The URL can be used to link to this page

01-19-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING 1. Highway 5 Corridor Study and the EAW for the north access boulevard alignment analysis. The proposed Hwy. 5 Overlay Ordinance will also be reviewed at the hearing. The ordinance establishes development standards designed to implement the goals of the Plan. These recommendations and findings will be forwarded to the City Council for their final decision. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. 7,7 PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING: DISCUSS THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD PROJECT. THE PROJECT ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 LANE BOULEVARD BETWEEN POWERS BOULEVARD AND HWY 41 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 5. THE BOULEVARD WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF WEST 78TH STREET AND IS DESIGNED TO SERVE LOCAL TRIPS AND POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT . IT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE A JOINT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . Public Present: Name Address Lee Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd . Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparrel Lane Teresa Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd . Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd. Jeff & Tami Braiedy 850 Western Drive Deborah Porter BA Associates Jim Andrews 7014 Sandy Hook Circle Tim Keene Representing Mills Fleet Farm Stuart C . Mills Jr . 512 Laurel Street , Brainerd , MN Chris Dietzen Representing Mills Fleet Farm Tom Green Mills Properties , 512 Laurel , Brainderd , MN Mike Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items . Deb Porter : What I ' ll do , to try and make this a little more brief is rather than go through the entire document , which some of you are more familiar with than others who are on the task force . I hope you 've had a little bit of time to look it over but I think a better way to go over the impacts is to look at the summary table which is page 14 . Table 6-1 in your document . I also have some single sheet copies of that table here . Kate , if you want to just pass them along either to the Commission members or other people who are interested. What this table is is a summary of the impacts that we felt were more quantifiable in terms of physical impacts and some cost issues with the Alternative 1 and 2 corridors and our crossovers . The task force has been looking at this now for a couple of different meetings and what we 've added here to this table then in the last column that you can see is the preferred alternative . We 've also quantified that for what the task force has recommended as Alternative 1 plus the use of the crossovers A and C . It also will involve just a short segment then of Alternative 2 and I think Kate will also pass out the graphics that we have where we have the preferred alternative shaded in a dot pattern on those graphics . I think in terms of the degree and type of impact that we 're looking at here for either alternative , and the preferred alternative is identified by the task force is really minimal in terms of the length of the project of 2 1/2 miles . In my experience I haven 't come across a project where we have this little wetland impact or flood plain encroachment considering that we have two creek corridors and a number of wetland basins through the project area and I think that 's mostly due to the fact that during the preliminary engineering phase , and also just the Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 44 design concept of this roadway being curvalinear , that we were able to avoid a lot of the more significant natural features . Even the wooded areas , primarily as you see here on your table . We identified 4 major sites of vegetation . The more mature wood lots . We tried also to avoid as much encroachment on those as we could so I think this will be something the regulatory agencies , the Department of Natural Resources , PCA , Pollution Control Agency , and the federal agencies , Corps of Engineers , Fish and Wildlife Service , I think they ' ll be very pleased to see this little impact considering that you 're building a completely new roadway through a community . So I think that 's a credit to the project . Also , in terms of the overall impacts , Alternatives 1 and 2 have nearly a mile of common alignment anyway from Powers Blvd . to approximately Audubon Road is the same . We also have some other short segments that are a common alignment between the two so that 's the reason why you don't see a great deal of difference in the amount of impact between the two alternatives . In terms of flood plain encroachment , we have anywhere from as little as just over half an acre of encroachment of our Alternative 2 , to a maximum _ of 1 .3 acres for Alternative 1 . The same for vegetation and wetlands . We have really just a minimum amount of acreage that we 're impacting . - We also quantified the noise level increase . If you read through the document you saw that a decibel increase of 3 decibels or less is really inperceptible to most human hearing capabilities so again , we 're looking at very minimal impact there . In terms of relocation . The four homesteads that would be affected are the same for both Alternative 1 and 2 and the preferred alternative . It 's primarily the 3 homes that are located within the Lake Ann Park area and one more residence just east of TH 41 there . So those properties will be impacted no matter which alternative was chosen . In terms of right-of-way acquisition , the actual number of acres needed for the roadway . Again , is very similar for each alternative corridor . Even looking at additional acreage in terms of purchasing buffer area and where that comes into play is primarily on the south side of Alternative 2 . Between Trunk Highway 5 and the alternative . We took a look at that and for Alternative 1 , including buffer areas it would be about 42 .7 acres we estimate . For Alternative 2 , 46 .5 approximately for additional acres . For our preferred alternative , it 's a little over 40 acres of total right-of- way acquisition including buffer areas . We took a look at what we call a generalized dollar value for the type of land parcels that would be affected for right-of-way acquisition . Again the total dollar cost that we come up with here is actually very similar between the two alternative corridors . We also added here for the preferred alternative . The price seems to drop down just a bit and that 's because we have just a few less remnant parcels that crossovers A and C allow us to have less effect on those two homesteads . So that brings the right-of-way acquisition cost down a bit . The estimated construction cost again stays right within that range that we 've identified since the beginning of the project . Between 2 to 2 1/2 million for this roadway . So I guess I ' ll open it up to any questions you might have during your review of the document or the task force discussions during the last couple of meetings . I think Kate identified primarily the reasons , the supporting reasons why the task force identified the preferred alternative as Alternative 1 with crossovers A and C . Also, within the document under Section 6 , let 's see it 's page 12 I think we 've listed 7 or 8 diffe:-ent reasons as to why the task force made the recommendation that they did. And again it involves things like avoidance to some of the farmsteads , or homesteads in the area and I think Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 45 { because the environmental impacts are so similar between the alternative _ corridors , that didn 't seem to be a deciding factor in this project , and I don 't think that it should be . It 's primarily I think what the task force had envisioned as the roadway character and the type of development that they want to see on either and both sides of the roadway . It really didn 't come down to , as it does on many projects that I work on , we 're looking at in other projects a significant difference in the number of wetland acres or other issues that you 've discussed tonight . Vege` etion impacts and so on but that doesn 't seem to be the case with this pa l_icular project . it really rests on more of the future land use development scenarios that you 're looking at in this part of your community . Are there any questions on any of the impact analysis? Batzli : I think what we 're going to do is open it up for public comment and then maybe start asking questions from the Commission . If we can do it that way . Deb Porter : Okay . Batzli : This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Jay Dolejsi : My name is Jay Dolejsi . I live at 6961 Chaparral Lane . I own the property west of the minature golf course and east of Mills Fleet Farm , that goes around the group home . I would like the Commission to consider the southern route through my property . One of the things that I think that 's not being addressed here are the future residents . They 're kind of an unrepresented constituency . By putting this road through the northern part of my property and dividing it , you 're going to in essence divide the neighborhood . You were talking earlier about trying to unite neighborhoods and the city as a whole has been working to mitigate the dividing factor of Highway 5 with the new pedestrian crossing and such going through the community . This is really going to divide those communities there . The southern route also would allow extra buffering of noise and pollution from the impact of Highway 5 and provide more safety for the local residents . I think what the Commission needs to weigh is the value of perhaps a more attractive boulevard against the safety and welfare of the future residents in that area . Also putting the road closer to TH 5 is going to give you more control in the buffering design and the visual impacts along Highway 5 which is what my understanding was the Highway 5 task force was tasked with . To develop the Highway 5 corridor and not this northern boulevard . Also on my property , because the property slopes deeply towards the road, it would give an opportunity to minimize the impact on the landforms as far as the buffering that the task force is recommending along Highway 5 . Putting in the southern route also would result in no impact through the mature tree stands that the northern route currently will be going through. The southern route also would cost considerably less . From the understanding of what was said in the task force , the State is willing to participate 80% if the southern route is chosen and only 50% to 60% of the land cost for the northern route . Also the southern route would result in much less severance damages to the property as far as leaving a larger , more developable parcel . Through my property there was not going to 'be any need for any more collector . . . because just north of it is a large wetland so it 's really a relatively Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 46 small area that this boulevard would service . And as far as the break of - the density in that area , this is kind of difficult for me because that 's in the '95 study area and we don't know what it 's zoned for . What 's going to be happening out there . I know they 've made recommendations but that 's_ not very clear either . And one other point in , one final point is I thought it was rather interesting that when this road was being proposed , no mention of a northern route was suggested for the city owned property through the park . It seems to me that all the benefits to having the road- bordering the Highway 5 to the park would be the same to these other parcels and all the reasons for the northern route through the private tracts of land would equally apply to the city park . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Tim Keene: Chairman Batzli , members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keene with Larkin , Hoffman , Daly & Lindgren , 7900 Xerxes , Bloomington and I 'm here this evening on behalf of friendly Mills Fleet Farm . I just want to make a couple points and keep it brief . We have bee participants since 1988 throughout an extensive planning process , includin initial discussions regarding the Mills Fleet Farm on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41 . An approximately year and a half comprehensive plan update and subsequent to that now we 're going onto our second year of the TH 5 corridor planning task force . And being participants and cooperative and actually preparing some site plans and engrossments of how that site would work . We were at least a little troubled when the initial engrossments of the road alternates came out because they run right throug the middle of the site . They ignored your consultant , Mr . Morrish 's study that showed a facility compatibly located on the site and if I could walk - over to the exhibit and just make a point . Batzli : Sure . Tim Keene : The subject property is about thusly and we have identified on the city 's resource map a wetland resource in the southwest corner . Through the center here there is a tree stand that the task force and staf - has made it very clear that they 'd like to see that stand preserved . The alignment as conceived and currently the subject of the environmental assessment really slices right through the middle , either alternative of _ what is left of the developable portion of the property . We asked our civil engineer to generate a road alignment that wouldn 't quite so drastically affect the development . . .property and we submitted on June 9th an alignment plan with actually two alternates . Both of them working off this point . One swinging the frontage road up to the northern boundary an the other swinging the frontage road , nicking the northern , north edge of this tree stand but still preserving the integrity of the stand itself and - avoiding any contact with the wetland resources . Those road alternates that we offered were also submitted to the project engineer for the Department of Transportation to give that engineer an opportunity to review those for geometrics and although we haven 't had a formal response , it 's our understanding that the geometrics conform to the design requirements o the parameters set forth throughout the rest of the corridor . We don 't want to suggest we feel picked on but the location of the road alternates that are the subject of this enclronmental assessment really do profoundly limit the development potential of the property . We will be offering for Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 47 the record the exhibits that we did prepare and submit to the June 9th meeting . And with that I 'd like to introduce Stuart Mills , the President of Mills Fleet Farm . Thank you . Stuart C . Mills Jr . : Planning Commission . My name is Stuart C . Mills Jr . I live in Brainerd, Minnesota at 512 Laurel Street . Our family has been in Brainerd since the 18th century . We 've been local business people there since the turn of the century . We stand on our integrity and our reputation . We are a family company . The company is owned by my brother and myself . My brother 's name is Henry C . Mills II . After Hank and I got out of the Korean War we came back and in 1955 , the spring of '55 we started Fleet Farm stores . There were only two employees and that was Hank and myself and we started . Our first store was 4 ,000 square feet and today our largest store is 250 ,000 square feet and we have 4 ,500 employees . This was done by hard work , and by having a lot of loyal employees and in the communities we 've been in, we stand on our reputation and we are in good standing which we can have recommendations from all our communities to present to you and in just about all of the communities they have invited us to come in because they felt that we were asset to their community . We are different than any other store . There is no competitor we have and we bring people to the community . We feel that we are an asset . We acquired this property out here because we felt it was an ideal location for a Fleet Farm store . It 's a very good commercial location for us with 41 running south across the Minnesota River and number 5 running west into the farmland . We get both city and farm business and since 1988 we have been attending several meetings with the Chanhassen people and we have been cooperating fully and made ourselves at any time to work with the city . This summer the task force proposed a frontage road adjustment , an alignment , an environmental assessment document . The two alignments that are under consideration disect the heart of our 50 acres that we have planned of having a Fleet Farm store . Obviously it ruins our property and we do not feel that this is in the best interest of the community of Chanhassen or ourselves and in due respect we really would like to cooperative with you and see if we can get our development going . I thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Chris Dietzen: Mr . Chairman , members of the commission , my name is Chris Dietzen . I 'm also an attorney with Larkin-Hoffman appearing for Mills Fleet Farm . My task is to make our formal record. I will be brief . When Mills Fleet Farm purchased the property , prior to purchasing it they met with representatives of the city , including the City Administrator and the Mayor and talked to the city about the proposal and received encouragement from the city and a statement that the city would cooperate . In reliance on those statements , Mills went ahead and purchased the property and has engaged in a lot of time , a lot of energy and a lot of money to work with the city with respect to this property . As you 've heard from Mr . Keene , and from the owner of Mills Fleet Farm , the proposal would go through the heart of the property and would destroy it 's commercial development which the owner at the time of the purchase had a reasonable investment backed expectation as to how that property would be used and how the city would cooperate in facilitating that use . In order to accommodate the city 's wishes , the owner of the property proposed an alternate that would allow Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 48 the alignment to go through the property in two different ways and still allow the development potential of that property . We have submitted that plan that shows those two alternatives , Mills Fleet Farm Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 , which I will shortly be making part of the record . It 's our - belief that those plans meet all engineering requirements and that they meet the reasonable requirements with respect to the use of the frontage road as it goes through that property . As we see the evidence that we have heard from , we are not aware of any rational basis for the city to oppose either of those two Mills Fleet Farm alternatives . We are concerned , and we have the impression that the only basis for the city 's refusal to consider those two alternatives and to formally study them in the EAW is to respond to business owners in the Chanhassen are that are trying to protect their business . We do not believe the concerns of business owners or neighbors are a valid basis to destroy the property interest of Mills Fleet Farm . We don't think that there is a reasonable basis for the City Council to refuse to consider those alternatives . In conclusion , it 's our belief that the evidence is , supports the conclusion that the environmental assessment is inadequate because it does not consider and does not study Mills Fleet Farm alternatives 1 and 2 and that if the city intends- to proceed with those two proposals as set forth in the EA , that it would result in a total taking of the Mills Fleet Farm property for which the city would be required to pay it 's fair market value as commercial property . We , Mills Fleet Farm , believes that they are compelled to make a formal record of their position . They would like to cooperate with the city , which they have been trying to do for many years but they feel that they are forced to do that . To make their record at this time and with that we do have a copy of the plans and a letter that we want to make part of the record Mr . Chairperson , if I may . Batzli : You may . Thank you . Is this the original , Tim? Tim Keene : That is the original . . . Batzli : Give this to Kate so I don't lose it . Chris Dietzen: We request that that be made a part of the record . Thank you very much . Batzli : Well we may as well hear a few more comments before we . Does anyone else wish to address the Commission? I guess it was just wishful thinking that that was it huh? Mike Gorra : Gentlemen , my name is Mike Gorra . I live at 1680 Arboretum . Southwest corner of Lake Ann . I have approximately 150 acres . I 've lived there for about 17 years . I guess I would have to agree with the other landowner that spoke a little earlier that I don't really agree with the pick of the northern route there and would prefer the southern route . Not just because I 'm a landowner but for other reasons which I 'd like to explain briefly here . I think the property , you don 't have to be a genius to take a look at that map and see what that northerly route would do to any piece of property . It disects it in two . That road 's going to be heavily traveled . What 's it going to do to the potential development . It 's going to make it tough to plan any intelligent development with the road like that running right through the center of the property . Especially Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 49 when you 've got an alternative route that can be run to the south along Highway 5 . What 's going to happen with , if you do decide on the northerly route , it 's going to relegate that property to just kind of a boiler plate type development . High density to the south . Medium density and then residential to the north. Now you can find that anyplace . Richfield , Brooklyn Park . Is that what Chanhassen wants or does Chanhassen want an opportunity . That 's probably one of the nicest pieces of undeveloped property left in Chanhassen . You 've got Lake Ann . You 've got that little Riley Creek . You 've got a lot of access on Highway 5. Everybody going in and out of Chanhassen is going to see that . I would think they would want the best possible potential development to be addressed in that area and not just a boiler plate type . I also think that the taxpayers would be better served with the southerly route . At the last coalition meeting somebody stated that MnDot would participate with 80% if the alignment was run to the south. And would only participate 50% if the northerly route was chosen . I think that 's kind of significant . Any private development would take that pretty serious . Also the city I think would be better served , and I think it was explained before by other people that we thought it was the original intention of this Highway 5 coalition to consider the Highway 5 route . Not go 500 yards to the north . I always thought it was the whole idea to kind of beautify Highway 5 and they can do that . If they pick the southern route , they ' ll have more land to berm . More land to landscape . People coming in and out of the city are going to see that . They 're not going to see that road to the north . And if that road is built to north , what 's going to be backed up to Highway 5? The backs of commercial buildings? That 's not going to be that attractive . Also , with whoever develops that property all along that strip there , the more land they have the bigger lots they can put in . The more attractive development that they can perceive there . If it 's a residential type , they can have clubhouses , tennis courts , even small golf courses . There 's enough room for that too . But if you cut the property in half , you 're not going to be able to have any of that . You 're going to pre-determine everything . Now a little bit 's been said about that road dividing the high density and the low density . Well , who 's to say what 's going to be wanted 4-5 years from now . I 've been a developer for 30 years and the last 15 years , every piece of property I 've developed has been rezoned . Not by me but by the city . They thought that it was best to rezone it because times have changed . You put that road through on the north , and even if the city determines that it made a mistake or if the times have changed and the property and the city would be better served by changing the zoning , it 's not going to do much good because that road 's already there . Thank you . - Jim Andrews: Members of the Commission . Again , I 'm Jim Andrews . I 'm the Chairman of the Highway 5 Task Force and I will concur that it 's been a very lengthy process . One that if had I known how long it was going to be , _ I 'm not so sure I would have volunteered for it but nevertheless it 's a project we 've all worked very , very hard on and one thing I can certainly say is that we have considered all alternatives in great detail . Sometimes to the frustration of many of the members of the task force spending months and months discussing north and south and possible land implications and difficulties of development so I think we have done a thorough job of looking at what the alternatives might , what they are and what the impacts could be . A couple things I just wanted to point out is that both north and south alternatives , we did look at providing trail crossings and Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 50 pedestrian accesses and so forth so neither alternative really I think creates a poor access for pedestrians or trail traffic at all . We also looked at land uses . At our last meeting we looked at land uses and also looked at some of the results of a subcommittee called the zoning overlay subcommittee I guess is what we called it . They were looking at building designs , setbacks , sign ordinances , and so forth and just as a side note , I 'm sure those are some things that Fleet Farm would be very interested in knowing about . I don 't know if they 're being provided with that or not but they should be . One other issue I want to make is that the MnDot funding as to what MnDot would contribute to the northern portion . At least to my recollection , that information has never really been accurately determined . The one thing we are sure of is that MnDot 's contribution to the northerly alternative would be less than the south. But as to say that it would be 80 or 50 or 70 or 30 , to my knowledge that finite number was not determined but we are aware that there is an impact . So again I would say that we have done , I believe a thorough job and have made a recommendation I think that would be suitable for the city . Thank you . Batzli : Let me ask you a question Jim before you sit down . Is it your opinion then if after hearing the various landowners here tonight , it looks like we 're ticking off about a third of them along Alternative 1 and 2 here by your selection . Is Alternative 2 that bad? Jim Andrews: Personally , I struggled back and forth with my decision for quite a while . To be real honest from , I 've got to remember the names of the streets here but . Farmakes : Galpin to TH 41? Jim Andrews: From the Galpin crossing , I always favored the northerly alternative on that side . From the Galpin towards the east , I had actually initially perferred the southern alternative and then was convinced that the northern alternative would offer I think in the long haul a superior alternative . I will , I don 't know if it was passed along to the Commission here but the vote on this , on the recommendation was very , very close . So it certainly was not unanimous that we should have the northern route. In fact if I recall the vote was barely majority . So we wrestled with it . Within our own group quite a bit too . And I also would say that the overlay committee is proposing ordinances that I think regardless of what alternative we would ultimately end up with , that we 're going to end up with something far superior to the development that 's occurred along Highway 5 in Eden Prairie so that I think we can be assured of . But as a - committee we did favor the northern alternative and I guess speaking as a spokesman for the committee I feel that I need to communicate that first of all . Oh one other comment too about the Fleet Farm road alignment . The one reason why we did choose the northern there was that it did match up with the road directly across the street from TH 41 . It provided an intersection so that was one of the main reasons we again stayed with that alignment . Batzli : But it sounds like they proposed something that swung further north and still came out at about the same point . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 51 Jim Andrews: Again at , it was almost 2 months ago and working , from what I recall , I believe their recommendation also impacted a private property owner to the north of their site too . I 'd have to look at it again to refresh myself again . Also , as a group discussing land uses last meeting , we as a group were recommending that the Fleet Farm site would not be commercial use as proposed by Fleet Farm and we were looking at , I think it was high quality development being medium or high density again or possibly , I don 't want to be wrong on this . I believe we also , and maybe you can help me on this . A different type of commercial . We had a special term for it . I can 't remember the word we used for it . Scott: What are you talking about , like a headquarters? Jim Andrews: Headquarters or something . Scott: High profile . Jim Andrews: Yes . Something like that . Scott: Because it 's the gateway . Jim Andrews: Yeah . The overlay ordinances that we 've discussed would impose restrictions on Fleet Farm that if they were to proceed with building in that area , under the ordinances that we are proposing , they would have to build something substantially different in appearance than what they traditionally build . And I don 't know if that 'd be workable but that may be something we would have to explore if we were looking at a compromise , so . = Batzli : Thank you . Farmakes: Can I ask a question of the Barton-Aschman representative? Batzli : Sure , go ahead . Farmakes : There was a graph that showed land acquisition . Similar to this and it was shaded in with the property that MnDot would be willing to acquire in relationship to the north and southern route . Was that accurate or was that a guesstimate? Deb Porter : Well that was based on our discussions with MnDot in the past year or so and it 's not , as we said earlier . We don 't have anything in terms of a formal agreement from MnDot as to what exactly their participation would be but we have had discussions with them . So I think we have a good understanding of what their participation would be and maybe I ' ll just walk over to the map and show you , if it will be helpful you know what we understand to be their . Farmakes : I think maybe the comments I 'm going to make it would be helpful if you did . . . Deb Porter : Okay . Let me try and explain this the best I can . MnDot 's considerations are being primarily on controlled access of Highway 5 and also minor shifts that they are now proposing towards the north of this Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 52 - much of Highway 5 and that 's to avoid impacting the mini-storage , daycare , and recording studio on this side of TH 5 . Their original design was to widen to the south primarily but of course now that would cause significant right-of-way impacts . I think they estimate that being $2 million plus in right-of-way acquisition costs . So they 've redesigned this in about a 60 foot northward shift and about this portion of Highway 5 . That would take a little bit of the park property . It would encroach a bit on Eckankar property . Moves Kerber and the Gorra property in here . In addition , there _ are also 4 or 5 , 3 or 4 residences here that would not have direct access to TH 5 any longer . MnDot then in their original design would have had to build short access driveways to about 4 different properties . So in consideration of all those impacts , what they have talked about doing in participating in what would be considered a buffer area between the access boulevard and Highway 5 . So you 're looking at primarily this extension here . The area that 's between the Alternative 2 and then of course the . . . MnDot would look at purchasing most of this acreage here . Between the highway and the alternative . Once you get to this point of course , and once Alternative 1 shifts northward , if this isn 't built , MnDot would probably not design any . . .access between the buffer area in here because you 're then getting away from what they might consider to be more of a frontage road and they don 't want to set a precedent in communities in buying huge amounts of right-of-way between . . .roads and a highway . Then once again , once the alternative comes back closer to TH 5 , they 've also said that they would be willing to participate in some portion of buffer area within this area here . . .Alternative 1 is quite a bit north of Highway 5 , they probably would not be buying any buffer area . Again , they see this as a separate city thoroughfare whereas here , as they 've done in other communities , they see that as more of a frontage road where they could participate in buffer areas . Farmakes: For the purpose , we can 't see the legend here but for the purpose , from a minimum and maximum from the area from say Galpin to Lake Ann . Right-of-way frontage would be how many feet? Like 50 to 400 , or how would that? Deb Porter : This scale is 200 feet to an inch so , that 's nearly 3/4 of a mile from here to here . Farmakes: But depth then off of the highway up to the road , let 's say proposal 2 . Between Highway 5 and proposal 2 would be how many feet in depth? Deb Porter : You 're looking at about 200 feet by the inch here , and some of these are wider portions . Again , once you get shifting quite a ways from TH 5 , I think and it happens to be a property line here , you can see it reasonable that MnDot would look at all of this being buffer area up to the property line and again you 're shifting away . . .so it 's clear that for Alternative 2 MnDot would participate in more of the right-of-way acquisition costs than Alternative 1 . Exactly what those costs would be is - somewhat . . .some guesstimates on the dollars amounts on that . Batzli : Thank you . Yes sir . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 53 Lee Kerber : I 'm Lee Kerber and I 'm right between the city tree farm and between what Natural Green vacated . According to the map here it almost looks like they , as soon as it got across or past the park driveway , they veer to the north to save the city tree farm and to get my house . And as soon as they get by my house and past the Natural Green vacated property , they 're going back down to the road . I don 't understand why they can 't stay next to the highway the whole time . Another thing I 'm a little disturbed about , the communication gap . I heard it through the grapevine you 're going to lose your house . I said, what are you talking about . I never had any notification until probably 3 or 4 months ago there was going to be a meeting down here . It seems to me a person should get it direct from City Hall that they 're thinking about taking your property instead of getting it through the grapevine . All night long I 've been hearing people talk about trees . They 're going to save those trees that are 2 or 3 inches in diameter and the city tree farm and they 're going to take down 25-30 trees on my property that are a foot and a half , 2 feet deep , probably 30 feet high . I don 't agree with a lot of those things . You 're not just taking my house . The place that I live . You 're taking my life . I spent 65 years on that property and just like that you come along and tell me , so long sucker . That 's about what it amounts to . You don 't come and say , we want to give you some money so you can start looking around. You just bully your way through . There 's a lot of things I don 't appreciate . My wife says let 's just get the heck out of town and it looks like I 'm going to whether I want to or not . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Brad Johnson: Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name _ is Brad Johnson . I live at 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent Lars Conway who owns 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and Highway 5 . Just for the record , we prefer Alternate 2 which is the southern route , as I believe most of the landowners thus far have . The primary reasons are cost . We feel that as the representatives of the city have indicated , it will cost a lot more money to do it to the north . There 's a lot of severance cost that 's involved . As you know I 've been a developer in this community for a long time and we hear a lot about , well we ' ll do high density , multiple housing . We have very little high density , multiple housing development happening in Chanhassen . Many of the subdivisions have gone undeveloped and have been rezoned over the years . You guys have been around . You 've got Lundgren had a subdivision like that . It 's not easy to say it and I would say over a 10 year period, that much land zoned high density , multiple will not be developed and will tend to go to commercial , industrial uses because 10 years from now you 're all gone and everybody 's wondering why that hasn 't been developed . So I think it 's just not necessary to do it . You 're creating a problem that I don 't think you need to have to do . It 's a problem I think that people in good faith suggested because they can see green space there but in talking to the high density , multiple developers that exist today , they would not want to be between two _ freeways either . I mean two basic freeways . The second one is that I 've been around town for a long time and as you know , Chanhassen Estates has been separated from the city for quite some time . This particular road will carry by Highway . This particular road will carry a lot more traffic than we all imagine and I think that if in fact that is going to be residential all along the south of Alternate 1 , that it will be basically , Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 54 unless you guys want to spend a lot of money on overpasses again and trail systems that go underground and stuff , be separated from the other properties . And developers we 've talked to about purchasing the property and actually building something say no . They would not build in that area because of that reason . They want to be nestled up against the single family area and I think Mr . Gorra 's got a good point . And we probably should have done like a $20 ,000 .00-$25 ,000 .00 proposal that says this is how we would do this neighborhood so you could actually see how that neighborhood would look . But you can , I would guess what you would see , i• you go along the highway and you would see , according to Mr . Gorra 's plan , kind of a very planned major entrance into a major subdivision as you go north into the Lake Ann area off of that road . You 're just not going to get that kind of a look to put multiple there because you 're going to , we 're going to have to try to figure out how to back the multiple because that 's the back of the entrance into a multiple . In other words , we 'll be - entering off the main road and the back of it will come into Highway 5 . I think the main thing here is I think going north through there is a premature development of the property . The road system is being put in prematurely and from what I can tell , for no very good reason other than i• probably looks better as you look at it now but I don 't think in the long run it would look better at all . And at a higher cost than you would have ultimately the way it 's planned on Alternate 2 . But the main deal is , I think all of us could probably come with some terrific visuals of how this could look if it was developed with roads going into the north and we could show it to you and it would look wonderful . I don 't know how to give.. you a good visual of what this is going to look like with multiple or some type of commercial inbetween the two roads . Then just think about Highway 5 and how long those two communities , how that 's divided our community and I 'm not being overly dramatic but that 's going to be a busy road . It 's no' going to be a road that is not used . Right now it doesn 't appear that way but it will be very different so I 'm , from Dr . Conway 's point of view , we 'd prefer to get together with Mr . Gorra and put together about a 200 acre really substantial development in that area and you 're making it just abou impossible . You ' ll probably create about , not you are but the plan does , you probably create 2 or 3 small multi-family developments sometime . And then basically cut into the dynamics of what could happen to the north . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? What I 'm going to do is I 'm going to ask for a motion to close the public hearing but once we do that , I would still like there to be interaction but as a formal matter , I 'm going to try and close the public hearing at this time . Is there a motion? Conrad moved , Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in _ favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Matt . Matt , I 'm sorry . I do that all the time . Why do I do that Jeff? Farmakes: That 's okay Bill . Batzli : Okay , thank you . You have some comments that I think you 'd , it 'd be good to have you go first here . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 55 Farmakes: First of all I want to thank the task force . I think there 's been an awful lot of work done here , both from city subcontractors to city staff . It 's really fascinating to see how this effects a community and commercial aspects , homeowners , farmers . People who are interested in building Chanhassen in the future and it 's been an interesting experience . With that being said I 'd like to criticize our task force . I can do that I guess because I was on it . I do believe , as I said , that perhaps we got a little off track when we got into the discussion of main street . It 's easy to fall into . There was . a lot of discussion about the philosophy of main street and so on and I had a feeling that perhaps we were losing the intent of our mission , which was to create a buffer in our community against the highway expansion to insure that the highway would not become a wall in our community . I think if you refer to the building corridor that we got here , there 's two drawings on there that I 'm sure some of you have seen before . The issue of frontage roads that parallel a highway and create sort of a concrete wall in a community . And the lower drawing has the meandering road that occasionally gets close to the highway but also comes up and there 's adequate area for natural buffering on the highway . And if you turn 2 pages in and you look at the area that we 're discussing here , you can see the Lake Ann district that comes across over to the Arboretum district and this was the original drawing that the University did . And the areas that we 're discussing here would be right in the middle if you look over to your left . And essentially the road alternatives that we look are there that you see up here which we actually wound up coming up with and for a moment here I 'd like to go over and point to the map . I would like to point out also that as a , I don 't know if our Chairman is still here of the task force but we did , although the report from the city did not probably explain it as well as I thought they should have . It was not unanimous . The task force , like any task force , has disagreements within it and the vote was not unanimous . I 'd like to make a case for my dissent on this issue and . . .The issue that we discussed to the south and the issue that are here tonight , there was very little discussion , or dissent here on this issue . But to the east of Galpin I think that there was more dissent in regard to buffer . . .how the crossovers would affect Bluff Creek . Those of you who have driven back and forth know that this is a low area . There 's a lot of trees in here and the question was how , with the least amount of impact can we do that and there were viable cases , plus and minus . . .different four alternatives . But the issue that I . . .fell back on was Bill Morrish 's original . . .that it seemed to me that inquiring of this space is just as important as main street or the philosophy of main street , which to me got very subjective . The issue here is the pragmatic requiring of right-of-way that the city can buffer . . . The city can buffer Highway 5 and that was our , that was one of our main tasks . If MnDot is willing and the map that you provided showed MnDot acquiring this property here from CR 17 over essentially to a part of . . . it got a little loose in here but it essentially all this property in here . And those of you that know this particular piece of property know that , where the barn and the old depot is , it 's several hundred feet off of the highway . So this is a substantial amount of property . The setback issues and the future development would seem to me that we would be able to control substantial amounts of property here of right-of-way at little cost to our taxpayers . The problem that we had up here seemed to me is that again we were dictating how this property develops . We were , the city was required to purchase the right-of-way property up in here to a larger degree . As it Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 56 came farther to the creek , it seemed to me that crossover D made far less impact to the bluff area , to this low lying area than did alternative for crossover C , which basically cuts right through it . If in the future we are going to improve the crossover and gateway that goes up this way towards Minnewashta for a trail , it seems to me that the sensible connection would have been here and running a trail off of this crossover and following up behind the higher area behind the creek . The issue of I think one of cost is that the city doesn 't want or requires less taxpayers - funds here to acquire this property . That means over here it frees up funds to target more and go with the northern route , which I support on this side to again buffer Highway 5 . And it seemed to me that again the reasoning for this got very asserteric . And I think the development , when it comes down to development , what we 're going to wind up with here , as was stated , is medium-high density along the entire strip like you see on occasion on Highway 7 or up on 494 . I think the preference would be , that if there was medium density , that it be broken up with single family . Which I believe if that was out of here , would probably be the case . . .and I think that this really uselessly , I believe , categorizes this area or dictates what it 's going to be . Physically I think there are reasons for going north . There are some wetland areas poking up and there are some low lying areas . I think that this property makes sense but I can't see the justification . Batzli : Dave , what 's the nearest east/west collector above there? Is there one? Jay Dolejsi : Just the other side of the wetland Lundgren Bros is putting in a development that has an east/west road . Batzli : But I don 't think that 's a collector level street is it? Jay Dolejsi : Well , there 's limited movement out there . . .limit the amount of development that goes in there . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , you 're referring to between Galpin Blvd . and Trunk - Highway 41 . The Lundgren development is proposing a , what I ' ll call minor collector type street between Galpin and Trunk Highway 41 and will have a wider street pavement than a normal street , or the right-of-way width of 80 feet . That is about midpoint . Approximately a mile north of Trunk Highway 5 . Farmakes: I 'd also like to say that based on the synopsis of the report that it 's sort of inferring that there was a specific reason to go with that route and that some of the land use issues were negative . Because the meeting that I was at , when they went over land use issues , it was a wash . - It could go either way and in talking to the professionals that we had , twc of them off the record came up to me and said that they agreed with me . Sc.. I think that there is some professional support for what I 'm saying . I think also that there 's pragmatic , from the taxpayers standpoint , a good case to be made for that or at least to consider it as it goes up to City Council . The last issue I 'm going to touch on is the issue of the Mills property . I know of no support , and I 've been involved since prior to you purchasing your property . I kn.M of no support , that I know of , for a commercial district in that area , and I haven 't been contacted by any Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 57 business owners . I haven 't been contacted by anyone telling me what that 's _ going to be but it seems to me that the location of that property , because an individual purchases it on the speculation that it will be commercial when in fact it 's currently now zoned agricultural , that the fact that they purchased it dictates what it 's going to be rezoned at . It seems to me pretty erroneous . There are , I believe , positive arguments that would dictate that that would not be commercial . Even qualified , and there were alternatives discussed I think in the meeting , and those Minutes are available . I 'm not going to go into those here but I did not support. commercial use in that area , primarily because it 's adjacent to a very sensitive area of the community and it wouldn 't fit . And as far as I know , there was no support in history for dictating commercial use in that area . Those are my comments . Batzli : Let me pick up with Brad some of the things that you just said that reminds me that Brad I think brought up and that is , I 'll address this to you Kate . Maybe you can help me and our representative from Barton . Does it make sense what we 're doing right now that we 're looking at the road layout without also in the back of our mind know , or at least thinking what the zoning layout will be? I mean how can we really do this , I mean I find it very difficult to separate my decision on what the road is going to look like up against Highway 41 if it 's going to be rezoned for something that would be beneficial to Fleet Farm and I know according to my instructions from Paul here , I 'm not supposed to be considering that but how can we put a road through there if we don't know what 's likely to be developed . North , south , whatever . Aanenson: The task force had the same problem and we did look at the land use recommendations and those were included in here and we howed the two alternatives and what the potential land use . I think agreed . There needs to be some marriage of the two to make it come to a decision . I forgot my second point . What did you ask specifically about the land use? Batzli : I 'm sorry , what? Aanenson: You asked about the land use recommendation . That Paul said not to look at that . Scott: Not to have the Mills property . Deb Porter : Oh . If you look on the attachments on the exhibits , I think they 're 7-3 there 's . . .under the land use section . Aanenson: Oh the other thing I was going to was the multi-family . That property is zoned , or the comprehensive plan designates the area that Jeff was talking about , as far as we 're forcing that to multi-family . The comprehensive plan already guides that area for multi-family . And that 's what we looked at leaving that as multi-family . To say that we 're forcing the land use recommendation to multi-family , it 's there right now and if we want to reconsider that , that we 're forcing it , then I think we should look at that . But that 's what it 's guided for currently . Multi-family . That decision was made when you went through the comprehensive planning process in 1991 . That 's the other point I was going to make . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 58 ( Batzli : Let me ask one other question and then I want Ladd to talk . It seems to me that we 've had conflicting testimony here tonight from our Barton-Aschman consultant and everybody else that 's gotten to speak that is a developer . And that is the report says that it 's preferable to have the northern route because you 'll have more flexibility in development and all the people that are probably going to end up developing their property have gotten up and said , we don't like it because it restricts how we can develop it . What do you want to tell us about that? Deb Porter : I think the reasons that were listed there under the preferred alternative are those that were forwarded to us through the city staff and were mentioned at the task force meeting . They are not recommendations from the consultant . That 's kind of beyond the scope of an environmental assessment which is to be an objective document on impact analysis . It 's not really a persuasive type of document for developing an alternative . I guess it would depend on what type of future land use development scenarios you 're looking at and the task force and Barry Warner have been working on those issues now for I think a year and a half . I 'm not sure that there 's complete consensus even on these figures that we have on the land use section . They 're still conceptual . There 's still the 1995 study area from Galpin to TH 41 . Those haven 't been officially documented and platted as the rest of the comprehensive plan shows . So I think at this point if there 's disagreement as to what type of future land use will happen , that 's a decision that hasn 't been made absolutely yet . I 'm not sure that you can decide does the roadway go first , then land use . Or does land use come before roadway development . It 's community 's choose either method sometimes . I think what you 're looking at , those figures in the land use section are still conceptual . Between Galpin and TH 41 . As Kate was saying , between Galpin and Powers Blvd , that part of is platted in your 1991 comprehensive plan . Batzli : Based on , I keep on getting back to this issue of if we choose a southern route , which is more like a frontage road than a collector , as this stuff develops , are we going to have to put another collector in there? Are we just pushing it further north? Aanenson: That 's what I wanted to talk about . I think we need to go back and when we looked at what should this street look like . If you flip to your proposed typical cross section , which is at the very beginning of the document . Figure 2-2 . One of the first things the task force did is , what should the street look like and how should it feel and what they looked at , if they wanted a narrower street , limited access onto that street , no parking on the street , it 's supposed to have a nice feel to it . Not that you 're on a busy wide freeway . I keep hearing the word 2 freeways . It 's only 32 feet of pavement . Okay , it 's supposed to be a narrow , not a speedway . Scott: Like a parkway . Aanenson: Yeah , a parkway . Have a nice feel to it . No parking on it and again limited access . And a trail that 's segregated from it . So going back to Jeff 's point , is what do you want to buffer on Highway 5 . Do you want to look at aesthetic buildigs . High quality buildings or do you want to buffer Highway 5 with another road and that 's where part of the Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 59 separating the two came back into too . Farmakes: That wasn 't quite my comment . Aanenson: I didn 't hear your whole comment . . . Farmakes: I ' ll just , if you look at the picture here you can see that Morrish 's original drawing shows plantings as buffers next to the frontage roads that do meander towards the highway and come off again allowing an adequate amount of right-of-way to landscape a buffer between them . The question is again , how much property is the city going to require if we do go with the northern route? How much in negotiations with the town multiplex , high density development are we going to get off of that highway? I would submit that you 're not going to get much . So I think it 's a trade off . Batzli : Ladd . Conrad: It 's 11 : 30 Brian . We close down at 11 :00 . It 's real interesting when you see the process . Some people put a lot of time into it and I usually get frustrated with City Council when we put a lot of time into stuff and then , when it 's complicated stuff , you 've got a choice . You can either sink your teeth into it or just sort of take the recommendations that people put a lot of time into . This , I trust them . They went through the right mechanisms . Let 's go with it . That 's the background of saying I 'm not real comfortable right now because I think this road alignment , philosophically I like the one to the north . But I guess I heard enough things tonight that says I 'm not sure and I need to justify it from a stand of land use and in the future and I haven 't put that work into it . I personally have to put more time into understanding this to make a recommendation . Environmental worksheet , looks great . I think this is really nice . What ever alternative we choose , I 'm real comfortable that we 've got 2 alternatives that impact is minor . We don 't have a problem but as to which one , I don 't know right now because I really do have to play back land uses and what I see and until I do that , until somebody helps me work my through that , I can 't react tonight . I just can 't . I want to go home . Batzli : I agree and that 's I guess why I 've been asking where the land use comes in and some of these other questions that would help me feel more comfortable . I think the thing that disturbed me most was the fact that I don 't think that there was a real strong consensus on the task force at all . Conrad: I think there 's maybe a role for the Planning Commission to get their feet wet a little bit on this one and maybe spend some more time looking at it . And to be honest , I have not done that . Farmakes : Yeah , I would like to qualify that . There was a pretty strong consensus on the majority of the work that the task force did . There were some issues that there was dissention on . Batzli : What would you want to see? Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 60 Conrad: I guess I just need to go, I think we need another hour to compare road alignments and land uses . I don 't know if that 's in a work session here , a part of one of our meetings . I just have to see that . I have to see that get played out . I 'm hearing the developer say it doesn 't work and I have to validate that in my mind first that it doesn't work . And I heard Jeff saying that he 's got some . . .on certain parts of it . Well , I guess our job now as Planning Commission is to sink the two algernatives at work into what we see land use is in the coming year . And honestly , what makes me a little bit nervous , and again playing the role of Planning Commissioner , the 1995 study area . I haven 't made any decisions myself on what 's at that intersection of TH 41 and TH 5 . Yet we 're kind of precluding some stuff here and I 'm not going to do that . I 'm not saying Fleet Farm should be here . But on the other hand , I 'm not ready to say I 'm going to put something in there that makes it impossible for them to be here . I need to know what we are going to do out there . So it 's real hard , again . There 's another part of the section , I can 't tell . So until I firm that up , it 's going to be tough for me to make a recommendation and some of their alternatives may just be . Batzli : Okay . Kate . What is it that 's driving this forward? Is there a deadline that we need to approve this? Aanenson: That 's what I was just asking Deb about . Deb Porter : The original schedule was to try and get the environmental assessment document with the preferred alternative approved by the end of this year . The end of '93 in order for the design of this roadway to coincide with Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction . The 4 lane . That project has been shifted back on the MnDot schedule now at least a year I think so there 's not quite as much intensity on trying to have this project actually catch up to Trunk Highway 5 design package as there was a few months ago . We were notified of that probably within the last month . We 've had discussions with MnDot and several projects in this district have been delayed for a year due to inadequate funding . So there 's not quite as much critical time schedule pressures as there used to be . I guess in delaying things for another couple of weeks until your next Planning Commission meeting , I don 't even see that as being a major hurdle you know as far as things progressing through the end of the year . You know you have 't had , some of you haven 't had the document for a long time to look over so I can understand that you 'd need to spend some more time with it . Aanenson: As far as the rest of the Highway 5 task force goes , which we 're looking at comprehensive , the '95 study area and the south side . The whole corridor plan . We hope to have that going through the process first part of September . With all the ordinances and land use recommendations . Batzli : So what would happen if we delayed that until it coincided with the overlay? Zoning overlays . Deb Porter : If the beginning of September , you 're thinking you might have that one finalized? It would shift this schedule back probably 2 months . . . and probably early '94 before you 'd probably get final approval of that document . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 61 Batzli : Right . I guess I don 't know that it matters though if MnDot has pushed their construction schedule back to '95 . I mean if this impacts that , then we need to know and we need to move it quicker . Deb Porter : That 's not the case any longer . You know earlier this year . . . kept this project moving along with Trunk Highway 5 design . . . Aanenson : So it sounds like you 'd like to wait until we put the two together . Batzli : Well I would but I do want to give Joe and Matt a minute if they have additional comments . Scott: I recall that when we recommended to approve this particular study , one of the things that I asked about specifically was economic impact relative to land holdings and so forth and in the boiler plate here I see a page and a half , 2 pages so my major area of concern is what do we have out there now? Who owns it? How big are the pieces? And it looks like there 's some lines drawn on the mapping that perhaps may represent- that . That 's one of my big concerns and of course when we have people who are developers coming in and saying hey , here's what , this is what we would like to build . This is our concept . It 's not going to work with the northern route so I agree with Ladd in that I think this is good input . I would think , I would guess that if you 're going to make a decision on it right now , Ladd wouldn 't want to vote . I wouldn 't either . And perhaps I know personally I need more time to look at this because it 'd be very difficult for me to get one of these babies on a Friday afternoon and have it totally digested by Wednesday night so I 'd like more time to take a look at it and I 'm not in the position to say one way or the other . Batzli : Okay . Matt . Ledvina : Well talking about the alignment a little bit . I guess I would concur with Jeff in that the southern alternative seems to make more sense east of Galpin . One point I do want to make though and emphasize Jeff 's point is that I feel that the crossover 0 should be utilized . The impact to Bluff Creek at that point I think is really critical and if that road alignment is taken to the north there , the opportunity to cross Bluff Creek inobtrusive manner , if I can use that word, is , that will be a much better place so . And then possibly the northern route you know to TH 41 . As it relates to Fleet Farm . I think that the road alignment , we should be able to work with some different alternatives there to accommodate some potential future plans . Not saying that the zoning changes are completely to follow . Or not allowing or committing to that future commercial use at that location but I think if we can compromise and look at their specific interest there , I think that would be a good thing as well . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Richard Wing: Brian , can I just clarify? Is this a public hearing or not? Batzli : Yes it was . Aanenson: No . It 's a public information meeting . • Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 62 Richard Wing : This is not a public hearing . Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : Oh , okay . Well , we conducted one and we closed it . Richard Wing: I just wanted that clarified . There were some questions here that in a public hearing status in a much different approach and this is very informational . This is so conceptual . As a matter of fact , can I make a statement? Batzli : Sure . Richard Wing: My name is Richard Wing . Chanhassen City Council . I also served as a member of this commission , or task force , excuse me . And Matt , I just want to pick on you . And this is informationally . It 's not criticism . It 's not even critique but you made some statements about alignment and some ideas and thoughts and I just want to ask you as a point here , because I want to get onto something else . How many of these task force meetings did you attend? Ledvina : Zero . Richard Wing: Okay . That 's my point . I think we 're getting concerned about issues tonight and problems and alignments that you have no information on because every question that came up tonight , this task force , which is just a task force , addressed . The alignments . Whether they went north or south . You know we were somewhat split on the alignment and I happen to agree with Jeff . I think he 's right and that 's what I intend to pursue with the information I have . But whether it went north or south , and the cost . The alignments . What it did to land uses . How we intended to use the land and zoning and all . It was all pretty much discussed , but you don 't have privy to that information and . Ledvina : Oh I did speak with some of the members of the task force . Richard Wing : Oh no , no . I know and again , I said this isn 't criticism . I 'm just pointing out that from this point on now we get serious . We 've now taken this task force that 's a lay group . They 've come in with a very conceptual plan and now it gets thrown into your lap and you 're going to have to reinvent the wheel and it 's going to be a long lengthy process . All the questions that we asked , we discussed , are going to have to be rediscussed and asked again and then get into the public sector because all our guest here really didn't have an opportunity to speak . They were listeners and they weren 't allowed to participate . From now on it takes a whole new format and now it gets formal . It gets official so don't feel frustrated or concerned about the process . I think it has to start over now and then all these questions you brought up , plus everything that task force did has to be kind of start from scratch and then we 're going to get a formal recommendation from you people after you 've had all the facts so plan on a pretty major issue here . I think you 've got your hands full . Batzli : Yeah . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 63 Scott : So will you . Richard Wing: Well absolutely but you know you kind of have , in some ways going to fall back on this task force . We 're obviously going to be falling back on you and that 's , I 'm very pro commissions . I mean I tend to take these recommendations that you spend hours on and then suddenly we get thrown with this and we have 10 minutes and I 'm not willing to make decisions like that . I tend to fall back on what 's here so I think we had some real talent on that task force and I think they 're going to be active and participate and speak to these issues as they come up but they 're not here tonight because this isn 't a public hearing . It 's just informational . I think it was important to get some of the public input started . Mr . Kerber 's concerns . You know I 'm kind of wondering why the line 's going right through his house . I think we have to start addressing these and we will so . Be patient . I think the task force did an excellent job . I think you have a real challenge ahead of you but it 's going to be probably one of the greatest gift the city of Chanhassen that 's ever occurred . And if I just may rather than , because it 's late . Batzli : Let me just say one thing here . What Paul asked us to do was recommend approval and the item was listed under public hearing . And I think what Ladd and I want to do is slow it down and do exactly what you 're saying but our direction from our Director was like , we were supposed to rubber stamp it and pass it along tonight . Richard Wing : That 's not true at all and Kate , clarify the public hearing . Aanenson: No , it 's not . If you 're looking at the title , it says public information meeting . We were under the impression that we needed to keep this on docket . To keep the funding with the MnDot . The intent tonight was to allow , as Mr . Wing stated , the intent tonight was to allow public to come and comment . During the task force , we did allow some comment at the task force meetings but we felt this would be a better arena . Feel more comfortable and . . . We had 25 people sitting up here . It made for a large group to take comments so this was an information meeting to allow people to come and voice their concerns . For you to hear it . I think Dick articulated exactly where we 're at and obviously you need more information to go further and we ' ll be bringing that forward . As long as we have the time . Batzli : I don 't want to belabor this point but , so are you suggesting that we start conducting hearings similar to what we did on the comprehensive plan where we have working sessions and we invite anybody and everybody into the room? Aanenson: What 's going to happen is this take on a comprehensive plan . There 's two separate components here . One is the EA document , which we need to keep on track . The other component is what we 're doing is a master plan . As part of that master plan we 're looking at land use issues . We 're looking at some overlay zones including architectural design and landscaping issues and that sort of thing . We ' ll be bringing those forward to you . Like I said in Septembr we hope to have the task force wound up . Batzli : Okay . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 64 Deb Porter : There is a public hearing as part of the EA process . After the document is signed on the signature page and released for public review . It needs to be reviewed by the City Council . There is an official public hearing at that point . Richard Wing: And also be aware that there 's some considerable information coming your way on development standards . Architectural standards . Building material minimums . Sign ordinance . Landscape ordinance . Parking lot standards . This PUD overlay and there 's some tremendous stuff coming and it 's going to change the face of the city . I mean to say that Mills Fleet Farm is going to go there or isn 't . It may or may not but I think that based on these new ordinances coming in , it 's going to be a Mills Fleet Farm like you 've never seen before and they may or may not choose to look that way . Brian , just as long as I have the floor . I want to get one comment on the record . That you people , as a commission tonight have dealt with some very sensitive , difficult issues in kind of no win set-ups if you will . I think your attitudes , your demeanor , your comments , your appearances as individuals and as a commission were exemplary . I think you 're to be very much commended tonight . I think you ran a very excellent meeting Brian under some very harsh conditions and I want to thank you . Somebody said outside , he said , he was a professional person from the Arboretum and he said , why would anybody want to serve on that commission after listening . The answer is because you 've chosen to lead , to direct and have an impact on your community and as a resident I just want to say thank you . Batzli : Thank you for your comments from , on behalf of the entire commission . Thank you all for coming tonight . It sounds like we 're going to table this from the standpoint that it 's tableable and hold some informal meetings . Get some more of your input and dig into it a little bit more . We ' ll probably delay it a little bit until we know what some of the land use issues are coming down the road and I 'm sure , if you haven 't left your name with Kate , you should do that now just to make sure you get notified of the upcoming meetings . Especially some of these people that sounded like they maybe were a little bit surprised by the whole item . Is there a motion , something to that effect? Conrad: To table? Batzli : To table . Conrad moved , Scott seconded to table action on the Environmental Assessment for the North Access Boulevard project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : Thank you all for coming in. You will be notified of the next time this is discussed . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7 , 1993 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: . * Aanenson : I ' ll just go over these real quick . Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 etc and we invited them to our meeting last Monday night and not one showed up so we are going to hold a second meeting on the 27th of this month hoping that developers will show up because they have a concern about what we're doing for tree preservation. So we're hoping that before we get it into the Planning Commission that we have reviewed it with them and we've listened to them and made some revisions or whatever. So we're very definitely on the Tree Board trying to bring the developers into the process and making sure that we communicate with them before coming here. Conrad: That's good that you're doing that. That's the way the process should work. They shouldn't come to the meeting of the public hearing and raise issues at that point in time. Okay. CONTLNUE DISCUSSION OF BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any comments? Ledvina: So we have to have, I saw three public meetings. Aanenson: We thought maybe just two meetings specifically on the plans and then one public hearing but if we need 3 meetings before we can hold a public hearing to go through the whole document. Ledvina: But how many public hearings do we need? Aanenson: One. Ledvina: One. Aanenson: Specifically we don't need a public hearing on the preferred alignment because that just needs to be an information meeting. We do need a public hearing on the Comp Plan amendment. Ledvina: How about the Environmental Assessment? Aanenson: The Environmental Assessment's...We don't need a public hearing specifically. We just need information which we have held but I think in fairness because of looking at the land use. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: Yeah, I would think that would be a good idea...with the property owners. Mancino: We had a lot of property owners. • Farmakes: Give them an opportunity to come and verbalize. I would like to see an objective presentation bearing in mind that there was disagreement among the group as to some of those issues. Conrad: And who would, Jeff who would present that? Mancino: Barry? Farmakes: Well I'm assuming that Barry and. Aanenson: Barton-Aschman. Farmakes: Yeah but there were three...choices. There was. Scott: You mean Deb Porter? Farmakes: Deb Porter, yeah. It was primarily those three. Aanenson: Deb did a specific function. Environmental Assessment document. First of all we were trying to go with the hurdle that we felt uncomfortable with on the land use and Barry specifically...more than the study itself... Farmakes: There are some issues that are not clear. In other words they were washy. Aesthetically, monetarily and others are very clear as to where the direction would be from cost factor. From environmental factor. So I think the majority of what we disagreed with were issues where they were 6 to 1, half a dozen of the other. We need to go one way up or down and essentially it costs the same amount of money. The EPA is...same and it was more or less issues of long term use. Conrad: How about the issues Jeff, and the ones that sort of got me going a little bit were when the developers, and it could have been Brad, stood up and said that when the one alternative that's further away from TH 5, that is restrictive. That is this. That is that. That doesn't help. It's going to hard to sell that property. I need, I personally need some perspective on. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: It's long term use. Whether you're medium or high density or, right now the plan it's residential so I mean it's. Mancino: But they certainly didn't want their land divided. They didn't want it divided up so what we needed to see when the northern route was put before us, was how much acreage is going to be here between the northern route and Highway 5. I mean is it a substantial amount? Is it 16 acres? Are we talking about 10 acres? How many acres are we talking about? Because every one of them stood up and said, we do not want our land divided. And of course we know a street, a road is going to have to go in there regardless because you're going to have to get access. But they want to make the decision of where the land is divided. Aanenson: Just to add what Nancy is saying. We did do, in the study it does show the two alternatives and how the roadway, what size parcels would you have left so. Conrad: And I haven't gone through that yet but what I don't understand is what they said was, that's not. It is a function of how much acreage but it's also they're saying, hey. We may not be able to sell that. Nobody, there may not be any buyers that believe in this. Farmakes: You talk about market also. He was talking about marketing for a particular type of house versus another type that the market's out there for. So this is really a microcosm of just about everything that we've doing here and dealing with the growth issues. Development of retail issues that are coming up on TH 5 and TH 41. With the Mill's property. Small scale commercial. Residential. High density. It gets into the industrial areas. Just everything. It's just sort of everything. It's a complicated long term, lot of information to digest and to look at. And like I said, some things are really clear. And other things are not so clear. Aanenson: As we see it there's really three major components. One is the land use. There were some areas that we thought was inappropriate land use and we recommended a change when you do the Comp Plan. And you kind of tie into that is the setting component. Where should the northern alignment be. And a third point is, we've adopted, we're looking at really beefed up design standards and...but I think the critical part, as far as the time track that we thought we were on, was trying to get the land use and the road down first but now we've got the extra time. I think it's going to make sense to go through this in detail and get more public input and not have so much pressure and making good decisions. Scott: You know what would help too I think is a field trip. One of the things I had a conversation with Diane and she just said that Southwest Metro would be more than happy to come with a couple of vehicles. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Aanenson: We'd have to do that with the second meeting in October. The first one in October. Scott: It's like get on the bus and go to this thing and drive up the hill and get out and walk around and say, well it's going to. And then make sure that someone can say, well the northern route is going to be coming through here. Not around here but something more specific because based upon our. Mancino: I think I brought that up that that's something that I did. I walked. Scott: I've already been there but it was in the winter on a snowmobile you know. Mancino: ...part of it to see what it feels like. How close to the road you're going to be on the southern route. How much noise you hear. Just everything. Aanenson: I thought it'd be good just to go over the major goals that we're looking at and try to preserve as much topography and just to get the feel of it. Scott: That would take half a day probably. It took me, a friend of mine gave me a snowmobile ride up there during the winter and I could only kind of approximate but I was out there for 2 hours. Aanenson: Maybe we could start a little earlier than that. Scott: Guided tour you know. That would be really helpful because I think we could all stand there and see and look around and envision what's going on. Conrad: Tagging onto that idea, it's totally different but Brian wanted us to go out to the Arboretum and I think we really should take a look at. That issue's going to resurface and the concern about buffering the Arboretum. Ledvina: For cakes and tea. Conrad: Yeah, we could do that. But I think whether it's the same thing, maybe that's too much Kate in one day but I thought that was such a good idea of Brian's that we go out there and know as we're putting industrial or whatever it was around their perimeter, what we're doing. And I think it'd be a chance to let Peter Olin lobby us too, which in this particular case I wouldn't mind. I'd like to hear rationale for buffering a buffer, which is always. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: One of the most controversial things that we probably did was the Mill's property issue. Or recommending that that... Mancino: But that was pretty much 100%. Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, that particular issue, essentially the City has been avoiding in making a firm decision on and it's sort of converged where that decision then had to be made. Even on the Comp Plan it was a study area and even when the U was looking at, how could you put a large scale commercial there and so on. They're certainly trying to do everything to envision as to how that would work if it did and I think 2 or 3 meetings ago we had the Mill's representative here and going over and went through some story about how we were in cahoots with local business owners to keep competition out or something. I never got that impression at any of those meetings. In fact the lawyers were there...as far as I know taking notes and I don't recall one instance where we, we said don't you have anything to say? Don't you have anything to tell us about when we stood up and said, Fleet Farm is. This is what they are and basically he said, this is what they are and I conveyed that, this is what we will be. And apparently he spent a year listening to us and either he wasn't informed about that or he just knew that it just wasn't going to happen and he was just putting in his time. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: Are these going to be separate work sessions or are these going to be part of our planning. Aanenson: ...field trip idea came up. That might be a good way to kick it off and do a separate meeting. If you want to do it on a Saturday morning or something and spend some time. Or if you want to take a regular Planning Commission... Scott: We can't do it at night. Aanenson: Well, we'd have to start earlier where we had enough light. We'd have to start at 5:00 to 7:30. Scott: Sure, or earlier. Mancino: What time does it get dark now? Aanenson: Or a Saturday morning. 9:00 to noon or something. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Conrad: It's almost got to be a Saturday morning. Scott: Early. Farmakes: On the issues...development too, we should probably be kept updated. Scott: Which one? Farmakes: Well, there's a whole slew of them during the year meetings. There's been a whole slew of people who have threatened lawsuits and we should probably be aware of how we should state our opinions or we might need some advice as to how do you respond to that? Or how the city wishes to pursue that...saying things on the record. What positions we should take and shouldn't take. Mancino: Actually they calmed down as the meetings went on but the first few meetings it was like, we're going to court if you put a road through my property. Aanenson: ...make a decision based on Findings of Fact. Farmakes: For instance, as I said with Mill's situation. There was some story there that... Nothing in any of the meetings I was at that they were conveyed at... Conrad: So we have one general meeting first Kate and then go out and take a look. Aanenson: Or maybe go out and look first and then kind of do an introduction of what they...goals and then we can sit down and actually go through the document. I think... maybe that takes 2 meetings and then maybe 1 or 2 meetings on the architectural standards and what we're recommending for additions for design. Farmakes: One thing I'd recommend before we start having...on the presentation go over carefully what the intent. Aanenson: That's why I'm saying. I think we can do that on the field trip and end up at the Arboretum. I think that'd be perfect. Farmakes: Because our meetings got so long and dragged on for so long, I think some of that got a little cloudy after a while. Aanenson: ...well we wrote our own intent statement for the master plan. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: Yeah, but we even changed it though. When we started out we kind of went back to that afterwards because it is such a complicated, multi faceted thing. Mancino: I did find an error in the land use. The color rendering of the land uses. Aanenson: So I'll try to set something up for that in October. If you have a certain date that doesn't work, just let me know. Harberts: First week of October I'm out of town for the entire week. Scott: Is anybody duck hunting?... Ledvina: October 9th? I can't make it. 16th is fine. Aanenson: 16th? Mancino: 16th sounds fine. Harberts: What's our time? Aanenson: In the morning and we're going to be riding on your buses. Harberts: Is that a request or a demand? Mancino: Can't we do horses? Conrad: Do you have an all terrain vehicle? Ledvina: I just scratched the surface of this document but I'm finding it to be excellent in terms of it's format and the readability and everything. I'm really, I think this is great. Aanenson: A lot of work done by the Task Force. They will be invited to the meetings too. Ledvina: Well I think they should definitely be commended. Hard to say it in just a couple of sentences but it appears to be excellent and complete. Mancino: Both of us, both Jeff and I were on the whole task force and we were both also on the design, architectural design specifications. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1993 Farmakes: ...signage that deal with other problems that we've been dealing with for years so... Harberts: Is there a need for the, with all the development going on in the city, that the Council considered accepting this as a preliminary concept? I don't know if that will help enable to guide that type of development? Aanenson: Well, as a matter of fact, we do have one of the first projects...coming in on the corridor and I gave these documents to them and will be referencing architectural standards as we review that project so even though it hasn't been adopted, we're using that. Harberts: And we can do that? Okay. Aanenson: It's going to be a PUD. Harberts: Okay. You're lucky. • Mancino What about being more far reaching on that? I'm thinking about Highway 101 where we're looking at the Mission Hills PUD with the commercial abutting TH 101? Aanenson: Why not?... Ledvina: A question... Aanenson: That would be natural habitat in the future. Ledvina: Okay. But I was just wondering what it is. It doesn't identify. Conrad: It's 8:30. Anything else on this issue. Anything under New Business? NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: I would like the staff to look at redoing or amending the ordinance for subdivisions about setbacks between, what is in Galpin Boulevard where we have the new Rottlund subdivision. That first house is so close to the road and I've talked about this with Kate a little bit. That if we go ahead and expand Galpin Boulevard to 4 lanes, which we would probably do in 10 to 15 years at least. I've kind of been told that and I live on Galpin. That that will be so close to the house that there will be tremendous noise and all sorts of stuff going on around there. Is there a way to get more setback between the corner lot on the subdivision and our roads? 22 — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 1994 Prior to the regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Highway 5 Corridor. Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director PUBLIC HEARING: CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSE TO REZONE — APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO OL OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 107,690 SQUARE FOOT ELEMENTARY _ SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK COMPLEX, AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. Public Present: — Name Address David Leschek Hammel-Green-Abrahamson — Bob Rothman Hammel-Green-Abrahamson John Gockel Chaska School District #112 Wallace & Maxine Otto Waconia Craig Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Patrick Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. James Dornholt 8251 West Lake Court — Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Paul, can I ask you a question? Can you give me a quick synopsis? I didn't pick this up from the report. What is the positioning of this school overall in the 112 school _ system? Is this seen as a long term replacement with our elementary school over here? I know that's 30-40 years old now, isn't it? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: It's not a replacement at all. It's supplemental to it. Farmakes: I realize that but I'm talking maybe 20 years down the line. How is this positioned to serve for instance, is it an expansion situation on the landscaping, what we're looking at now, is this something that's envisioned? Does this solve current problems and does it take into consideration future growth? These are the type of things that I did not pick up in the report so. Krauss: Well, I'm working off of memory here because this goes back to this committee that we served on with the School District and they had Barbara Luckerman from...Metro — Council...This should handle the growth, as I understand it, that they expect to be experiencing in this part of the school district. Ultimately they need another middle school in this area someplace but this should handle the elementary level growth into the foreseeable — future. Now when they did their projection, we gave them what we felt to be the ultimate development of Chanhassen and there in fact parts of southern Chanhassen they may still use the Chaska Elementary School because they may be closer. Farmakes: That's the figure in about the low 30's somewhere? Krauss: Which one? Farmakes: That's the figure in the low 30's somewhere that you're talking about the ultimate — development? Krauss: Right. Right. Long term the school district may well need another school out in Victoria. Victoria would prefer that this school be built in their community anyway but as long as they can project, it's my understanding, this would satisfy their elementary needs. Harberts: What is elementary? Grades what? K thru 5? Krauss: It's up to 5. — Harberts: Middle school is 6 thru 8? Krauss: Yeah, except for kindergarten. Scott: Yeah, ECC. Yeah, 1 thru 5. With the City of Chanhassen getting involved in basically getting another school sited in our community, do you see the same process happening obviously if the middle school is needed? Have we gone through the same process _ and saying, well here's a good spot for a middle school and continue this process for that? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Well, as I said earlier, initially we thought that this was going to be the middle school because that was what they thought they needed at the time. We later found out that in the State of Minnesota, it gets pretty bizarre. If you're going to locate a middle school, you almost need 70 acres because it takes so many football fields and baseball fields to accommodate it that we just couldn't fit it in here if we wanted to. They still have a long term need for a middle school site. We've shown them, they've sat down with us a couple of times to see what exactly is available but the words available and land in Chanhassen don't go together anymore and I'm not at all convinced that they're going to find a place for it in this community. We haven't identified one. Scott: Okay. Any other questions for Paul? Harberts: I have one. I don't know if this is to you or the applicant or the architects or whoever. How do they see the public transit buses integrating into this plan given the high degree of rides that are provided each and every day to the school site currently? Krauss: Well, maybe I can let them answer that. There are separate bus pull offs for this. It's a pretty ideal type of a site. I'd leave it up to Southwest Metro to figure whether or not we need a separate bus loading area. Harberts: I don't know if we're asking about separate. I'm asking really was that a factor into the decision making process that it's an element that's there. Krauss: I don't know. To the extent that you're working with the school district now, I've got to believe it was because... Harberts: Okay. Maybe the applicant can address that. Scott: Yep. Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the applicants if we could. Just for your notes. I know Paul mentioned that you folks would be talking about more specifically about the building design. Roof unit detail and information on grading. So if you can just cover those as briefly as you can and then we'll fire some questions at you. David Leschek: Good evening. Is this working okay? My name is David Leschek and I'm an architect with Hammel-Green-Abrahamson. With me tonight is Bob Rothman, also with HGA and John Gockel who is a representative for the School District #112. Paul has covered fairly well the background information for the project as well as significant portions of the site. This plan that you have in front of you, as we refer to it in our submission to the Planning Commission, is a master plan for this site. Much as is the building at this time. We are at the design development portion in the phase of the project and we have just received 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 back our first design development level estimate. And as we receive that estimate, we then go back, what we do to go back and value engineer portions of the building or site, whether it be vegetation or some of the building materials or the amount of case work that's in the building so that that budget then is eventually in line with the original project budget. What we have done here is taken an educational concept from the District #112 as well as a recreational program from the city of Chanhassen and developed those programs to their full potential and as we get into the design development and we begin to get the estimates back, we begin to value engineer those programs if you will, keeping the spirit as well as the intent of those programs intact but maybe in a smaller. Mancino: The execution might be different? David Leschek: Not different. The concept is there. For instance an example would be the plantings that we have indicated on our drawings were of a 4 inch caliper which is in excess of what the minimum standards would be for the city of Chanhassen which would only require 2 1/2 inch. So at that point then we would go back to a 2 1/2 inch for instance rather than a 4 inch, which would still be in keeping with the requirements of the city but yet less than what we have originally shown on our documents. As Paul mentioned, we have a bus drop to the south of the site. Staff parking as well as a service entrance off of Galpin to the west of the building. We have provided for, and this may answer part of your question Diane. We have provided for a looped drive at the front of the ISD portion of the building as well as a drop off area, for whether it be cars or buses. Harberts: Oh good. David Leschek: Whether it be for the youngsters or even the physically handicapped. As Bob gets up here and goes through the portion of the building, you will note that the Early Childhood Family Education portion of the building is located in close proximity to this drop off on the west side of the building. Harberts: Can you tell what the distance that is? From the drop off for the children as well as you said from an accessible perspective. And is this covered? David Leschek: I'll get that scale and then I'll answer your question. To the south of the building we have this bus drop off which we envision is the bus drop that will receive the vast majority of the students. The individual houses which contain all of the classrooms are oriented to the south and off of that bus drop. So you will have students basically entering the building from the south. Staff from the west and you will have a community entrance back on the east side. We wanted to obtain that separation for security reasons as well as that was a requirement of the educational program established by District #112. This is about, 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 well excuse me. This is about 90 feet from this drop off point here to the front doors. Closest to the. Harberts: The main entrance? David Leschek: Yes, that's correct. And we have approximately 180 feet from the bus drop up to the student entrances at the houses. One of the reasons for that was that as a part of the educational program for this building, exterior spaces wanted to be included in the educational program for the building. So for instance in this portion, this lightly colored area here that you can see has concrete lines extending into it, this is an area of prairie grasses which would be incorporated into the site plan and used as a teaching station for instance. Where a science class could go out, you know see the prairie grasses and develop some educational curriculum that would accent this space and incorporate it into that curriculum. Again, back on the east side of the building is the major entrance for the community portion of the building and again the separation was desirable from all clients, or parties involved in the project. Again another drop off area to access not only the community entrance to the building but also just to allow _ parents and what not to drop off maybe their children who are participating in activities that are going on and allowing them to drop them off. Get them going and then going to park their vehicle. Either side of the building contains, at this point we have developed again some exterior educational type classrooms, or courtyards. And again I remind you that what we have here is our master plan for this portion of the project. A cafeteria located on the north side of the building. Again, a playground area that can both service not only the park but also services ISD #112. This is the ISD #112 athletic fields. As Paul has mentioned, their need for athletic fields is not nearly as great at an elementary school as it would be for instance at a middle school and that's how the city has become involved in developing additional soccer, softball fields. An ice rink in this area. Two ice rinks in this area and four additional tennis courts. Harberts: Could you just go through that lump again with regard to the public transit. I see where it would enter in. David Leschek: It would enter in at this point here. There's a, you can see how it was sort of recessed back at this point indicating the drop area. And then you would loop back out. Harberts: What's the radius turn on that loop? David Leschek: I can't be certain at this time Diane. You know, I'm sure that our civil engineers have sized that not for a full sized school bus for instance but maybe one that would. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Harberts: 30 feet? 30 to 40 feet? That's what we're looking at. David Leschek: I do not think that it would be 30 or 40 feet. Harberts: Then it's not a public transit access point. So someone may want to talk to us or we talk to you about that. The only other thing is, is there the opportunity of using that turn around loop? David Leschek: There is the opportunity of using it which allows you to gain access. But again this turn around loop here has the same purpose as this one, because after hours when we require the vast majority of the recreational facilities being used, this staff parking lot would then become available to the community to use the park. Or to drop off their children and allow them access into the recreational area. Harberts: Okay. I'd like just to raise that as something to look at and to have further discussion with Southwest Metro. Thank you. David Leschek: Thank you. Any additional questions? Anything that I've missed? I do believe that we have also cut two sections. This one starting here will be up on that ridge that Paul spoke of by Timberwood Estates. The grade begins to drop down and you have that large buffer of existing trees. The boulevard area that you will see in this location, the bus drop off, our area of prairie restoration, which is this area in front of the plan. Harberts: Excuse me, where's the access boulevard? David Leschek: The access boulevard, well the access boulevard is actually here. Farmakes: Is this is an east/west angle that we're looking at the building? David Leschek: This is a north/south. Farmakes: North/south? David Leschek: That's correct. Scott: No, no. It's cut north/south but we're looking west. David Leschek: Yes, you're looking west. That's correct. The prairie restoration area. The building itself, we refer to it as a diamond terrace but that is this portion just off of the cafeteria for the building and the playground which is off to the north side. And then the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 athletic fields, and then eventually Highway 5. Farmakes: Can I ask you a question about the prairie grass? My only familiarity with using this and the treatment that you're using down below has been with corporate, and to be honest, over a period, a short period of time they converted it to, they got rid of it essentially. Is there precedent for this where this has been used successfully for this type of use? Intensive children and so on. David Leschek: We have an ongoing project with IBM at Rochester. Farmakes: I'm familiar with the building. David Leschek: A corporate client and they have asked us to develop this sort of prairie restoration at their facility and we have found that it works quite well for them and see no reason why it would not work very well for the school as an educational tool. Farmakes: Is that location in front of the building? Or it would be facing Highway 53 then? That you're talking about IBM. David Leschek: I believe it faces Highway 53 as well as, you'll probably forgive me. I'm not that familiar with the project, although I do know that we are involved in it. I believe it is that portion that faces Highway 53 as well is I believe some of their courtyards are now being done. Farmakes: To the north? David Leschek: Right, exactly. Farmakes: Has it been used again in a school situation with elementary children accessing a point? David Leschek: I can't tell you that we have done that, no. Farmakes: Okay. Does this have to be burned every so many years? David Leschek: It would have to be burned every so many years. I believe it's every 3 years and we have in fact discussed that with the buildings and grounds people with the District and they see no adverse affect doing that as far as from a facilities standpoint. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes: How does that affect the other trees? Just curious, being that trees aren't normally in a prairie situation? David Leschek: Well I think what you find is that this lighted portion here is the prairie and we do have. Farmakes: I don't think we can see you over the podium there. David Leschek: I think the site section that you see here is a little misleading with the trees that I'm showing. You may be seeing, I believe you would be looking from this direction this way and you would be seeing this back drop of the trees but for the most part...sort of on the perimeter of those prairie grasses. Farmakes: Actually I was more concerned about the trees in the front. The primary one here is from the northwest and I'm just curious if you're going to torch that, how that would affect the other trees. We do have, I think a couple of cases. I think DataSery at one time when it was CPT did prairie grasses and burned it off. I'm not sure that that's still the purpose of DataSery but I think Eckankar also does a prairie grass. It's an attempt in the early stages of prairie grass restoration in front of their place. - Mancino: Well there are red oaks right in the middle of the prairie grass. There are quite a few of them according to your enlarged plan of the bus drop off sheet. That these all are red oaks in through the prairie grass so we'd have to make sure they're shielded. Farmakes: That was my concern. Because about once every 10 years we get very dry around here and just, I believe these types of maintenance issues have been problems in the past with other sites. And that's why I was asking if we have any precedence on this type of thing. John Gockel: We have not at an educational building. Farmakes: Okay. David Leschek: This concept has been developed along with the District at this point. That's as much as I can tell you. Any other questions? I want to get back to, I have one additional site section that takes us east and west through the site looking to the north. Galpin Boulevard in this area and we begin to slope down to the staff parking and drop off that we had discussed with Diane. The front entry more or less to the school. The school itself, the entrance to the community portion of the building and then the site begins to drop away to Bluff Creek. So we have tried to maintain that natural slope of the site as it goes and works 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 ifs way east towards Bluff Creek. And you can see the background, Highway 5 remains above our site and the trees that we would, that were proposed in the master plan along Highway 5 in keeping with the development plan for the Highway 5 corridor and again this area back here is where Paul had mentioned he would eventually have access underneath Highway 5 along the corridor which would run north and south along Bluff Creek. Mancino: I have a question about the landscaping and that's, it looks like on my enlarged plan, between the, let's see ifs facing the south access boulevard is mostly sugar maples, correct? David Leschek: Yes. Mancino: They are very sensitive to salty soils so what's going to happen in a few years when there's a lot of salt that's been snowplowed up into that area? This is a University piece that I have about the salt injury to landscape plants and the one that they list as very sensitive is the sugar maple and also the red maple, which you have on Galpin. David Leschek: I am not able to speak for the landscape architects that have developed our landscaping plan, other than to say that I'm sure they've taken that into consideration. I can address that to Paul along with addressing Diane's concerns. In letter form. Any additional questions? If not, I'll turn the presentation over to Bob Rothman of our office who will take you through the building as well as the elevations. Bob Rothman: Thank you. As Dave mentioned, there are three primary entrances to the building. For the school district, for the students and for the community. I'll briefly run you through the building. The school is designed for 625 students and that is 125 students per family cluster. Family cluster is first grade through fifth grade in an integrated program so they would be mixed within their cluster. So that occurs down south in proximity to the bus drop off. Because the feeling is the students spend a majority of their day down in that area of the building. In the central portion of the building, that be the INC which is the media center which, when I was growing up was the library. Across the corridor from that is the art and music. We've designed this, we felt that the art, music, is all kind of brought together in this one common area with some display cases and an open library so it's open and accessible to all students. Behind that, with close proximity to the front entry is the administration for obvious reasons. For general supervision of the school. Who's coming and going and that sort of thing. Also by the front entry we've located the ECFE, which is the Early Childhood and Family Education which is a 7 day a week, morning, night time sort of program. So again that desires to be close to the main entry. Also behind that we have some of the back of the house. The boiler room. The electrical room. Smaller seating area. And located onto the main access of the building is the cafeteria with, as Dave described, playground and fields 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 to the north of that which the students, you know gobble down their sandwiches and get out and hit the playground. To the east of that we've got the gymnasium which is a shared gymnasium. Half of it is during the day, half of it, the southern most half would be used by the school district with the northerly most half being used by the community of Chanhassen. Also in this area we've got a series of four meeting rooms which are expandable into, can be paired or used singularly or as one large meeting room. We also have a fitness room and aerobics room and corresponding locker rooms and some storage areas for both meetings areas and the gymnasium. One of the challenges of this building was, due to the educational program, we were left with what seemed to be the best opportunity to be a one story building. As I said, one of the challenges is with the large building of this 112,000 square foot facility, is trying to break it up in mass and form. To give it some interest so it doesn't feel quite frankly like a pancake. And so how we've chosen to do that, this is the south elevation. We're looking at developing each cluster as it's own mass who each has it's own identity so there's the four, or the five rather are all fine and it gives us a nice sense of rythym and shade and shadow as well as using these spaces for defining the entries to each of those houses. The primary material of the building is kind of a molded brick which is very traditional in feel. If you're familiar with Jonathan Elementary, this is the brick that's used on that. It was the District's desire, as well as our's, to try and provide a family of buildings within the District. This is also brick that we're looking at using on the new Chaska High School so that it can be identified as a community building. Primarily we've got a flat roof. I can turn the model here. Primarily we've got basically a flat roof building but a few areas where we've chosen, would it be better if I. Scott: Apparently if the stand, I don't know if our camera can get down low enough. Can you, should he put it on the easel? Bob Rothman: This is primarily a flat roof building. Where we've chosen at the family cluster centers to raise that. Mancino: Where are we supposed to be looking? Scott: It doesn't work in the monitor so I guess the folks at home are going to have to pass then. Bob Rothman: So mainly we've got each of the clusters defined by a half vaulted room form, which will help give it a little bit of mass and a little bit of rythym. Farmakes: And we're seeing it from the view now where we would be on Highway 5. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Bob Rothman: Right. You're coming off of Highway 5. And keep in mind that Highway 5 is about the same elevation. It's slightly higher at Galpin and then you'd be dropping down to actually below the floor level. Or below the floor level of the building as it's coming up. Some of the other roof forms. The gymnasium is just an extruded form with of course a higher building mass. Cafeteria again, because of the larger volume of the room, we've brought the roof up slightly. Within the INC, again we're going to use some bow...trusses in there and make it kind of a nice, interesting space as again one of the harder programs being the INC. And Paul mentioned the. Mancino: Is that a glass dome? Bob Rothman: No, it's not. It'd be a metal roof. Farmakes: You're showing lighter colors there. What would that. Bob Rothman: It would be a metal roof with some clear story lighting. Farmakes: Okay. The tan areas that you're showing next to the brick, what would that material be? Bob Rothman: Those are the circulation areas. That would be a burnish masonry material. Again, to help define the circulation. Farmakes: Like Target? That's the description of that. Krauss: The burnish block? Farmakes: Yeah. Krauss: There is some burnish block. Bob Rothman: I'm not sure what Target is. We have got some samples. Some samples here. And again, that's keeping in the concept of the site with defining these lines. We've carried that through conceptually within the building also. Paul addressed the issue of these penthouses. We're looking at trying to bring those down. Those would be developed in probably a synthetic stucco material. These two and some of these other ones and this will be brick. Mancino: What's a synthetic stucco? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Bob Rothman: It's called ethos. It's a plastic material. Mancino: You put it outside and it's impregnated with color or something? Bob Rothman: Right. So actually from where, you wouldn't see that much of it anyway but where you would, it would probably appear to be brick. Mancino: Okay. But from what I see right here, this elevation. I mean it's almost as tall, proportionally as tall as your one level. Bob Rothman: The one thing that's a little bit misleading about elevations is the fact that you're never going to see the building in that angle. Again, you're seeing everything straight on. As you approach the building from this way, you're going to be down and plus, unless — you're 16 feet tall, you don't really see those things straight on. So they'll be recessed back_in the background. And again we are looking, working with our mechanical engineers to bring that down. Are there any other questions? Farmakes: With the elevation of this building, to TH 5, you actually even with trees in there filled out, you will be able to see down into that a bit. Krauss: Highway 5 is pretty much at the building elevation. It's not too different... Bob Rothman: You can see right here. David Leschek: As the site goes to the east, it begins to drop below Highway 5. Bob Rothman: You see Highway 5 is approximately the same elevation of the. David Leschek: The building elevation itself is at 958 and I believe that Highway 5 at the west end of the site is approximately 960. So it's approximately only 2 feet higher than the main floor elevation of the building. But then as the site begins to go towards Bluff Creek, it begins to drop. It begins actually to step and we terraced the athletic fields to be in keeping with the Lake Ann complex which has been developed by the city of Chanhassen and that concept there was to try to get a little additional interest in the landform by terracing the land that the fields sit on. So we have done that same thing as something that the Parks Department wants to make as their signature, if you will, of their parks. To accomplish a terraced feel to that. Mancino: What about from Galpin? Galpin is lower? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 David Leschek: No. Galpin is actually higher. I think if you refer back to the site section here, you will see that Galpin is actually right here and it is actually higher. As the road. Bob Rothman: It starts to come down at this point. Again, as Paul mentioned, this being the high point of the site and it starts to drop down at that point. Mancino: Where that southwest wall is? Bob Rothman: Right. Correct. So when you're down here, directly south of the building, you're actually what, a good 8 feet below. David Leschek: Well you're about 6 to 8 feet below the building. Bob Rothman: First floor elevation. Mancino: So when you stand by McGlynn's Bakery, you're going to be looking down onto the top of this building? Krauss: I don't recall...McGlynn's Bakery... Mancino: I'm just trying to get perspective. David Leschek: One of the concerns that Paul listed in his staff report was the idea of the rooftop mechanical equipment and one of the reasons why we're now having to go back and adjust some of our mechanical penthouses is because we have put all of the mechanical equipment into these penthouses. So the roof is devoid of any sort of equipment that's up there. It is all self contained within the penthouses of the building. _. Mancino: Equipment in a penthouse. Scott: Peanut butter and jelly on the dining terrace. One of the things that, I know that a number of the buildings in the school district is currently studying is the concept of what's called multi-age grouping. And what I wanted to hear from you is how the potential of that concept being used at the elementary level, district wide, was utilized to design this particular building. John Gockel: What it is is that the houses consist of 5 classrooms. What we have here is. Bob Rothman: Grades 1 thru 5 are all in each of the clusters. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: So you have five groups or 1 thru 5? Bob Rothman: Exactly. So instead of one of these clusters being out here as here's one all grade 2, they're all integrated with each and the school district will then develop their programs on using that notion. David Leschek: I have to apologize for not having a larger scaled plan. However if I could lay this here, and again we'll let the folks at home use their imagination. You asked the question about the multi-age groupings that this facility could occur, or could occur in this facility. This is an enlarged plan of two of the houses within the building and the houses themselves consist of 5 classrooms with a teacher planning area and one larger classroom in this location here which is designed to be, or could function as a kindergarten classroom in the future if they were to ever have kindergarten here at this facility. This building is currently proposed to handle only 1 thru 5. Mancino: Where does kindergarten go? David Leschek: They use the Early Childhood Center in Chaska currently. Which you know they've just done an addition to which houses first graders now but may in the future — eventually contain additional kindergartners. In the center of the house then is a team center, as we refer to it, which is used by any one or all five of the classrooms. The classrooms for instance, I mean they're grouped in five because you have 1 thru 5 grades here. So when you're talking multi-age, you could have a house could consist of 1 thru 5 or it could consist of five groups of 3rd graders or they may actually mix or match 1st, 2nd grades and 3-4 someplace else. The flexibility has been designed into each house, whether it be through the number of classrooms or the types of spaces. Whether they be larger spaces, such as this, or the smaller spaces so that they can accommodate large as well as small and function for grades 1 thru 5 or all fifth grade or a multi-age grouping of 2nd and 3rd graders. Scott: Also, another modeling you're probably familiar with is the inclusion model for unique learners. Where are the, and this is great but usually there's an area, and I think most people are familiar with special education. Where is that particular area located? I think I may have missed that. David Leschek: That particular area is located throughout the facility. So when we talk about for instance teacher planning areas, this is where the teachers are for this particular house and included in that staff, if you will for this house, could very well be a special education teacher. So that what they want to develop here is this interaction between not only the teachers of that particular school but also that special ed person who may be responsible for that person so they can better coordinate that curriculum for that person. . , 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: Okay. David Leschek: Any additional questions? Scott: If there are no additional questions. Mancino: I have a couple more. Was there some stone detailing on the building? Did I read that somewhere in the staff report? Bob Rothman: Yeah. Again, going back to the, as Dave had mentioned. As we get our budgets in, one of the things we listed was stone as with a...alternating. So we're looking at these. Originally we had hoped that these would be stone and now we're looking at burnish masonry but we are looking at some stone accents. For instance window sills might be a Mankato stone or something of that nature. Mancino: Chaska stone. Bob Rothman: Or Chaska stone. Mancino: Yeah, that would be really nice to pull that in. Okay. And what's the green that I saw on the. Bob Rothman: That's a metal roof. A standing seam metal roof. Mancino: Do you happen to have a sample of the color of green? Bob Rothman: No, I'm sorry I don't have one. Mancino: Is it a dark? Light? Medium? Bob Rothman: Probably looking at a dark, kind of a forest type green. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing and members of the general public are encouraged to ask questions, express opinions. These are the applicant, the representatives of city staff, Planning Commission members. Are there any members in the audience tonight who would like to address the Planning Commission or any of these other parties? Let the -- record show that there are no members of the public who wish to speak. Can I have a motion please to close public hearing? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Faimakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I'll go back to the landscaping, to begin with. I'm concerned, as you brought up some points here on some of the trees that are adjacent to road salt areas of the, I believe it's Galpin and the entryway for the buses to the south to the structure. And I think that that should be looked at. The Arboretum here, the report that she has here and I went to the same _ conference she did. There are established trees that are tolerant to salt and I realize that you're not here to talk about that tonight or you don't have representatives of that, but we did have several landscape people there and the Arboretum of course is a well known authority with that kind of stuff. And you may want to look at the survivability of those trees. The other issue, the prairie grass area. I think that that sounds good. The teaching things also may sound good on paper. I'm wondering how translatable that is to practicality and I would advise the school to look closely at that. It is, it has been used and it is being used in some locations here in Chanhassen. They haven't been terribly successful as of yet. As I understand it, and the prairie grass area that I visited in Illinois. They have a park there that they're trying to redo prairie in Illinois where they had bison and it's a lot more rolling acres and so on. As I understood the educational part of that, for prairie grass to truly be prairie grass, there is a lot of different species and there is a total ecosystem that goes with that. Failing that, there is a lot of artificial maintenance that has to be done to maintain it and I'm wondering if the educational value of that may be better served with a wetland or a pond. Or something of that nature that's more indicative of what's here. I also understand that for true - prairie grass to thrive, it needs little human contact and as I understand it, all of the kids will be dropped off right in front of the prairie grass so there are some practical aspects to that that you may want to review. The second issue, and the city report touched on this a little bit, is how the movement of people translates to some of the park areas adjacent to the creek. Bluff Creek. And how that works up into some of the recreational facilities on the school property. And I'm not sure that I'm seeing anything there but did the Park Commission look — at this? Krauss: Oh, yes. _ Farmakes: So they looked at this closely and they're satisfied that what they see is integrated well? Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. These fields, these are K thru Little League? Is that the type of fields that they're going to be? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: The ballfields are, you're right. They're not adult size. Farmakes: They're 60 footers for baseball. The one thing that I was concerned about is the view of the facility from Highway 5. I like the view that they've done from what would be the front of the building facing south and from the east. Or excuse me, from the west. And I like what they've done with the different forms. Making up for some nice shadowing and things that you often don't see on schools. Basically they're, particularly it seems like all the ones in the suburbs here built in the 60's, are these big blocks. Mancino: And that's what you see from TH 5. Farmakes: Well, this happens to be what was being built back then. I like this much better. Maybe 50 years from now they'll be complaining about it. I am somewhat concerned looking at it from the north and from the east, as you come. When you look at it there's sort of flat expanse on the roof line and when you look at it from the north, it looks like the back of the school. And if there is something that possibly could be done behind the gym area where those windows are to take that facade and break it up a little bit. That would be on this side. Mancino: Now, isn't there a planting there though? Farmakes: Well there's several plantings inbetween it. David Leschek: And a vine of sorts too. To sort of help break up. Farmakes: A veining situation coming up the side of the school, yeah. David Leschek: Yes. And you realize too that that space being a gymnasium space requires that mass. So we tried to address that. Farmakes: Even if it was something to break up the roof line. The tangent line that runs across that large scale box. I know that from the stuff they did at the U of M works nice to that effect. The other issues I think I'll leave for some of the stuff that you talked about and I'd just be repeating it and I don't want to take it all. So I'll let you take over. Mancino: Oh thanks. I just wanted to add one more tree for you to check please on the salt sensitivity. And that would be the red oaks are very sensitive to aerial salt spray and you have the red oaks on the, let's see east side of Galpin in that northeastern area. So if you could check with your architect about that. Paul, a couple questions for you. How does this process work? I mean has the School Board of District #112 approved this site plan? I mean as it comes to City Council. City Council. Does it go to the School Board? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: It's not a sequential process. It's not very neat. John Gockel: The School Board is not, they've approved the schematic design. What you're looking at now is about 90% of design development. That will go before the School Board approximately the end of January. Mancino: And what if we have things, if the City Council has suggestions that they want changed in what they see, does the School Board recognize those changes? I mean what happens? John Gockel: The School Board recognizes that it's an ongoing process. One of the things to be aware of is that the, what you're looking at is two separate ownerships also. There's District ownership and there is the city ownership. For example, the gymnasium form that you were talking about is not the District's property. It would be the city's property so there's a blending here. In order for the school to be open in the fall of '95, it has to be under construction this spring so we're going down several parallel paths at the same time. One with the District. One with the City. One with the Planning Commission and various other bodies. Another parallel path that we're going down is the purchase of the land. That should take place by the end of January. The joint use agreement and joint powers agreement and development agreement, all these things are taking place simultaneously. Mancino: Now when the City sells the land to the School District, is it obligatory of the School District to build an elementary school there by 1995, and that's the only use it can use it for? Is the whole contract and the whole...predicated on that? And if it doesn't happen, if there's not a school being built on it, it's null and void? John Gockel: The District is purchasing the land. That's an agreement. The City and the District will have a joint developers agreement to develop the site. To put buildings out there and ballfields and roads and so forth. That's a second agreement. Not dependent upon the first. The third agreement would be the long, the agreement with a long life and that is how the two governmental entities jointly use the property. Maintain it. Mow the grass. Plow the — snow and so forth. Krauss: You're raising an interesting point. I don't know exactly how that will be...I've got enough to deal with...but you raise an interesting point. From what I understand about the process, there's relatively little chance of that happening...I mean there's a $45 million bond issue that was approved...What I'd be a little more concerned about, and I'm not even too concerned about that is, what if the School Board comes back and says gee, this is much too expensive. We've got to go cinder block. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Mancino: Yep. Krauss: At that point, I mean the School Board is a free agent, same as a developer is. I mean you can come up with conditions that you impose on a developer and they can decide to walk. If the School Board, you're approving a project here. It's like any other project you approve. If radical changes come about, for whatever reason, between now and the time it's built, then we have to make a call whether or not this is consistent with what you approved and if it's not, it's got to come back. I think that's always the bottom line and nobody's really talking radical changes. I mean it's a massive project. There's going to be a lot of fine tuning. But if something really went out of kilter, you still have the site plan approval. It still has to be consistent with that. It's being zoned office institutional so there's not a whole lot else that can go here, which is why we picked that district. Farmakes: Well if there's joint ownership, isn't also the City part of this applicant process right now? Krauss: Exactly and we will continue to own 20 acres of it. Farmakes: But also structure as well, correct? Krauss: A portion of the structure. Mancino: I can't remember, I lost it. Thanks. Oh I know what it is. If we do rezone to IO, it limits that to schools, public buildings, offices and related uses. What are the related uses? Krauss: Whatev-- we construe them to be. It's the ordinance gives me the authority to make some interpretations. Failing agreement on that, my call can be expanded by the City Council. It's never been a question. I mean it's a pretty restrictive district. Mancino: I just want to know worst case. Krauss: Well I suppose worst case would be an office building. I mean if you had an office building go on this site, you could say that a daycare center is...It wouldn't be a truck transfer terminal. Mancino: Going to wetlands. On the grading sheet here, there were some wetlands designated and I assume that those wetlands that were put on the grading sheet are those that are drained. They're not operational. But they are on here and I just wanted to make sure. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, it's kind of confusing. They really don't belong on there and that's what we've done over the last two months, three months of clarifying. It's a very confusing subject. It's, by State law you're supposed to use the 1989 Army Corps Handbook. I've been told by people...that they can go into your back yard and find there's a wetland using that Handbook. So you've got everybody and their mother out there selling services now. There's long standing firms that have been in the wetland identification business and now every surveyor, every engineer is all of a sudden a wetland expert and you're getting a lot of conflicting _ information. We went the extra mile on this and sent our experts out. We went back and consulted Frank Svoboda who helped us write our ordinance. We've bounced it off the Army Corps and obviously they're comfortable with what we're doing. _ Conrad: But these were not mapped on our official wetland map? Krauss: We had notes, survey notes of the thing. Of at least one of them on our map and we identified it as a drained wetland. And when we went back in there, the State log, the historical definition of how long had it been drained. The State law is worded so that there's a disincentive for example for authority to drain a wetland and turn around a year later and sell it as developable. But these have been drained as long as anybody can recall. We even checked the Soil Conservation Service and they said, they've been supporting farm measures on this for decades. Mancino: The south, let's see. The widening of Galpin. When I read your report it said that Galpin was going to be, there's four lanes from the south access boulevard up to Highway 5. When I read the Barton-Aschman report that we got, it's from Timberline Drive up to Galpin. Krauss: I think what's happening is the road, you don't just go to 4 lanes. You've got to taper it. And the taper does start about that point. Mancino: Okay. I didn't see anywhere in that Barton-Aschman report...I didn't see anything in the discussion for berming and landscaping. Krauss: There isn't and that was a point that was raised by...City Engineer and it's going to be taken care of. Mancino: Okay. The other, I thought I read it in the Barton-Aschman was that there was no mitigation wetlands for that south access boulevard where in your report there is a 5/10 of a mitigation that needs to happen where it crosses the creek. Krauss: Yeah...there may be some and the jury's, we don't have a final...grading plan. How much is going to be impacted. You know, as I say, we've been trying to figure out...exactly 20 -- Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 where the wetlands are. By and large the wetlands cease to exist at the property line between Timberwood and the farm fields...So the road may in fact not. What, the road does not cross any standing any wetlands but it does cross Bluff Creek and Bluff Creek at that point ceases to be a very channelized creek as far as...what is a wetland. So I think there is some and we'll clarify that. Mancino: And it will be a 2 to 1 mitigation, starting in '94? Krauss: We've got to figure out. It's supposed to be as of last Friday or whatever. Yeah, January 1. This is a project that's been in the hopper for 6 months. We've heard of a lot of communities that willy nilly kind of pre-approved all kinds of project before the deadline. We haven't done that. But in this case we're comfortable with the fact that we've worked... It was a project that was submitted to us in October. For a number of reasons we pushed it back and we'll have to see. Mancino: Well I'd like to compliment staff on two concerns that I had that you brought up and were very well written in the report about the penthouses and how big they are. I would like to see those scaled down also. And also the reclamation of the corridor creek. I think that's wonderful and I hope we do it north of Highway 5 also. That if there is going to be development, that we do have that 100 foot buffer of get it back to the original native whatever that is. So I commend you on that. My last thing has to do with bees. I don't know where the bees carie up but I don't know. That was very interesting. I looked at some of the trees and said, you know crab apples, yeah. They have flowers and they're going to have bees. Lindens. American lindens have flowers. They're flowering. Washington hawthorns are. Clover. I mean we're going to have bees around this area. I don't know. It just doesn't seem to me to be that important. So I like the crab apples and I like the lindens and I like the hawthorns. I like the use of them. I wouldn't want anybody who's allergic to get stung. There's no question about that. But I don't have a big problem with the flowering plants and the trees. And that's it. Scott: Alright. Ladd. Conrad: Not too many questions. I like what I see. The parking seems to be a long way away from ballfields and stuff like that. I assume we've checked it out for ambulance access and it's there. It can get, we just don't have a problem. Okay. Picking up on the last point in the staff report, or just the point we just covered. Restoring Bluff Creek. Paul, your staff report says, in the recommendations it says per the staff report but basically you are saying per DNR standards. Or whatever DNR says. So that's really what we're saying is talk to the DNR. Restore. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Right. If I knew the answer to that ahead of time, we would be more specific. We don't but we're working with people who I think will tell us. Conrad: Okay. I think that's a neat piece. The only other thing I've got is Bluff Creek access. I'm not a real, I really don't understand the whole corridor but I know you need access to utilize it. For real people to get there and, is this going to me? Scott: News flash. Conrad: It's a news flash. I can't talk and read at the same time. But anyway, here we have an education site that connects to Bluff Creek which is, in my mind, just a perfect place for a real access to Bluff Creek. Now maybe there are other accesses with parking lots and what have you so you can really utilize the corridor. Maybe there are. I don't know that but here we have one. It connects. It's at a school. It should really be integrated into Bluff Creek. Right here. So again, I love what I see. My only comment is, if we want to make use of, if we really believe in Bluff Creek and you want to put a lot of attention to it and restoring, let's make sure people have a way of getting there and a place to park their car. This looks like to me the place to do it. That's all I have. Scott: Good. Matt. Ledvina: Just a couple more things to add. I think, I'm very concerned with the construction of this south access boulevard as it relates to the trees along the south property boundary. Now as I read the engineering plans, there's more than a 10 foot fill in the lowest spot where that quasi wetland area is. And if the roadway is going right up within the dirt line of the trees and you've got a 10 foot fill, that's not going to work. So without damaging those trees and I don't know the extent of that tree line and what significance that would have to the folks associated with Timbercreek but I guess what I want, and I know that's not at issue here today and I know that that will all be revisited but again, I just want to raise my concern as it relates to the grade of that road and potentially the alignment. I know perhaps it could be shifted just slightly to the north to accommodate retaining walls or fill slopes or whatever is necessary there. But again. Krauss: The City Engineer and I have looked at that and we had the same question and we're pretty certain that if need be, and we need to get the details on that, that the road could be routed 15-20 feet north in most places and not really compromise anything on the school site and just going to provide that separation in the roof lines. Ledvina: There's also some grade changes that can be done to reduce that fill down. I don't know how much but you know maybe 2, 4 feet. Every little bit helps when you're in that 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 situation. Let's see. I guess the only other thing I have to add, and we've touched on this as it relates to Bluff Creek and I see the plan calls for grading within 20 feet of the center line and I wouldn't want to see the plan move forward. The grading plan in this fashion. I think that may be too close to the center line and if we are looking at essentially an all dirt drainageway here, we are trying to restore it, well then that has merit and there would be grading right, all the way into the center line if that's the case. But when I looked at this, these plans I assumed that the channel was in it's natural condition and maybe that's not-the case so, through filling, you know erosion and sedimentation of the agricultural areas here. I could see that. I would definitely support the restoration to the original conditions for the corridor. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I guess I look at it from a public safety perspective. I know schools are very in tune to the whole public safety liability. Has our Public Safety Department, committee taken a look at this? Do they need to? Krauss: I don't know if the Public Safety Committee has. We've circulated copies of the plans to the Public Safety Department. Harberts: That might be redundant because I'm certainly aware of how much it's scrutinized by school districts or schools. The only other comment I made earlier was that I'd like to see a recommendation number 8 added with regard to working with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop-off/pick-up turn around elements for public transit because it is so heavily used by the elementary kids. Scott: What's the status of the trail system? And I'm thinking from the standpoint of having kids from adjacent neighborhoods who will be walking or will any child in this, you might now know this right now but will every child who goes to that elementary be taking the bus? Krauss: I think basically, well I don't know...In terms of the trails, with the upgrading of Galpin...the County does their piece and the County by the way is using city money...Turn back of TIF dollars so we can finance the upgrade of Galpin...If that happens, we'll have a trail down Galpin. Basically from Highway 5 to Lyman Blvd. We've already had Hans Hagen build a portion of it. With the east/west collector, which is also....by the time the school opens, we could well have the trail I hope basically over to Audubon. There's a chance, or shortly thereafter when the school opens. And with what's happening on the Centex property and the Opus property, we may have it over to TH 41 on the other side. What we won't have in the near term is a way to get across Highway 5. But you will have a signalized intersection at Galpin. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Harberts: I have a question for Paul. Or maybe John. You know I've been working with some of the school districts with regard to the shortings that they have in school bus funds and when you put a location like this out in the sticks a little bit, has the school looked at the access by kids walking? By kids riding their bikes. You know have they looked at it from how practical will that be? Is there a safety issue that they have to address with that? Has that been part of the discussion in terms of the design like this? You know what's the current track? Is it to have the kids ride bikes or whatever, and if we're going to have community _ facilities like this, you know what's that element like too in terms of that kind of access because with what we're seeing for growth, with what we're seeing you know earlier tonight in terms of land use. You know some single family, multi-family even adjacent to that. What's the trail system going to be like to like I said, make that more pedestrian friendly access like that? Has that been integrated into the discussion at all? John Gockel: Yes. One of the attractive aspects of this particular site was it's proximity to anticipated trail systems. As far as, you know obviously safety is very important to the district. We, I think we almost came to blows over who was more concerned about caring for the kids and the school. Whether it was the parks commission or the principal. They both claimed to be the end all of being concerned about that. You know as far as kids riding bicycles to schools like many of us probably did. We don't live in those kinds of communities any more. We're all out in the suburbs with people spread all over the place and roads separating. So most of the kids will come by bus. Like I said, one of the attractive aspects of this site was it's proximity to the trail systems. Many sites didn't even offer that - potential. So this building, this facility is not in the sticks...as some of the sites we looked at. Harberts: Are there going to be bike racks put into this facility? John Gockel: There will be some bike racks. Harberts: But it's not the feeling that there's going to be a lot of access, at least for school class time by bike but maybe Paul by, for the community or the city rec. Krauss: Oh yeah. I think when you look, when this place opens up, by the way, we may also have the link completed if this Chan Corporate Center develops and comes in, we might have the link down to Bluff Creek railway crossing which would mean that...and all the industrial, the people working there will be able to hop on that trail and go up to the ballfields and yeah. That kind of thing will occur... Harberts: You know recalling my younger days which weren't so long ago, right? You know with that pedestrian bridge that's going over on Highway 5, I can see people from the north side of town, central city here, crossing over and riding, walking, Rollerblading, or whatever 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 even down to that location. It's not really that far if you're out on a Sunday afternoon or whatever. And if there's activities like that in the summer, that's the kind of thing and that's _ why I see that pedestrian bridge being real key too in terms of that kind of trail system. I mean that's not that much of a hike. It's probably going to be a nice walk or however they want to use it. So I guess that's, and I guess part of that public safety, you know like I said, I'm very well aware of it and how well school district's scrutinize that but it's just a question. That's it. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion? Harberts: I'll make a motion. Scott: Okay. Harberts: Let me look at my page 13. I'll recommend that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93-6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District #112/City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions. Number 2 we would add letter (e). To revise the landscaping plan as follows. To address the salt • spray with some of the landscaping elements suggested in earlier comments. Number 8. That the applicant work with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop off, pick-up, turn around element that will accommodate public transit. I just have one question for Matt before I close. Did you want to have anything with regard to supporting that it's restored to the original conditions of the corridor that you talked about? Ledvina: Sure. Mancino: Isn't that in here? Harberts: I'm not sure if that's fully covered. Scott: Well number 4 doesn't quite address, because it just says stay out of the flood plain but that has nothing to do with the restoration. Ledvina: No, that'd be appropriate. Harberts: Yep, and how would you like to see that worded? Ledvina: I would think that. Harberts: This would be added to number 4. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: I would think that we could state that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility of restoring the Bluff Creek corridor to it's original alignment and. — Krauss: I'm sorry but does 2(b) get to that? Harberts: It's hard to say. Ledvina: Provide plans that respond to the goal, I would think so. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Harberts: Okay, so you're comfortable. Mancino: You could put it on page 7. Harberts: Okay, as described in the staff report on page 7? Ledvina: Sure. Scott: Is that strong enough? Okay. Harberts: Okay. So basically we want to amend 2(b) to add that in the staff report as outlined in page 7. And I'll move that recommendation. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? — Farmakes: What about the roof line on that gym? Harberts: On the west side? No, it wasn't on the west side. Farmakes: It'd be on the northeast corner. The gym and the city portion of the building. Harberts: Yeah, is that covered in number 1 or not? I wasn't sure. Farmakes: I'm not sure it does. Mancino: ... a little bit better specifically? Ln 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes: We could maybe word it, the city should look at alternatives to dealing with the tangent massing roof line created by the gym and the support areas. Harberts: Considered as number 9. Farmakes: We could add it as a separate motion. Scott: We'll skip the friendly amendment stuff. I think you're. Harberts: That would be added number 9. What Jeff had just stated. Scott: Are we all comfortable voting on that motion? Do we all understand what the intent is and so forth? Farmakes: The reason I bring it up as an intent is I'm wondering from that particular corner of the building, based on what we've been reviewing with other applicants, whether or not we would approve that. I look at it as say Target. I don't think we would approve that and why is the city any different? Harberts: Are you clarifying the intent of number 1 then? Or are we. Farmakes: Well I didn't see that as, I saw that as more towards the issue of penthouse but if you want to interrupt massiveness. Krauss: You're spanning the scope of 1. I think the...came up with and just tack it on to. Farmakes: Tack it on? Harberts: Okay, as number 9? Krauss: Or rather as expand 1... Harberts: Oh, just expand 1, okay. I understand that intent. Scott: Okay, so basically expand item number 1 to include reviewing the external treatment of the gymnasium section so that it appears. Farmakes: Break up the roof line. Scott: Break up the roof line. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes: Alternatives for breaking up the roof line. - Scott: Okay. We've moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think we just had discussion. Halberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #93-6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District #112/City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following — conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staffs proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash _ enclosure as outlined in the staff report. Also, that the applicant look at alternatives to the external treatment of the gymnasium section to minimize it's massiveness. 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site. _ b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff report on page 7. c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields. _ d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for tree species and green space. e. To address some of the landscaping concerns as related to tolerance to salt spray. -- 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary — dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or — grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the flood plain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Revise the plat to describe the right-of-way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right-of-way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Highway 5 right-of-way and Galpin Boulevard right-of-way and maintain a minimum 35 foot setback from Galpin Boulevard. 28 — Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50 foot setback. 8. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop-off, pick-up and turn around elements to accommodate public transit. All voted in favor and the motion car•ried unanimously. Scott: And this will be going to the City Council? Krauss: On January 24th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: • Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated December 1, 1993 and December 4, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. Mancino: You know this packet, the two letters you wrote to Brad and to Mr. Hiscox. . You're talking about our schedule for the next two months or, my life is planned now. On February 2nd my question is Paul, we're going to look at a Chanhassen.Corporate Center concept PUD. Will that have some conflict of again Highway 5? And having the Highway 5 draft approved and everything? Krauss: Well it puts you in the same ballpark that you were in when you reviewed Opus and you reviewed Centex. That you're being asked to do something and...a concept and anything you do would be contingent upon adoption... Mancino: Okay. Just so close to Highway 5, I was wondering if we'd want to wait and do anything on Highway 5 until after City Council is done. Okay. Scott: Okay. Any other administrative approvals or open discussion? Ledvina: I had a question on the Industrial Performance Standards. Why was this review initiated? Krauss: ...regarding documents that need...We read a book...so I asked Bob to check it against our standards to see if we were still current. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: Okay, so this was regulating city planning type stuff? Krauss: Yeah... Farmakes: Are we still in open discussion? — Scott: Yes. Open discussion. Farmakes: I have a question of Paul. At the end of our meeting here, or work session, we saw a couple of developments. I'm surprised we haven't seen something from the Mill's proper Has there been any further bringing forward of what their development would be or — a: : •- cf:ng to see several possible developments from the future either taking into regi: work that was done on TH 5 or totally disregarding it? Is that the, is there anything else out there in the closet? Krauss: Nothing that I've been made aware of. You know I think I reported to you that... where they thought the road should be with MnDot and...talk to us. Farmakes: Interesting. Well we'll get a very disjointed road I think by the time we're done. It will k- :cite a patchwork. I was I guess surprised by the developments that were brought forvw: nit know if anyone else was expecting to see a golf course. I had heard rumors aboul m just wondering if we're looking, it hasn't been altered as I understand for the last couple of years. Mancino: It was never brought in front of the Highway 5 Task Force. — Farmakes: Well he said it was a possibility I believe. He did get up and mention it...or at least as we know it. — Scott: Well, and like I kind of shared with some of the other people. I'm the first one to say that I'm not a golf course designer but I do play a fair amount of golf and I'm very familiar with what the USGA specifies as far as tee to green minimums and maximums for different par lengths and just from what I know as a golfer, that golf course layout would not, he would not be able to get that approved by the USGA. And it looked like it was pretty maxed — out as far as tee to greens but. Krauss: Well also when you look at that, I mean Mike needed, he has 11 homes on a private — driveway. I mean he's got an existing driveway curb cut now for his home and he's entitled to have one access to the highway but nobody's going to be very desirous of having him expand that so that you serve a golf course, club house and family homes. Then he had a — 30 — Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 multi family senior building with another driveway. The fact is, you need a road to serve that someplace. Farmakes: The park commission, once I saw that drawing, is the park commission, a little bell went off in my head. Have they looked into the long term connectiveness of that leg to Lake Ann, going around to the trail system that the city already has? Krauss: I know that they have. I know they've talked about it...and I believe it's in their current comprehensive plan update. But in the past, you know there were some links in there, it's been showed...links that got knocked out around the north side of Prince where there's kind of the isthmus between the two lakes. Farmakes: I'm very familiar with that property. Krauss: ...and I think that was knocked out 5-6 years ago. Farmakes: Well, there's no reason to knock it out. There are current trails there following, even before Prince was there. There is a natural trail already that follows the lake and goes • out to right in front of his, in fact it connects with the existing park and beach. And none of that area is developed and it goes all the way around to the creek on the north side that divides Prince's property from the park that the city owns. And there is a natural trail there. In fact there is a natural 'rail that goes around Lake Lucy also and connects on the other side. I assume that these were deer trails at one time and they're probably expanded by the previous owners and I know. Mancino: Horses. Farmakes: Well Larson owned the property before Prince. I believe he hired a caretaker couple and their job in the winter time was to cut out the dead fall and keep those trails open. And it is, it's an enormous asset and I know that a future asset but I know that by the topography of the land, and the setbacks that the State currently requires, much of that land would be difficult to develop. And if we do have some leeway with trails, I know that there's some difficulty putting trails in the back of people's homes. But based on what we've already invested in Lake Ann, it would seem to me that at least in the long term scope, that maybe they should start thinking about that a little more seriously. Krauss: I'll raise it again to Todd. I know it's something he's discussing... Farmakes: Because Prince owns the majority of, owns all of that property around the lake and I don't know what any pieces missing would be. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah interestingly we've, I think I mentioned this, we've had some fairly serious sounding interest in developing Prince's property. I mean beyond somebody just making a — wild call and saying, what would you let me do on this property. It sounded like some people... Farmakes: But the division between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, the strip that goes up there and then as it gets to the west there's sort of a rise of the land and down on each side there's quite a slope that comes out. If you take the setbacks required and any roads that would have — to access that property, it's undevelopable. You cannot develop it. And if you put a road plus the setbacks, that's all you're going to get because there isn't going to be any room for a house. And at least that's really, if you take that into consideration, you've got 3/4 of the lake — tl� And except for that west side that connects and that little bit of the south w• :''t believe he's developed a beach area there. It's essentially wild. Krauss: If you go on our beach and walk to the end of our... Farmakes: Right. And there is a little trail there because I've walked it many times over the years and it goes back through there. Connects back to Prince's property and then you go up a hill and then you go down and basically there's an existing trail that people have driven cars on. That goes around the lake. So it is a, it'd be a real future resource I think when something like Lake Harriet comes to mind. Scott: Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I concur with that 100%. Ledvina: I have a question regarding Highway 5. Now to kind of change the subject but we _ talked about an ordinance that is going to be ready for us to review. What's the schedule on that? Krauss: Well basically the standards are in the back of the plan. Ledvina: They're in Chapter 7, is that correct? — Krauss: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. So that's going to provide the framework for the ordinance? Krauss: Right. We're having the attorney just take that and put it into ordinance form so that he can review that... Ledvina: So that's two meetings... — 32 — Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Harberts: Do you think the public hearing will go two meetings? Krauss: I hope not. Harberts: That's full meetings. Or one full meeting. Ledvina: The reason that I ask is we didn't even scratch that in terms of. Krauss: Oh well the next work session next Wednesday, is devoted to that. Mancino: And nothing else? Krauss: Well, we've got to finish up a couple of these land use things. Scott: I've got a quick question too on a work session. My personal opinion is that a work session is for the Planning Commission and staff to work things out and it's nice to have people talk but personally I don't think there's any place to have outside input, unless it's something that we ask somebody to do ahead of time. But I'm not familiar with what we can and can't do at a work session. But my guess is. Conrad: We have control. Scott: Yeah. Then I would rather not see any of that kind of stuff unless it's been requested by city staff. Krauss: ...when Mike Gorra says he's been talking about this for 2 years. I don't want to argue with him but two years ago the city was talking about a golf course and I believe he met with Don and said well, I might like to do that someday. Scott: Weren't they talking about potentially buying Bluff Creek Golf Course? Krauss: Yeah. Right, and Mike...said you can't do that because I'm going to plan a...golf course and every time we said, well you know if you're really serious, show us...I didn't think you could squeeze one in on 140 acres. I talked to Fred Hoisington and he said you could but you've got to use up all the land. Well, he's taking 10 acres of it for those houses and then he's got that senior so I don't know. Scott: I have a feeling we're going to see a big residential development on that property and not a golf course. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, well it's... Harberts: Do we have a time on that meeting next Wednesday? Is that at 6:00? Krauss: Was it on the schedule for 6:00? — Harberts: Yeah. Would you like send out a reminder or something or have someone call us. Conrad: When do we elect a new Chairman? Scott: When do we adjourn? — Krauss: You can do that right now actually if you feel like it, before you adjourn. Conrad: Brian's gone? Brian's gone. Krauss: We did not send Brian a packet, I'm assuming that he's formally off and Brian wasn't planning on coming I gather. Conrad: Oh I thought he was. Mancino: I thought we were going to wait until we got the new person to elect... — Farmakes: Well the seat's been taken so I don't think that Brian's going to show up anyway. Scor : think we should wait to do anything formal until we have our new person on board. Or do you care? Conrad: No. That doesn't mean anything. Scott: Okay. I just figured out courtesy. Conrad: No. We don't care. They don't know how to vote. They'll be invalid to vote. Scott: That's kind of like when the 3 of us were voting. Krauss: Whatever you want to do... — Harberts: Let's just do it. I nominate Joe for Chair. 34 — -- Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Ledvina: I second that nomination. Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to appoint Joe Scott as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried Conrad: For Vice Chairman, Chairperson, I nominate Nancy. Scott: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino moved, Fannakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 35 CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: January 13, 1994 SUBJ: Report From the Director At the January 10, 1994, City Council meeting the following actions were taken: 1. The Council authorized proceeding with a request to use RALF funds to begin acquiring land for the future ROW of Hwy. 212. The funds are provided by the legislature and administered through the Metro Council to allow for the early acquisition of ROW and _ diminish the impact of highway planning on property owners. The site in question is located at the south side of Rice Marsh lake. The lake shore itself will be severed from the balance of the site by the highway and is designated as a future city park site on the Comprehensive Plan. We are hoping to use the funds to protect the ROW and heavily wooded park site. 2. The Council approved a significant increase in park and trail fees assessed to development to increase funding for acquisition and development. 3. The Council upheld the denial of a variance request to install an on-site septic system on a lot located at the south end of Lake Minnewashta. It is not feasible to bring in sanitary sewer. Concerns focused on a belief that it would not be possible to insure that pollution problems would result. Staff had recommended approval since any on-site system must meet state standards for design. While we would have preferred public ownership of the land for environmental and aesthetic reasons, we believed the City had an obligation to make a lot of record buildable. The City Attorney is drafting Findings of Fact to support the denial. 4. Comprehensive Plan amendment and Concept PUD for Spinnaker Wharf located at the north end of Lake Minnewashta was reviewed by the Council. Their concerns echoed those of the Planning Commission who recommended denial. The Council seemed ready to do the same but ultimately continued the item to sometime in the future. Several members indicated that they may be able to support it if access, dockage and other issues Planning Commission January 13, 1994 Page 2 were resolved. They also asked the developer to show them a single family subdivision _ with 15,000 square foot lots so that they could compare the two alternatives. 5. The on-going saga of Moon Valley continued. As requested by the judge on the case, the Council established a site restoration fee of 20 cents per cubic yard. The operator objected and as usual the matter will be resolved in court. ONGOING ISSUES REVISED JANUARY 13, 1994 ISSUES STATUS 1. 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. Materials presented to PC. Public hearings 5 Corridor Study scheduled for January 1994. 2.* 1995 Study Area (South)/Bluff Staff is working with MnDNR on the Creek Corridor Greenway/Existing potential of establishing a comprehensive use zoning - BF District multi-agency program to protect Bluff Creek. The initial meeting was held on November 16. There was wide spread support and an LCMR grant application is being prepared for a February submitted. The LCMR program uses lottery proceeds for environmental projects. We are also looking into the purchase of 5 acres of land at the south end of Bluff Creek near the railroad tracks and Hwy. 101. There is a potential for its acquisition using a combination of SWMP, Park and Recreational and Watershed funds. Staff intends to start work on south study from land use issues after adoption of the Hwy. 5 plan. 3. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. To be completed early 1994. 4. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Work completed on upgrade parking lot of significant vegetative areas landscaping. Work on going on boulevard plantings and tree preservation standards. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 1 6.* PC input in Downtown Planning The city is continuing work on the 2002 and Traffic Study Vision Plan for the CBD. 7.* Review of Architectural Standards Hwy. 5 Plan incorporates some language to Promote High Quality Design addressing this issue. If additional emphasis is desired by the Planning Commission, staff should be notified. 8. Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to. ordinance make changes and bring back in 1994. 9. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 10. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. Recreation Commission on natural area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. 12. Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion of available sites and how best to control/ influence auto related uses. 13. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential developing a map and plan. 14.* Hwy. 101 Alignment Selection Analysis completed. Will be presented to PC shortly. We have found that it raises land use issues around the future 101/212 interchange that warrant examination. 15.* Legion Site Transit Hub Plans in development for presentation to HRA and PC. * Change in status since last report. 2