22nd meeting, if you do not feel that is being met, then it is your obligation to relay that to the applicant. That is not the obligation of the City Council or the Planning Commission. In regard to your previous question of simply passing it along to one of 11 the other factions of the city to deal with your business, I don't think that is adviseable either. You are the Park and Recreation Commission. You have the authority to make those recommendations to the City Coucnil. Jumping over to Commissioner Andrews comments. If you like both those pieces of land, I would recommend if you think that is in the best interest of the city, from here until the end of time that is what we should be after. The portion of property added to the south is very 1 important because it allows us for a trail link back out to the road system. It provides a buffer to that entrance down there. It provides more impact. If you drive in that main entrance, impact of the presence 1 of that park property. Again I would like to impress upon the Commission you are not breaking new ground this evening. The previous industrial /commercial park before you is the Chanhassen Business Center. ' The triangle to the west of Audubon Road. There you asked for both land dedication in the extent of the 13 acre parcels of trees. In addition to full park and trail dedication fees, the negotiations that time were no more pleasant than they are this evening but we came through with both of 1 those requirements. You are the authority to ask for that. To recommend to City Council that they require that as a condition of approval of this development. Listen to Mr. Dahlgren. As a city we, as the city performed with Target. This Target development down here will probably have the most trees in their parking lot and has more requirements of that development simply because of the high standards which this city upholds in it's developments. Not only of industrial /commercial /residential but ' also park property. Again, this is adding an acre and a half to this park is not going to create a Lake Susan. You're not asking for a Lake Susan or Lake Ann Park here. It's simply, if you look at the property, it's ' simply extending a line over on a low knoll which is down in a very low lying area. This site. This is not prime property. It is certainly useable for industrial uses and it is zoned industrial but that does 1 pre -empt you from going in and acquiring a park within this parcel. Schroers: I kind of like what Michele had to say about seeing what could be done with what proposed. What we got to work with. What I see here is ' not what we asked for on September 22nd.' I don't see the availability of two ballfields with 300 fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 20 and sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. You show us how you can work that into your plan and we'll be interested in listening. And guess that I don't see any specific reason to change what we had asked f in the first place, therefore I don't see a need for another recommendation. I want to see a workable plan that includes what we asked for originally. Koubsky: I guess that's my opinion. There are other areas of the city that may, you know we may work toward that but I think my feeling is thi part of the city needs this type of a facility.. You're the first one in � the area so the city's got to figure out how to do it. Hoffman: One additional point of information. The target number thrown" out at *45,000.00, it certainly would be staff's contention that that would not be the price we would pay if we did indeed pay compensation per acre. We would be much closer to the raw land value. ' Schroers: Okay. Are there any members of the Commission that disagree with that suggestion? Okay. Lash: I think they have a pretty good idea, don't you think of the direction we're going. That we want to go with this and if you feel like your property is worth $45,000.00 an acre, and it probably is if you sell it to a business. You're going to get that. My suggestion to you would be to go ahead and get every penny you can out of that but not from us. Get it from someone else and then use that money to somehow figure out hir to give us what we want too, then we're both going to win. Schroers: Okay. So I'd like to thank Mr. Dahlgren and Ms. Foster for coming in tonight. The bottom line is, we're going to ask for the Gatewit Development to provide for us the original amenities that we asked for o September 22nd and we'd like to, we'd be very interested in seeing what we could work out. 1 Andrews: Todd, would it give us strength if we were to put tha tin a motion rather than just sort of a see you later comment? Schroers: I think the motion already is standing. It's the motion from September 22nd. Andrews: I wasn't here for that meeting but I will concur with that 1 recommendation. Howard Dahlgren: We propose to go onto the Planning Commission on December 2nd. I think the recommendation of your board, whatever it is, should go on the record. Schroers: The recommendation is the recommendation that was made on September 22nd. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, you may want to make a recommendation that .II Schroers: A recommendation to uphold the recommendation of September 22nd. 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 21 Hoffman: And deny this concept, which is the most recent concept plan. Schroers: I don't want to deny the concept. I just want to see it meet the requirements that we ask for. Hoffman: Right. Koubsky: Thanks a lot. Hoffman: You may want to put that in the form of a motion this evening then with a second and vote. To uphold your September 22nd motion. 1 Lash: I move that we uphold our September 22nd motion regarding Gateway West Business Park. 1 Andrews: Second. Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission uphold their motion of September 22, 1992 requesting the applicant to provide, as a part of their proposal, a community park site. The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include natural vistas, affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas, and the street plan and sidewalks; sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences; a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park ' property than called out in the original sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well ' as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress to the park site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT: GATEWAY FIRST ADDITION. LOTUS REALTY. Hoffman: The second Gateway of the evening... This plat, preliminary 'plat is much more straight forward than the previous one. It's simply a clarification of lot lines down in the area of the Rapid Oil Change, the Hanus building, those type of areas. There really needs to be no action by the Park and Recreation Commission other than to recommend that City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development which should occur as a result of the platting of the Gateway First Addition. 1 Koubsky: I recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development occurring as a result of the platting of the Gateway First Addition. Andrews: I'll second that. Koubsky moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development occurring as a result of the platting of the Gateway First 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 35 11 2. Lot 3 shall not have direct access onto Audubon but rather from the extension of Lake Drive West. ' 3. Submittal of an acceptable site plan in compliance with the development standards /guidelines established for this PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: When does this go to the City Council? ' Aanenson: Well we've directed the applicant, the owners of the property that we'd like to see this final platted and we're trying to push this wit[ the final plat because we've gone in there and condemned to get sewer through there to benefit their property and we'd like to see them final plat this. So we're hoping that we can put this all together and do it in January. Emmings: Is the weather station still, they're still planning to build a weather station? Aanenson: Yeah, they're supposed to be operational by June of '94 so we expect to see them shortly after the first of the year too. Batzli: Okay, thank you for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SE OUDRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41 AND NW QUADRANT OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41. GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK. OPUS CORPORATION. ' Public Present: Name Address ' Michele Foster John Uban Opus Corporation Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Peter Olin MN Landscape Arboretum t Paul Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street Bruce Perkins 125 West 82nd Street Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street David Dungey 105 West 82nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. John Uban: I'll just give my name. It's John Uban, consulting planner working with Opus Corporation. What I'd like to do is show you some of the things we showed the Highway 5 Task Force so I can kind of reiterate and discuss a little bit about some of their concerns and comments. And then show you...illustrate to you a little better what our intentions are. Since the last time we met, we made some changes to the plan and I think staff has shown... • Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1992 - Page 36 Batzli: Excuse me, before you continue, would it be better for him to use the microphone for the recording? Yeah, could you do that. John Uban: I'll show you some of the changes that we have made. ' Previously we had industrial all on the west side of Highway 41 and the concern was, how does this work with the Arboretum and neighbors to the 11 south and Chaska. And we of course had to address what, we don't know what's going to happen with the site that was going to be for Nordic Track and it's for sale now for $1.00 to try and encourage some development there. But in the past, we don't know if it's going to be all truck industrial site or a corporate site. There's those possibilities. But we, this had been the area at the intersection of 82nd and 41 for some commercial to serve the business area and the traffic and so forth II in this area. And so we, at this time looking at a small business, service or daycare and gas station, convenience. Basically for employees of the area as well as people on Highway 41. But we looked also, and this area is not adjacent to the Arboretum per se but this portion along TH 41 is and we instead said, let's try and use the attractiveness of th area and sited then multiple family on this site. And we need, in order to do that of course, have direct access to TH 41 but that corresponds II directly where we would have access to the larger site. So this works out just right and we've worked this out with MnDot and this is appropriate spacing and so forth and works out for them. It also offers" us flexibility and opportunity to work with the Arboretum to secure for them an access point that they can use in the future also. And so this can, through an easement that we're willing to work out with the Arboretum, to give access to the Arboretum. They're interested in another access point from TH 41. When Highway 212 is completed, they anticipate more of their visitors may be coming up from the south as they come out on the faster highway rather than coming in on TH 5. So this II may prove to be a good entrance for them at some point in the future. S we would continue to coordinate that with the Arboretum. That allows a lot of this site to remain an open space. Then the parcel that is also adjacent to the Arboretum but along 82nd Street, before we had industria development in here but now we're showing it, not just industrial but some office. Also in a single structure in trying to illustrate some of the controls we can put on that particular site. One, we would buffer II around the edge. Set it back farther. We're also anticipating for this residential use to the north that a residential driveway can be put in place right next to the wooded area of the Arboretum. That way it would' take their entrance off of 82nd Street that is in this area. If they want to be industrial to the north, then we would provide the easement that they already have and that could be their industrial access. So we have an option of doing both here at this point. But additionally, the II building itself would shelter the noise and activity of the area to the east for the area that lies to the west because we would have loading and the parking on the east side of the building. Totally screened and II entrance then as far down 82nd Street as possible. And that would then consolidate a more quiet use. Obviously busy during the day as any business would be but in the evenings and on weekends, that business would be more quiet. And that is what we're trying to do. Have the control here so it's a good neighbor for both the Arboretum and the residents. Basically the same as what Chaska's been doing to the south. The rest of this has stayed primarily the same except for the water towel f Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 37 site. The reason we looked at this is we kept placing it in different ir places and everyone had an objection, one way or the other. In placing it up in here, the Arboretum was concerned that they might see it. And so when bringing it down here, you may recall this site, it's one of the few treed areas along the highway. And in the regrading of this area, this tree knob could be left as a feature because there's some nice evergreens and other things on that site. The water tower might work very well if the final design works out so we think this is a good alternative to look at. And it may, if the program works out with the existing owner, it could be a way for them to stay there and still have the site used for the water tower. Furthermore, our road system is as we -had shown before, follows basically what's in the comprehensive plan. It ' curves through the site, opening up a lower tier of lots and then this is stepped because the site is rolling. We haven't done a grading plan but each one of these are tiers as it matches the surrounding road system. We have shown additional parkland from the last time. We're up to about 33 acres. 19 of those acres are developable acres. Not wetland but we have included the wetlands also. Our approach has been that we've taken what we thought was most attractive part of the site and turned it into ' park. The Park Commission has reviewed this several times now and this was what we added for the court activities in this area. We took off a lot and moved everything over. This is, we had worked this out with the city staff, at a city staff meeting. This might be a good compromise. Since then Park staff had asked for some more. About another acre and a half. But at the actual park meeting, they asked for more yet. So there's really a point here where the city has to decide, here is something, a significant amount of this can be had through just the dedication process. But how much more should the city really want to acquire because at some point the city has to buy the additional land. When in fact there's an opportunity through dedication to fulfill all the park needs for the adjacent parcel. And maybe patience is the best thing. The most cost effective way to fulfill all your park needs in a cooperative fashion. And that's what we've tried to express here. But obviously if the city wants to buy a lot and do all the park at once, we'll be subject to that desire. What we've also tried to illustrate here is some of the design features that we think will eventually be ' incorporated in the final design certainly with perimeter landscaping. We're talking about having a 50 foot landscaped perimeter edge around the development that will then be consistent and bring the whole development tied together as a uniform property and a uniform pattern of development. This then is part of a corridor planting but also city staff had also talked about having a feature of some sort at this intersection. Now we haven't designed this but we have offered a suggestion to start the ideas flowing. And we presented this to the Highway 5 corridor. And what we're just suggesting is that landscape earthen feature that encircles the intersection will create like a room, a turning room as if it's turning around for locomotives. It's a European round where the cars zipped around until they found their exit. This could be a symbolic then entrance to two communities. The Arboretum, Chaska and Chanhassen. So in a cooperative way something very interesting could happen here. And so we're just suggesting an early idea of that. We found also that it was hard for the task force to really visualize what we were really saying here because this is roof tops and parking lots and roads and it's hard to bring that home. What does this really mean when you see Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1992 - Page 38 development. We showed them two existing developments. This is in Plymouth, the industrial area of Plymouth. This is 494, 694 rather. And here is Highway 55. This is looking south. City Hall's over here but ' this shows that this is an industrial area. Sort of in a grid pattern but they see the pattern of roof tops and parking lots and this is how this particular one developed. But this is the one Opus did which is called Opus in Minnetonka. Here, more curvalinear road system. A savir, of open space and trees in sensitive areas like we are doing with the park and the wetlands and so forth. Here, they have different entrances off the Highway 169. And once again it's roof tops and parking lots bull it got them to see the pattern on the plan was similar to a pattern tha they see in an aerial photograph. And when they saw visual keys or photographs that were taken all around the community in other places, they liked the way the roads looked at Opus and they liked the way entry, monuments looked. So those were some of the positive images they chose. And then we showed the typical kinds of buildings that have been built b Opus in the past. Certainly Rosemount, and here are a variety and thes are once again about 15% to 20% office and the rest industrial manufacturing. The architecture is tied together. There are different types for different kinds of industrial needs. A variety of architectur' but all of this is tied together with standards. Architectural standards. Landscape standards. A variety of site criteria. So this is the kind of view and kinds of buildings that will eventually be built o the property. So we wanted them to start visualizing and getting some idea of what that could be. We showed them the four alternatives and a staff has said, they saw the institutional kind of mixed use hotel, office, so forth. Headquarters, industrial, corporate and a retail. A of these three, the retail they didn't like. It was mostly, parking wa up front versus the building. But retail they didn't like this particular one but they still said, where should retail be? How should it work and so forth? So these were the other ones that they looked at ' and they said yes. These are the sorts of things that look reasonable. We don't know how the Task Force is going to develop their criteria for aesthetics and so forth over the next 6 to 10 months. We're here tonigl trying to get a general concept approved and we're still saying on this �! site, we really don't know what's going to happen but we do want to hold it and make sure the best thing happens. And so we have that commitment" and drive to what we're trying to do. That's why that site is saved as II focal point to the whole development. And we're committed to putting in the best architecture and so forth into that site. So when we come bac to this concept plan, we're really looking at the general use pattern, road system, how we're preserving open space through dedication as an public park for those portions that are wooded and so forth. And our general use and we're trying to soften this edge against the Arboretum. II So these are the basic things we're attempting to do and we've worked with staff and Michele Foster from Opus has reviewed the staff recommendations. We have a few comments and she would like to make thosl comments to you at this point. Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Michele Foster and I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation and one of my primary responsibilities is the development o Gateway West Business Park in Chanhassen. I guess I will not repeat the beginning parts of this letter which John basically summarized for you I 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 39 which are the changes that we've made since the last Planning Commission meeting. And I'd like to direct you to the basically four issues that we'd like to briefly discuss where we would like to see some amendments to the staff recommendation that you have before you. The first has to do with the role of the Highway 5 Task Force. And you can see that what ' we are asking is that conditions number 1 and number 10 be deleted and replaced with a condition that states, the applicant shall continue to consult with the Highway 5 Task Force with respect to site design criteria, bicycle trails, and pedestrian crossings and landscaping themes ' and gateway treatments. Our concern here is that as we understand the staff report, basically the direction seems to be to defer the decision on what kind of land uses should occur on the property west of Highway ' 41. We feel that we have really made every effort that we can to be responsive to the concerns of the neighbors and the Arboretum. The wetlands that are there. The visual concerns about the Highway 41 corridor and it's important to use to be able to proceed with some ' assumptions about land use on the Highway 41 property so that the project can proceed and we can continue to do the kind of analysis that we need to do. As John mentioned, we think the neighborhood commercial is very ' limited in scope and is very necessary for a project of this scale. We think that it can be accomplished within the kinds of quality and design standards that the city and the Highway 5 Task Force will be developing. So that is our basic concern. We really feel that we need to reach some decision on those land uses. We feel that that is certainly within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to consider and we'd like to be able to move forward with those land uses in place as we show them on the concept plan. The second issue has to do with the environmental impact statement process. This is not a major issue but in order to facilitate the development of the environmental impact statement, we would very much like to be able to use our consultant for the traffic study. We understand that our consultant will need to confer with the city closely about the scoping of the work and the nature of the work that's included ' there but it would very much facilitate what is a very complicated process if we could use our traffic engineer as part of the total environmental impact statement process. Therefore we would like to see that condition revised as stated in our letter. The third issue relates to park dedication and I won't spend a lot more time on that since John basically described our position there. As John indicated and to clarify what the staff said, the Parks Commission position at the meeting last week is that they want all of the park, all of the community parkland to be taken out of the Gateway West Business Park. So that means all of the passive components and all of the active components should be shown on our property. That means that we think, and we haven't done a layout, ' but we think that probably means another 8 acres of property of Gateway West Business Park needs to be shown for active park components. We would like to resist that. As my letter states, you know we're trying to meet a number of multiple objectives. We understand there needs to be a park but the park needs to be located in such a way that it allows the land to be utilized for it's highest and best purposes that creates or ' locates the park in an area that will serve not only the industrial park but the residential property that's going to develop to the east. And also creates an economical solution for the city at a time when we know that park resources are very limited. And we came up with the concept of a more comprehensive approach to the park issue by looking at both our 1 Planning Commission Meeting II December 2, 1992 - Page 40 property and the property to the east. We're trying to create a fair an1 balanced solution to creating a park, which we understand that the city needs to create here but we don't think that requiring another, it's probably 9 1/2 acres from what we are showing on our plan, is necessary. We think that there's a better solution that works better for us and works better for the city and would like to see that given further II consideration. My interpretation, and I don't want to put words in the mouth of the Parks Commission, but my impression was that the Parks Commission was interested in our proposal but they were mostly concerned I that the city didn't have the kind of controls that it needed to assure that that plan could be implemented. And that's why I recommended that condition 7 be revised to state, the kind of condition that it does which is that the dedication of the parkland be approved as we have requested II but that it be subject to the development of appropriate safeguards to assure the city that this plan can be implemented. We think the city has the kind of controls that it needs to designate that property for a community level park. It has the same kinds of dedication requirements II that it has of us. But we understand that the Parks Commission wasn't feeling comfortable that they did have those kind of controls. We would like the opportunity to work closely with staff to go forward with the II kind of solution that we are recommending but that it be conditioned on the assumption that we can come up with safeguards that the Parks Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council feel comfortabl with. We'd like the opportunity to do that. If we can't, then we can't 1 But we'd like that opportunity to pursue this kind of solution. As you can see, the current plan that we have presented shows 13% of the developable property in park. Most communities will say that 10% is the ll standard. We're already showing 13%. If we needed to provide another 8 acres, obviously that percentage continues to keep increasing. We'd like a more balanced approach to that if it's possible and we'd like your II consideration for that. John also mentioned the fourth issue which is the shopping center option as one of the four options for Lot 1. The staff has recommended that that option be deleted. Because we don't kno what can, what is going to occur on that property, we would like to have all of the options available at some point in the future to consider tha and so we ask that that land use option not be deleted from consideration. So those are the four areas where we have some disagreements and where we'd like to ask that there be some consideratio • to these kinds of changes. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. II Aanenson: Brian, can I take an opportunity to respond to those? II Batzli: Sure. Aanenson: I can just quickly articulate them. Paul and I did take a fell minutes to go over this this afternoon. The role of the Highway 5 Task Force. As you recall, there was some talk of a moratorium you know because the concern about getting some of the goals and objectives of the Highway 5 Task Force out in front. We felt that that wasn't II necessary. As I stated earlier, they will be meeting in January trying to resolve. We're taking this issue first. What should be the commercial in this area? Whether it be, there's different scales. II II Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 41 Neighborhood, community, regional commercial, and at this time, the PUD allows for 25% ancillary support commercial. We're not sure that this is ' the appropriate location for that. Maybe it needs to be interior. I guess what we're saying is, we certainly don't want to drag them through every Highway 5 Task Force meeting but we feel at this time it's a little bit prematLre to say this is the uses we're looking at and how they should be laid out. We feel strongly that we need a little bit more time before we can decide that those are the appropriate uses. What we're talking about is basically on 82nd, the majority of that property. The Wrase's in the south, where they're showing the commercial on that, what's adjacent to the Arboretum which would be'on the west side of TH 41. Secondly, the traffic engineer study. We feel it'd be in the best ' interest to have a traffic engineer working for the city. That's our position on that. Again, it's not a big issue as they stated too. The park dedication, we certainly don't want to usurp the Park Commission's authority but as my understanding of how the meeting went Tuesday, there were some misunderstandings and I think this is something that can be resolved internally with the staff. Certainly there's some credit given for you and we went through this problem with Hans Hagen. You know the Park Commission wanted to see a lot of the flat area and we also want to preserve some of the natural and giving them credit for that and I think that's an internal decision that needs to be made and we certainly want ' to sit down with the applicants and try to resolve that. I think that can be resolved. Number 4, the shopping center option. We feel strongly that needs to be eliminated as a possibility. It's inconsistent with the Comp Plan at this time and it should just be not considered. Batzli: Let me back up and ask one question about the parkland. If you take out the wetland, how much land would they be dedicating to the city? r Aanenson: Well they're showing 19 acres but that would include some of that wooded area to the south along 82nd. Where there's some trails and the like so. My understanding, the Park Commission wants like 14 to 17 acres of ballfield, tennis, which would be right along that frontage road. What they really wanted was an additional acreage right in here. Chopping into one of their lots. ' Batzli: Okay. And normally in a situation like this, where wetlands can't be developed anyway. Aanenson: We don't give them credit. Batzli: We don't give them credit. 11 Aanenson: Correct. So they do have acreage that they've taken out that's undevelopable. They are showing actually, they've taken out for the wetland. The 22 acres. 5o that is not included. And some of that again, where they're showing the park trails along the south side, some of that may be questionable as to how they would get access to it and ' develop it too. Batzli: Just for my own clarification, the nice park that they show to the east, who owns that right now? 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1992 - Page 42 Aanenson: That's not their property. Batzli: I know. But do we know who owns it? Michele Foster: I don't know her first name. It's Mrs. O'Shaughnessy who owns that property. ' Batzli: And is this her entire parcel that you're showing as parkland, except for that 8 acre exception? Is that all owned by one person? Michele Foster: My understanding is that that property includes everything from our easterly property line to CR 117 and south...that entire property that abuts our property. Some of it is zoned for multi II family. Some is zoned for single family. John Uban: There are significant wetlands in that area. But only the, if I could show this board real quickly. There are large wetlands in here that are wooded wetlands and they're protected. And then this portion of it here that is more developable for field or ballfield activity. This area also has some fairly poor soils in it. The upper portion, once you get out of this sort of drainage area up in here that' developable on that piece. So once again it's sort of attaching the two pieces together to take advantage of both the high wooded areas here and some of the low ballfield type area on the other side...all that can be , combined in a very large...park. As a park planner, we do this for other cities, this would be a very difficult approach to try to assemble with multiple properties, the best pieces of both that work for a park. Let { that plan work the best to really make the private development even better. You know so the two really work hand in hand to make what is included...on two different uses. Say residential or multiple family II over here and the business, industrial office business park over here.. Batzli: Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone else attendance that would like to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and please give your name and address for the record. Paul Paulson: Mr. Chair and Planning Commission. My name is Paul Paulson. My address is 3160 West 82nd Street and I live directly north II of Lot 20. I have a prepared statement I'd like to read tonight. Just to I guess give you a sense of our perspective on the development, I'd 11 like to give you a brief history of our involvement with the property that we live on. In 1986 we began our search for a rural property on which to establish our residence. We were looking for a quiet, rural setting safe from development. We purchased our property in August, 198 and at that point began planning our house. We had planned to have construction complete by July, 1989 but due to circumstances beyond our control, were not able to begin the project until November, 1989. We II first heard of the purchase agreement between Bill Owalley and Steiner Development in the summer of 1989. Steiner Development purchased their property in December of 1989. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, was made public in the spring of 1990. This was the first indication that we had that the city intended our property and the surrounding property to be guided for commercial development. Given the circumstances, we prefer things the way they are out here now and are 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 43 surprised by the development around us, although we recognize that it's taken place and now expect it to proceed. We are still not convinced that the PUD should extend to the west side of Highway 41. In fact that part of the plan west of Highway 41 seems more appropriately used with the Arboretum and existing Chaska uses to the south. So we continue to be concerned about the planned development west of Highway 41. The plan will impact us in many ways. Not the least of which is property taxes. I called the Carver County Assessor this morning to get an estimate of our property tax once the surrounding property is zoned PUD. He ' estimated that our property tax could jump from $4,000.00 today to around $9,000.00 at that time. The new plan shows the'easement moved to the 'west end of Lot 20. This was not our idea. It is not clear to me that moving the easement is in our best interest and at this point we have not agreed to move it. The staff report recommends that a public street be built on the current easement. This seems reasonable to us and we ' support it. We would like to see a time table for commercial development on Lot 20. Not enough information is available yet to understand the impact on us and our property. For example, if the city street is constructed on the current easement, how does that effect the location, size, and orientation of the development on Lot 20? In regards to the overall project, we're just small potatoes but we do not want the overall project to lose sight of our property, it's value and it's future use. At this point we would like our property to be included in the PUD since it's exclusion from the PUD will be a drawback to the future use of our property consistent with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. If that means designation of our property as PUD at this time, then perhaps the PUD should not go forward without that taking place. At a minimum, our property much be planned into the development. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Peter Olin: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission. Peter Olin through the Arboretum. I would like you to bear with me for a minute because in the past meetings I have made some comments and some recommendations along with the neighbors which I thought would, they were professionals would be taken into consideration. I don't think they have been and therefore tonight I'd like to address you, not only as Director of the Arboretum but as a professional and give you a little background of my professional background. In 1963, 29 years ago, when I started as a landscape 1 architect and planner in Hartford, Connecticut, I worked for a firm where I learned that planners could be more effective at destroying land than developers because they had the tools to manipulate everything. It was a ' poor job but a great learning experience. In Massachussettes in '67 where I learned how good PUD's could be designed while working on two of them, seminole ones in Amhurst, Massachussettes. In 1970 I worked on a major regional plan for southeast New England with the New England River Basin's Commission. In '71 I was working for a planning research firm analyzing factors that make up the scenic qualities of the State of Vermont. In '72 I worked on some developments with a landscape architect in Vermont, including town plans, zoning ordinances, PUD's, shopping centers and so on. '73 I worked on several developments in the Boston area for Carol Johnson and Associates. And from '74 to present I have been with the University of Minnesota as a Professor of Landscape Architecture. Teaching both design and planning. I hate to do this but 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1992 - Page 44 this Gateway West PUD is one of the poorer designs that I've seen. If all student turned this in I'd give them a D. That's not passing for a design course. PUD is a unique opportunity for a designer /planner to work with landform and the native environment so that it isn't destroyed!' And for the developer, the way to preserve part of the site and increase the amount of development, that they would not be able to do under II regular development guidelines. For the City it's a way to retain the character of the land and provide amenities for it's citizens. For the people who work or live there, it provides a better setting, a more environmentally compatable and sensitive place in which to work, reside and recreate. This plan does none of those things. The road rips acrosil the iandforms destroying them entirely. The buildings cannot be put up on most of the lots without either removing the entire hillside, where we've got 90 feet of drop across the lots. Or massive retaining walls. The parking lots all face the road making the drive through the site a tour of parking lots. There's no respect for the Arboretum, which is a major, as a major regional resource needs major buffering considerations!' A couple rows of trees doesn't begin to do the job to buffer a potential machine shop, fast food restaurant, gas station, multi family housing or whatever else they're proposing in there. It does not respect the importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41. The welcome they propose will greet people with a gas station and a fast food restaurant. At Highway 5, where there is only the most sketchy of ideas about industrial, office, commercial, or whatever have you, there's not much t� say Chanhassen is a different community and you're entering it now. I think the only thing they did respect was the wetlands, and of course that's only because the law won't allow them to do anything there, or at ' least without major access cost to the developable sites. A PUD is the way to creatively approach development. In this case, the importance of the site in relationship to the Arboretum and to Chanhassen's major II entries, needs a major creative design development. Certainly the city entrance needs far more than a circle of shrubs or trees or a berm. I'm not sure what it is that's proposed exactly. The city wants to protect this rolling landscape and that is the character and the characteristic II of Chanhassen and it's in your city plan. This proposal will eliminate it. Actually I'm surprised that the Planning office, again asking the Planning Commission to give preliminary approval with the very slight changes made from the first plan which was a very poor plan to start with. For the PUD you are allowing this developer to make much more money on this property than he would be allowed to under the conventional development pattern, if he were to follow them. You deserve and should demand a creative development solution for this site at the conceptual stage. I strongly recommend that you not, no approval be given of this plan until a plan is presented that minimally, one, gives the Arboretum il major buffer of appropriately compatible development. Not just a row of trees or a berm. Office and light industrial or other 8:00 to 5:00 uses come immediately to mind and I'm talking about that whole corner. This II is a major resource. And that it not be crowded up against the Arboretum's boundary. Two, that this minimally respects the rolling landform of the site for both roadway and building location. Three, tha it shows at least block grading to indicate how roads, parking lots and buildings can be placed on the site. Any PUD I worked on, it was required that we show that we could put those roads and buildings on a site and it could be graded properly. Block grading means you use 5 or ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 45 10 foot contour intervals or something that is a little more gross than any kind of detail grading. Four, that begins to develop some type of logical and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen, both on Highway 41 and Highway 5. And 5 and finally, to indicate that this development will be more than a parking lot tour as one drives through it. Just as a side thought, the highest and best use of any property could very well be ' parkland. Not necessarily commercial and industrial where something that squeezes the very last dollar out of developing that piece of land. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments they'd like to present to the Commission? Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins. I live at 125 West 82nd. I'm one of the residents south of Lot 20. As I look at the plan, it seems that Lot 20 sticks out to the west. As you look at it coming from the 1 south, you have residents and parkland in Chaska. Lot 20 breaks that contour. You have a residence to the north of it. A residence and parkland to the south of it. Why not continue the current use of that ' corridor of housing and park area on Lot 20? A single family home, or parkland covered with trees would be the best to protect the sanctity of the Arboretum and continue the current use. If Lot 20 and the property west of TH 41 is developed, for my neighbors and for my family, we would no longer live in the country. We would live in an industrial park. Potential buyers of our property would say, these aren't country homes. These are homes in an industrial park. The residents around Lot 20 would be severely hurt by development of Lot 20 as anything but a single family residence or a park covered with trees. The Arboretum will be damaged by commercial development on this border as well. Please don't ruin our ' country living and our country living experience and don't intrude on the Arboretum. Office development on Lot 21 seems appropriate but a daycare or a restaurant or a service business that would operate 24 hours a day would bring a lot of traffic to our area. This will cause pollution by noise, light and traffic congestion at a variety of hours. A service station on Lot 22 is totally unacceptable and if it's meant to service the industrial park, it should be on the east side of Highway 41, not on the west side. Lastly, the plan still does not reflect the fact that the Paulson house is existing on the lot north of it. They say there isn't something on record to show that that house is there but a simple drive out will show that it's there and it should be listed on the plot and the plan, just so you don't forget that there is a residence to the north. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? David Dungey: David Dungey, 105 West 82nd Street and my neighbors and 1 friends have pretty much said it all but I'd like to just very briefly address the traffic congestion issue. If in fact the support commercial uses that are proposed for the people who work in the industrial park are allowed to be in the west side of Highway 7, it simply means that anybody coming to work who wants to use the daycare center, gas station, must exit or leave Highway 41, go to the west, do their business and again enter TH 41 or cross TH 41 to get to their place of work. If these commercial support businesses were on the east side of TH 41, people Planning Commission Meeting 1 December 2, 1992 - Page 46 going to work could exit, do their business and get to work on secondary roads. Not having to get back onto TH 41 again and leave it again. So from a traffic flow standpoint, I just think it makes an awful lot of sense to keep any commercial support to the east side of TH 41. And I'll just cut my remarks there. Thank you. Batzii: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? II Harry Adams: Mr. Chairman, members. My name is H. Adams. I'm the last resident in the line of four residents that have spoken tonight, and I strongly endorse what you've heard from all of the speakers to date. I II would add one thought. I've been in contact as recently as 6 :00 tonight with the planners for the City of Chaska and they would generally be supportive to those objectives to the commercial properties being west of TH 41. They regret that they weren't here tonight. They'll work with your planners as we move forward and make those comments directly to them. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. Kate, will you refresh my recollection one time. The property in Chaska to the south of Lots 21 and 22, what is that zoned? , Aanenson: Industrial. Batzii: That's zoned industrial. , Aanenson: Then there's the ravine and then you've got residential. Can I just make a couple other comments? I feel like I need to defend myself. We've had this problem when we did Lundgren where we came in with a preliminary plat and we were giving a conceptual...and I'd just like to, for Peter's benefit, read what the requirements are for conceptual approval. And that's looking at the overall density, identification of lot size and width, the general, general location of streets. The general location of open spaces. The general location and types of land uses and intensities, and staging and time of development.' So what we're looking at is conceptual here. I certainly am uncomfortable with the information. That's why we're saying we need to go the next step and look at how, what the amount of grading. We certainly are going to look in detail at the amount of grading and the cuts and fills but we don't have that level of information here. And what the applicant is seeking is, are you looking favorably upon this layout in the conceptual stage so they can go to the next one. I certainly expect to see modifications as I'm sure the applicant is too a we move through the process. And I just want to make that clear that it is conceptual and we certainly, this is not the depth and breadth of information that we need to do a thorough review of a project. Batzli: Okay. Mr. Olin, we'll come back to you if there's no other comments okay? Is there any other comments? Go ahead. Peter Olin: The concept in the course of any kind of land development has to fit on the land-...but if the topography is a major factor in a site, look at the grades on it. I don't see how you could even develop concept without...or knowing that that kind of topography should be developed, and I don't think it can. 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 47 Batzli: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? Is there a move to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Tim, we're going to start at your end. Erhart: The developer's asking for the PUD, correct? Aanenson: Correct. I Erhart: Over a straight commercial /industrial development, what is he looking to get from a PUD? Aanenson: Again, I think there's a misconception of what they're getting. What we're getting is we're getting the development standards that we can tie them to a cohesive storm water management, design elements, a contract that holds them to this. Erhart: It works both ways. ' Aanenson: Well they can come in and split, come in and split off 5 acres. Maybe they want to respond to that. Just chop off 5 acres. 5 acres here. 5 acres. Leapfrog kind of thing where right now we're getting tight development standards to make it cohesive architectually, landscaping, and all those features, the park issue. Batzli: But from your perspective, what is the developer getting? Why ' are they doing this? Conrad: You can ask them. Batzli: I don't want to know what they think. What do you think? Aanenson: I'm not sure what the benefit is to them to do it in the cohesive, you know marketing wise, they've got a park. I think we're getting more from them. I'm not sure they're getting more out of it. I certainly don't see that as an issue. Erhart: Well yeah, I'd like John to respond, or someone. Michele Foster: The reason that we've submitted a PUD application is because it's our understanding that that's what was going to be required. Quite frankly a PUD process, from a governmental point of view, is far more restrictive for a developer in many ways than it is beneficial. Which is not to say that we would not do many of the same things with development standards and preservation of open space, but the PUD process is far more restrictive to us than it is beneficial and we would have preferred not to do that. But we understood from speaking with staff that it was important to do that. That it was the only way really that the City was going to want to consider that property, and if those are the rules, then that's what we're going to do. Quite frankly, the Opus II development which, you know I'll take a little bit of issue too with 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 48 Mr. Olin's statements. The Opus II development in Minnetonka is an await winning, nationally recognized industrial park. It is not a PUD. The things that we did in Opus II we did voluntarily. We were on the cuttin edge of the development process when that park was started. And the kinds of development and constraints that you see there, while developed in conjunction with the city, were done voluntarily because that's the quality of development that we uphold and that we intend to uphold here. But quite frankly in this case, I think the PUD process is probably a bi, more onerous to us and is far more beneficial to the City because of the kinds of controls that it gives you. So that's our response. II Erhart: Okay. Yeah, my question doesn't imply that I don't think it should be done as a PUD. I just wanted to get a response on that because a lot of the issues being discussed are, who's going to give up what. III kind of wanted to set who's getting what and it seems to me that I think we're... Aanenson: The City certainly is. Certainly when we have concerns about what those setbacks are going to be from Highway 5 and TH 41, iandscapin treatment, that's going to all be part of those development contracts which we have control over with the PUD and it's cohesive. 1 Erhart: On Lot 20, there was some suggestion that that should be residential. Could it be residential? ' Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is up to 25% of the PUD zone, if permitted by the Planning Commission and City Council, could be for alternate uses. If it's in the best interest of the city. And I guess that's why we were kind of looking for the Highway 5 guidance on that an that seems to make sense. You know what is in the best interest of the City and that's why we really wanted to get their input again. Going II back to Michele had raised a concern that they didn't want to have to, they feel like they should be able to go forward and we still feel like there's some issues the Highway 5 Task Force needs to look at. Erhart: Okay, so you think the Highway 5 Task Force would get into the Lot 20 situation? Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: Even though it's off Highway 5. 1 Aanenson: Well they're looking at the whole commercial. Where it should be in relation to that, yes. Erhart: Okay, and the line that everything west of that diagonal line i� Chaska there is zoned residential? Aanenson: Correct. Emmings: There's some parkland in there isn't there? 1 Aanenson: Parkland, residential, yeah. Or open space I believe it is. 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 49 Erhart: What's Opus' response to the concept of that Lot 20 being residential? Michele Foster: We have two concerns. One of which is a marketing concern. We looked at the issue of making that site a multi family site 11 after the last meeting and there's two issues there. One of which is we don't feel there's a market and we understand that isn't necessarily always the driving force but in consultation with some residential developers, that was one reaction. And the second quite frankly is that from our experience, a good quality office, industrial neighbor is often preferable to single family homeowners than a multi family development with lots of traffic and kids and activity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And for both of those reasons we decided that that was not the best use and we felt that we could develop with appropriate standards an office industrial use there that would be a better neighbor to the single family, and maybe even to the Arboretum. I don't want to speak for them. Erhart: Single family homes developed for what reason? Michele Foster: Quite frankly we didn't look at single family as an option. I don't know John if you have a response to that. John Uban: If you'll, although we don't have good information as to exactly what's happening to the south, we do have this fiat industrial piece which...but what is separating this and Chaska from the single family that exists on 82nd Street is the large wooded ravine, which is a good separation. It's a good way to make a transition between an industrial use, Highway 41, and single family come back this distance. When we go to the north, you don't have the wooded ravine. I mean it's just open prairie quite frankly. And so we don't have that kind of buffering. To put single family in here then, we're really exposing that more directly to what even a potential industrial use down here. This area is much more exposed than to that industrial development. So the single family here doesn't have that sort of natural buffering up here. So what we're proposing to do is to lighten our plan for an office industrial use here. To make it as quiet as possible where we can control it for the homes that are to the south here. Just moving it back so directly across from these single family homes is all open space to the north. 11 Aanenson: Can I just add to what John was saying. I think one of the things, I'm not sure what that use is going to be. I don't want anybody I to think that I'm stating that's what it's going to be but we talked about with the PUD that maybe this is a site where we say anything on this lot has fixed hours. No truck traffic. Closes down at 6 :00 where it's more compatible with the neighborhood uses. Try to make it more fit in so it's not as obtrusive as having truck traffic all night long or something like that. That's a possibility too with the PUD zone. Putting those type of controls on whatever goes on that lot. Erhart: And our Comp Plan calls for that, what they call Lot 20 is zoned, or the Comp Plan is. Aanenson: Is guided for, yes. Industrial commercial. 1 Planning ommission Meeting g December 2, 1992 - Page 50 Erhart: We're not in any, are we in not a position today to modify that? Conrad: You can tell them what you think. , Aanenson: Sure. That's what we're looking for. Erhart: If we're looking for residential. Aanenson: Direction to what you feel the uses should be, yes. All I wall saying is through the PUD there's another way to approach it. Yeah, right. Erhart: I was going to say. It just seems to me that Lot 20, maybe the, best use is that for residential. I'm not sure you just didn't contradict yourself when you said at one point that yeah, you can contro it better. Make it compatible with homes there. But then you just said industrial commercial isn't compatible with the homes that you would put there. Paul Paulson: Excuse me. I just want to agree with what Michele said. 1 That as a residence, I think all of my neighbors would agree that we would much prefer a well done industrial piece of property compared to a multi family. Erhart: I wasn't disagreeing with that. Paul Paulson: I know you weren't but I just wanted to emphasize that 11 point, and I think all of the neighbors would agree with that. Erhart: No, I understand that. Well I'll leave that to someone else...' Again, your reason for not allowing retail up in that corner. Aanenson: It's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1 Erhart: Okay. And we expect to have retail on the northeast corner? Aanenson: Well that's what we're trying to decide as a part of the 1 Highway 5 Corridor. We briefly got into a discussion that, do we need some retail at this end of the city and at what scale that should be. An if it's going to be on 82nd and TH 41, does that preclude anything north And again, what scale and what types. Should it be smaller. A series o 20,000 square foot. Should it be one big user. That's something that the Highway 5 Task Force will be working on. 1 Erhart: Okay, and you responded that you would like to at least see conditions 1 and 10 remain where they are Kate? Fairly strongly. , Aanenson: Yes. Erhart: Okay. That's the only questions I've got right now. ' Conrad: Generally I like how the plan looks. I thought Peter brought up some good points and I'm sure going to pay attention to those as we go II through this in more detail. But generally to the east of TH 41, on the 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 51 surface I'm comfortable. The southeast corner, just so you know where I ( am, and I'm not going to change. It will never be a big parking lot which may dictate that you're not going to put retail there or whatever. So retail is, boy you're going to have a tough time selling me on retail. I just want you to know that. Okay. And there may be at some point in time something that came along that I'd look at but right now, I want to be real clear about that. It's a real important intersection. Lot 20 bothers me. I don't know what to do with that. It sort of juts out there. I think we just have to real sensitive to the neighbors and the Arboretum. I'm not sure Kate why, to the west of TH 41 is part of the PUD. Not real clear to me. Don't think it has'to be. The rest does. Absolutely, the rest of this is a PUD. Erhart: Why wouldn't you want it? Conrad: We've got a barrier called TH 41 between these two and I don't. Batzli: We already rezoned this as PUD. Conrad: What? Batzli: I think we already rezoned this. Aanenson: No, we've guided it for industrial commercial so whether we zone it PUD or not, they could still request. - Conrad: It doesn't have to be part of it. Aanenson: They still own it. They can still request to come in for a commercial industrial use. Conrad: Why include it? What is the advantage? We can control it? This is just lot, lot, lot, lot. Tell me what the advantage is and then maybe I'd consider that but TH 41 is the boundary. TH 5 is the north leg. You know there's some real good reasons for the rest of this being part of a PUD and I think they've done a good job at the conceptual 11 level. Right now again I'm paying more attention as we get into the detail but I just don't see why. Erhart: Because if you don't put it, then there's some guy that buys Lot 19 and he could put anything he wants in there. Conrad: Yeah. Within our zoning. Erhart: Cold storage warehouse in there. ' Conrad: Possibly. Erhart: Make that a PUD, we could put some controls on it. Conrad: We can rezone that right now anyway. What's it zoned? Aanenson: It's A -2 but it's guided for commercial industrial. 11 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 52 i Emmings: It's A -2 right now? Aanenson: Yes. , Erhart: If it's guided...that, how do you stop them? 1 Conrad: Anyway. I guess the applicant is asking for some things on point number 1 and 10 and I think the Task Force, I think there has to b some accountability from the Task Force. And I think the applicant woul like to hear what that is, and so would I. I guess we typically do a to of the zoning here and make those recommendations and I'm not sure what the Task Force is, what they're doing versus what our role is but I thin" we should have a date associated with that. I'm not sure I need to change the wording per the applicant but again I think we need some input from the Task Force and this should be on some kind of a schedule. The Park and Rec thing, I don't have a clue what they're doing. So I'll jus� wait for something to happen on them. In terms of staff's, I've got to go with the city staff's recommendation in terms of who does the traffic. I can't make a decision on that. I have to trust our staff. That's all Ledvina: I think that the conceptual really has to evaluate the topography in detail and that's one of the things that I thought we were going to get when we saw this again, because the topography is just, it' � very critical. You have, for instance in the parking lots of 4, 5 and 6, which would apparently be leveled. Maybe you could get 10 feet stepping, across the thing or something like that. There's 60 to 90 feet of contour elevation difference and I just don't ever see that working without massive earthwork and that's just, it doesn't suit the site. I just, I think that that should have been addressed with this additional II plan. And I don't know, the applicant has made some changes and open some things up in terms of the park and worked on that end and I'm sure has made some progress with this area west of TH 41. Again, you have Lo 20, the potential building pad there is a fairly high elevation and if you put a warehouse or whatever up there, that's going to be, I don't think it can be screened very well so I think maybe that would almost seem to be a site for an office headquarters or something like that. Itll looks to be a pretty good piece there but I don't know about an industrial application there. I guess on the issue of the traffic study, I would agree with the applicant. I think that we can, the city can provide some direction in terms of what needs to be done there but the City mould be spending the applicant's money on that and I think the applicant probably could do that more efficiently with the same results. Or acceptable results at any rate. I was wondering, in the Opus respons regarding the Park and Rec, they suggest that, I think the term was used, suitable controls or the City could do something to insure that this park area is integrated in a uniform manner. Can you expand on that? What II kinds of things can we do at this point to make sure that a ball, a softball field would be built in those areas. Aanenson: On the adjoining property? 1 Ledvina: Right. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 53 11 Aanenson: We don't unless we buy it. We've had numerous people look at that property. It's a significant development problem. It is guided for multi family so we're at the whim of waiting for development to occur. And if that's part of what the ballfield area, they hence wouldn't get built so I guess that was the concern of the Park and Recreation Commission. We have a development in front of us and they can get the property now to make a useable park instead of waiting. It's unknown as far as when that development would occur. Ledvina: So we have to buy it? Aanenson: Well I'm saying we can wait until, we have the choice of either buying it or waiting for someone to develop and ask for dedication at that time. There's two options. 11 Batzli: Well, assuming that it's all one lot, would what we would be able to get under our current ordinance, include for example the softball areas and things like that so that we have a park that makes sense? Or is this one next door to us small enough that we're not even going to get enough to put on two softball fields? Aanenson: Are you asking me if we can get enough useable area with this, 11 with Opus' piece? Batzli: No, with the second one. What would be required to be given to the City under ordinance on that second parcel? Aanenson: The same that we're applying here and it kind of fluctuates. Like Michele mentioned, it's generally around 1O%. Batzli: Okay. How big is that lot next door? Aanenson: I don't have the exact details on that. Ledvina: I guess otherwise I would support the staff and the other recommendations that were made regarding the Highway 5 Task Force. I believe that we should eliminate the option as it relates to the retail on the corner, so I'd be in support of that. Batzli: Okay. Anything else? Ledvina: No. Emmings: First off I think, I agree with everybody that it's good for the city to have this developed as a PUD. My overall reaction to what 11 they brought back is that it's surprisingly similar to what they brought last time. I see that there are some differences but it looks a lot more the same than it does different. And I don't think it does much of a job at taking into account the comments we made last time. It is a concept plan and that's very broad and you read us the stuff that we're supposed to take into account but there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan. And there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan that I can't accept, and those specifics are part of this drawn plan and I don't accept them. 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 54 i ( Aanenson: I agree with you. We certainly have those same concerns. Emmings: It may be that they should have been left off. '1 • Aanenson: Right. Exactly. I see some of these lines being shifted based on topography and the like. Emmings: Maybe they should have been left off but they're there and I couldn't live with that. 1 • Aanenson: Footprints of buildings, that could have all been left off. We just needed the lot lines. Exactly. 1 Emmings: If they want to do anything close to what's on here, I couldn't be for it because the grading, I'm totally untrained in this but when 111 look at the contour lines on the plan, there are so many lines inside some of those spaces that you know the grading is going to be dramatic and it's going to ruin that piece of property, in my opinion. They showed us a picture of the Opus Center in Minnetonka that you do voluntarily and I don't see those same ideas brought to this plan. I II think what you did in Minnetonka is beautiful and I don't see you doing it here. So while I applaud you for that effort, I wish you'd come and do it here. In Minnetonka you have patches of things distributed throughout and here you've got it, all the green is shoved down to the corner into the wetland that you can't use anyway. So I don't see how, and maybe you have a response but I don't see how you brought those concepts or that feeling or whatever it is to this big parcel of propert here. My specific comments with regard to Lot 20 would be, oh! I have a question first for Kate. When we did that other business park we did I here tonight. Chanhassen Business Center PUD amendment. We talked at great lengths on that about the fact that we were butting the industrial up against residential and we had to have a big buffer yard and we came up with the buffer yard concept and we put it in our ordinance and if I remember right, it called for 100 feet between those conflicting uses of trees and area that would be left in a natural state. Why don't we see that here on Lot 20? ' Aanenson: I raised that issue with Mr. Krauss. For some reason it got put between Mr. Paulson's property and this development which I'm not sure makes a lot of sense because if he wants to be included in this PUD � and become the same ultimate zone, that's not where you want the buffer. You want to buffer to the east. We can certainly put that in as one of the development standards. Emmings: It seems to me that all sides of that thing need a buffer yard and maybe the whole thing ought to be but I could see that with a buffer" yard, if and maybe a professional office building that's used just you know, during kind of 9:00 to 5 :00 hours that you could put a use in there of that kind. I don't know if there's a market for it but I don't think" that that would be, with that kind of buffering and that kind of use, I don't think it would be a horrible neighbor there. But anything more intensive than that I'd sure be opposed to. With regard to Lot 1, the big one on the corner, is there a pond comtemplated right on the corner ?" Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 55 Aanenson: There is a wetland. A small wetland right now. Emmings: It's a wetland? Aanenson: Right. I Emmings: Well that's good because whatever happens out there, the corner has to be left very open it seems to me and that's real essential. I agree there should be no retail, even at this conceptual stage we shouldn't even be considering retail. The idea .of a corporate ,headquarters, one building that would sit there certainly appeals to me more than anything else. With regard to condition one, I don't think it says anything and that bothers me. It says the Highway 5 Task Force shall further define the uses permitted adjacent to the Arboretum. So what? First of all I think you ought to add, and along Highway 5. Not just adjacent to the Arboretum but also all the way along Highway 5. You know that sounds like an instruction to the Highway 5 Task Force. It doesn't really say that Opus has to do anything so that bothers me. I guess somehow they have to be subject to those recommendations or conform to the recommendations but you can't just say, you can't just tell us what the Task Force is going to do because it doesn't make sense in this context. I don't have problems with the other specific ones. I don't understand condition 11. That the City Council should consider gaining input on the design of Highway 5 and 41. Aanenson: That's the landscape feature. The gateway kind of treatment. Including that maybe. Emmings: Well when you say gaining input, you want the City Council to have input or they want input to the City Council? I didn't understand what it says. What did it say? Aanenson: Paul wrote that one. Emmings: Oh sure. Dump on the guy who's not here. Aanenson: If I can try to explain what I think he meant. I believe what he's saying is that this may be something that we've used tax increment money for and kind of create a gateway treatment. Emmings: That's fine but again. 1 Aanenson: Maybe they should come up with a design. Not Opus come up i with a design feature but maybe we should have another consultant. The City Council fund that or the HRA fund that. Come up with a design element. Emmings: That's fine but again, that's an instruction to the City Council or a suggestion to the City Council and what this should say as a condition to their proposal is that they would have to conform to it or be subject to it or. Aanenson: Certainly. 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 58 Ahrens: You have such a good memory. I mean who cares if Chaska has industrial coming up from the south. That doesn't mean that we have to... I think this should stay A -2 and whatever we have to do to accomplish that, I think that we should do that. Aanenson: Are you talking the whole thing or west of TH 41? Ahrens: West of TH 41. I know this is not a specific plan John and I don't know if this was your idea or not. What my little public policy statements are, but whoever told you that a daycare should go inbetween service station and whatever Lot 20 is supposed to be. Industrial. Is way off base. I mean do you really think a daycare should go in inbetween uses like that? John Uban: Daycares go actually where. Ahrens: Do you think? John Uban: Yes. Ahrens: You think that's appropriate? John Uban: Yes. 1Z Emmings: We've got one down in our industrial park over here. Ahrens: I think it's absolutely crazy. There's one right near Eden Prairie Center. You drive by there and these little kids are out playing in this little tiny area. John Uban: It's a business that where the people want... Ahrens: I realize that planners can justify this. I personally think ti that as public policy that that's a bad use of space. A terrible place to put a daycare... Those are my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate, on Lot 7, is that actually part of the Wrase's property right now? j. Aanenson: Correct. rj Batzli: But they're showing it as, we, the City or they, somehow purchased it and put a water tower up, correct? Aanenson: Yes. It's our understanding that the policy is, since we need the water tower, and maybe Dave came help me out with that, is that the vl City would be involved as far as some compensation as far as the establishment of that water tower. Batzli: But given the fact they have absolutely no underlying agreement with that lot owner, you know, why would we put it there as opposed to somewhere in the area? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 59 11 Aanenson: It may be beneficial to them because they would to stay on the property. And if the City does do a condemnation for the whole piece, it gives them a security as to what the value of their property is that they bought out. They have a life estate and their first choice is to stay there. So that mayube acceptable. We've met with them and that is an acceptable option. They're not sure that's what they want to do at this point. Emmings: Spend the rest of their days living under a mushroom. Kind of neat. Aanenson: There's a concern, you know how close would be the house and if they did decide to pursue that, the next step would be to see how close it would be. Batzli: But why on a conceptual plan wouldn't that be shown on their property rather than on someone elses that they have absolutely no interest in the land yet? I don't understand that. Michele Foster: The history behind that particular location is that, when we first brought our plan into the city during the summer, that is the highest point of the property which is where the water tower wants to be located. And the engineering staff directed us towards that location. We had some concerns about that. Number one, because there will be some grading that occurs there and we're not sure yet if it will be the 11 highest ground. And we thought that there might be some better locations. As you recall, in our last plan we showed it on the southerly part of Lot 1, right across the street from the Arboretum and they objected to that. We decided that we still needed, therefore we needed to move it to respond to the Arboretum and we needed to get it towards where we thought the highest ground was going to be and we felt that that might be a solution. It can still go somewhere else but we keep bringing in proposals and everybody says no and if we can get some direction on where they would like it, we'd be happy to work with that but we've been. Batzli: Well you understand my objection that you're not putting it on property you own. You're putting it on, you put it on Lot 1 where you're not going to develop and then you put it on a piece of property you don't own. That was my objection. Michele Foster: We felt that there may way a to be able to allow that Y residential use to stay and put the water tower there and still eventually have a developable parcel if that property owner decided to move. If we need to move it somewhere else, we will. That's not a big issue. But we've been trying to respond to a number of multiple objectives. Obviously we're not succeeding so, we're trying to respond. The primary concern of the engineering department is it's got to be on the highest part of this development, and we'll continue to keep trying to find that. Batzli: No, I understand that and my comments will be much more general. My concern was the location and I appreciate the fact that you're trying to work something out with those people. I appreciate the fact that in fact one of our conditions is that you work out the two exemptions 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 60 because I think that's important rather than build around the way it currently looks. I don't like the way that that exemption sits there. II So I hope that that can be worked out. We've kind of beat this concept versus some detail in here to death and I'm sure that we had a hand in telling the applicant what they should bring in. I've sat on this Commission where we've seen conceptual plans that were sketchier and we wanted more information. This is a real chicken or egg kind of thing. I'm sure we wouldn't have liked it had we not seen anything on these lots. And now that we see something, we don't like it. I don't know what we do about that. In general, not looking'at the buildings and where the parking lots are necessarily going but the roadway through her and the general layout, at least east of TH 41. Assuming for a minute they don't grade it flat, and if you just ignored the contours which is something that Mr. Olin has told us we can't do, I think I'd like it. But we can't ignore those and then I wonder whether, as part of our PUD,Il we're kind of protecting some of that character of the land. I don't know from this and I don't know if you guys know or if that's something that you're going to be taking a look at down the line. I think that's 11 part of our uncomfort level. Is that by what our fear is, is if we approve this tonight and we see 15 contour lines running through a parking lot and we're wondering, my God, what are we telling them they can do out there. And that's something that, I think that's what we're really hesitating about doing tonight and I'm not sure what we can say about that other than we have a contoured piece of property and we're putting a big development on it and while it's conceptual, we seem to need some sort of assurances that you're not going to go out there and d� that. And I don't know how we do that at this stage. But I think you know what our fears are from listening to us tonight. I don't know if that helps or not. I think west of TH 41, I agree there needs to be buffering. My initial hope, after last week, was that Lot 20 would somehow come back as a real low intensive use or parkland or something creative out of all of this so that we get a buffer and a large buffer. II Now obviously we've just heard that a $1.00 a square foot, we've got to II use the building alone for 77,000 feet. How many acres is Lot 20? Aanenson: 9.6. 1 Batzli: Yeah, so that's a lot of bucks. I don't know how we'd do it. mean I would, the ultimate best use from my perspective of that particular parcel is open space. As just a big open space buffer to the Arboretum, and having the two, Lots 21 and 22 be not necessarily supporting commercial. I tend to agree a little bit, depending on what I we do with Lot 20, I supposed there's some sense, well Lot 19 isn't connected to it. I was going to say. If Lot 19 was connected down that way, then there might make sense that it would support the multi family housing. But currently all it does is support Lot 20, unless you inciudll trips back and forth across the highway. And it is interesting why that wasn't necessarily put on the east side of the road. I think I like Lot 19 better than it used to be. My hopes have been dashed though on Lot II 20. They really have. I don't know what we can do about that. Aanenson: Brian, if I could just add to that. Mr. Paulson had spoke tonight that he wanted to be included. Maybe that allows them some more flexibility if they can work something out. Pushing something back. I'm I/ Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 61 ( not sure, pulling it away. I don't know, gives them more acreage. I don't know if it helps or not. Michele Foster: If I could ask for clarification on that. I heard Mr. Paulson say that he wants to stay where he is but he also wants to be included as part of the PUD and I don't know what, I don't know how to do that. To me those are two conflicting positions and if the Planning Commission could give us some direction. Quite frankly I don't know what to do with that. Those two different messages. And I suspect he doesn't want a public street put in if he has to pay the assessments on it, because that's not pretty and if I were in his position, I wouldn't want to do that either. So if by saying he wants to be part of the PUD, does that mean he's acknowledging that he wants to be industrial someday. Because that's one, that's certainly an alternative. But I don't understand and we need some clarification on why...part of the PUD but wanting to stay residential. If somebody could comment on that. Conrad: Well we can't. Do you know what you're asking for? 1 Paul Paulson: I think so. I think there might be a little bit confusion maybe by my opening remarks. I intended to just give a perspective on the way we're looking at the development. How we got out there thinking, wanting to get away from the city and being out in the country and thinking that we were far enough to escape development for a while. But now it's just all around us. Now I do believe I know what I'm asking for when I ask to be part of the PUD and that means that our property would become part of the development and that eventually we would have to leave in order for that development to occur. I don't know if that necessarily means that we need to leave immediately or if we could be included in the PUD and then move, have the opportunity down the road at some point when we do feel like we move out, to at that point have it developed. Does that help? Ahrens: But that could bring development closer to the Arboretum. Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean it gives you a bigger piece to buffer too. Maybe get a bigger piece of residential. I don't know. Conrad: How do you want to buffer the Arboretum? We're buffering a buffer basically. Ahrens: I don't think it should be developed. Conrad: But the zoning right now says it can be. Ahrens: Yeah. I think I was opposed to that all along though. Batzli: We're correcting the record as we go. Conrad: We have nothing to stand on. It's not, I don't even know that that's reality. Ahrens: That what is? 11 Planning Commission Meeting II December 2, 1992 - Page 62 If t Conrad: That going to A -2 is a reality. Ahrens: We don't know that but, we don't know that sitting here tonight" And we may need to get a definitive answer from Roger about what we can do. But why eliminate that as a possibility if it may in fact be a possibility? Just because we don't have that answer tonight. Conrad: I don't think it's a possibility. Ahrens: Well you know, you may not think so but it may be a possibility" It doesn't do us much good though to say yes, it's not a... II Conrad: I guess, I don't want to stay here all night on some of this stuff but, I think the best thing we can do is try to get some kind of consensus. I'm not sure if we have the right 11 motions here. Again, what these people want to hear is some consensus of our opinion that the go away with at least 4 people giving them, 4 out of the 6 of us, giving them some direction. In my mind we've given them some pretty good direction in terms of what we want on the corner. I think we were prett consistent there. I don't know that we've given them direction in terms of our overall perspective east of TH 41. Is there consensus on that? Do we like what we see in general but we're tied into some specifics? Emmings: Well what is there in general? Conrad: The road layout. 1 Emmings: That's it right? Conrad: The road layout, you've got a corner that's going to be II developed. You've got a park area and wetlands. You can smuggly say that but that's not bad. You take a look at what's been done around the wetlands, that's a really nice area. Again, there are some physical constraints to developing this and it's not a horrendous. Now there mayll be some things that Matt's pointed out in terms of some topography issues that I don't know yet. But I'm just trying to get us to make some, give II them some clues. You know if this is totally unacceptable, then they should hear that. If it's something that we feel a little bit comfortable with, we have to give them that direction too. II Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. 1 Michele Foster: If it would be helpful to the Commission and if there was a desire to add a condition regarding the grading and that at the next level of approval where the grading plans would be brought forward, that if you wanted to direct us that that plan needed to...aren't probably exactly the right words but that grading plan should respect to the greatest extent possible the existing topography so that we have that direction and that you do then have the ability to evaluate us against that direction when we come back? I don't know if that gives you any assurances but we would much rather come away with an approval with thos11 II Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 63 kinds of conditions so that we know what you want us to do when we come back. Is that going to help? Aanenson: That's a standard condition in the next phase. Again, I agree with what Peter said. There is some concerns about this. You know the grading. We certainly have that concern and that's what you do in the next step and if it doesn't meet, just like when Lundgren came in, we shifted the road. We shifted the lot configuration because that's the definite objective with the PUD is to preserve that and we don't have that level of detailed information. Yeah you can cursory look at this and say, there's some problems there but we want to see the depth and breadth of that. And that's certainly a standard requirement in the next level. Emmings: The flip side of that, what you just said is though, if I were the developer and you gave me concept approval here with this plan in front of me and I came in, and you said well. You can't do this because it's going to require too much grading and it's going to destroy the site as we know it, I'd say well why the hell didn't you tell me back then. You saw where I was going to put a building and you approved the concept plan anyway. We hear that kind of thing all the time. Now maybe you can tell me we won't hear that from Opus, I don't know but. Aanenson: But we also have regulations as far as street grades and those kind of issues. 11 Emmings: Then why are the buildings on here? Why are they there? * *, you know you'd think after, it's probably a good thing I'm getting off the Commission because after I've been this long I ought to know what's going on and I really don't. I mean I've cooked at a lot of concept plans and this one really kind of baffles me. Aanenson: I guess the last time we came with the Lundgren one we got the big lecture on there was too much detail on the Lundgren one. So now we're trying to go backwards and now the comfort level's not there. So ' we're kind of in a bind. I agree. • Emmings: And I'm the first one to say, there on Lot 1 you're not showing me anything and that scares the ** out of me so I don't want to approve it. Aanenson: Well they showed you the four options. Emmings: No, I know. I realize it's contradicting. Aanenson: We have the same concern. It's what is the appropriate level? We have the same concern. Emmings: But I guess to restate my objection to this concept plan, 11 overall is this. This concept plan shows me how these people are thinking about developing this property in a general way. And I don't like it. And I think it betrays the principles that they've used to such good advantage in Minnetonka, and if they can't do at least as good out 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 December 2, 1992 - Page 64 II here as they did in Minnetonka, then I'm not interested. That's where I stand. II Conrad: But then specifically why is it you don't like it? What is it that you don't like about this? Emmings: Because they haven't, the principles that we saw on the plan, on the Minnetonka plan showed nice curvy roads. Showed pockets of protected natural area that were left in trees and this one is buildings from one to the other except down in one corner., It's very, you've got �, trees along the street, so what. This doesn't look anything like or doesn't have anything like the feel of the Minnetonka project. So I can't tell you specifically but I can tell you conceptually why I don't II like it and that's what we're doing. The specifics, they don't. On the one hand we're being told not to look at the specifics but still it tells us how they're thinking about this property and I don't like it. 1 Conrad: You would break it up? Emmings: I don't know. I'm not a planner. I know that this doesn't 1 look like the Opus Center in Minnetonka. Ledvina: I have a problem with the way this is laid out because when my1 idea of a concept plan is something that's feasible and I can't tell if this is feasible. Then I also look at a goal of a PUD is to be sensitive to the natural features of the parcel, and I can't say that and if it's II not feasible and doesn't meet one of the basic goals, or I don't know if it meets one of the basic goals, I'm not even at square one yet. Emmings: But I think maybe this ought to get moved on. Maybe it's time for the City Council to take a whack at this, whether we're interested o not. I think we've beaten this to death and I don't think they could come back with another plan that wouldn't get the same batch of comments that they've already gotten. Personally, so I think we ought to move it on to the City Council. Either with an approval or not. And because maybe we wind up getting some direction back from City Council too that II way. Conrad: Well we're still waiting. As I see the report, we're waiting for this Highway 5 Task Force stuff to happen. 1 Batzli: I don't see that at all. Conrad: Don't you? 1 Batzli: No. I don't think the Task Force is going to. Conrad: Well we're waiting for the Task Force to say here's what some uses can be and here's how we buffer the Arboretum and we're waiting for Park and Rec to tell us some stuff. 1 Emmings: The Task Force is going to make recommendations but won't have any authority. That's...here and the City Council. II 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 65 I! Conrad: Right, but aren't we waiting for some of that? Emmings: Well you're going to have to wait 6 months for that you know. I think. I don't think it's fair to them to just let the thing sit here. I think it ought to go up to City Council. Who knows, they may love it. Ahrens: This is the same conversation we had when we looked at this thing before. Conrad: See I wasn't here the first time. This is brand new. Batzli: This is identical. Ahrens: This is ridiculous to have to go through the same discussion over and over again at 11:30 at night especially. I mean it's... 11 Erhart: I'm going to make a motion. Emmings: Do it. Batzli: Okay, well let me before. Conrad: ...basically there's a lot of controversy to the whole thing. Matt, you don't like it. Steve, you don't like it. Brian, I'm not sure where you're at. Batzli: I like the eastern side, I could live with provided they contour. The western side I don't really like. Erhart: What you're approving is a concept plan. Does that mean that the streets can't move? 11 Batzli: They can move. Erhart: Does it mean that the lot lines are locked in today? Aanenson: No. Erhart: You're not committing to anything by approving a concept plan so 11 I don't know what we're arguing about. We're approving that we want a PUD. That we want this all planned as a whole. That's it. Emmings: That I'll vote for. Ahrens: We're just approving this should be a PUD? Aanenson: And giving them some general directions on the types of uses and give them an idea of where to go. Ahrens: That there should be a road in there and some buildings? Erhart: No, we're not even approving the buildings. r Ahrens: Simple. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 66 Erhart: It has been simple. That's why we can't get the consensus here because we're not being asked to give any. Other than we want this developed as a whole concept. Batzli: Well but there's a certain degree of when we do give them conceptual approval of, I think there is a certain amount of general layout that we're telling them that we're approving. Erhart: I think we did it in the Minutes. 1 • Batzli: Okay. Well, my only comments because Ladd cut me off a little earlier. I agree that the Task Force should have input but I don't want to wait for them. And also, I think we should delete the shopping cente� and on number 11, I still don't know what it is we're doing but I'll wait for Steve to make that motion. Emmings: Why don't you make the motion and then I'll amend it. I reall� haven't gotten prepared here much. Erhart: You're always prepared. Emmings: I didn't think about it. Ahrens: Is anybody besides me interested in keeping that area west of 71 P 9 41...? Emmings: You ' re outvoted. Conrad: I really, that brings up a real important issue. What are we II doing to the west side of TH 41? Are we close? Batzli: We're screwing it up. Conrad: Are we close or are we, do they need some guidance? And Joan, you have some'guidance. Say, keep it A -2. I don't personally believe that that's legal or that we could stand behind that so I'm not supporting that. But I'm serious about what should we be telling the applicant. Batzli: Steve said buffer yards. I said open space, and get rid of the 1, supporting commercial. I didn't hear any suggestions from that end of the table. Conrad: So we buffer the buffer. So to protect the Arboretum we're going to put 100 feet in between. Erhart: Of more Arboretum. 1 Conrad: I really have a, that just loses me on what we're doing or how we're trying to do that. Do you want a giant berm? Batzli: No. We don't block the view. We just, we don't put it right or, the edge. We don't build up to the edge. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 67 I! Emmings: Remember the old King Kong movie, that big wall they had? Well, that's an idea. Peter Olin: I think, what I suggested was that buffer...I think a commercial with a lot of controls on it, or I mean industrial, with a lot of control could be a fairly good buffer. As long as it doesn't come right up to the border. But commercial development is not a buffer. I think those are the kind of considerations that should be given to that site. It doesn't necessarily have to be parkland. That would be great but... Conrad: But Peter, the multi family on Lot 219, that's pretty much away from. Peter Olin: See what you're doing is creating a whole group of people living near us then who then start taking over the Arboretum as their land. Single family, just a few people, we can deal with that but when you start getting crowds of people, and again we have no idea what... Erhart: The Arboretum is fenced isn't it? Peter Olin: Well we do have a fence along the one side there... Batzli: Okay, well we've stalled while you've drafted your motion Steve. Emmings: Well no I didn't. I was talking to Joan. I'd try this if you t gave me a couple minutes. I don't really know if I want to vote for the motion. Erhart: Well let me try here. Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman? ...when you look at, everyone seems to talk about how intense the property is being developed and we were just doing some quick calculations and also some comments were made about how this is not consistent with what we've done in Minnetonka. The best that ' we can do, and the reason that the buildings are on there is one of the things that we needed to address in the plan process is intensity of development. So we have...some buildings down there to try and figure out how much development can this site support. So the building coverage that we are looking at is approximately in the neighborhood of 22% to 25% building coverage. That is very consistent with the Opus II development. In most communities building coverage is going to be anywhere on industrial property, 30% to 35 %. I think if you approve this plan as it was, and nobody's asking you to approve the exactly building and parking because it's not going to get built that way anyway. We all know that. That you would be approving a development with about that kind of...and that's very consistent with the kind of business parks we have developed in... That's what we would take away as the direction of the Planning Commission. That that kind of intensity is acceptable. Now maybe it's not but I don't think that, I mean I think that that is a very reasonable use of the property in the sense that it's... Part of the problem is looking at this in such a small scale, it tends to...the naked eye what 11 is really going to happen to that property. If direction needs to be given on grading, then give us direction on grading. With respect to 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 68 ( what happened in Opus II for those natural features. The difference is, other than with respect to the topography, a lot of natural features in II Opus II like ponds and .woods, are spread out throughout the whole property. Unfortunately, they aren't spread out'all over this property. There aren't ponds and stands of woods all over this property. If there were and if there are some that we are respecting, we will respect those But it's a different piece of property and where there are significant natural features, we are respecting those and that's what we are looking for approval for what we understand the direction of the Planning Commission to be. I think there are some very basic perameters here tha I would contend are very consistent with the quality of development that we have done in other communities that we would take away the direction II from the Planning Commission if we were allowed to proceed. We aren't going to take away that we can have exactly that building with that parking layout. We understand we need to do more detail...more detail water retention studies. There's a lot more work to be done. We're jus at the sketch plan process and all we've been able to accomplish. Conrad: Steve in your motion, are you going to address the uses on the I west side of TH 41 as well as buffer? Have you thought about that? Erhart: I was going to put those in my motion. 1 Emmings: What is this, lobbying? Conrad: Yeah. I want to make sure you do that. I think the applicant 11 asked that we tell them. Emmings: There are some of these things that I feel strongly about and II feel like I can address them. There are some I don't know where to go and that one doesn't. Erhart: Have you got a motion? 1 Emmings: Yeah. So I think that to the extent that I missed something like that, you can amend my motion. I guess what I'm going to do is, after expressing my great displeasure with this plan and everything else, I'm going to make a motion to recommend conceptual approval. Now, to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated September 8, 1992. Aanenson: It should say, excuse me, November 4th. Emmings: Of course, I knew that. Dated November 4, 1992 subject to the following conditions. We'll take the first condition will state that there's a great discomfort with the plan that's been presented to us but based on the remarks that were just made by Michele Foster, in that they're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and II natural features of this property, I think we can go forward with this a a PUD. That's going to be a condition and that incorporates all of her comments and their willingness to work on this with us. The second one will combine the old 1 and 10 and just say that the Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Arboretu 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 69 1 and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation +� seriously. The conditions that are in here that were numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will stay as they are but the numbers will have to be changed. Number 8, it says delete the shopping center. I want it understood. That 1 should say, delete the shopping center or any other retail option for Lot 1. The old 9 can stay as it is but would have to be renumbered. Number 11, I guess what we should say there is that the City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41 intersection area and I think Opus should be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non - intrusive. Very non - intensive and they should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it. With regard specifically to grading. It's the intention of the Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect the natural topography of the site. That's my motion. Erhart: Okay, I'll second it. Batzli: Discussion. Erhart: Yeah, I'd like to add another, one more. The last one that you had. 11. Okay, one more that Lot 19, while it's shown as office, it appears that Lot 19, we're expecting Lot 19 to be the highest quality ' building on that, and in particular as shown on here that it's an office only. Not office warehouse. Emmings: Are you talking about 19? �i Batzli: 19 is multi family. Erhart: Oh okay. I thought I read it was office. Batzli: It was on the old plan. If you looked at the box in the staff report, it was still listed as what it was originally. Erhart: Okay. Are we satisfied that we're not going to have a warehouse there because that's what I was driving to. That's a real unique spot and that's the one that has the most exposure to the Arboretum. Emmings: Yeah, because the land really goes down there. You can see straight across from there. Erhart: So we're clear that we're not going to get a warehouse there? Ahrens: No. Emmings: I guess unless you added it, you'd better add it. Erhart: Well that's what I was trying to get to. I thought that was an 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 70 office and now it's an apartment so, if you're interested, I'll throw out an amendment to clarify that that has to be the highest quality, either multi family or office tput that warehouse is not acceptable on that lot.1 Emmings: Yeah, I'd second that. Batzli: Any other discussion? Resident: I'm confused whether you're referring to Lot 19 or Lot 20? II Erhart: On Lot 19. The one on TH 41 there. Resident: You're comfortable with multi family there? 1 Emmings: Not 20. Batzli: Well his motion was that it either has to be multi family or office. Erhart: Well let's talk about it a second. Why wouldn't we want it 1 multi family? Now you're going to get garages. Oh well, that could be incorporated in the building. Emmings: I think it's a tough site to do anything. Erhart: I could certainly envision a very nice quality office building 11 there. Emmings: I think you're more interested that it not be, what I was understanding you to say, I thought you were more interested that there II not be a bunch of trucks going in there and it not be warehouse. Erhart: Overhead doors, I mean from any direction. 1 Mrs. Dungey: I have to say that as a resident at 105 West 82nd Street, just south of Lot 20, the noise from Highway 41 that has evolved over thll last 10 years because of all the development in Chaska, has become quite bothersome. I can't imagine that anyone would want to live that close to TH 41, especially with all the other industrial and office stuff that's being proposed. Emmings: But you know, that's right where they build all those apartment buildings. You drive up and down the freeway and what do you see on eac side of you? Apartment buildings. And it's hard to imagine who lives i there and why but they rent them. Maybe to some extent, we don't have a lot of multi family here and maybe this kind of development will require that we have some too. So it might not be totally out of the question. Erhart: Well, we'll leave it as it is and let the Council tackle that one. We don't want warehouses there. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting December 2, 1992 - Page 71 1 Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 11 conceptual approval to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92 -6 as shown on site plans dated November 4, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. There's a greatodiscomfort with the plan that's been presented, but 1 based on the remarks made by Michele Foster, in that they're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and 11 natural features of this property, the Planning Commission will consider this as a PUD. 2. The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land 11 uses adjacent to the Arboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation seriously. 1 3. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel east of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is compatible with adjacent topography. 4. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard and 100 year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with the ' City's subdivision code. 5. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site. 6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project. 7. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. 8. Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. 9. Delete shopping center, or any other retail option from Lot 1. 10. Work to incorporate two exemptions (Wrase and Paulson properties) to the site. 11. City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41 intersection area and Opus should be part of that process and again take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into their plan. 12. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will have to be very non - intrusive. Very non - intensive and they should design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses that are around it. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 December 2, 1992 - Page 72 ( 13. With regard specifically to grading. It's the intention of the Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect th natural topography of the site. 14. Lot 19 is expected to have the highest quality building, either office or multi family, and not warehouse. All voted in favor except Ahrens and Batzli and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons Joan. Ahrens: I think that we should look at the option of A -2... 1 Batzli: And I think I would rather have seen it, some of our concerns addressed here. I understand the applicant wanting to go to Council and' I don't know if we've given them enough direction but I'm not truly comfortable that, although like I said, I like it on paper but I don't know if it fits on the land and that's what scares me about approving it— So if they can demonstrate it, I've yet to be convinced. When does this go to Council? Aanenson: Next Council meeting is the 14th. I'm not sure that you can make that. That meeting. Otherwise it will be January llth. Just a matter of whether or not we get the Minutes back in time. That's usually a pretty quick turn around. 1 Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in. MODIFICATION NO. 12 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN. II Batzli: Okay Todd, do you have a report? Give me 30 seconds. 1 Gerhardt: If you just want to approve the resolution, that's fine too. I mean basically we're making a modification for the three conditions that I've outlined in our report. We have to modify the plan for the purchase of, or land write down for the Target development. And 2, acquisition of Taco and Apple Valley. 3, to spend funds for the conference center, recreational center. 1 Batzli: So this conference center is going ahead? That's really what I wanted to know about. 11 Gerhardt: I'll update you on that. Right now, next Thursday at the HRA we'll be interviewing for architects. Leonard Parker, Hamel Green, the Alliance Group, and BWBR. Batzli: Okay, this is not a public hearing as I understand it. Is there any discussion? Ladd. 1 Conrad: No. I think it was well said. 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 1992 ' Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Larry Schroers, Dave Koubsky and Jan Lash 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Fred Berg, and Wendy Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Koubsky moved, Lash seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 27, 1992 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. INTERVIEW APPLICANTS FOR COMMISSIONER VACANCIES. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. Essentially I ran ' out of time for advertising for vacancies. The first two weeks that I had requested the Villager, include the notification, they did not so up about 2 weeks ago was the last time the vacancies was the last time the vacancies were posted in the Villager. Since that time we've had really one unsolicited application and then one application from a person that came into the office and asked about a position. So we have two applications on file at the current time. We will continue to keep those, the application process open until a later date, which is not even listed. We can interview on the 15th. But we'll keep it open until the week prior to that time. I don't see a date on here. So again we have Jan who has potentially voiced her interest. If there is not sufficient interest in those positions, that she may consider running for re- appointment so we'll just keep our eyes out and look for some members for the Board. ' Schroers: Wendy and Randy definitely are not? Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Randy has already been through. Hoffman: Yep, Randy has resigned. He's still in town but he resigned as of October 30th. Schroers: Maybe if we up the salary a little bit. Hoffman: We might have to. Schroers: Okay. Thanks very much and since there's no need for anything further on that, we'll move along to item 3. AND DEV LOPMENT PROPO T - I_ FAR G- W- W ST =US PARK. OPUS CORPORATION. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. As you recall, this item was last formally reviewed by the Commission on September 22nd. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 November 24, 1992 - Page 2 Action taken by the Commission that evening was put in the form of a motion by Commissioner Schroers and seconded by Commissioner Berg. That recommendation as you're familiar with it is listed there. On October 5th, following that meeting, or the meeting of the Commission, members o the city staff met with Michele Foster, who is here this evening of Opus and John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DSU). As documented b the Minutes which Ms. Foster prepared at that meeting, at the request of the Park and Recreation Commission, were again confirmed at that meeting. DSU did present an alternative park plan which depicted a vast majority of many park components on neighboring properties. We've had various discussions in that regard and as it is true that we may in fact, as lan develops to the east of this parcel, be able to gain additional park property, at this time we feel it's proper to address the Opus property I keeping in the back of our minds the possibility of acquiring additional land in the future. But what we're really doing at this point is the property in question. The consensus of that October 5th discussion was that the applicant was to slide proposed Lot 14 to the west to allow for a larger active park component on their property. The active components of the park should reflect the requirements as outlined in the report recommended by the Commission and that the active components listed in the recommendation be accommodated within the confines of the applicant' property. In an attempt to respond to these requirements, a new concept plan was developed by the applicant. The plan was presented to staff members for discussion last week, which is now two weeks ago. The momenil I saw the new concept plan I could conclude that the applicant had not gone far enough to satisfy the requirements being requested of them by the Commission. The discussion that day with Ms. Foster and Mr. Uban of DSU were very straight forward. I simply stated that if the easterly line of Lot 14 moved to the west, this is the last page on your item 3. The diagram. Their latest configuration showed the park boundary right II in this location. Simply from a size and space feeling, if that lot lin was moved to the west until it met the lot line to the north of Lot 15, that would allow for this open flow of space through this corridor. The Highway 5 corridor feels very good about it because it allows for and expansive view off of Highway 5, not into this business park area and then through to this open park space and then back further into the II wetland to the south. I have not calculated the acreage. Potentially the applicant will discuss that this evening nor have we discussed the compensation for that property. I have not dealt in any calculations of wetland area. What portion of this property in Lots 17 and 18 are high II ground and what portions are wetland. So again we left that meeting wit the applicant agreeing that they would take a look at that and bring it to the Park Commission this evening for discussion. Again it is staff's, recommendation that the Commission require the applicant to dedicate parkland as depicted on the attached diagram and as we discussed. In addition to that, that all other borders of Lot 17 and 18 remain constan prior to approving the concept proposed for Gateway West Business Park i regard to park and recreation related items in making any recommendation in this regard to-the City Council. In regard to trails, trail construction and /or trail fee dedication, it is staff's current recommendation to accept full trail fees as a part of this development. As addressed in the previous staff report, the Highway 5 trail which wil be developed initially on the north side of Highway 5 but certainly at some point we would want to look to trails on both sides of Highway 5. II • 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 3 That is a major divider of the city. In regards to the Highway 41 ' segment, numerous questions pertaining to the future road improvements in that area currently remained unanswered. Obviously the ideal time to construct a trail along any roadway would be in conjunction with the improvement of Highway 41. Therefore at this time I do not feel that it is proper to recommend or to require that the applicant construct that trail until such time when those questions over the lowering of improvements to Highway 41, those questions are answered. Schroers: Thank you Todd. I think before we ask Gateway to show us - 'their new information, I would like to know how much adjacent area south and east of that Highway 5 is zoned residential. Hoffman: South and east and then east of this parcel? Schroers: Yes. Hoffman: It's all zoned residential. High densities. High or medium 1 densities to the north and then lower density to the south. The particular parcel of property is somewhat difficult if you're familiar with it. It's high toward Highway 5 and then it drops off sharply down into, somewhat of a wooded wetland marsh type area. So the site has it's limitations. Schroers: Okay. ' Koubsky: That's east right? ' Hoffman: Right. Koubsky: North is kind of excluded from the. 11 Andrews: The area. Koubsky: Isn't that, the north of this, isn't that what Fleet Farm? ' Hoffman: Yeah, north would be across Highway 5 and across a natural or manmade barrier which you would not want to cross for...park useage areas. Lash: How much acreage are we looking at? Hoffman: In total? Lash: I mean for the park area. Hoffman: For the park area, I've not taken a look at the calculations separating those two. If you compare it to the one of the lots, I think 1 we're probably, contiguous property there in that one square...probably Lot 15 which would be about 4 acres. 5o the flat spot which you're looking at there is somewhat limited in size but if you take into account the total acreage of Lots 17 and 18, it's approaching 35, 36, 37 acres. Lash: So for the active area there, that's what you figured around 4 ? 4 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 4 Hoffman: Correct. Lash: And how, I'm not good at visualizing. How would that compare wit Lake Susan? Hoffman: Lake Susan Park, the total area there is about 30 acres so nowhere near that. Schroers: Probably more comparable to City Center. Just the active use 1 up there. Hoffman: Correct. Real comparable to that. , Lash: And then can you fit two softball fields on this one? Koubsky: That's off the property. 1 Andrews: That's not the applicant's property. Hoffman: Correct. Yeah, so if you were to, the softball fields there are to scale. If you were to move one softball field onto the proposed park area you would fill it so. ' Schroers: Yeah that was my concern when I asked about the zoning. If we have high density moving right basically across the street, and then single family south of that, it could, the park could generate a lot of active use. Andrews: I'd agree with that. 1 Koubsky: So Todd, what does this extra parcel of property gain us? Hoffman: Somewhere over an acre and a half. 1 Koubsky: And if we can't really put a softball field on there, which is II something we were looking for. Originally we were looking for two. I guess again where is it getting us? I see it a compromise but. Hoffman: It is a compromise. If we were to, the Commission wished to II aggressively look to a larger site in this area, we would need the assistance again of the HRA through their negotiations pertaining to negotiations dealing with tax increment and financing packages similar 1 Lake Susan. Lake Susan would not have happened without the purchase agreements and the dealings with the industrial park as it developed down there. My presumption is even with this proposal and this comprmise, we're already over what we, the Park and Recreation Commission could II require of dedication. We would probably need some cash compensation back to the applicant. If you want to cont}nue to look for additional land, obviously that cash compensation increases. Lash: So if we looked at this little extension that you have in mind, would we then be able to push everything.over and not be able to fit the two ballfields on? 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 5 ' Hoffman: Not onto this. No, not onto this piece. At that time it would be a waiting game. That's one of the difficulties here. If you accept this and you wanted to §o ahead and develop thin site as a park, you would have to make a decision on what facilities went in first and try to ' establish some timing pertaining to when the adjacent piece to the east would develop. How much pressure we would get to develop this park on the Opus site would depend obviously on how fast their business park progressed and those types of things. Schroers: And also when the parcel to the east developed, would that ' bordering property in fact even, would we even have an option to get that specific property that we wanted, depending on how it was designed? I think that's like buying something that you can't see ordering something from a catalog and you're not quite sure what it is that you're going to be getting. Hoffman: Correct. Those were some of our comments back to the applicant ' during discussions is that we have no guarantee. We can certainly attempt to do that. We don't know how large a parcel will be brought before the city for development. If it will be subdivided. Where the lot lines would be. Those types of things so there's a lot of unanswered 11 questions pertaining to that adjacent parcel. That adjacent parcel and that's why simply portraying a nice park facility adjacent to this property and proposal does not... Schroers: Okay. Well at this time why don't we give Gateway an opportunity to address the Commission and after we've heard what they have to say, we can continue our discussion and hopefully make a ' recommendation. Howard Dahlgren: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. ' My name is Howard Dahlgren...As you recall we met with you back in September. With me is Michele Foster who is Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation, and I'm sure all of you are familiar with that organization. We feel they're the best industrial developers in the metropolitan area. That's why we...gateway to Chanhassen to the west and also a gateway to Chaska from the north. That's why we call it Gateway. It emphasizes the fact that this is a very important piece of land...very important that we handle it well. That we handle it efficiently and we make the best use of this land for the mutual interest of the developers... We have tried very hard to work closely with the city...trying to do this carefully and well. Now the question of the park, which you know... We realize that dedication is required so in coming up with the plan we felt it was important to take the best land that had real park potential, that has natural park qualities, and give that to the city. Not just lowlands but hill and and trees. The land in that southeastern corner. Those of you who have gone out there, I hope you all have, you can see that that's very fine property that has a lot of qualities. Now it doesn't have a lot of land...for active, for playgrounds. For that you need flat...land that you can buy for less price than you're going to have to pay for this prime industrial land. We're not relunctant to have you have a...park. We think that's fine. But where our concern is that you're taking valuable industrial land here and demanding that we sell some of this land in addition to the 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1 Pa k a ng November 24, 1992 - Page 6 • IF dedication to create this large area. And the reason we did the plan that you have seen showing what happens next door is because it's important to the City to look at what's going to happen next door to pia" for this park in the future. Before I get into that, let me just show you this plan and talk a little bit about some of the adjustments that wi have made based on the meeting that we had with you back in September. First of all we added additional property to the, about 3 acres of land and added in this corner. We've added land down here which is a heavily wooded area which gives us access to the trail system to this southeastern quadrant contiguous to this roadway. You recall this roadway is all set up to conform to the city's comprehensive plan requiring...east /west thoroughfare to make that alignment. So we're I doing that. Then we're making a connection out here to Highway 41 and out here to Highway 7 and that's it. It's a simple plan but based on those connections to the highways...city's desire to have that thoroughfare proceed easterly. This creates a plan that we have. We I think it's the right one and will work well and do a good job for the city and do a good job for development of the land. In addition to this acreage down here, where they have this wooded area, we had an area here which opens so when you drove in here you'd see this open space. And at ' this meeting last time we talked about, staff suggested that they'd rather see that open space contiguous over here to future parkland on th east side. So we've taken that out and moved Lot 14 over. Added additional acreage here to give you some of this highlight. Now in term of the overall park, it is now 32.9 acres. Previously it was 29.9 so we've added exactly 3 acres. All of that addition has been high ground. 14 acres of this 32, approximately 32 acre park is wetland. The rest of • it is high ground. So the remaining acreage is about 18 acres. That's about 10% of the total acreage, which is 178.3. That's the total acreagil of the site. So 10% of that would be about 18 acres so we're giving about 10% of the land of high ground as part of our proposed park plan. Now it's been said that we were presumptuous in drawing a plan showing a park on the contiguous property. We did that because somebody should dol it because for the purpose of the city looking at for your future park needs, and how you're going to handle it, the City probably should have drawn that plan to take a look at what happens next door because you kno� that someday that land's going to develop. The City had to come up with a sewer plan to bring water and sewer to this property...been done. The cost, all of that's been set up. It's going to happen relatively soon. Now when that happens this land will develop and with this portion of land designated for park, obviously it would make sense to get contiguou property to the east to enlarge the park if you so desire. You're not going to get a 50 acre park by dedication totally so then you have to II decide which area are we going to buy land to get the park that you want And you should have the park that you want. But the question is, where is it smart to do it. What's the right thing to do here so that the cit gets what they need and we get the best potential out of the land. This land over here is zoned low density residential. This is high density residential. What we're saying here is that in this land, much of which is marsh, if you want to buy additional land, flat land, this is the place to do it and that's why we drew up this plan. We're not trying toll throw the onerous on someone else and say, get it from them. That's not the point. What we've done here analyze.for you a park development plan" that shows you how you can get the large park that you want by buying a 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 7 1 residential land. Low density residential land instead of expensive ' industrial land. That's why we did this. Now it seems to me that makes some sense. One of our park planners did this. We've design hundreds of parks in this metropolitan area. We just did a big park for the city of Rochester. We do it all the time. We have a staff of 10 landscape 1 architects. We have more landscape architects than any firm in Minnesota next to... They design parks and a lot of other things. But parks is one of the things we do a great deal of. So this is a suggestion for ' you. It's for you, not for us. It's a suggestion how you can expand this park. There are other ways to do it and working with the topography and the lowland as we were able to determine it from the topo maps, the wetland maps we had access to, this is a park that can be built. And it would make a marvelous park. It doesn't have to be that large necessarily but because so much of this land down here is marginal, and this land is flat and developable for park purposes, it's an ideal place to put ' ballfields. The view then as you come across Highway 5, all of this would be quite visible through here. It's not essential to move this line over any further and get another acre and a half of industrial land when you can get the flat space that you need for active ballfields over here contiguous to the east. An4 to say that that's a pig and a poke and you m'- -_ - . -et that that's not really true. You've got a 1 the ow er in the world to require dedicat on or some of this land. ' u have as muc power aroCiftriopporturevelolier to acquire land at a more reasonable rate than the high cost industrial land that we're giving you. So in the overall interest of the community, it seems to us that it makes sense to try to develop this land for it's best potential...take the land in it's natural state and use it for it's best potential. It's great residential land. Use it for...use it for industrial. Do it well and use it for the land for the use that makes the most sense. And if it's great apartment land, then use it for that. Of course get your parklands so it serves all these people. Residences will someday be here and high density. Those folks and the people over here to the east as well as folks who live and work in your community, having a park here makes a lot of sense. We're just saying that why don't you look ahead and buy the land that you need. You're not going to get it all for dedication but you'll get some of it. We'll do our share here. But the land that you need, it should be flat and it should be cheap. That's your best shot. And here you've got an ideal condition. We're willing to dedicate this whole contiguous southeastern area. We're able to, and I'm not saying we'll dedicate every bit of it. I'm saying that we are proposing in this plan to put up 32.9 acres of land. And I understand that determining who's and what's going to be dedicate and 1 what's going to be purchased is something we've got to work out between your staff and...but I'm sure we can work that out with the Council... All we're saying here though is that we are relunctant to give up additional industrial land to expand, to force this expansion to the... have high potential industrial land. That's good for you and good for us. So we would request that you accept this plan knowing, planning ahead for the future and that at some point in time when this land will come in for development, that you'll be able to acquire cheaper land... purchase to get the park...in addition to this wetland system... Now we know, we've not worked with this owner directly. We're not out there 1 telling her what to do. Her name is Betty O'Shaughnessy. But we know that the land was for sale. A number of developers who have talked to II . Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 8 her and want to buy it and contacted us and talked to us about what's happening out in Chanhassen. What's the sewer situation. What's the II water situation. We refer them of course to the folks at City Hall to explore... We would welcome development because this... The land will come up for development in the relatively near future... If you have and questions, Michele perhaps can answer them. She knows a lot. She's good. She's the Director, as I said, developer of the best industrial developer in the Twin Cities. I've had the priviledge of working with her now for months on this project. Even though I'm retired from the II firm, I come back and do occasional things. I get to do fun jobs. But I just want to point this out that Michele really knows what she's doing. She's first class. I know she's a lady. You don't often find a lady in that kind of a position. She's Director of Development for a first clas operation and that's Opus and the reason she's the Director...we're happy to have her on our team and I'm sure if there's questions, we will be glad to answer them if we can. Schroers: Any questions from the Commission? Koubsky: Todd, have you gone over this with the Planning Commission at II all? Is this zoning issues here? Have you talked to the HRA board members? Would they be willing to buy into any property purchases down , the road? Hoffman: To the east? As you can see from this plan, that eastern parcel on this plan is shown about 2/3 of it as park property. No land II is cheap and as part of a tax increment district, which this Opus development would be, we have the financial means, the financial tools to go out and purchase that property. Adjacent to this, when that came in II under single family development, you would not be able to pick up what you could from park dedication. The rest of it would be cash out of your pocket. Out of your park acquisition and development fund which does no have the financial resources that the tax increment district would be. That is one reason land purchased and negotiations for additional land for Gateway proposal is a good option. 2/3 of that area is park on this plan. We, as a city, unless we go out and hold a bond referendum or something, are not going to be able to purchase that as it's shown on thll plan. Koubsky: I guess I'm just thinking more Todd about the ballfield area. The woodland down to the south, I haven't been down in that area. I'm not quite sure how that would develop. I have driven past here since ou last meeting. Hoffman: The wetland to the south there is about, under about 2 -3 feet of water at this point. 1 Koubsky: So that's up to the owner to get rid of it. That may sit there for quite a while. Hoffman: Correct. This is all wooded swamp. Wooded wetland. Schroers: That is now flooded? 1 Park and Rec Commission n Pa k sion Meeti g November 24, 1992 - Page 9 Hoffman: Correct. ' Howard Dahlgren: That's why we show it as a park. It's not a question of vast acreage. It's a question of making more sense. The amount of park we've shown here... You don't have to buy all of it. We're just 1 saying that because of the terrain, it makes some sense. Schroers: The potential is there. I mean we do appreciate your interest ' very much and showing us that option. The position that we have that is kind of awkward is if, at some point in time down the road, for whatever reason, the way it was subdivided or for whatever reason, -we could not ' acquire that park, we would then be in a situation that we have been in the past. Where residents who have bought expensive homes, have paid expensive taxes, have marched in...the way we wanted to and we don't have the money to purchase it for you. And at that point they tell us that it was very poor planning. That we should have planned ahead, which is the same thing you're telling us is to plan ahead. I guess it's difficult for me to say that we are going to be able to acquire that because I've ' been here for a long time and I know what our financial resources are as far -as the city being able to go out and buy park property and it is extremely limited. 1 Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? Schroers: Certainly. Howard Dahlgren: We're not airng -t-e -clod :Ate ad f' ^ --1azd here. ids do not believe that we should move this line... This land is shown on comprehensive plan. All that land to the west is shown as industrial and we propose to make it industrial. You are not...position to force us to try to buy that additional land. Why should you. Can you buy land easier from us than from someone else? The land is shown low density residential and where the land is...? Why do you select to... acquire additional land of us...does it really make sense? This low density residential. This is industrial, high quality industrial. I 1 don't understand the logic. That's my question. Schroers: The logic here is that this is available to us now and the ' other parcel may or may not be in the future. We can't sit here and say that. Howard Dahlgren: We don't propose to sell this land... 1 Schroers: Okay, I may have stated that incorrectly. That that isn't available but the other right now, we don't have an option. We can't do anything on that property right now because it's not been sold. It's not being developed and we can only guess or hope at what's going to happen with that in the future. Howard Dahlgren: Sure but you know the land has to be developed at some point. You know the city has total control through the plat or PUD... you have the same controls there as you have for our land. The whole essence of planning intelligently is to cook ahead. If you can look ahead and see that this land is going to be available for less. It's 1 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting Nov mber 24, 1992 - Page 10 1• flat...and it would be a fine additional to the park that we started off here with 32.9 acres, all that makes a lot of sense. To say that we don't...do that, I don't understand that because...all the time. As lonji as the land is vacant, it's going to be developed in the future. Sewer and water is planned. The MUSA line...it's going to happen. You'll hail your chance. So to say that you want to do it with us because we're her now and someone else will be coming in later, is that really the way to plan for the best park ?...that's the question. Andrews: Todd, can you tell me how many acres would be the normal II .dedication out of this size parcel? Hoffman: Again, as Mr. Dahlgren has stated, an approximation of 10% of I the land acreage is a good starting point. Andrews: 5o that's about 17, almost 18 acres? 1 Hoffman: Correct. Then again, it may be true that 18 acres of this is high but it's fairly scattered. The commission thought it was to the , city's best interest to get that 18 acres contiguous, all in one chunk. The applicant would be standing here in a much more awkward position. A couple things which I need to reiterate is that moving the lot line agaill is a 'nimum requirement which I feel comfortable with. That's not at all in opinion asking too much of the applicant. Mr. Dahlgren and I ha - d this discussion in the past. It's his opinion that parkland shiul b flatland, fairly cheap. Something that is not good for much I el1e I ve stated that if that was the city's position, we certainly woiid h ve Lake Susan Community Park. We certainly would not have Lake Ann munity Park. Two fine community parks which are well respected, I not only in the city but across the State. In addition Mr. Dahlgren seems to have different ground rules for the property to the east, stating that the city has the wherewithal. We would hold the cards in , asking that applicant. It does not seem that he agrees with that same opinion in regard to the... Andrews: I'd like to make a couple comments. I'm kind of agreeing with, Todd that we were looking for 18 useable acres. As a Park Board we have a problem and that is we are park deficient on the western edge of our city and we have a responsibility to the City Council and to the city to look out for the best interest of the citizens. I think it's a beautifu� park. I think, it seems to me that it's being presented to us in a somewhat one sided manner. I feel like the main purpose here is to develop all the industrial suitable land and whatever is not buildable, II to give that to the city and call it park. There are some trees that yo will be giving us which we appreciate but•they seem to be mainly helping to create landscape opportunity for the development itself and some benefit to the park plan. But I'm not very satisfied that we're really I getting very useable parkland here at all. • Howard Dahlgren: Chairman, could I correct a point? I didn't say that II parkland should all be flat. ...saying that you pointed out that you wanted...play space for a bailfield. Well that use is a flatland is... 11 1 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 11 1 Schroers: I think we all understand that and I think that we would very ' much appreciate having the luxury of having the more natural open space environment. I personally would prefer that and I would like to see just green space. More green space that's not developed at all and it doesn't make me personally particularly happy to see a whole lot of industrial 11 development come in. I mean I know that that's happening and I appreciate the fact that it's being done as well as possible but I used to be able to hunt out here and I won't be able to any more and I hate to see losing opportunities like that. I would love to see the green space just stay just that and undeveloped but as the community grows overall, we don't have that luxury. We have to provide active use as well as some natural green space and we have to maintain a balance of that. ' Andrews: Just as a question. I'm participating in the Highway 5 board as well and there was some discussion from that group that they were a ' little concerned about the industrial development next to the Arboretum, which would be Lots 20 and 21. And 19 I guess. The three in the southwest corner of the quadrant. I don't know how well it will work for our purposes and I can't tell by looking and how big those lots are but would there be any consideration in using those, that portion of the development as park space, which might reduce the problems with the Arboretum and it might provide us with more useable parkland? Howard Dahlgren: We proposed to have all the way along Highway 5, we propose to have a 50 foot corridor... Andrews: That's Highway 41. ' Howard Dahlgren: On 41...We feel that that is...along TH 41...We don't propose that to be parkland or given credit for parkland. We're just saying that we are suggesting a 50 foot corridor of landscaping as a transition to the Arboretum...0f course then a great deal of money... ' We don't have any driveways coming out on that highway. We serve all of the development on the interior. So you'll have this corridor all the way along that highway. We propose to do the same along Highway 5... corridor of open green space along the entire area. Most of those setbacks are around 30 feet... Schroers: If I remember correctly from our first meeting, the area right ' at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 there, the space that no building is showing in now, that's open, the reason that that is not planned at this point is because you consider that your prime developing area and are waiting to see what actually you are going to be able to put in there. Is that correct? Howard Dahlgren: We're being perfectly honest and straight forward. We r could show the industrial... What we're saying is, in our opinion...we feel this is our best site. It's best to leave your best site until last. This land probably won't be developed until maybe 10 years from now. We don't know what the best use is in 10 years. It could be an institution. It could be a hospital. It could be a lot of things...and we realize that. We're just saying that we'll leave it until last. Ultimately whatever happens there is going to have to be approved by the City... We just don't know what the best use is...We do intend to handle 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 12 the corner, and this is just a suggestion... We're going to keep this open and natural... So that's our plan. ' Andrews: The point was trying to make was that there's Lot 20, which is the lower left hand corner of the drawing. Across the road on the other side of Highway 41. Yeah, right over there. Those were the lots that the Arboretum was concerned about. They do appear to be pretty prime land. Howard Dahlgren: Well we made changes there. Here's what we've done. 11 We've proposed this land for residential development. We've taken it out of the industrial. We propose it to be residential...put a multi family housing structure here...and leave all of this land...This is a single family home. Here we propose to leave a corridor of green space to the north and a corridor of green space to the west. We will move, his road now goes up here. We will move and build a new road for him over here II and all of this industrial area will oriente towards the east. So as to create a buffer here to the north side and lining up with these houses over here so that all of this is green space in this area. , Andrews: I guess my question is, could that be an area that we could look at for park space on that corner? Over here. Howard Dahlgren: I think your concept of having a large park in this area is fine. I wouldn't you'd get a small park here...but the retail next to another city without a park... I think getting all this land, II which is very attractive. A lot of it's wooded. Just a small park... This whole thing is a natural addition to the land to the east...but to move, put more of this park function on highly developable land... You're going to have to buy land to get the larger park. And you can bull it cheaper next door. Lash: I want to see if I understand the logic of it myself. Is the point here that we could get HRA funding to buy that because it's in tax increment district? Whereas if we wanted to try and buy it on the other side, on the east side, that would have to come out of our park fund? 1 Hoffman: That's the basic logic, sure. You could extend that district potentially. We do not even know at this point if we will need additional ability to compensate for this park property. As you see on I the plan, they show in a holding pond, they are going to, the applicant is going to construct a holding pond on the park property. There will b some compensation back to the city for... There's so many variables at this time in regard to what the bottom line is on acquisition of that property. Lash: Well if we were to try to get the extra acre and a half, do you 1 have something in mind that we would be putting there? A need that's not shown on... Hoffman: As a design? You could simply leave the functions that are shown on this plan, that being the tennis court and totiot and the basketball area I believe has been shown.there. Or you could simply , leave it with no master park plan at the present point awaiting what • 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 13 would happen... Or we could go in a design phase similar to this, taking into account additional acquisition to the east and then... Lash: Do you have any ballpark idea what the property that's zoned 1 residential would cost? An acre. Koubsky: 810,000.00 an acre. 1 Lash: 810,000.00 an acre, or is it higher than.that now? - Hoffman: Probably higher than that. 1 Lash: And how many, from what they have shown there, how many acres would that amount to? For a couple of ballfields. Hoffman: Well again it's, I can't venture. Maybe Mr. Dahlgren could. Howard Dahlgren: That is this area here that we've shown to develop is 8 ' acres. So if you took this area, this here where we've shown the ballfield...that might approximate 8 acres. In terms of it's value, because it's flat and relatively low, the value for high quality residential is considerably less. Hoffman: So if I could take a ballpark figure at 8100,000.00 or less for that 8 acres. You need to build 200 homes on that site to acquire that ' through dedication which you... Now if the piece came in as a single parcel under a combination of multi - family and single family, the multi- family would generate considerably more park dedication...much better. Lash: I like, personally I like this idea. The way it's shown because I think it makes a really nice buffer between the residential areas and the industrial park with the wetlands and if there would be a way to...put in a couple of ballfields in there. I think that would be a really nice buffer. Our problem is that we don't have 8100,000.00 to buy that and we can't, as Todd said, if a development comes in, it's not going to be large enough for us to require that amount of property. So we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I like the plan but we don't have the money to make it work. 1 Howard Dahlgren: Remember, if you're going to get additional land from us, you're going to have to buy it. Is this industrial land going to be cheaper? Koubsky: The question I have Todd is, right now they're proposing 32.9 acres. We kind of have rights to 18 acres. They're proposing 18 dry acres and about 14 wet acres to come up with the 32.9. Can we say, show us 18 acres of continuous property that we would have the rights to or ability to develop into a park system or a park area? Has that been done or do we have. Hoffman: It has not been done Commissioner Koubsky but as Mr. Dahlgren has stated himself, we, the City, you, the City have all the clout in the world to ask for what you would like to see. It would be my position as we enter into the negotiations over whatever becomes the park property of 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 14 this area, that that 18 acres of scattered high ground is not going to meet the dedication that we need of the high ground in that corridor. 1 Koubsky: Yeah, that's why we have an additional 14 added in here to compensate. (I Andrews: It's not buildable. Hoffman: Wetland is not entered into the. Koubsky: Well that's the off word. Lash: So if Mr. Dahlgren, you were to say that we would have to buy thil extra acre and a half, and I don't know that we all agree with that, but say that we did, what kind of a price would be on that? I have no idea what industrial property goes for. 1 Howard Dahlgren: Michele, what's the industrial land worth? Michele Foster: We've not established any prices for the property at II this point but in looking at comparable land prices for industrial property that's on the market today, my guess is it could be anywhere from 90 cents a square foot to $1.25 - $1.50, depending on the location and the price of the property. So even assuming some middle ground, say it' 51.00 a foot, that's going to be *43,000.00 an acre or more. Schroers: We're dealing with a bunch of factors here that we don't know' about. We don't know when the land to the east is going to develop. Sometime in the near future. Sometime in the near future. What is the near future? Is that next year or is that 5 years? With the new administration coming on and a fluctuating economy, you don't know what the land value is going to be worth and what's going to happen with this 5 years down the road from now. It may be somewhat reasonable and it mall be absolutely untouchable. So you know, I think we're dealing with something that we don't know. Lash: What I was trying to get at here is the difference in the price II between the industrial properties and the residential properties and the impact of us requiring an acre and a half of industrial property of the developer and if we have the power to do that. And it doesn't sound likil everybody's in agreement on that either. But what I'm trying to do is figure maybe there's a compromise here where if Mr. Dahlgren thinks it would be beneficial for us to have the park extending into the east, morel towards the residential area, maybe we can cut some kind of a deal where they'd be willing to offset the cost of us buying that property at this time and then, so we would still get the property. They would still get" to have their acre and a half in the middle of their industrial development but it. wouldn't have to come out of our pocket. It would be more out of their pocket and that would be a compromise where we could still get the property. They would get their property and it would be II more in the residential area where I would like to see it anyway. Andrews: I've got two comments. Is this a PUD? 11 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 15 Michele Foster: Yes. Andrews: It is? ' Michele Foster: Yes. Andrews: The way I understand a PUD is we're working with some assumptions that we're not going to deal with minimums here. There's an ' exchange of flexibility and development in exchange for flexibility and what we require. My second comment is, if the land is worth $40,000.00 'an acre as an average low point as industrial land, why wouldn't we just ' waive taking any of the property. We'll take our $720,000.00, which is the value of the land and we give you back and we'll buy the property next door lock, stock and barrel. Lash: He suggested that at the first meeting. Andrews: Did he realty? Well I think it's making some sense. Because we're looking at a tremendous disparity in land value. Koubsky: I think too Todd, we kind of agree as a commission I think that some type of recreational facility is needed in this area of the city. And I think we agree that although open land is nice, and it does provide a nice buffer between residential and industrial, that isn't suiting the needs we perceive. We perceive a recreational facility of some sort out here. Can we, we don't have buying power. We can't speak for the HRA and the Planning Commission who can zone things around the city. Can we express our needs or perceived needs to the Council, the Planning Commission and the HRA and let them take what we have come up with and see what they can do to jockey around and to get a longer term plan going here? If we need 18 continuous acres or if we're looking for a 50 acre park facility, then that's what we should tell the city we need and then let the Council decide if they agree with that need and determine ways to work with the developer to obtain that. Lash: Well if we were to have, if we were to have the 14 acres of wetland along here, their 4 acres. No, how much is that? An acre and a half or what? No, it was 4 acres I think, of the useable land and the 11 developer is willing to go and buy the other 8 acres from Mrs. O'Shaughnessy and dedicate that to us to save them their acre and a half, which might be kind of a fair trade -off, we end up with a nicer, we end up with way more property to develop than their other little extra acre and a half. That really isn't going to gain us that much anyway. We're not going to be able to put a ballfield on it. A little more green space but what we want down there is to be able to have space for a couple of ballfieids and we've got to figure out how we can do that and that's about the only way we can. Koubsky: If that's what we think we need then we tell them we need 18 acres of continuous property. That's not going to set well you know with the developers. That may or may not cancel this deal but I mean if that's what we need, I think that's what we need to tell the Council. This is what we perceive is a park and recreational need in this area of the city. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 16 1 Schroers: We would be very ill advised to accept park property that doesn't serve the needs that we need. I mean it's just as simple as that. Michele. 1 Michele Foster: Well, at the risk of being called presumptuous again, which I don't want to do. One of the things I'd like everybody to remember is in the PUD process, which is what we're in, we truly are jusil at the sketch plan level and that's why a lot of these questions aren't being answered. And I think the goal for this stage of the process should be to come up with a concept that's not necessarily where all the 1 details are ironed out and we know exactly who's going to pay what and where the money's going to come from. But what we're trying to accomplish is to come up with a concept that everybody feels is worth pursuing and then try to figure out as we go through the remainder of th PUD process, negotiate those items within the context of what everybody's trying to accomplish. And if people feel that this is a concept that could work subject to certain conditions being met, which is you know th � Parks Commission feels that there needs to be assurances from the Planning Commission and City Council that there are ways to make sure that you can get additional land from the adjacent property. Or that a funding mechanism be developed. I guess I hate to see us get all tied u in the details of where the money's going to come from because we're really at the very initial planning stages for the property and I hate t see us start compromising the plan for what's best for all of us, if we think that is best, subject to certain conditions. Then what I'd like to see us do is try to make something like that work. Maybe we can't or we're going to have to come back and say, those conditions can't be met because we weren't smart enough or creative enough or didn't have the tools to pull those things together. But that's I guess what I'd like t suggest is so we're not just in a tug of war about who wins and who lose but if this is a concept that seems to have some merit, can we go forwar on that basis and try to figure out a way to make it work. This is only the sketch plan model. We still have to come back with a preliminary pian and the final pian and all sorts of details that none of us here know tonight. And I think we're trying to have so many suspenders and safety pins and have everything protected that we really don't know. Non of us do I think. But we'd sure like the opportunity to try to make thi concept work within whatever constraints you feel you have to put on it. And whether that's sufficient guarantees for acquisition or sufficient ways to feel that you've got the funding mechanism, then let us go and II try to make it work instead of sort of pre - judging it because it does seem sort of hard and it's early in the process. Lash: I sort of feel like that's what we've done. Last time we met and 1 we said well this is what we're looking for and now the plan has come back and it shows a tennis court, or enough property for tennis courts and a volleyball court you know and that's just not going to cut it. 1 Michele Foster: I think in the context of a larger regional park which we really didn't have before. All we knew was there wanted to be a park and quite frankly this kind of a concept came out of meetings with some of the other city staff who said geez, the City Manager included said, geez maybe we ought to look at this on amore global scale. And so I do think that there is some merit and a big distinction between what we weri 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 17 looking at for, without just looking with blinders on our property and not trying to figure out what's best for the whole area. Lash: But what we have to do tonight is decide'if we're willing to accept this as it is. Michele Foster: ...and I'm saying, buy why can't there be conditions placed on that. Andrews: We have no control of that eastern parcel. None.. We have none. So it's real, we're in a catch -22. We'd like to develop it ' globally but that's not the reality that we have today. Lash: And these things can come back. t Schroers: We've been here a while and I've seen it in the past. Your point is well taken but with anything else, when you're going to build a house you need, if you're going to end up with a good house, what you ' have to start with is a good solid foundation and that's what we're doing here tonight. We need a good solid foundation. We need the assurance that we are going to have enough developable active use property within ' the park dedication that we can service the needs of the community. And to do or to recommend to Council anything less than that would be totally irresponsible on our part. We have to work with what we have here to work with. We can't work with what we would like to see in the future. ' I mean we have to deal with reality here and now. That what we can do tonight and for us to propose or to recommend to the Council to accept this plan without enough developable, active use park space, I know would come back to us in the future. Lash: ...what would happen if we would say yes, this is fine. Assuming that this would work out in the next 5 years or whatever and then it doesn't work out. Then what we've got at the edge of this industrial development is a tennis court. You know and that's it Then what do we do with that? That's not what we wanted at all. Then we'd have no control anymore over doing anything. Howard Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, surely when you and your comprehensive plan just said someplace you need a park, you were confident that you'd be able to work with the property owners to accomplish that. ' Schroers: We were hopeful. Howard Dahlgren: But the point is now you're saying you're not sure you can do it. But you should be able to do it. You've got another ' contiguous...you're saying you're not sure you can do that. I don't understand. Koubsky: Well us as a park board and commission have limited. Schroers: All we can do is recommend. So when you're telling us that we can't do what we want to do with your parcel, then how is it that we can do what we want with other parcels? • Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 18 Howard Dahlgren: I'm just saying that the land, the additional land you need for a regional park, you assume from the beginning that you're not II going to get it all from dedication. You're going to have to buy some o it. What I'm saying is you can buy it cheaper and more appropriate flat land on the contiguous property. It's a known fact. Why can't you deal with that? Why can't you accept that? To say, well we don't know if thli will happen. Lash: Well it's sort of the same reason why you can't accept the fact IL that we want, we say we want 18 prime acres of your property and you won even give us that. You can accept we're unreasonable and so what happens is we have different goals here. And we know what your goals are and I think you know what our goals are and what we have to do is figure out a 11 good compromise that we can all live with. And I think that we can come up with that but right now we, I'm not comfortable with the idea of leaving tonight with just an open ended thing unless you guys want to go back to the drawing board and come back with a whole new thing and give to us. That's fine with me. I'm willing to do that. I'm not willing to just...and make a recommendation that we accept this as it is tonight. 1 Andrews: It seems to me we're trying to get a piece of property that is contiguous that can be developed perhaps with some of the adjacent. I think one of the problems we have right now is we're losing this land to � dedication, which is pretty land. It's really accentuates or amplifies the value and the beauty of the land here but it takes away the buildable land that we could get somewhere else in the development. I think what mg have to look at is, if our goal is to somehow hook onto an adjacent piecii is we have to maximize what we get for sure now. I think we're losing some of that power here by giving up some pretty trees and some hills. And I'm not sure where we can take on some better land. It might be a rectangle in this area here. That would be flatter and it's prime land. I know that. But at least it would give us something where we could put ballfield if we had to put it there, assuming that this property didn't work out. And we've got a problem. I like the basic plan the way it is. If we could pull this all off, I think it'd be great but my concern is the 10 years from now, if I'm still handing on this Park Board, that som' neighbor is going to come over here and throw rocks at me because it didn't work out. That we developed this in small pieces and every piece was too small to get...and we have not had the funding to go out and buy land. We're out of money. Schroers: It's probably not you or I that's going to get the rocks thrown at us but it will be something like the Pheasant Hills development was IL where people who previously sat on the Commission didn't plan for what w going to happen then and we were the ones that ended up catching it for that and that ended up costing us a good deal of money and it was a real difficult, awkward situation and we hope that at that point in time that, we had learned something from that and cover our bases. Lash: Are you interested in going back and coming up with some other II suggestions? Koubsky: It might be up to the city. Todd, what's the, I'm sure Planni Commission likes this because they like that we've gone over this with. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 19 Michele Foster: Planning Commission has not seen this. It goes to the Planning Commission on December 2nd and then it will go onto the City Council after that. Koubsky: So if this something that needs motions at this point or is this something where we've already made a recommendation on what we think we need in the area. It may be up to the other factions of the city to weigh out, where does our plan or where does our vision of a regional, if it's a ' regional park or not. I'm not sure if it's big enough to be that but where does it fit in with maybe the Planning Commission's outlook on this area? We're just telling them what we think ought to be incorporated somewhere in this area of the city. Hoffman: To address that question and your previous question, the motion 1 which you made at your September 22nd meeting, if you do not feel that is being met, then it is your obligation to relay that to the applicant. That is not the obligation of the City Council or the Planning Commission. In regard to your previous question of simply passing it along to one of the other factions of the city to deal with your business, I don't think that is adviseable either. You are the Park and Recreation Commission. You have the authority to make those recommendations to the City Couccil. Jumping over to Commissioner Andrews comments. If you like both those pieces of land, I would recommend if you think that is in the best interest of the city, from here until the end of time that is what we ' should be after. The portion of property added to the south is very important because it allows us for a trail link back out to the road system. It provides a buffer to that entrance down there. It provides more impact. If you drive in that main entrance, impact of the presence 11 of that park property. Again I would like to impress upon the Commission you are not breaking new ground this evening. The previous industrial /commercial park before you is the Chanhassen Business Center. The triangle to the west of Audubon Road. There you asked for both land dedication in the extent of the 13 acre parcels of trees. In addition to full park and trail dedication fees, the negotiations that time were no more pleasant than they are this evening but we came through with both of those requirements. You are the authority to ask for that. To recommend to City Council that they require that as a condition of approval of this development. Listen to Mr. Dahlgren. As a city we, as the city performed with Target. This Target development down here will probably have the most trees in their parking lot and has more requirements of that development simply because of the high standards which this city upholds in it's developments. Not only of industrial /commercial /residential but also park property. Again, this is adding an acre and a half to this park is not going to create a Lake Susan. You're not asking for a Lake Susan or Lake Ann Park here. It's simply, if you look at the property, it's simply extending a line over on a low knoll which is down in a very low lying area. This site. This is not prime property. It is certainly useable for industrial uses and it is zoned industrial but that does ' pre -empt you from going in and acquiring a park within this parcel. Schroers: I kind of like what Michele had to say about seeing what could ' be done with what proposed. What we got. to work with. What I see here is not what we asked for on September 22nd.' I don't see the availability of two ballfields with 300 fences, a basketball court, a double tennis court 1 • Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 24, 1992 - Page 20 II and sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. You show us how you can work that into your plan and we'll be interested in listening. And guess that I don't see any specific reason to change what we had asked f in the first place, therefore I don't see a need for another recommendation. I want to see a workable plan that includes what we ask for originally. Koubsky: I guess that's my opinion. There are other areas of the city that may, you know we may work toward that but I think my feeling is thill part of the city needs this type of a facility... You're the first one in the area so the city's got to figure out how to do it. Hoffman: One additional point of information. The target number thrown!' out at $45,000.00, it certainly would be staff's contention that that would not be the price we would pay if we did indeed pay compensation per acre. We would be much closer to the raw land value. ' Schroers: Okay. Are there any members of the Commission that disagree with that suggestion? Okay. Lash: I think they have a pretty good idea, don't you think of the direction we're going. That we want to go with this and if you feel lik your property is worth $45,000.00 an acre, and it probably is if you sel it to a business. You're going to get that. My suggestion to you would be to go ahead and get every penny you can out of that but not from us. Get it from someone else and then use that money to somehow figure out h to give us what we want too, then we're both going to win. Schroers: Okay. So I'd like to thank Mr. Dahlgren and Ms. Foster for coming in tonight. The bottom line is we're going to ask for the Gatew Development to provide for us the original amenities that we asked for o September 22nd and we'd like to, we'd be very interested in seeing what we could work out. 1 Andrews: Todd, would it give us strength if we were to put tha tin a motion rather than just sort of a see you later comment? Schroers: I think the motion already is standing. It's the motion from September 22nd. Andrews: I wasn't here for that meeting but I will concur with that recommendation. Howard Dahlgren: We propose to go onto the Planning Commission on , December 2nd. I think the recommendation of your board, whatever it is, should go on the record. Schroers: The recommendation is the recommendation that was made on September 22nd. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, you may want to make a recommendation that., Schroers: A recommendation to uphold the recommendation of September 22nd. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting �. November 24, 1992 - Page 21 Hoffman: And deny this concept, which is the most recent concept plan. Schroers: I don't want to deny the concept. I just want to see it meet the requirements that we ask for. Hoffman: Right. 1 Koubsky: Thanks a lot. • Hoffman: You may want to put that in the form of a motion this evening then with a second and vote. To uphold your September 22nd motion. Lash: I move that we uphold our September 22nd motion regarding Gateway West Business Park. Andrews: Second. ' Lash moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission uphold their motion of September 22, 1992 requesting the applicant to provide, as a part of their proposal, a community park site. The site is to include sufficient land of suitable character and topography to include ' natural vistas, affording sufficient area for viewing and picnicking, a designated 8 foot wide bituminous trail loop with multiple access points connecting the wooded and upland portions of the site with picnicking and viewing areas, and the street plan and sidewalks; sufficient area for the possible construction of two ballfields with 300 foot fences; a basketball court, a double tennis court, and sufficient upland area to buffer these amenities. This will require the designation of considerable more park property than called out in the original sketch plan. However, it is desireable for all parkland components to be contiguous. This park shall also maintain considerable road frontage to afford visible impact as well as allowing for sufficient ingress and egress to the park site. All votec in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT: GATEWAY FIRST ADDITION. LOTUS REALTY. ' Hoffman: The second Gateway of the evening... This plat, preliminary plat is much more straight forward than the previous one. It's simply a clarification of lot lines down in the area of the Rapid Oil Change, the Manus building, those type of areas. There really needs to be no action ' by the Park and Recreation Commission other than to recommend that City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development which should occur as a result of the platting of the Gateway First Addition. ' Koubsky: I recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development occurring as a result of the platting of the Gateway First Addition. Andrews: I'll second that. Koubsky moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for any development occurring as a result of the platting of the Gateway First 1