The URL can be used to link to this page

01-5-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1994, 6:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 6:30 P.M. - Highway 5 Corridor Draft - work session/discussion a. Review of land uses north of Hwy. 5 b. Chapter 7, Development and Design Standanis CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30 P.M. 1. Chaska School District and City of Chanhassen propose to rezone approximately 42 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to OI, Office and Institutional 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 Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. 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. C I TY O F PC DATE: 1/5/94 • , CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 1/24/94 CASE #: 93-24 SUB, 93-6 SPR 93-6 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: The Chaska School District and City of Chanhassen propose to rezone approximately 42 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to OI, Office and Institutional District and preliminary plat and site plan review for a 107,690 square foot elementary school and recreation/park complex, and wetland alteration z permit. V LOCATION: The property is located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. O. APPLICANT: Mr. David Clough City of Chanhassen Q... Chaska School District #112 110600 Village Road Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 42 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 Q S - Timberwood Estates E - Vacant W - Galpin Boulevard w WATER AND SEWER: F- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has been in an agricultural use and contains several (/) drained wetlands. Bordered on the east by Bluff Creek. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family or School Site School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY This is a joint request by Chaska School District #112 and the City of Chanhassen for approvals leading to the construction of a new elementary school and recreational complex at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The requested actions include rezoning the site from A2, Agricultural Estate to OI, Office Institutional District, site plan approval for the school and recreational complex and a wetland alteration permit. The concept for this school was developed almost five years ago during the drafting of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan and is specifically mentioned in that document. The City worked with the District on developing their growth plans. During that time the City came up with the concept of designing the facility to support joint use. Therefore the building was expanded to include a full gym with growth potential incorporating a design to allow use by the school during regular hours and by City recreational programs at other times. Similarly, the number and the scale of outdoor facilities was expanded to meet City needs. The proposal will create 5 baseball/4 soccer fields, 4 tennis courts and 2 ice rinks. The site which is currently _ being farmed, has been purchased by the City. Approximately one-half will be resold to the District as described by the requested subdivision. Site development is focused around what has become known as the "South Access Boulevard" in the Highway 5 Plan. This east/west collector street is designed to handle fairly large traffic volumes and provide an alternative routing to Hwy. 5. It will ultimately extend from Audubon Road to Hwy. 41. A portion of this street will be constructed concurrently with the school which is set to open by the fall of 1995. Preliminary plans have been developed for approval. What is known as the south access boulevard today actually was first contemplated in the 1991 — Comprehensive Plan. However, the alignment of the road has changed. During development of the Highway 5 and school plans it became clear that a more southerly alignment was required to allow for development of the school and facilities and to maintain a safe intersection at Galpin Boulevard. In a related project, Galpin Boulevard itself will be upgraded and a traffic signal at the Hwy. 5 intersection will be installed. The proposed building is a brick, single story structure that is located towards the south part of the site. It incorporates a high degree of detailing. While much of the roof system is flat, there are several pitched sections and vaulted areas covered with standing seam metal roofing. Building elevations are also highly detailed incorporating semi-exposed internal courtyards and projecting sections. Classrooms are clustered into areas that have exterior landscaped areas that can be utilized as part of the educational program. The site itself is relatively devoid of natural amenities due to the decades of heavy agricultural use. It contains several drained wetlands. Since these were drained many years ago they are not protected under current City and State programs and mitigation is not required. Bluff Creek is the primary environmental issue. City plans call for the creation of a recreational and School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 3 environmental corridor along the creek. The site plan needs to be refined in this area to demonstrate that grading remains out of the floodplain and immediate corridor. Landscaping plans in this area also need to be refined to begin establishing the Corridor restoration program that is being anticipated rather than the manipulated landscape that is appropriate elsewhere. The only major stands of trees are located almost entirely off-site towards the northern edge of residential lots in Timberwood Estates. Plans for the road need to be refined to demonstrate that these trees will be preserved and that new landscaping as appropriate to enhance screening, can be installed. The road project itself is not a part of this proposal. However, we believe that substantial screening will be provided by the fact that much of the road is located behind a hill or dropped below grade by a retaining wall. The school itself is located over 320 feet north of the south property line behind an extensive landscape treatment. The Timberwood homes are located several hundred feet south of the property line behind a major stand of mature trees. The site's rolling topography will be mass-graded; however, an attempt is being made to preserve some of the larger changes in elevation. For example, along Hwy. 5, the site drops from 966' at Galpin down to 948' near Bluff Creek before dropping rapidly to the 928' creek elevation. The school sits at 958' which is just a few feet lower than the finished grade of the expanded Hwy. 5. While the site must be mass graded to accommodate ballfields and the large footprint building, we believe it is being done in a sensitive manner. In most areas the actual amount of cut and fill is fairly minimal. Drainage and water quality protection are major concerns that are in the process of being resolved at the time of writing. Plans call for obtaining and constructing NURP basins to the southeast, largely on the adjacent property. The School District and City will be liable for a portion of the costs of these improvements. Similarly, while most of the potential wetlands on the site have been determined not to be functioning wetlands due to agricultural conversion, there will be a minor amount of wetland filling occurring to construct the new road. The required mitigation will also be accommodated off-site in the immediate vicinity. Site landscaping is particularly well executed. The HGA Landscape Architect has also been retained to develop landscape themes throughout the Hwy. 5 corridor as envisioned under the Plan. Consequently, they envision heavy grove-like stands of trees that will separate and define activity areas and grade changes. The groves are similar to some of the plantings around the Arboretum. When the area is viewed from Hwy. 5, there will be a grove of Crabapple, followed by a grove of Red Oak, then one of Linden, culminating in major stands of Maple. In the distance you will see the Oaks that frame in the Timberwood area. The plans are consistent with the OI District standards as well as the pending Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan requirements. Staff is recommending approval with appropriate conditions. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 4 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site has been intensively farmed for decades. It was cleared of any significant vegetation and wetlands were drained and planted. As a result, several areas that exhibit some wetland characteristics are no longer wetlands protected under City and State law. The only identified wetland is the creek itself. The site contains rolling topography but little in the way of severe slopes. If these existed in the past, they were flattened by agricultural practices. The site does have a large change in elevation across it, generally falling from west to east and north to south in the vicinity of the creek. The _ high point of 985' is found on a small knoll located in the southwest corner of the site but much of the parcel is in the 940' to 960' range. Surrounding land uses include the following: NORTH- Hwy 5. Land located north of Highway 5 is currently vacant but is guided for a mix of medium density residential uses SOUTH- Low density residential lots in the Timberwood subdivision EAST- Bluff Creek and currently vacant land guided for a mix of office/industrial and residential uses. A proposal for the area is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission shortly. WEST- Galpin Boulevard and a few scattered single family homes. The majority of the land is vacant and currently being proposed for the Centex townhome development. REZONING A2 TO OI, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HIGHWAY 5 PLAN One of the requests is to rezone the site from A2 to OI, Office-Institutional. The City has traditionally used the A2 district to hold property until development is proposed. The idea of a school being developed at this site first arose when the 1991 Comprehensive Plan was drafted. While the underlying land was designated for residential uses, the site was identified as a school search area on the plan map and there was detailed text concerning this and potential uses of the adjoining site to the east. The Plan also contained recommendations on the Bluff Creek Corridor. It was designated as a recreational and environmental corridor. The current proposal is fully consistent with the Plan. The school use was provided for and the Creek Corridor will be preserved under City ownership. The only deviation from the Plan concerns the alignment of the east/west access boulevard. The Plan shows a northerly alignment, although the current southern route was discussed. Several Timberwood residents pushed for this location to further protect them from development impacts. Ultimately, as the Highway 5 and school plans were developed, School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 5 it was concluded that the northern alignment created traffic problems at Galpin and divided the school site to the extent where it was unlikely that a school could be developed. Additionally, it was concluded that the road alignment had greater flexibility since the site would be occupied by a school rather than approximately 80-100 homes, thus development impact ceased to be a major issue. The Highway 5 Plan has been developed over the past two years and is nearing approval through the Planning Commission and City Council. Elements of the Plan considered the area in question specifically, and the draft ordinance provided additional guidance. The draft Plan illustrates the site as Institutional in recognition of the school proposal. A conceptual site plan was developed to serve as a guide in plan preparation. The plan illustrated a different location for the school building but is otherwise consistent with the proposal. It illustrated extensive landscaping along the Hwy. 5 and Galpin exposures which is being provided. It emphasized the protection of the Bluff Creek Corridor and trail (ultimately built under Hwy. 5) and an east/west trail along the access boulevard, both of which are being provided. A portion of the trail is being constructed with the underpass to be built by MnDOT in the future. The proposed access boulevard alignment and design standards are also being adhered to. Other aspects of Hwy. 5 Corridor regulations are addressed later. Staff has proposed rezoning the site to OI which limits use to schools, public buildings, offices and related uses. Since the City presently owns the entire site and will permanently retain ownership of half the site, we exercise a high degree of control over future uses should the school not be built for some reason. We believe this is the appropriate district for the proposed use. Since the requested rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and draft Highway 5 Plan, we are recommending that the rezoning to 01 be approved. GENERAL SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE The layout of the site was dictated by a number of factors including: alignment of the east/west access boulevard need to locate a sufficiently sized building footprint for the school and cooperatively developed City recreational facilities. The City portion of the building is designed to accommodate a separate entrance, parking and room for expansion. need to maximize the number and variety of outdoor recreational facilities that will be provided to support City recreational programs comply with the design directives of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 6 - requirement that the Bluff Creek Corridor be protected, and - desire to minimize grading,provided landscape buffering for the school, Timberwood and Highway 5 Corridor In general, we believe that the designers did a good job of balancing what were sometimes conflicting goals. The building is oriented south towards the access boulevard. The building placement exceeds the 150' maximum setback from the highway by providing a 380' setback. However, the entire space in between will be occupied by green space in the form of athletic fields and planted groves of trees. The major reason why the Plan had a maximum setback from Hwy. 5 was to limit the potential for parking lots in the front yard. That is clearly not an issue here where the parking lots are in a remote location. The school is essentially located inside a series of tree groves that will be planted where corn and beans once stood. This has the effect of isolating the school from the surrounding neighborhood, highway and athletic fields and creating an interesting environment for learning. The natural world is further brought into the building by having rooms open onto planted courtyards and outdoor class spaces. The proximity of the creek and provision of trails will allow it to also become part of the school experience and hopefully curriculum. There are three separate parking areas. The western one with a capacity of 115 cars will primarily be used to support school operations. The lot east of the building with 157 stalls will primarily be devoted to City recreational facilities. The smallest lot with 26 stalls is located near the tennis courts and other facilities. There is also a bus turn-around and drop-off area located south of the school. All curb cuts access directly onto the access boulevard. The school building itself is an attractive and somewhat innovative design. In addition to its relationship to the outdoors, it incorporates a varied facade containing numerous breaks and jags in the outside walls. Brick will be used throughout as the exterior material with cut stone used for detailing. The roof line is flat for the most part but incorporates a series of barrel vaults that will be skinned in standing seam metal. Enclosed penthouses for HVAC equipment will also be skinned with metal. We are generally satisfied with the building but the lack of details has us raising some questions. 1. We want to verify that all HVAC equipment is located within acceptable enclosures such that it will not be visible from off-site vantage points including Hwy. 5. 2. As we understand the plans, there are equipment penthouses. They are at least 12' high and 44' long and skinned with standing seam metal. These appear excessively massive and bulky. While we understand the need for them, there must be a better way to incorporate them into the building design. We would suggest raising the brick wall to School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 7 reduce the perceived height and mass or pitching the metal seam roofing so that it gives the image of a roof section rather than stand alone penthouse. 3. There are no apparent provisions for a trash enclosure, although there is a screen wall provided for a loading dock. The screen wall should match the building exterior and provide for concealed storage of dumpsters. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is unusually well developed and has a projected budget exceeding $200,000. It was developed by the Landscape Architecture Department of HGA Architects who have since been retained by the Chanhassen HRA to develop the public spaces landscape concepts for the entire Hwy. 5 Corridor. The plan had to start with a site that was totally devoid of trees and one that needs to be heavily graded to allow for the construction of playfields and a large footprint building. The concept they developed is to establish groves of differing tree species that tend to increase in height and massing as you move to the south. The groves are used to delineate and separate the ballfields and create an independent environment for the school. As noted earlier in this report, there is also extensive landscaping around the school • designed to improve the internal environment as viewed through windows and to offer outdoor learning areas. Staff's goal of providing buffering from the highway for the school and homes to the south is achieved. The size of installed materials meets or exceeds all City requirements. While we are generally satisfied with the plan, there are several issues which need to be responded to as follows: 1. The outlot area in the southwest corner of the site is a high knoll that serves no active function relative to the operation of the school or recreational complex. Its grade and physical separation limit potential uses. We believe this area should be reforested to enlarge the Timberwood tree-line. Given the size of the area and nature of the request, we believe that it would be appropriate to use smaller sized material at the time of installation, however, the selected species should compliment what is already found in the area. 2. The plan gave no attention to enhancing or restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor. While the City's plans for this area remain to be developed, we do not wish to lose the opportunity for positive change that is at hand simply because of bad timing. We are proposing that the applicant meet with MnDNR staff to determine what the original landscape along the Corridor was and develop a landscaping plan to restore this. An area 60' to 100' wide west to the creek should be set aside for the purpose. The area east of the creek will be handled when that is developed. Grading in the area may need to be modified. We are recommending that soccer field #3 be realigned north/south to minimize encroachment into the area. The public trail will meander through it. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 8 3. A 6' high chain-link fence should be provided adjacent to the ball fields along Galpin and Hwy. 5. The fence should be located inside of the tree groves and used to keep people away from the roadways. 4. Data should be provided to indicate whether or not the parking lots comply with the green space and landscape standards. It does not appear that they do. City ordinance also requires the use of overstory trees in these areas rather than the Hawthorne and Pine that are being proposed. 5. Preliminary comments received on the plan indicate some concern over the use of ornamental trees on the perimeter of the site including Washington Hawthorne along Galpin where it serves to buffer a parking lot and Snowdrift Crabapple along Hwy. 5 where it is the first tier of the grove effect that staff supports as a valid concept. Comments have been raised relative to the potential of kids throwing the fruit and of bees attracted to it and the flowers. Others may have concerns regarding the use of an ornamental rather then overstory tree. Staff supports this, believing that it was never intended that every tree in the City be a maple or oak. We feel that this landscaping plan needs to be viewed in a comprehensive way and, when we do so, we find it is one of the most sophisticated and well developed plans we have ever seen. We are providing conditions relative to items 1-4 but have made none on this issue, preferring to wait to hear public and commission comments. PARK AND RECREATION This plan has been developed in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Department and is designed to meet their long term needs. Thus, the review that was undertaken by that department does not fit the normal pattern. They are essentially one of the primary applicants. The only issue we have here concerns the trail construction. The leg of the trail that connects from soccer field #2 to the access boulevard, is missing. It should be constructed immediately. Secondly, the trail link north of field #2 is the ultimate connection under Hwy. 5. The connection will not be made until the highway is upgraded. We are therefore recommending that while it should be built, it should be provided with a temporary barricade indicating that it is a dead end. ACCESS\PARKING The sole access to the site will be the new access boulevard that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Audubon Road. A portion of it will be constructed under City contract and will be in place prior to the opening date for the school. Similarly, Galpin will be upgraded to four lanes between the access boulevard and Hwy. 5, and the County may even extend some improvements south to Lyman Boulevard. These will also be in place by the opening date along School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 9 with a traffic signal at the Hwy. 5 intersection. Plans for these improvements are being developed and will be reviewed by the City Council. There are few good guidelines for projecting the parking required for this type of use. During development of the plan, it has been a goal to minimize parking availability with the assumption that there will be some cross utilization of stalls, particularly for evening recreational activities. We believe that parking provisions should be adequate. Internal circulation is acceptable. School buses are provided with a turn-around and parking area outside of the normal traffic flow. WETLAND IMPACTS Proposed Alterations The City is in the process of designing and constructing an elementary school located in the NW1/a of Section 15, T115N, R23W. Although there are a couple of areas on-site that meet the defining characteristics of type 1/2 wetlands, these areas have been determined to be exempt from wetland permitting under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) interim guidelines and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Clean Water Act Section 404 guidelines associated with the filling of wetlands. It has been determined that these wetlands are exempt since they have been prior converted to cropland. Wetland Descriptions The wetland on-site that is not exempt from the WCA or the Corps process is the creek that runs north to south along the eastern border of the site. The creek is characterized as a saturated palustrine broad-leaved deciduous forested/emergent wetland(Cowardin PFO1/EMC; Circular 39, Type 7/2) moving from north to south along the eastern boundary of the site. The creek essentially disappears into a prior converted wetland located in the southeast corner of the property. The creek later emerges off-site at the outlet of a wetland that is not considered prior converted. This wetland, although off-site, is characterized as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland that has been partially drained or ditched from past agricultural practices (Cowardin PEMCd; Circular 39, Type 2). The proposed construction plans for the school site will impact an area of wetland less than 0.5 acre at the point where the road crosses the creek. All other fill is considered exempt under the WCA as well as the Corp's Section 404 permit rules since these wetlands are prior converted as discussed below. Since this impact pertains to the road and not the school or recreational complex, it will be dealt with when that project is reviewed. Wetland Conservation Act - Minnesota Regulations Under the interim guideline, the WCA's first exemption to the rule states the following: School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 10 A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grasses or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other payments under United States Code, Title 7, Sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to January 1, 1991. Documentation, such as Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service form 578 or equivalent, United States Department of Agriculture records, or affidavit of landowner must be required by the local government unit to show and use as evidence for this exemption. Set aside land used for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and 2. A phone conversation with Ms. Mary Welter, the previous landowner, on September 30, 1993, - acknowledged that this land has been seeded and cropped over the last ten years. The 1979 and 1989 aerials show all wetland areas on-site to be cropped except for the creek. The wetlands on-site can be considered exempt from the WCA since there is evidence that the wetlands have been cropped 6 out of the last 10 years. Section 404 Wetland Permit - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations Prior converted croplands are not waters of the United States. The final rule was published on Friday, August 25, 1993, in the Federal Register at 58 FR 45008. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act a permit is required from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States. The term discharge of dredged material means any addition of dredged or excavated material into, including any re-deposit of dredged material within, waters of the United States. The term discharge of fill material means the addition of any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing the bottom elevation of a waterbody. The regulation clarifies the Corp's and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) position that prior converted croplands, as defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), are not waters of the United States. Generally, prior converted croplands were once wetlands but have been drained, dredged, filled, or otherwise manipulated before December 23, 1985, for the purpose of, and having he effect of, making the production of an agriculture commodity possible. A Section 404 permit is not required for activities conducted on such lands, unless such lands are considered to be abandoned and subsequently develop the characteristics of a wetland. According to the SCS cropland status designations (see attached aerial), the entire project site except for the creek area is considered either prior converted or non-wetland. Therefore, the wetland areas delineated by a wetland consultant that will be impacted as a result of the proposed project will not need a Section 404 permit. This rule requires clarification from the Corps. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 11 GRADING/STORM DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL As noted earlier, site grading will be extensive. The grading plan is generally acceptable although we note that some changes are likely to balance cut and fill on the site. At this time we have heard that the current lack of available fill from the Galpin upgrading project (it has been found to be required for Galpin improvements south of the site) could result in lowering the building or other site elements by a few feet. Grades in the vicinity of Bluff Creek need to be looked at in detail. It is not clear how the proposed grading relates to the creek's flood elevation and steps must be taken to insure that fill not be placed below this line. This area also needs to be looked at relative to restoring the creek corridor as described above. Final grading plans need to be prepared for City approval. Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. A final erosion control plan should also be prepared for City approval. Storm drainage is a complex issue on this site and efforts are currently underway to resolve them. The site drains to the southwest into Bluff Creek. Sufficient ponding needs to be found to meet City retention and water quality standards. For the most part, this ponding cannot be accommodated on-site if the necessary recreational facilities are to be provided. Consequently we are seeking to provide ponding on the adjacent parcel to the east. We have initiated discussions with that developer and believe that this concept will prove to be successful. Final plans should be in place by the Planning Commission hearing or at the latest, by the City Council meeting. No grading or other site activity will be allowed to occur until final plans have been developed and approved and construction of off-site improvements as well. Project approval by the Riley-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required. The site itself will be drained by a series of storm sewers that tie into the new system that will be built with the access boulevard. Final details will be a part of the document that is to approved by the Engineering Department. Plans need to incorporate a means of picking up the drainage that currently flows under Galpin Boulevard onto the site in the vicinity of the staff parking lot for the school. SUBDIVISION The proposed subdivision will create city and district owned parcels of land. It is interesting to note that the property line will actually run through the building itself to delineate the gym, locker and meeting rooms that will be owned by the City. Provisions acceptable to the Building Official need to be made to insure joint operation and maintenance and avoid the need for building a fire-rated separation between the two uses. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 12 The subdivision also creates right-of-way for the access boulevard and Galpin widening although these need to be clearly illustrated and described so that they can be conveyed. The plans were developed in cooperation with MnDOT so that they could take into account future expansion plans for Hwy. 5. However, the required ultimate ROW has not been illustrated. The plat should be revised to illustrate this issue and create an outlot that the City will be in a position to offer to MnDOT when they are ready to build the road. All landscape and other improvements should be kept out of this area. COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance OI Hwy. 5 Draft Proposed Plan District Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet N/A 40 Acres Lot Frontage 75' N/A 1,200± Lot Depth 150' N/A 1,080' • Lot Coverage 65% N/A 25% Parking Setback 35' 70' Hwy. 5 480' Hwy. 5 50' elsewhere 70' Galpin 38' access blvd.* Building Height 2 stories N/A 1 story Front Yard Setback 35' Hwy. 5 - 70' min. 400' Hwy. 5** 150' max. 250' Access blvd. Access Blvd. - 50' min. 100 max. Parking N/A N/A 296 stalls Variances required * 12' variance for parking lot setback from south access boulevard. Can and should be eliminated. ** Technical variances from Hwy. 5 Plan. Not yet adopted and no variance approvals are required. In any event, we do not believe the plan was intended to address this unique type of project. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review#93-6, rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the Chaska School District #112/City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Hwy. 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staff's proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash enclosure as outline in the staff report. 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site b. provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff report. c. provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields d. revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements • for tree species and green space 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the floodplain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Revise the plat to describe the right-of-way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right-of-way needed for Hwy. 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Hwy. 5 right-of-way and Galpin Boulevard right-of-way and maintain a minimum 35' setback from Galpin Boulevard. 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50' setback. ;. ' - TaAA-e - 'kV rieV444 • • • It - s FEASIBILITY STU !:.. 1..[ .. - - • w} P : 'V*.;: :. , tR: fir - • .:.4++,. I....,-Y:''...:' ' ria `iCC•i 64 T, s'ih•� `rS^'K %t� mL 2 .f 'w.�''2µ.. ,`tr 4;.'i•' '---'s✓„,J f, .;..,.(:'.1..,:..... r . :. aC• _ z y `i`te r. ` N� } o , f sY ;• Tk Y3 _ fig. . .i {from Gaipt •ut and to McGtynrn. 9....'..:44.,,>,.:::::-. , :.,..: n...:::. ,r 4/.. �`�` �•,.:,:,---..' ./...:„....::::i:::: :::: :-•:-.....,„.• �'q "S M Ot �.r' w vaDo- 3._ \c'pi . •\: i .` QtZ .... • t -.:::g••?::-.,:::::••.• . , • - - -. - _ ..,....._.:,,,,,.„,,„„:,„:„. ,,_. ... _. .,,,,, ..,. , ,,,,,,..,:,::.,..,.. \,c\ �G4 �/ s. V3 .:•:,,,.-..,.,1.0ek,-,*::::,:z04:w . • : , . . _ l Galpin I3ou ,: ..„,,§,..,,,,.„..„,:A.i.„ . . . :::::: . - •4� (from 'din' ber vob Drip #Q T ;w e x '�- .. ,� ice:}•.:i:.. .t":411.1114•111111111.S:14117-Vr 6 ' • 1 I _5'E . ' g2/f..4. .4-- OC1j1993 _ • is !EN' IDDRAFT EPTt - ,.. } • ,..... , 0 1993 . — CITY OF CHANHASSEN MAATDN-ASCHMAN ASSDClAT.1 t3� INC. ! ® PARSONS TRANiPCRTAT10I11 �70� i BARTON•ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 111 T^,a Avenue So.;:~.Suite 35C • M^neaoo s ^neso1a 55431 USA• (612,332-0421 •Far (612)332-6180 December , 1993 Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: TH 5 South Frontage Road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 Dear Mr. Folch: As requested, we have prepared a Feasibility Study for the proposed construction/ reconstruction of the captioned roadways. The study describes the design, cost, and feasibility of the roadway improvements. A significant impetus for the roadways is the proposed construction of an elementary school by Independent School District No. 112. The school will be constructed on the property east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5 and is scheduled for occupancy in the fall of 1995. We look forward to discussing the study with you and other city staff at your convenience. Sincerely, James H. Unruh, P.E. Senior Associate JHU:dmv I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. James H. Unruh Date: Reg. No. r-- • n �PAPSONS �� )TPANSPDPTATION GROUP '�' E�••` �'� INTRODUCTION Independent School District No. 112 proposes to construct a new elementary school on the 40-acre property east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5. The City of Chanhassen - proposes to construct a new frontage road along the south side of the school site to provide access and utility service to the school. Carver County, in cooperation with the city, proposes to upgrade Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) from a two-lane rural roadway to a four-lane urban roadway with left-turn lanes along the west side of the school site. These roadway and utility improvements must be in-place for the occupancy of the elementary school, scheduled for fall 1995. The city also proposes to extend the frontage road from the school site to McGlynn Road. The Minnesota Department of Transportation proposes to reconstruct TH 5 to a four-lane divided expressway in the late 1990s. The Galpin Boulevard/TH 5 intersection will receive interim improvements and a temporary traffic signal installed as part of the - reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the project location within the southwest Twin Cities metropolitan area. Figure 2 shows the specific project area and proposed improvements. This study addresses the design, costs, and feasibility of: • The proposed TH 5 south frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road. • The proposed reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive to TH 5. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed TH 5 south frontage road would cross an area that is currently agricultural cropland. The roadway would also cross the west and east forks of Bluff Creek. Wetlands and an area of mature trees are located south of the proposed frontage road in the vicinity of the school site. Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) is currently a two-lane rural roadway. Its south terminus is at Lyman Boulevard, approximately one mile south of TH 5. Several residences have direct access onto Galpin Boulevard as shown on Figure 2. Collector roads from several residential developments connect to Galpin Boulevard south of the project limits. Construction on some of the developments has been initiated within the last year. Trunk sanitary sewer and water main lines have been installed along Galpin Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates to service the new developments. PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT The City of Chanhassen's population grew by approximately 54 percent from 1980 to 1990. Census data for 1990 showed a population of 11,732; the city projects an annual population increase of 4.75 to 5.5 percent which would yield a population of approximately 18,000 by the year 2000 and 30,000 by the year 2010. Both the residential and employment populations are expected to increase significantly during the next two decades. 2 Carver County is currently updating is 1986 Eastern Carver County Transportation Study to quantify the projected traffic volumes resulting from the increase in population and commercial development. The proposed TH 5 south frontage road and the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard are in response to the current and future growth and the subsequent development pressures within the Chanhassen community in general. However, the following specific proposed developments determine the feasibility and dictate the timing of the roadway and utility improvements: • Independent School District No 112 proposes to construct an elementary school on a 40-acre parcel east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5 as shown on Figure 2. — Several athletic fields and part of the school building will be utilized as community facilities by the city. Occupancy of the school is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The proposed roadways and utilities that service the school site must be in place at that time. The budgeted construction cost for the building and site is approximately $9,000,000. • The proposed Chanhassen Corporate Center Development is east of the school site and east of Timberwood Estates. The development is a mix of single-family and multifamily land use south of the proposed frontage road and commercial land use north of the proposed frontage road. Construction activities within the development are scheduled to begin in 1994. 3 • Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing a multifamily development on the west side of Galpin Boulevard south of TH 5. Construction activities are also scheduled to begin in 1994. Although not part of this feasibility study, the south frontage road is proposed to extend through this development. • The McGlynn Bakery along Audubon Road was constructed around 1990. Although development plans for the area between McGlynn Road and TH 5 have been considered, development of the area is not imminent. PROJECT FUNCTION AND DESIGN Roadways TH 5 South Frontage Road The TH 5 south frontage road is proposed to be constructed as a 36-foot wide (curb to curb) high-density collector that will accommodate a 40 mph design speed. Figure 2 shows the layout of the proposed 4,050 foot long roadway. Figure 3 shows the proposed typical section for the roadway, which includes provisions for an eight-foot wide sidewalk; Figure 4 shows the proposed profile for the roadway. It should be noted that a 34 mph design speed crest vertical curve is provided just east of Galpin Boulevard. This is a reasonable design at an approach to an intersection, especially for the minor traffic movement, and it is consistent with the existing 33 mph crest vertical curve at the approach to Audubon Road. 4 The proposed horizontal alignment of the frontage road within the school site was based on the site plan for the school; access, circulation, and safety for school buses and pedestrians were primary considerations. The intersection location at Galpin Boulevard was determined by the location of the existing residences on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. Southeast of the school site, poor soil conditions dictated the most appropriate location for the roadway. The Chanhassen Corporate Center Development plans were taken into account to determine the south frontage road alignment east of the school site. Existing McGlynn Road, which has the same cross-section as the frontage road, is the logical connection point for the frontage road. - Galpin Boulevard Galpin Boulevard will be reconstructed to two lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes at the intersections with the south frontage road and TH 5. From south of the school site to Timberwood Drive, Galpin Boulevard will be widened to 52 feet; it is likely that pavement striping would limit traffic to one through lane in each direction. A 45 mph design speed is proposed. Figure 5 shows the extent of Galpin Boulevard proposed to be upgraded in conjunction with the TH 5 south frontage road project. The length of the segment from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 is approximately 2,000 feet. The north 800 feet of this segment will be considered temporary construction and will have to be reconstructed when TH 5 is upgraded to a four-lane divided expressway; the profile of TH 5 will then be lowered by approximately seven feet at Galpin Boulevard. A temporary traffic signal is proposed at the Galpin BoulevardiTH 5 intersection; turn lanes on TH 5 will also be constructed. 5 Two alignment alternatives for the reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard between Timberwood Drive and TH 5 have been developed and are illustrated on Figures 5 through 8. Table 1 summarizes the comparative cost estimates and the impacts of the alternatives. Figure 9 shows the existing and proposed profiles of Galpin Boulevard, which are the same for both alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (Figures 5 and 6), Galpin Boulevard would be widened to the east along the school site and to the west along Timberwood Estates. This alternative minimizes impacts to the three existing residences along the west side of Galpin Boulevard and to the mini golf/driving range business northwest of the TH 5/Galpin Boulevard intersection. Lowering of the Galpin Boulevard profile (as shown on Figure 9) will require that the front yards of the west side residences be re-landscaped. The driveways will also need to be reconstructed. Some impacts occur in the northwest corner of the Timberwood Estates. Section B-B on Figure 6 shows three grading options for the area. Table 1 summarizes the comparative costs and impacts of the grading options. Under Alternative 2 (Figures 7 and 8), Galpin Boulevard would be widened to the west along the school site and along Timberwood Estates. However, the alignment would be adjusted at TH 5 to minimize impacts to the mini golf/driving range business north of TH 5. The three existing residences would be purchased or condemned as roadway right-of-way under this alternative. The middle property is currently for sale. The listed price was 6 - - T C a) s io N ¢ t>ft C O > d ^�� " .0 "en CD it: C C 0 0 - 0 c9 II 0 �' O � cia 4" � z z z .' "C o N 49 is 'mo 0 0 a z N co ens IV os„>r et a C C E d O O O O m 3 a' ea 4 o G C Gz ;�• v 11 I1 O O M N TD. .0 • pa v v N z c� O u _ c ea co !9 cpbp0 to 4 0 G O O CiDCe 0 > C- V 49 49 O 0 C er II II p — N V; F � +O+ = v ed N Z C'7 CO ti R 49 49 G CC — N C o E. '��” N o 0 z < o = C1 O • C 4: 2spa o o © E.. p c: C o .� < c, R7 I`Lrl• c. C 49 C a) z Cr � ( c 49 d9 O °G II lc? O oU o C v v N � 4.: Gc', z ." 49 C - 49 U0. � -° r� oC O O Nt& rw ®z , oco U E-- £ o ti GF' c = w 12'13c CID ' . O — I U a. Lam+ irt V 0 cu 0 0 o e%' c d a W = en 3 > �^ V . 30 Et) a) 0 pa E �' z � et 4C © . e . a) a` � CC 0 49 m � co v • F" e& _ � � ° r2 w CC w ® 3 It ° F $118,900 as of November 18, 1993. An assumed cost of$120,000 for each property was utilized in the comparative cost estimate. It is recommended that Alternative 1 be selected because of its substantially lower right- of-way costs. The 3:1 backslope grading option of Alternative 1 is also recommended. Retaining wall costs are eliminated and a stable groundslope is provided. The two fir trees that would be impacted seem to be in marginal condition. Some volunteer growth would have to be cleared. However, a 36-inch mature oak tree would be preserved. To achieve the desired 45 mph design speed, the profile of Galpin Boulevard is proposed to be lowered by up to nine feet at one location as shown on Figure 9. This requires that Galpin Boulevard be closed to through traffic during construction. Parallel routes such as Audubon Road one mile to the east and TH 41 one mile to the west provide suitable detour routes. Upgrading of Galpin Boulevard to a 52-foot wide urban roadway from Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard will likely occur shortly after the upgrading of the segment from TH 5 to Timberwood Drive. Excess earthwork material from lowering the Galpin Boulevard profile will be stockpiled and utilized in the upgrade extension to Lyman Boulevard. 7 Utilities The proposed utilities shown on Figures 2, 4, 5, and 9 are in accordance with the city's comprehensive water main and sanitary sewer plans. The only addition is the segment of sanitary sewer from the Bluff Creek west fork to the school service. Nearly all of the storm water runoff from the school site will be directed to a storm water treatment/sedimentation pond south of the frontage road and east of the school site. As shown on Figure 3, the frontage road typical section, a large storm sewer pipe will be installed in the roadway subgrade to carry storm water from the school site to the storm water treatment/sedimentation pond. The city is conducting the necessary analysis and design for the pond. At the Bluff Creek west fork, a 48- or 54-inch culvert will likely be installed across the frontage road as shown on Figure 4. At the Bluff Creek east fork, an arch culvert structure is proposed to accommodate a grade-separated pedestrian crossing of the frontage road. Bluff Creek would remain an open channel within this structure, a detail of which is shown on Figure 4. Pedestrian Trails The proposed pedestrian trails shown on Figure 2 are in general accordance with the city's parks, open space, and trail plan. One change is that the proposed grade-separated crossing of the south frontage road is at the Bluff Creek east fork rather than the Bluff Creek west fork. The east fork is a much deeper and more defined ravine, as shown on 8 Figure 4, than the west fork and, therefore, is a more appropriate location for a grade- separated crossing. PROJECT PHASING/SCHEDULE As noted previously, occupancy of the elementary school is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The roadways and utilities servicing the school must be in place at that time. To meet this objective, the following phasing/schedule has been developed: December 1993: Feasibility Study approval; proposed improvements ordered by Chanhassen City Council. January 1994: Begin final design construction documents for roadways and utilities. April 1994: Begin grading work on the school site. May 1994: Submit design plans for Galpin Boulevard reconstruction and for the TH 5 south frontage road along the south side of the school site to MnDOT for State Aid review. May 1994: Begin construction on the school building. July 1994: Receive bids on roadway construction plans. August 1994: Begin roadway and utility construction. 9 October 1994: Complete grading work on the school site. November 1994: Galpin Boulevard opened to traffic with base course bituminous surfacing. December 1994: Complete utility installations along south frontage road. June 1995: Complete school building construction. July 1995: Complete roadway construction including interim TH 5 improvements. August 1995: Elementary school open for 1995-1996 school year. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed roadway improvements do not exceed any of the thresholds set by state and/or federal law which require the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment or Environmental Assessment Worksheet. However, social, economic, and environmental considerations have been taken into account and are summarized below. Right-of-Way An 80-foot right-of-way width is required for the TH 5 south frontage road as shown on Figure 3. The right-of-way along the school site and within the Chanhassen Corporate 10 Center Development will be dedicated via the platting process. The right-of-way within the McGlynn property will have to be purchased by the city. The right-of-way width required for reconstructed Galpin Boulevard will be between 100 and 150 feet. The existing right-of-way width is 66 feet as shown on Figures 6 and 8. Between the frontage road and TH 5, the additional right-of-way will be dedicated via platting of the school site and the Centex Real Estate Development. Right-of-way requirements south of the frontage road will be determined by the selected Galpin Boulevard alignment alternative. Under the worst case scenario, three residential properties could be taken as roadway right-of-way. Wetlands and Vegetation As shown on Figure 2, the proposed roadways do not cross any areas that are designated wetlands according to the city's wetland inventory. No major channel changes will be required where the frontage road crosses the west and east forks of Bluff Creek. No major stands of mature trees will be impacted by the proposed roadway improvements. Some brush will be removed along the south edge of the frontage road in the vicinity of Timberwood Estates. However, the mature trees in this area are located south of the Timberwood Estates property line and will not be removed. 11 permits and Desien Standards A grading permit for the roadway improvements will be obtained from the Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District. Since more than five acres will be disturbed by grading activities, a General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will also be required. Permits from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and from the Corps of Engineers (COE) will not be required for the proposed roadway improvements. The guidelines provided in the city's "Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control" will be adhered to during the design and construction of the roadways. A grading permit from the city will be required. State Aid funds will be utilized for the construction and right-of-way costs associated with reconstructing Galpin Boulevard. The construction plans will therefore be subject to MnT)OT State Aid review and approval and must meet State Aid standards. The frontage road will be constructed with city and State Aid funds and will eventually be placed on the Municipal State Aid system. The roadway design must therefore meet State Aid design standards. COST AND FUNDING SOURCES The estimated construction cost for the TH 5 south frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road is $1,750,000. Engineering, legal, and administration costs would bring 12 the total project cost to $2,275,000. Potential right-of-way acquisition costs for the McGlynn property have not been estimated. The estimated cost for reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 is $640,000. Engineering, legal, and administration costs would bring the total project cost to $832,000. This cost does not include the right-of-way and other costs noted in Table 1 that are dependent on the selected alignment alternative. The interim improvements to TH 5 would cost an additional $120,000 for construction. The detailed cost estimates for both roadways are included in the Appendix. The city will fund construction of the frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to the east edge of the school site. The remainder of the frontage road will be constructed with Municipal State Aid funds. Galpin Boulevard reconstruction will be funded with County State Aid funds. The cost for construction of all trunk water main and sanitary sewer lines will be assessed to benefitting landowners. The assessments were computed in a February 1992 report entitled "MUSA Expansion Area--Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main System," Project No. 91-12, prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates. 13 { CONCLUSION It is concluded that the proposed roadway improvements are feasible based on the following: a 1. The improvements are required to service the Independent School District No. 112 elementary school scheduled for occupancy in the fall of 1995. 2. The improvements are required to service the proposed developments both east and west of the school site. 3. The utilities proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the roadway improvements are part of the city's comprehensive water main and sanitary sewer plans. The city is methodically constructing these utilities to serve its rapidly expanding population. 4. The improvements have little, if any, averse social, economic, or environmental impacts. 5. The project costs are in accordance with similar projects in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 14 0 •471 olf• Ans.-V 7 , .‘41086.1111°5‘ 0 \%; ( t ;‘A ..... . ....) IT 67-s. , .2 1 „t>.., ..... a a„. ,,.- CI — ll - • 1" ''''"TZ) 1 r".° .4• t° :2 iiiiiir04/MINIWC1 2 2=1 ' . -Ti• 'fli lit . . :i'.':: Trr .alif iTicriv....‘ 11 c L.1 vit,--,.01,- r. r;ea ok-aigi tw t: S= L , — .-rniAL .0 ,I..„. . ,ER,,_ ' tik,gi.,,,-:". c .N.1 ,1, ,..b-0-1 \ 0 - 0 r - .,-.:- --;;;" - rk-, -:. c'll, I - - -n-ri ? 0, tge ,t,•,• 0 •• % 'I , ir- . :1.5 ":,- % L;'--)4.8j N. . , 1 Ma : c(itA , 0,-..'-1 , E 101011, Ai 1 e- , k! (71.° AI* - , . , ..p w‘c, her 1 e /.: • ,.) e Amegi v list 4 id# .,...,.;,,, t„ ,.....„ , 4 0 Z ,-.., ' "I5 195e% 3 it = - .111...42 O.-=' i s • Q � �iO � �� ,. . gV4 +fir rj 1.4 Jc 16 `. r 1 , ilt, . 8.1b. .2 ......:\. "a cc , =, il 1 -..,,). i': ,..- \ .., , , ..,..,„) ; .‹ _ _ Y_ _ l 1. - ,� • O \ • 9 m / sit 2 E vra ft* e �z � • t, az `aK`c i� 3 ` , r � `n I •a.` tstiL 4,R -.-." CI '--- R I"i . a i * trii01 '•':.':' ' Ew ci: * ..- ....... ..- - - 4, . — 'moi a ,, H��.. [ 1111 �Fe opt e� .... t Ott, E`i Eil 1 FP ....0 , ..., ,, ID z f c dB _� , a 7�' v ) - t d Wt. V r a. . i .... 4,_. {' a ..ow+�� .ten.. Y Z o'' _` e - J � ''obi r H i / '11 i, i. IC" A.'" cA -N...1 4.., . 114161:11% . Oi 0- i < ittifaii g.,4k _ _ _, . , :.,....4 ill 1, _ _ _ . _ = it t- til4iR ,8klib - .vielli .4 i 1 l 7• = b as 'ST 1 m H %.<3),Nk.e, ' to U. i i I. ,,„.,,,, .i ,g. .. .4 r, / t Z r sl , .., A . ii . 31 )111.--- \ - .� s ® g 5,47 t p 4 a tri2PQ ' ! _ E 4 7 Ya a $1 ate'_• -)% i-- . ' :,b. *te- i gflhJ .1.•# 4 ,-ii,-Ase..-—4 ie. — „cr.. •,.., . . k i A,. • - a ,• • • .,. ...- • .- • ;I"-, p i e . ,,,, ,..„. ...,, , I w �•�_' 40,....1T} 1��yldy y� to 5y�1 �t aap Z rar• c.. ii.f`• ' ,•`Ti : 9 • t• . W W O. W W a - C le it ' it -4 i •I -1- 4" -s- 4 ‘.., V — _ ry, °: 111,11'. , ,,4 I... ..—:!::_Ai Tatetig-Tee N.•.`-' s;k-IN- • - a ..kt- • ‘•• . it - Arg.'-1111-1. %pi. I - : , -i— :1 l'•%t\ `• - ..,,,k ' --4, pit y 4 -iii`i -----* a - 1."- 7 ‘N•• ‘s I4-. -. -e . r* A `• + •�+ ,.fit �� \--.. 1 \' Y..... iii -- %,....... ...,,,,,It 2.: • .„1 • • -I V .. "ter,.-„.,'"1 .‘ ' or .41,-,,,„._-. ,,S,.....-,„.:.,s,• ..... S4..,.. N ' A . L. ,. . ....„.. 144 tj'........VALL., „..0!4'.. ' -t"---:- ' ..11%13. ' --ir. :::,-...:•.::::%... 2„..:"(S\ s ,. -! :41F.- •`,z..T• .- 't•'•-.4...� 1 sem--2L- ,r-r.: ~` ... g z .• a • S "- a1N. `ti ice JY, ; .' 8 : 11 la, -.., . . .:k .-I miw . ... ii .. ic f - \\Ifkk -•° )0, ---- -* s. '1 --"II ..e. se `` � f•iif� r? •�iy��w4 j3i ( : • ! �' � . =Ni- '? _. r A�F,v4�6'. a •= t'A • *.i ?.. "fit[' j_ —. 'y�st_ S t r 111• v .. .� - i% 4-1 . , r ._...,1.7 r 4-1, i .e . ' "-� ` ,',/ t o "r. i• W 41 •� .• -� Tom":. ,. gijii %1' 1 .ji• . r ,......",:fr: . ,..,_-... : r '6,:.'''1 '..,14F.3..L41:121:19111r, fa;-4:t. 2,117. • ••' -`` 4t-ZL. .: t . ,A.. \ ; , , ' Qr . + : ,�- ►S !'‘ - ,•j,', ,�\�� `,. �.. • ., t! `••.. �• 1. .• . I , II & • 2 § 4' t ; o ' _ I 'i If ' . � � | 3 4 � > &� § / � z ; / g § a — �§ ! it g, l9I , • I # \ | p _ 1 o |!§ , ill |iR § § g -0 ST _ i s 2|( �a tat' |§ S 8 | '\ 0 . W P`x 7 | |§' m . | § §, -5 iEl - % § §! ■ | ■ ' ! | ) 7 E U .'- 2 ; c 6 & § ! • ' J _ , 1 1 ■ | ` i k b | i If | ' § 2 k§ I | I . s b ! : ' : § | — @ | Z :td | I \ / % | I. Id• 141 | li � \ . \ §ID ; d t • t I I i R f P • -- 3377 Ma- r 3Nf1U17N RS ... :. e • • • • ':.: �:: :. qGG _ it 4 ... ..... .. ... q W ] S d - . ..:. .... w II - ... 4.1 A 1 is It 1 ,,,-. : : .-::: ::.:.., .. . ...,.........• .... 's 1:__....... ---... . IT:f 1 / w rr -, ' ------r- i. -1.-7 I- 1 ••1:ri • 1 ro. ... ... . •„::::::::, ,. ... • ,r„.. . s: . : ' ..• ex.1 it: ::: ::: -.:: :: -il :: .i ..,-,;.1::t1 .. ..... . . • : , „___,Iii.:,.... ...... - L. -...••••1 .: ..•......._,, :......, 4. .::::Vi NII _ i .. : ,--- :; .:..... ••,:..•. .:: --I : • 1 ..:. , E 8, 11 : : i {S t r • ....... — X88 — ::::�::::::. Ilia j i 1 p 8 .o dt2, ! _ RFBi ... . $14 / 1 fii1 1 _I _i j --- 1 --b 1: ti i '17 ,-, _ I J 3 11 li Y I - N. i :' ;.i• .. _. rte, > I • El ''I e 8 I g11 ; y s °' I i . .. .. ..... .' ....... E4 �. -- - _3 m e • I .. iQa R G: RRR • �.#- ...... tj'i :t . dQQd 6i1� B 1 --i is6fI?fril, I I._ e :yea, 11 ,, 1 _ 15 L. if t didis -- e 61 i . ........i.-::-...!. ....:. .. 1 i_. i a4 ::.::: ::::.:::. . :::. . .. :'{ ::c:: 11 tit .. .� ,, R Q .. ...:...... ..:. .. ... i.. ......1... i{ii iil:ciiii::: ::::iiil � _ � • _ i::•::::::1 C A =u ... ... .. ;.::::::: i ..... ....:::: : i -V i -' # U.. : 1::.::::#:.:::.4.::: : # •. :" #.:: •..:1-:..:: :., r.... . 1 1 • I . # ', I - 1 f ! . _ . i El • II' it 1y - ter �,. _.... liAei. '"'- .--7�k - _ .R ..` 44.-; y _ -`3 his ,4„,4•SO .„, . ,A.1111111111111,4"•••i• , ' �r•e ,t 4/�¢, - - r . _ I, _ tom• { "`s;' _ • 4. a T ` :_ 8 , r} - hi t 1 _ y- Yd f..r. - iiitilt. , • 1 - r -_,-...10,-..-:,7-•97 -t 14 261-'�^ rhs _.mac- ... ,. ,. .., _.,... • _ ... . —„ w _-_-)......--- •-,- , . fi,. ii.,... ..;..;5:.77.11.1. , .0.- •El:rip- -, . -.---6.. .----7.--:.-..744 . • - 4 r i -,:,_ 2.... .L•lk --4 *le: ... , • 1. , , .f __- lik.r.: I, - -- ,,,-..,_ .. : 4. ., , . .— ,....,,,;:„...,i7-.....::: --,,,„.„ i 1!rL1L \ .sem . - - ''A :ae• - , \ _....?' ' i t - , - • 4. - - - %A. 11-11)14-*.-"; 1.7 . -Ilk , 4 .... sip .... .. .. .. _ ip _ t�!' ; _ ' . ! iiiirol/it = ._. _Ilk-1: ell 1' ar'.- • ..E,. .. ..1----g---- :. :,: -'). • . 44. n. . . _ IA •�►+• •-Y 3�Y � ��A1�L� a e� LEGEND = �,. ;,,. x• -',., - ...� 1 , ..11 ,, : 4 - ", -'",,.4„.,,i.'"- ... iii":4'.- . . :.. , ' :.%':''.-..", ,,,. PROPOSED GALPIN till'', L Ih=.• ': ......... BLVD. s - ��'' � i � . .-. �`,- _9.`i. TEMPORARY 47 ' ii,1' � �" ' . '`,,_ ,elic - ... - 1 EASEMENT 1)2 -� :: ,*•A ...,,,, 0,- _ _ - PERMANENT ::., - t . . _,� ar . R/W TAKING s_ f r `� b j. '` - ----— EXISTING R/w - 4i '- :. ,: 1 r FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE S ■AATON•ASCHMAN ASBCC LAT SS, N. Galpin Boulevard Layout .A..OPM TRANSPORTATION 011.121JP Alternative .-O F,0 J Q W ce,; V.. iW IC LI" CD m< Z z O i+ CI0 << 16 u el - �m H L -0J gLTv au, *r . • QpO0 OW ZCN li. a. < 00 �w UOoc . > /-LU -1-4111*\ I ' JJ r W < J CO CO t. ),U� < H < ZZ c 1. ...W z z g ;p a uvEc1 ,� i m Q ; Vu�J i W J W< c, , zz , Q., 0V OW */ I 0< I �� ,\ m7s ' ?O i `� a3 Y �ist / a ___J._ ; . v ED N J Y l a! 1 l S1 m; I 1 0 W p / 0 M N I t,Ar 2 / g0 ch i "p = J O J N / > N §> 1 � L 0 rs O m - - -�JJ — r..) i CO / 1 1 .�6 Mo Z N2 O O_a mF < `v / ip< O �� `n3. = i JO J <CON II ut E '�� o �� CI Q o8 m ! COy V Cpm J Q Qm �^s I Ni CO az Z ; az Z 0k 4 Ik_h . ,-< N O u 1 ' a1. W N g1 J V �VNI g • < 2 m COVJ m COm W N CO > i" 0 CO 1 toI m of ,t/ = ‘, illt I F C m LL CA 0 'l j CO-2 w I W N I o g ,Aridevret _ y ;.i _ v L .a a114,, i � mow` l lass.-z_ --� - `,L ia:_ ti �R� • - X - - .r .�-.-�- �, '•'ACS_ } j ; : _ f lt _ - •• ' "rY:' - ''_ 4 S' / t • si.x``4!► ...-• 7 ,� � ."'IT- 4 -- ' te - - !` -. I L ` i - r . ; , t '` F►F1. • Rj -� tt. a ` ,4 � r 4 . .-4,....-: .. } - j 0.k' � js �. . iI - -r '..1 .ice ^i��E, .Y♦.' 1 — t - ' - -i.1r ` ---.."44%4110E _._ T a".r fir- 4 �� . ;a, T• ` 1•+_ w• r ' c !t- sew - --•" _.• yS�_� _ �� ? `a.:__ A. _ 41 i• 1 �. , ' .- #-:i1-;"- - '- iiiro..-44;* • ‘.,,:. : i L.. , --N6.,,, .:0.2‘fir.vi..._ -ile_ ,. - . .. ... . 't::. _ .:1_ n. -'' - 4 N, - t 7 r .: " -4 4#41",. % - -R. , oh . • • -tot �. *- t _ ut. • Lam' Sir LEGEND �,'. • -- .. N. - y :: ..0•14 :s{r s IY =rr , PROPOSED GALPIN ?t.�� : - Y °;� - .• .2_ • _� . — ... BLVD. _, t r •1 • �k 4s , .^_ x r TEMPORARY i , :-'-1 -,,i ,qR EASEMENT f } . .. '_ ,• - `. PERMANENT +s.-. • . . t R/W TAKING i '�' 7 i _ r s - \ • —---— EXISTING R/W + f -. y FEASIBILITY STUDY -) CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 7 SART ON-ASCI- AAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Galpin Boulevard Layout ® PAI..OR.TI.APMifO.TATION.....up Alternative 2 a� ! W 4* , f' 1 W C N - 1 I N o , IC C ff Ng I lL m - u �� / 2 Tc) I 11 < ! o Vd 4+ co<xo f II ' CL 14 p-IL 1 w • a 1 0 1 ' > o �/ w> > 1 o ,/ w m x / O I , O. RS ;, %0 1 (ID% � t-W I 1 , Y �II �, 20 CV i p> 1 { 1 ‘ z Z .-. E 'Y J •..1 cr x< z. v pI 2 1 _ 0 wO Li. N p 10 0, I N ii r[•�IG w W __en<_1 -/ mCp.j I I r V • I 0 m GO iV Q W � 0 tk > NO GQ z4) 1 0 o .r A x O �� v Z o $ CP co <I? a 0 cn d •c i 11- 0 a.� &Z NI 1 w Z �' N� V v <o !< 1 f) II W O>— s--- CO 1 CO J of m 1iL I a I tu < < 1 Nt < a�►- . 1 uP • Zb el co m o 1 F. = (A < 1'` E b i'`f I p .0 = U i '1 J �' % z ZZc o f I ' g IS,/ - = W b i �� Q V > / m LL 0 i 6i W a i / M I < I- I W y I / N I I.I. V / O.i- WII k o • . 1 �` ....... .. ... . .. .. :. :. :.:.: :: .... ... :...:...: .::::...: 1- • •sin ''' --416 i ..... .. • • . L .: . -D. .4)• WE4d� ed - dItlei cc > O .... .. .. ... `V t o ci G coitKi fig I . I ........ .. .... . ......... . .-1.1... !,:i. - •• • •• ••• ••••••••• •-••••••• •••-•-•-- ! c 46.1° '. .. . . ... ......... ......... ......... :' LI I . • L . • .... IPS8- 1%....%%%%ills- - • ... .......... ....... ......... ddd# .. ;t L hg$8. g E : :: .:: * .. .r 1 p .o Z , o. .4. I . .. L Mi V 1E y.. �s I . .5‘e -d , co,__ c o i = L 1 . ... .. .f... .. ......... ......... ......... t...V 0 I;,5. a. s 21 1 : c�_ s 1......!!.71..... ./.....' !� 'r� a • p.,— L ........ .- Jogs : �:::::: ::: ::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: ......::: G.: N Y aO�ORIN :y � dwdiE 1i tii' aQ�_�, • - 1!A °' i' , s CI W 1- : W \\ U i/9 WEl 0. •\ .. ~ r 4 CN \ o = Sm. . • ........ a.# ..... i \ Y Z ..... t• isC L. ... ... .. .... .. ....... ........`. ....... ........ ......... ......... O t >- L . - - ill ...... .— LL — o g 1 i. . . . .. ... . . .. •• •". ••" ....••• •••"••• •••••"•• PSP.. ' a L . :..... ..... ... .. . ... : 2� :... ® :sago lg 1... • as=t : .r.......•11.. APPENDIX Cost Estimates TH 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Item Unit Quan. Cost/Unit Total Common Excavation C.Y. 55,700 3.00 167,100 1 Subgrade Excavation C.Y. 16,000 3.50 _ 56,000 Granular Borrow (LV) C.Y. 16,000 4.50 72,000 Aggregate Base CL 5 Ton 10,950 6.50 . 71,175 Bituminous Wear Course, Type 41. Ton 1,65') 23.00 37,950 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 Ton 3,700 21.00 77,700 B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 8,100 7.00 56,700 Catch Basin Each 26 1,200.00 31,200 12" RCP L.F. 216 20.00 4,320 15" RCP L.F. 900 22.00 19,800 18" RCP L.F. 390 28.00 10,920 I- 24" RCP L.F. 2,100 33.00 69,300 36" RCP L.F. 700 46.00 32,200 , 48" RC Culvert L.F. 100 80.00 8,000 48" RC Apron Each 2 900.00 1,800 Riprap C.Y. 18 50.00 900 12" DIP Water Main L.F. 4,140 30.00 124,200 Hydrant w/Lead & GV Each 7 2,000.00 14,000 12" RCP Sanitary L.F. 920 28.00 25,760 18" RCP Sanitary L.F. 740 33.00 24,420 Manhole Each 5 2,000.00 10,000 Outside Drop L.F. 12 250.00 3,000 Concrete Walk S.F. 32,400 2.00 64,800 Concrete Retaining Wall L.F. 600 250.00 150,000 Sod S.Y. 9,000 1.50 13,500 Arch Structure , L.S. 1 300,000.00 300,000 Seed/Mulch L.S. 1 3,000.00 3,000 Mobilization L.S. 1 _ 71,994.00 71,994 Subtotal 1,521,739 15% contingency228,261 z • total construction cost 1,750,000 add 309k for engineering, legal, administration 525,000 Total Project Cost (without right-of-way) 2,275,000 GALPIN BOULEVARD (CSAH 19) 1 Item Unit j Quan. Cost/Unit I Total Pavement Removal S.Y. 6,000 3.00 18,000 Common Excavation C.Y. 17,000 3.00 51,000 (TH 5 Temporary Connection) Subgrade Excavation C.Y. 8,000 3.50 28,000 Granular Borow (LV) C.Y. 6,000 4.50 27,000 Aggregate Base CL 5 Ton 8,250 6.50 53,625 Bituminous Wear Course Type 41 Ton 1,380 23.00 31,7.40 • Bituminous Base Course Type 31 Ton 3,020 21.00 63,420 B624 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,400 • 9.00 21,600 Bituminous Curb L.F. 1,500 3.00 4,500 Catch Basin Each 10 1,200.00 12,000 12" RCP L.F. 350 20.00 7,000 15" RCP L.F. 600 22.00 13,200 18" RCP L.F. 324 28.00 9,072 24" RCP L.F. 100 33.00 3,300 24" RC Apron Each 1 475.00 475 - j18" RC Apron Each 1 400.00 400 Riprap C.Y. 16 50.00 800 20" DIP Water Main L.F. 2,000 50.00 100,000 Hydrant w'Lead & GV Each 4 2,000.00 8,000 Concrete Walk S.F. 9,600 2.00 19,200 Bituminous Walk S.F. 6,400 0.75 4,800 Temporary Traffic Signal L.S. 1 45,000.00 45,000 Sodding S.Y. 2,800 1.50 4,200 Seed-'Mulch L.S. 1 1,500.00 1,500 Mobilization - L.S. _ 1 28,690.00 28,690 Subtotal 556,522 159 contingency 83,478 total construction cost 640,00() add 30% for engineering, legal, administration 192,000 Total Project Cost (without right-of-way) 832,000 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Bob Generous, Planner H CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: _ Batzli: Number 1, which was to have a public hearing tonight will not be heard, and that's the application by Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies. Is that right Kate? Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: So if you're here for the first item, that will not be heard tonight. That's been pulled from our agenda. So we're going to move onto the second item. We're going to wait for just a few minutes because there may be some people who thought that it would be starting a little bit later than it will but so what we're probably going to do is ask for the Director's Report from our Planning Director first and then we'll hold the public hearing for the conceptual PUD development where the applicants are Boyers. So having said that, I'll give you a brief intro. We are the Chanhassen Planning Commission. We're a group of Chanhassen residents appointed by the City Council and Mayor to hear land use and other zoning issues. We do not make the final decisions. Rather those decisions are made by the City Council. We make recommendations to the City Council so we encourage everyone to follow their issue, regardless of which way we go here tonight. Follow that issue up to the City Council. Having said that, as I indicated, we'll be delaying the public hearing momentarily on the second item and Paul, if you want to give us the Planning Director's report first, why don't you do that. Krauss: Sure. At the November 22nd Council meeting the following actions were taken. - The idea of imposing a moratorium on the Highway 5 corridor was discussed for I believe the third time. Staff continues to indicate that the Planning Commission's lack of getting the Highway 5 plan was not for lack of desire but just for lack of time and that...in order to get to it. I also pointed out to the City Council that a moratorium on Highway 5 wouldn't stop most of the development proposals we're getting from coming in because most of them aren't coming in from Highway 5. At your last meeting and tonight's being a good case in point. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 So they agreed with our proposal that we should clear several agendas. They gave us the authority to clear your December 15th agenda and your second meeting in January and I've — outlined the schedule where we've got a proposed special meeting for the Planning Commission in January if we need it. They also pretty well told me if I need to clear any other agendas, just to go do it. If it takes longer than that but they do want to get. Mancino: Tonight? Krauss: They do want to get the plan on their desks by February, and I said I thought that was a goal that we could meet. Most of the Planning Commission, many of you are already familiar with it. It's a matter of getting input and passing it on. After they decided not to impose a moratorium, the concept plan for the Centex PUD, which is the 232 unit townhouse development on Highway 5 and Galpin was approved. There was an additional condition attached to it that basically said we're approving the concept but don't come back until Highway 5 is a done deal and the plan's in place. Basically a similar imposition was placed on Opus last year and we anticipate a similar one might be, we're getting another development proposal on the area between McGlynn's and Bluff Creek and the school site and we believe that that's going to be subject to the same limitations. They already moved the PUD concept for 190 single family townhouse dwelling units for Tandem Properties, Mission Hills down by the new 212 corridor and TH 101 was approved. There was some tinkering, minor tinkering with the conditions. There was some concern about the future commercial. Councilman Senn added...auto related uses and I said well that's fine but I think the council really ought to take a look at the bigger picture because there's quite a bit of commercially identified as zoned property around the four quadrants of that interchange and they agreed that that's something that should be looked at and along with the TH 101 alignment study that they're doing, they asked Fred Hoisington and myself to tackle a...to re- examine the land use development...The last thing of interest to the Planning Commission that was on there was we had a lengthy discussion about the tree preservation plans for Lake Susan Hills 9th and Trotters Ridge. As I think we made you aware, there's significant problems that have developed in enforcing the tree preservation plan. These were projects that went beyond where we've ever gone before with the tree preservation and they were well intentioned efforts but they did cause pretty significant problems with administration and... The City Council agreed that some modifications should be made to these development contracts. They authorized me to negotiate whatever I needed to do to do it but they also said that to the extent that additional trees are going to come down that weren't anticipated to be removed when the projects were originally approved, that if additional trees come down, it needs to be replaced... Mancino: One to one replacement? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: That's my understanding. Well by caliper inch. So the developer does has some flexibility but it comes at a price...We'll have to see how that moves along. On a non- Council item, we are trying to get together and create what we're calling the Bluff Creek initiative which is a multi-agency approach, locally based and will involve...involve residents to plan for the fact, and hopefully recreationally utilize the Bluff Creek corridor. This is a new initiative. It's a new concept that's been developed by the DNR. What's unique about it is it brings a lot of different agencies on line at the same time so you're working from the same book. And we're going to be putting together a grant applicant for LCMR funding, which is the lottery money. We're going to be getting that together and submitting to them at the end of January. It's a competitive process. It's a political process but we think having a lot of agencies on board...and hopefully we'll be successful with that. And long term too, I think it opens the door to substantial implementation funding. I mean planning funding is often times easy to get but it really doesn't accomplish a whole lot except...but this will allow us to get in line...dollars to acquire land to reforest, to protect areas, to build trails, to build water quality basins, and really take an overall. Batzli: What lines would we be getting into? Krauss: What? Batzli: What lines are we getting into? Implementation. You said that would allow us to get into line. Do you have something in mind? Someone's going to help us buy it? Krauss: Well actually yeah. There are clean water action grants. There is funding available for the Watershed District that's assessed on a whole district basis. One of the more interesting funding concepts came about from the Metro Council. I won't go into detail but it involves the settlement of what would have been a lawsuit between the Metro Waste Control Commission...National Environmental Protection Agency where because it's the Metro Council, because it's the State of Minnesota is making progress...clean-up the Minnesota River, and because the metro region doesn't want to pay $400 or $500 million to upgrade the sewer plants on the Minnesota River for...water quality, they're saying fine. But they want the region to pay $10 million into a fund to do water quality improvement projects in the lower Minnesota River basin. Well, we are in the lower Minnesota River Basin and we're one of the best...community's taking an activist position in protecting our environmental features and we think we stand a good chance of being at the head of that line for some of that funding. So we're very hopeful with that. The last thing I wanted to mention is, thus far we've had 4 or 5 applicants for the open positions on the Planning Commission. We had a staff meeting today and we think what we're going to do is schedule the interviews, if it works out for people, towards the end of our Highway 5 meeting on the 15th so that we get a good meeting in place and get them scheduled...well, or 8:30 in that kind of a timeframe so 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 we can get the productive part of the meeting out of the way and then when we get tired of talking about Highway 5, then we...so that's possibly the way it will end up. Mancino: And each interview is 15 minutes? Krauss: Typically... Batzli: Okay. We didn't have any Minutes this time around? Krauss: Well the Minutes, you know because our meetings are going so late and Nann is doing so many Minutes for so many of our commissions, and it was a short week, there was just no way to get them out. We have the Minutes in the office. I could have given them tc you tonight but I didn't think that would be... Scott: Well I think it's important to, since the development was denied on TH 101 and Lyman, I think it's important that the members of the City Council get those Minutes so they can see some of that reasoning because my guess, yeah my guess is they're going to see that on their agenda. Krauss: Yeah. We have them in hand. The Council packet does not go out until next week. Week after that. So they'll certainly have them. Mancino: I would also like to get a copy because I wasn't here for that meeting and I'd like to hear the rationale. Aanenson: They'll be in the next packet. Krauss: Unless you'd like it in advance of the Council meeting. Mancino: Yeah, that'd be great. Krauss: Well why don't we mail it out... Batzli: Okay. Was that the end of your report Paul? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Moving right along. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE, SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Hubbard 2841 Washta Bay Bob Boyer 5020 Suburban Drive Dave Truax 4879 Drake Street Tom & Ann Merz 3201 Dartmouth Joe Boyer 3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven John Boyer 16601 Meadowbrook Lane, Wayzata John Blumentritt 22720 Galpin Lane, Shorewood — Kelly Sheehan 2951 Washta Bay Road Janis Bremer 2961 Washta Bay Road Alan Tollefson 2931 Washta Bay Road Don Sueker 3111 Dartmouth Drive Steve Hall 6221 Arbor Lane Jim & Jo Ginther 3131 Dartmouth Drive = Sue Fiedler 3121 Dartmouth Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: This is a conceptual PUD so we're not necessarily looking at this exact configuration. But in this case, is it required that we vote to rezone or have some sort of findings that this would be a good PUD site? And this isn't currently zoned PUD, correct? Aanenson: Correct. You have to, the way the PUD ordinance says, in order to do a zero or cluster you have to have medium density. So what we're recommending is as a part of this if you felt comfortable with that, to recommend change to the PUD ordinance to allow cluster = or zero lot line in the single family zone. Mancino: And reduce the lot size and the minimum to 5,000. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Aanenson: Well, yeah in a cluster situation. Krauss: But this is a concept. You're not being asked to take any formal action on that tonight at the concept. Your concept steps are optional but they're the point in the process that you can give a lot of guidance to the developer of telling them that there's no way that you're going to proceed or telling them to proceed with modifications or telling them it's perfect the way it is. It's really a fact finding level in the plan approval program. So that's, you're giving guidance on that tonight. You're not being asked to take formal action. Batzli: Normally it troubles me when we change our ordinance like this when one project comes in. I assume that, have you looked at other instances in the city where something like this would be done and does it make sense? I mean you've guided us through one other one that occured, maybe or maybe not under this current PUD ordinance. Aanenson: Well the obvious implication is once you do that, you're going to have requests- from a lot of people to do that. I mean that's the first thing that has to...come in for 5,000 square foot lots. But I think what you're going to have to look at is, what we're trying to say with this one too is what's exactly, are you getting more units? What you're getting is clustering of units and more open space. I don't think we're increasing the total number of units that can be built in this project. What we're doing is we're clustering them at the...open space and again, after you approve it, you can still deny any specific project just like you've done with the other project. You just said you felt it didn't meet the merits of the PUD. So we go through that same process. Batzli: Well what troubles me, and I'm just talking out loud here, so I hope I don't foam at the mouth. Is that if you're going to build an upscale development like this, you're not going to situate the units right on Highway 7. You can't build in the wetlands and there's ordinances on how close you can build to the lake. So have we really clustered the units here given this style of development? Krauss: Well, you can play devil's advocate here and I don't like being cast in the role of the devil, and so many developers would want to do, they show you the worst case situation. But you could get, it's very conceivable that you would get a developer doing standard single family subdivision, straight 15,000 square foot lots. Jam some of them up against the highway. You can do that. You don't have any regulation against it. The lot just has to be a little deeper. They probably wouldn't be very nice lots. They probably wouldn't be very expensive homes but drive down the highway. You see people that have done just that. And then you would plop in your home where you could live. As Kate points out, the net density in this thing is no different than if you went with the standard single family subdivision. If you distribute the buildable area here. Not the wetlands. Not the lakes. If you distribute the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 buildable area here amongst the units that they have, they're in excess of 15,000 square feet units. Clearly these are not 15,000 square foot lots. They're much smaller lots. Everything else in held in common. There are large green spaces. A lot of the site's untouched and we think that yes...clustering. And it's substantial clustering. Farmakes: If they're considering the channel to be shoreland, is the lake setback then applying to that channel? Krauss: Yes it would. They're not considering, they would prefer not to I suppose. We got a read from the DNR that the DNR considers it shoreland. Farmakes: Okay. But what I'm saying is then, there's a setback then that goes all the way around that channel, correct? = Mancino: According to the DNR. Farmakes: So if there's a setback on the lot line to the, let's see that would be to the east. How would you build on that property anyway? Traditional or PUD or otherwise. What would it be 50 feet? 100 feet? Krauss: On this site? Farmakes: Yeah. You need an access road to get there. Krauss: Yeah, it's on the floor there and I think they'll show it to you. Now when we reviewed that early draft we pointed that out to them. That the units that they had shown on the east side of the channel were probably not legitimate units and when they went back in they refined their proposal to accommodate all the lake setbacks, all the wetland setbacks and everything else. Farmakes: So I'm looking at that with the setback and an access road and a setback from the lot line, and they can still get a house in there. Or are you saying that they could not? Krauss: On the east side of the channel? Farmakes: Well on this side of the drawing. I'm looking at. Krauss: My side over here? Farmakes: It would be the east, yes. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: No, we don't think. The...if there are any building sites on the east side, they're minimal. Farmakes: So PUD, traditional or otherwise, would preclude any building on that area? Mancino: We could build there is what you're saying? Aanenson: Or you go through, I mean it's wetland. If you alter it and that is ag urban wetland which we...city process to go through the wetland alteration. Scott: How would you access that via a street? Krauss: That was one of the problems they had with the street connection to the east. It became impractical to do it. However, it wouldn't be the first time and if you really wanted to push it, yeah. You build a private drive through the ag urban wetland and you mitigate what you can take out of the wetland to get there. It's been done. In fact you just reviewed at your last meeting I think. Batzli: Sanda's. Krauss: To access the island. Farmakes: Is there a road currently there? I'm assuming not. Okay, so it would have to access someone else's property then to cross over to get there? Krauss: It would be easier to access across somebody's property. Otherwise they have to build something through that ag urban wetland. Farmakes: Well, and the upper part is wetland. I'm looking for some open area behind the ordinary high water mark and I'm somewhat hearing what he's saying. The only really open area of the lot is filled with development and can you point out to me what, by using a PUD here you feel that we're opening up. Krauss: Well I'd like the developer to do their presentation. I mean I can stand here. Farmakes: I'm assuming this was part of your discussion when you had this. Krauss: Yeah, there were substantial common space located along Highway 7 and in the northwest corner, down along the lakeshore itself and then there's some common areas behind some of the units. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation for the Planning Commission? If you could come up and give us your name and address and who you're representing for the record. John Blumentritt: Members of the Planning Commission of Chanhassen, my name is John Blumentritt with Boyer Building Corporation and I am the individual that prepared this area site plan that we're about to review. First of all I wish to thank Kate Aanenson and the planning staff because we did go through a tremendous amount of different...but it seems like as we look at right now we have a well constructed report in that we really only have several concerns that seem to...and yet to be resolved. But we appreciate the Planning Commission and it's recommendation for approval. Now as we look at the site plan, and I'll just step around for a moment to show you this. One more refresher again. Highway 7 is on the north side. The shores of Minnewashta are on the south side. Arbor Lane is at this point. It's labeled Arbor Drive. It's Arbor Lane. Onto Dartmouth and that's forming the access and then Washta Bay Road is on the easterly side. Not including the channel of course, as mentioned, this site is 13.47 acres of property. For a moment please let me give the Planning Commission a brief history on how Boyer Building Corporation arrived at the proposal you're about to review. As Mr. Krauss had mentioned, during the past summer we prepared a sketch of the site plan containing 37 units. Let me just put that up for a moment too if I can. Once this sketch was developed, we requested a meeting with Mr. Krauss and asked him to perform a conceptual review. At that meeting Mr. Krauss and other members of the planning staff had very guarded concerns indicating that the wetlands and the shoreland ordinances and the boating and other issues may pop up and of course they didn't want to discourage us from pursuing this thing but they reminded us that there definitely were some things that we needed to have resolved that obviously there's a series of other regulatory agencies that would have some say in this thing. And that was fine. We wanted to just test the waters and get a feel of what that might be. During the Parade of Homes we have another subdivision that you can see the photographs down on the floor, that's called Gideon Cove over in Shorewood. What we wanted to do was use this one, if you would, as a test balloon because the units over at Shorewood, the empty nester homes that we have there, sold out. So what we decided to do was to put this site plan up and inquire with some of the people that came through of it's viability and we wanted to test the market. We did want to see if there was some appeal to this as a potential home site. We had indicated on a no pressure basis that if people were to be interested, if this was something that may appeal to them, would they please sign our guest register. Again, it would be something that we'd keep them casually informed as this went through the planning process and indeed it became a reality, that we would be in touch with them. We have over 100 different names sign our register. I guess that concluded our market study. We refined this 37 unit proposal. Went back to the planning commission and fortunately then we found out all the difficulities we were about to incur. We had a choice. It was either refine the design and resolve all the regulatory agency 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 issues or limit the number of units and don't infringe on the sensitive areas. So then we wer..t back to the drawing board one more time and that's this that you're about to look at. With several more attempts we finally arrived at a conceptual plan. That plan that you see of Spinnaker Wharf. And now as we move to the present we have several issues. When designing Spinnaker Wharf several extremely important characteristics and criteria needed to be resolved. Because the design is exclusively designed for empty nester lifestyle, the urgency of clustering and the demand for security and low maintenance were of paramount importance. Issue B. The current comprehensive plan does not allow for clustering of residences in a low density residential area. Even though our development is well within the 1.2 to 4 units per acre criteria. The negative presence, or Issue C. The negative presence of Highway 7 and the noisy effect generated from 17,000 to 19,000 cars per day definitely is a big concern. Issue D. The existing of the wetlands on the site. We were instructed by Mr. Krauss to use the Chanhassen wetlands inventory delineation for planning purposes, or to hire a wetlands consultant. We selected for expediency the Chanhassen map. The wetlands to the southwest side of the property, that's here, is 4.2. I'm sorry, is .42 acres designated as a natural wetland and presently appears as a cattail mat. The channel wetland is something else, and that we need to very seriously evaluate, and I mean very seriously. The channel wetland is created from surface drainage storm water culverts that protrude at the northwest and the northeast side of the site. And again I'll show you where those are. Up at this point. and then there's one underneath this area that comes through there. These culverts were installed during the construction of Highway 7. From the north side of Highway 7 through the drainage ditches, through the culverts, now comes fertilizers, chemicals, salts, topsoil runoff and other untreated sediment. These effects rocket down the drainage ditches and intc the channel and ultimately into Lake Minnewashta. To call this even an ag wetland is unbelievable because in reality it's a lot worse than that. Other issues existed but let us now turn to our solutions that this present. Solution #1. With the existence of 26 units on an approximately 13.5 acre site, the density is less than 2 units per acre gross. Well within the lower range of the low density residential limits. We are confident that this solves the density and the traffic issues. Solution #2. By allowing the clustering of homes, we can now create the benefits of empty nester living. Architectural integrity, common association, privately maintained streets, consisting of ground maintenance and neighborhood security. Solution #3. The clustering allows us not to distrub the shoreline area or the existing wetlands. This proposal does not invade the wetlands and leaves ample land for buffering to the wetlands. Solution #4. With strategically placed NURP ponds and an internal storm sewer, this development will enhance the current adverse ground water effects. The site plan is an effort to encourage environmental sensitivity by using NURP ponds, by using internal storm sewers, by using curbs, gutters and topography. Treating the runoff water enhances the water quality before it enters into Lake Minnewashta. There is one negative. To call on Boyer Building Corporation to pay for the internal runoff generated from this development is fair. To call for us to pay, or to plan, install and pay for runoff generated from neighboring 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 properties, Highway 7 and the neighborhood of Shorewood is not fair. This is an issue that will need further review and it is our intent to continue this with the planning staff, with MnDot and with the city of Shorewood. Lastly I'd like us to turn to page 11 of the staff report and go through the list of recommended items on this report. Item number 1. As mentioned, we will work with the staff regarding the drainage system but understand serious financial issues still exist. Item number 2, the development agreement is fine. We have no problem with that at all. Item 3, it is also understood. Grading, drainage and utility plans and specifications will be provided during this planning process. Item number 4. The 24 foot wide instead of 20 foot wide street may be acceptable. This appears initially to be excessive blacktopping especially if item 10, the fire marshal's letter which calls for no street parking prevails. We will continue to investigate this matter with the staff. Item 5. The turn around at the end of Dartmouth is not desirable, nor do we see that as being acceptable. We will continue this issue with the staff and present a reasonable solution at the preliminary level of the PUD hearing. Item 6. Rather than engaging a wetland specialist to look at the channel, our preference is to acknowledge the channel runoff is a serious concern. Until a water system is constructed, this matter will worsen. Our preference is to move along expeditiously and get this matter resolved. So let us together engage our engineers and assemble the construction documents and get this water system done. Item 7. With the current site plan, we doubt if we infringe on several of these areas and agencies but it is our concern and we will resolve the necessary permitting. Item 8. The soil and engineering, that's obvious. That does need to be done and we agree that that is a critical issue to resolve. Item number 9. The building official compliance. Again, that is very acceptable. Item 10. The fire marshal's compliance needs interpretation but we plan on wanting to resolve this...Item 11. I want to divert this issue to Robert Boyer in a moment, but please allow me to finish just these last final items. Item 12, removal of the house. That's fine. We have no problem with that either. Item number 13. Amendment of the PUD ordinance, that's great. We love that one a lot. We hope that happens. Item number 14. The quality of the existing trees will be inventoried and incorporated at the lowest cost. We don't feelt he wetland _ revegetation plan is called for because we will not be disturbing that that already exists. We will provide a final landscaping plan for approval to the staff, to the Planning Commission and to the City Council during this PUD process. Item 15. During our investigations we found, or we now find a problem with what is designated as trail fees. While no clear plan seems to exist, we feel perhaps a better solution would be to inform the future homeowners that a future assessment of $200.00 will be charged once the trail plan is put into effect. This we feel would be far more equitable. As we summarize our site plan design, it's our belief the plan functions extremely well and presents many benefits and advantages but we have to leave this decision to your's. We hope that the planning staff will agree with all of the members who have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this project. That it is a good project. Thank you very much and at this point I'm going to turn this one item over to Bob Boyer. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Bob Boyer: Once again my name is Bob Boyer. I reside at 5020 Suburban Drive in Shorewood. I think the reason John requested that I address the docking issue is simply from the standpoint that I'm a former resident out there. I used to live on the property. In fact the property directly west of this development was developed by my father, Joe Boyer and this area over here was where we resided for many years. So intimately aware of the lake and I think some of the concerns of the individuals here too that probably will speak to this particular issue. So rather than get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, what I'd prefer to do is, I think this is a public hearing isn't it? Batzli: Yes it is. Bob Boyer: Defer to those people who have come to discuss the issue and let them discuss what's been said up to this time. Then as the dockage issue becomes an issue of concern, We can talk about that in more detail. Batzli: I would actually prefer that, if you have an argument as to why you don't agree with the staff report, that you provide it now because otherwise we're going to get into a back and forth thing where residents want to say something and then they haven't heard what you have to say in support of more docks. So if you could at least briefly provide us the sketchy details of, if you do have an argument or you are requesting more dock spaces, that you tell us that now before I open it up for the public. Bob Boyer: Alright. I guess suffice to say we do have some concern about what I feel is a fairly arbitrary method for establishing the 12 units, or 12 docks on the lakeshore. Certainly as the staff has mentioned in the report, the property has in excess of 1,900 linear feet of lakeshore. The DNR required, at a certain amount of distress for us, we had to live within the constraints of that 1,900 lineal feet of lakeshore in the process of planning the development. We would like as well the benefit of that, to be able to use that for the recreational advantage of the people that are going to be living there. In certain respects I — guess I see myself not only as a developer, I'm concerned about our investment here. But also an advocate for those people, those 26 homeowners that are going to be living on the property, when I say that we just wanted to be treated fairly. Because we're the last guys on the block so to speak and everybody else has got their docks and got their lakeshore, I guess our concern is that we use the framework that's in place and the ordinances that are in place to allow us to have the dockage that I believe we deserve to have. We requested 26 docks and I believe that was, that's a fair amount and a fair figure. We went through a number of different methods with which to calculate the dockage that we requested. One which is the simplest, which I understand probably does not apply but it gives a sense of density at least, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 is this one dock per 75 feet of lakeshore. If you use that particular calculations, which I believe is the calculations proposed by the Department of Natural Resources and used on single family residences, that would arrive at 26 boats. Precisely what we recommended using. The staff has used in their report a recommendation of providing dockage for 6 boats along that lakeshore. That would, with 3 boats per dock, would allow dockage for 18 boats. We feel it's fair that if we're considering lakeshore dockage, of 6 boats along the lakeshore, that we also allow if this was in fact a single family development, there would also be half acre, 75 foot frontage lots, along the penninsula as well. And since that is considered lakeshore, that there would also be an additional 7 homesites in that location. So with 6 homesites and 7 homesites, we're talking approximately 13 single family, contiguous lakeshore homesites. That would provide in the upper range of 39, ultimately we could have 39 boats. And we're just not asking for that. We're just asking that you give every resident in the development, 26 individuals, or homes, an opportunity to use the lake and to enjoy the lake. I guess that's our viewpoint. Farmakes: I have a question. Is the property currently taxed at 1,900 feet of lakeshore? Bob Boyer: I believe it is, yes. It's designated lakeshore. Farmakes: Is the property value figured at 1,900 running feet of shoreline? Bob Boyer: I'm not sure from a property, I guess dad you'd have to address that. I presume that the valuation of the property is based upon the lakeshore that's there. Joe Boyer: We pay our taxes according to the city assessments, and that's... Bob Boyer: I'm not sure when the assessor comes out and assesses the property, that he necessarily says that this is lakeshore or isn't lakeshore. I'm not sure he's actually gone to the effort of finding that out. Certainly if this were platted out as single, or half acre lots, people fronting the existing channel would be considered lakeshore owners. I don't have any doubt of that. Farmakes: The County tax assessor has a formula for calculating lakeshore and assessing the value to the property based on running feet for each lake in this city. And that's why I brought it up as a question, and I'm sure that that is calculated based on occasion to access a wetland area and not necessarily usable shoreline. And the reason I ask is what, was the county assessing that property, were they using the 1,900 feet as a rule for valuating the property currently. I understand the DNR and I read the staff report in that regard and I just, it seems like, I'd like to know if other government agencies here are also towing in line with the 1,900 feet... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Bob Boyer: I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you on that. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Mancino: I have a couple questions. The existing channel is deep enough to get in docks and boats? In that channel. Bob Boyer: Yeah. In fact people do often times take their boats down through there. It's a spot where people who fish, so you can traverse it with a boat. Mancino: And if you live at number 21, to get to your dock, your dock out in the channel, don't you have to go. Bob Boyer: Right here? Mancino: Yeah. To the west of the channel. You have to go through wetlands to get to the dock, correct? Muck and peat. Bob Boyer: There would be wetlands right in this area, that's correct. And the area that's light green is the wetlands area which quite frankly is not untypical around Lake Minnetonka, or Minnewashta has significant wetland areas between people's property and the actual water line which, and people do, just run their docks right through the wetlands. We're not proposing to do that. What we're proposing is to cluster the dockage at the end here. We really do not want to disturb the shoreline at all. Short of providing a 4 foot dock out to the boats. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate and/or Paul. Why are we talking about the number of boats since what they're trying to do is get one dock space for every home and we're not really approving the number of homesites on the property right now? Aanenson: Well, the PUD ordinance says, I mean the beachlot ordinance says, based on square footage and frontage you can have x number of docks and what that says is 30,000 square feet for the first dock with 100 feet of frontage, plus additional 20,000 square feet for additional docks. So really in order to get, you only need 2 acres to get the three docks. They could have more than, it's a matter if they had 12 units they could, or excuse me, if they even had 20 units, they could probably still have more docks. First they do a PUD...you may want to leave that open ended at this point but I think that's a concern of the neighbors. The total number of docks. Batzli: Well, but this doesn't seem very conceptual if we're limiting it to a number of dock 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 spaces when we, it seems apparent to me that this plan, if it's conceptual, may or may not end up with 26. Aanenson: I agree with you but. Batzli: They want the number of boat spaces that they've got units on the property. Aanenson: I guess the staff's position is we don't feel there should be direct correlation to the number of units and the number of dock spaces. I guess that's our position. Batzli: Okay, but why are we talking about it now? That's my question. Krauss: Well it is, we've been working around the lake long enough to know that this is a major issue for all those that live on the lake. It happens every time anything is being developed here. It is a concern for us. It is something that the PUD gives you ability to exercise control over that you wouldn't normally have if this came in as a straight subdivision. And what we're recommending is that under the PUD you exercise it. Aanenson: And they would like an answer to know that. That'd be part of whether or not they want to proceed based on the number of dock slips so they want some direction from you. Whether you tie it down to a specific number or give them a range. I think that's a concern. Batzli: Okay. Did you have something to add? Bob Boyer: Yeah, if I could. I don't want the misconception that we're, that we necessarily have a direct correlation from homesites to dockage. The reason we selected the 26 obviously is we do have 26 homes but I think it's obvious to see that because of the lakeshore we have, we have the potential for more boats. We're just simply saying, all we want is 26 because that's all the homeowners there's going to be. We're not requesting any additional. We're not requesting pull up slips or any of that stuff that I think under the shoreland regulation would be allowed. All we want is an opportunity for the homeowners to be on the lake if they want to. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there are residents or other people who would like to address the commission, please step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz. I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Would you be kind 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 enough to put that first map back up where you showed the...I live in Joe Boyer's first addition. It's been part of the Boyer family my whole life so as I speak, if this sounds negative, it's more of a protection of my home. These are good people. If somebody's going to develop it, Boyer's are the finest people. When I look at this project as it was introduced. you know whether they talk about cluster homes or non-cluster homes, and they talked about the zoning and they talked about the...and they talk about 2.3 units per acre. I'm not smart enough to sit back here and try to tell you whether it's good or bad. As a person, I live in the adjoining neighborhood and as you look at the impact that this project is going to have, and especially if you just take, let's just talk about Joe Boyer's Sterling Estates on the west side of it and the Minnewashta Heights on the east side and if you look at all those homes o; each side of it, you're looking at one acre lots plus or minus. You're looking at residential small impact neighborhoods. And now you want to take this unit and they'll take Arbor Drive and they'll take, the center portion, they'll take all of these 26 units that will generate probably 180 plus or minus car traffic per day and they'll all come out of Arbor Lane and my objection is that this unit, or this development doesn't stand on it's own. It's impacting the adjoining neighborhoods and if there was some way that they could find to concentrate whatever they're doing so they had their own means of access or egress, maybe this is something that's more palatable. But you talk about making all of that impact and putting it onto our neighborhood, to me that is not in keeping with something that we have, or our lifestyle. We bought homes in areas that are low density, low impact and you're making all of a sudden this development will make our's into a very high impact and high density. I think that also if we talk about planning, when you look at the ultimate goal and we listened to the...about the senior citizens and how they want to get access in and out...To me it would seem logical that they will take Dartmouth Drive and somehow connect it through Washta Bay Road so in essence what we are doing is allowing that entire neighborhood to flow down to some type of a semaphore where all can get access on or off or across Highway 7. By putting this neighborhood in there without any connection access, we are completing eliminating any further, whatever we want to do. Send our kids down to the shopping center. Whatever happens, to me that just seems like good planning. If you allow this development road to go through, you are completing impacting what I think makes better planning. To try to speak about to cluster the homes, I don't know that I have a lot to offer about that. I think the next issue that we get onto the lake issue, and for all you know that this end of the bay of Lake Minnewashta is very ecologically sensitive. It's about a 10 to 12 foot lake. It's got a lot of silt in the bottom of it. And a lot of boat traffic makes it, the turbity which increases the weed growth which increases all the many things that happen in the lake. When you look at this project and you go from Boyer's, this addition has got probably 800 feet. As you go to the west, all the way up to Nagele's point, there's probably a series of 7 docks and there's probably only 7 boats. As you take from Boyer's addition and we go back into that bay to, I'm sorry. Nagele's would be to the west. The other one would be to the east. There's probably, oh let's see. There's probably about 3,000 feet if you go to the east and you 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 probably don't see 6 or 7 boats to the east. 6 or 7 docks and 6 or 7 boats. Somebody made a statement that each boat, or each dock is allowed to have 3 boats. Well I think that may be true if they are, if it were my dock I could put 3 boats on it but I couldn't build a dock, put my boat and have 2 of my friends come up and put a dock. This isn't in keeping with the ordinance. Is that a true statement? Aanenson: Yes. Tom Merz: Okay. So when he made a statement about 3 boats along the shore, you don't see any boats, or you don't see a typical neighborhood dock with more than 1 boat. What that means is that you go around the rest of the bay and you look at the regional park that's got over 15,000 feet of shore and they'd probably have 35 boats in there. You talk about Minnewashta Parkway that's got 120 homes in there, plus or minus, and there aren't 12 boats in that neighborhood. If you look at the Minnewashta Heights has got 75 homes and probably there's 11 boats, plus or minus, and that's would allow for an outlot. Boyer's has got 10% of this bay and they're asking for between 14 and 28 boats. Well, there's only 7, there's 14 boats, plus or minus, on this whole mile and a half of lakeshore and they're asking to double it up in 800 feet, which to me isn't a good thing. Let's see. I guess that those are the two issues. How do we properly protect our interest on the site if we're maintaining the quality of our lots and the quality of that lake... We expect that this 10%, or this 800 feet of Lakeshore probably could be judged in the same way that we are. Because it is a channel, it goes through there that some years ago somebody man made and it's not navigable to go back in with some big boats and if they think they're going to line with docks, that isn't in keeping with that either. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Brevity would be encouraged. Bruce Hubbard: My name is Bruce Hubbard. I live on 2841 Washta Bay Road. Just on the east side of there. I would certainly have to agree with what he said about the boats and the dockage that are on the lake presently. I also have a similar concern that we seem to be raising about the number of homes that we should be comparing this to. It seems that if you look at the way things are plotted up there, and you talk about the wetlands and the amount of homes that you could put in there with the setbacks, coming out of 26 or any number close to that, doesn't seem to be at all feasible. And if you used a number that you would be able to do a single family and then cluster those, then you would have some usable open space but the open space that we're seeing on this, most of it's wetland that we can't use depending on... So it just doesn't seem to make sense to use that kind of density that we're starting out 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 with to arrive at the total amount that should be clustered. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else? Jim Ginther: My name is Jim Ginther. I live at 3131 Dartmouth Drive and I sent a fax today to the commission. I don't know if any of you have had a chance to get that. Aanenson: Yeah, they do... Jim Ginther: So I don't want to belabor the point if you've already had a chance to read it but I did want to make a couple of points here and highlight that for you. Again like Tom Merz stated, we aren't really in fundamental opposition to the project that the Boyers have presented here. Secondly, as I also feel very strongly and if we're going to have a developer there, that we would be hard pressed to find someone better than the Boyers to do this because like the Merz', the Boyers were neighbors of our's for the years that we initially moved into Lake Minnewashta and I think they truly do have a concern about that area. Specifically we're concerned about two areas and that is the singular access via Dartmouth Drive to the project and the proposed 26 docks for boat slips. The congestion that we see that will occur from this project concerns us since there is only one outlet through Dartmoutt. Drive and through Arbor Drive. By adding 52 cars, potentially for this 2 car garage complex, then we're going to have...our neighborhood of over 150 trips daily out that one singular access road. Now already there is a significant delay in the morning getting out onto Highway 7 from Arbor Drive. It's not uncommon to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes to get out onto that drive and that's just if 1 or 2 cars are sitting there. Now if you have 6 or 8 or 10 cars sitting there, which I think you're going to have, with one outlet for this whole complex, 26 homes, 50 some cars, this wait is not going to be 2 or 3 minutes. It's going to be 10 minutes. It's going to become more dangerous or to have people making an effort in a rush to get out and I'm concerned about the safety as we think about people accessing onto Highway 7, with 17,000 to 19,000 cars and as we all know, Highway 7's becoming a more rapidly traveled road all the time. Secondly, beyond the delay part, is that we also have in terms of accessing Arbor off of Highway 7, we currently have a very dangerous situation. I think it's been recorded to the Department of Transportation where they mislined that road just this past summer so literally you come up a hill, approaching on from the highway, have to make a left turn and it's not a safe left turn right now. Now if we're going to bring 52 more cars trying to make a left turn onto something that's already unsafe, we're really looking for significantly impacting a dangerous situation there. Within Sterling Estates, which is the subdivision adjoining this property to the west, there are no sidewalks. Consequently there's constant, continual pedestrian foot traffic in the streets, specifically Arbor Drive and Dartmouth and that's where people walk. Children play out there. People 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 walk out there. Guests that come into the neighborhood or taking a walk through the neighborhood there, and you could not possibly come into this neighborhood on a weekend and not find people walking up and down Arbor Drive and Dartmouth Drive and now this is the only singular access that we're talking about for another 50 plus cars traveling that road 150 times a day. So I'm very concerned about the safety within Sterling Estates. I'm concerned about the safety that it's going to be for both Sterling Estates and the proposed Spinnaker Wharf people all trying to access the same area off of one outlet. I think a very reasonable solution is to add a second access at the east border of the property onto Washta Bay Road, which was the original earlier option as you saw those presented in the original plan. And we heard here just this evening that it has been done and can be done. That a private road can be put across wetlands to access another road. I think that's not going to be a convenience factor only but it's certainly going to be a safety factor that I think should be strongly considered by this commission. The second concern that we have is the excessive amount of boats contemplated with 26 boat slips. I'm not going to belabor that point but right across this bay, to the south of this proposed subdivision is a 400 acre, lake regional park with two public accesses and a good amount of time, attention and planning was developed years ago when that park was planned to permit only 35 boats. 35 boats from that 400 acre park. Two accesses. Park to accommodate hundreds of people. To put 35 boats on this lake. And now we're asking for 26 boats from a 13 acre parcel to be put onto this lake. It just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, as I think there's a little bit of mirrors being played in the sense of the channel that is on this property. It is a unique channel in the sense that what it does by the DNR's definition of all of that being lakeshore, is 1,900 feet of lakeshore, for that 13 acres is pretty unrealistic when you consider that all you can do is possibly turn a rowboat around in that 3 feet of water that is in that channel. And when you're considering the fact that the whole east side of the channel is now designated as wetland that can't be disturbed, how that becomes lakeshore that now is calculated in determining the number of homes that can be considered as lakeshore. Literally speaking, if that channel were removed, we would be looking at something that would be about 6 or 7 houses that could possibly at the most front this lake. And now we're talking 26 houses. So in other developments in the past, on Lake Minnewashta and I would imagine other lakes, they just didn't happen to have a channel going back into a small piece of property that all of a sudden gives it 1,900 feet of lakeshore. So I just think it's an illusion as far as considering that amount of lakeshore for that small parcel of land. Finally, to give you a thought about a workable solution there is that, what we would like to suggest is that the number of boat slips be limited to the same number of cluster homes that actually front the lake. I believe the...plan here shows 8 homes fronting the lake and consequently we think that a reasonable solution would be 8 boat slips on one dock and then in addition to that, I would concur with what we saw in the staff's report and that is a couple of racks back in the channel area for small sailboats and canoes could be kept because that would then allow the people who are in reality really off the lake, those cluster homes behind the lakeshore homes, they would have 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 access to the lake through the sailboats, the canoes and the type of things that other people use in similar situations around Lake Minnewashta who in reality have homes off the lake. And in reality those cluster homes that don't front Lake Minnewashta are truly not lakeshore homes and we don't think they ought to be treated as lakeshore homes. Finally, in conclusion, we've been residents of this area for over 20 years. We have developed a nice home in that area, as have many other neighbors here. I just sat down the other evening and figured out that we paid well over $100,000.00 in real estate taxes for the property that we have here on this lake. And we're not opposed to progress. We're not opposed to development that meets community needs and enhances a very special natural resource that exists here in Chanhassen. I think we need to remember that that lake is special. It's not Lake Minnetonka. It's not a zoo out there. It's a special natural resource. Very special by the lake region park that's been developed on the east side. As we add development, as we add congestion, I think you need to give strong consideration to the amount of boats that you put on this lake. Consequently I think that it's very important that this body, as well as Carver County and the State be very consciously concerned of those Minnewashta residents who live our daily lives on that lake. We raise our families on that lake and who are going to be most impacted by what is done with this property. So I thank you for your consideration. Batzli: Thank you. You said we several times. Are you referring to yourself and your wife? Jim Ginther: Yes. I'm speaking for my wife and myself. Batzli: Okay. Okay. I didn't know if you were speaking for other residents. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Janis Bremer: My name is Janis Bremer and I reside at 2961 Washta Bay Road, and if I could use a pointer I'll show you where that property is. I think I can show you where the property is. It is these two lots, which you can see has about, let's see if I get this right. 400 feet of the boundary of Joe Boyer's property. In general I'd like to say that we simply disagree with changing the zone. That if it's low density zoning, it needs to remain low density zoning. In terms of some of the points that have been made, we've been living on that property for almost 8 years. The boats that go into the channel are rowboats. They can barely turn around. Go up there some day. You can walk in and out. There is a lot of designated wetlands. We have constantly checked with the city about what is supposed to be occurring on that property. Joe Boyer may be an excellent developer. I don't know. I don't know much about property development in this area. What I do know is he's been very disrespectful of our property, and what that speaks to in the future I simply want you to know that. He's brought heavy equipment in there. He has plowed down trees. He has turned the equipment around on our property and said, oh. I didn't know where the property bordered. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 The wetland expert that came in was...from the city of Chanhassen, also disrespectful of our property. This does not speak well in terms of future development. We do not have a dock on our 100 feet of lakeshore because of the cattails and the natural lakeshore there. The little square that's emptying, I wanted to mention the fact that that's owned by Pete Boyer, who's Joe's son. So if you're looking at wanting a road to the north side of our property, the only way to get onto Washta Bay Road is to use I think it's 50 feet that Pete still owns, that's our access road that has had no maintenance done to it in 7 1/2 years. Try driving on it. Okay? He may be a good developer. It doesn't look like it where we're sitting. And do we have to get involved in that kind of project? The respected wetlands which is the empty property to the west of us, oh I guess they've had heavy equipment in on it at least 3 to 4 times in the past 7 years. Joe has allowed his son to plant trees there, one suspects in order to build up the wetland. I don't know that okay but there are planted trees on that land. A long row of them. It hasn't been left in it's natural state. Now maybe that's...for development. I don't know. I know we were told by the city that there is no variance and there hasn't ever been unless we sell some of our property for building houses on the east side of that channel. Putting a road into Washta Bay, no disrespect to Arbor Lane. I think that's an enormous problem but it's going to create an identical problem at Washta Bay Road. Coming out on Washta Bay Road you've got to, have you guys driven on it recently? Whoomp. And then you turn right and there's this great little swoopy hill. I suppose you could rebuild that and fix things like that but I think you're going to have the same traffic density problem even if you access both ways. And again, there's 50 feet to get from our east edge of our property to Washta Bay Road. The only non-private property there has got 50 feet that's owned by Pete Boyer. And you may want to know that. Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan and I live at 2951 Washta Bay Road which would be right on the apex of the right angle there on Washta Bay Road takes a jog going east. And everything that's been said tonight I guess I can't elaborate a lot. I'm generally agree with most of it. The only thing I'd like to add is that I do own a Boyer home and of course they are good builders, however the road that you're discussing as far as connecting the east and west sides of that property on that channel, there's a little dirt road that Janis was elaborating on. I would not like to see a lot of excess traffic on that road obviously because I live in front of it. So the problem you have with the traffic getting on and off of, I believe it's Dartmouth Drive. I can see just an increase in traffic flow with this project and I think this...second the motion to keep it the way it is. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Don Sueker: My name is Don Sueker and I live right next to where the proposed division is 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 to go, 3111 Dartmouth Drive. Batzli: Are you on the north or south side of Dartmouth? Don Sueker: The north side. South side, excuse me. Batzli: South side. Towards the lake. Don Sueker: Right. I guess I want to agree with everything that Tom and Jim have said as far as the accessibility and I think when I, and I've only been there 2 years. When I bought the property I originally thought I liked the wilderness part of it and all the aspects of being the quiet, nice, quite bay. Now I think with, you know you're talking about putting 26 boats in. I'm going to be looking at a marina down there. Not really a residential area that is, I think he built a wonderful area there but I think this is changing the whole concept. And I think I would like to reiterate also that I think they do build nice homes. I've been in a lot of the homes that he's built in the area but I guess I'm opposed to all the traffic that would be coming through there. And I did talk to your fire marshal and your fire chief, although they would not admit it probably now. They are in favor of a double access road in any addition, being what it may be. I guess that's all I've got to say. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall. I live at 6221 Arbor Lane, which is the property just adjacent to Highway 7 and south of TH 7. I only wish to address the traffic studies which give a particular projection on the number of trips. Now I know that that's an exact science. My problem is that they then average that through the day saying you'll have x number of trips per hour. What they're not looking at is those will be clustered like the homes. They'll be clustered in the morning hours and the evening hours, even if they're empty nesters, unless they've retired from life, they carry out their duties during the day like the rest of us. They'll leave in the morning. They'll be back in the evening. Visitors will be a similar situation. Those traffic patterns, you can't take the number of trips per hour and say you're only going to add 4 trips an hour or 8 trips an hour. They'll be clustered in the same fashion that the residents are presently using. And if you do an average, and I'll just...little story. A man with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a bucket of ice water. On average he's comfortable but it's not appropriate. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. Joe Boyer: I am Joe Boyer and I live in Deephaven now. I lived in Chanhassen for quite a few years and at one time I did apply for the Planning Commission for the City of 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Chanhassen but as it turns out, because I was an advocate of the shoreline walk system, and had control on boat motors on the Lake Minnewashta, but anyhow. That's...control but when I moved in here, the people were...their sewage pump...on the weekends. Dumping their sewage over on my property which would eventually flow into the lake. The lakeshore... sewage system and I think my project forefronted the sewage system through that area. But anyhow, we've planted trees and we've been very concerned about the environment. The development of that area and we have good people living in our areas. Very good people. We've got an excellent clientele and a lot of these people that will live in this area, this new area, are going to be neighbors to the people that have tried to keep them out or cut them down you know. Now if I build 7 houses along the shoreline, as in Sterling Estates, 21 boats right? Plus canoes and rowboats and swimming docks and all that sort of thing. You know. Now this whole area, 26 homes, it's almost, it's not quite 2 homes to the acre. That lot... proportionally is greater than the Heights or Minnetonka Lows or whatever and Sterling Estates there we have lot sizes with 3/4 of an acre plus. 3/4 of an acre...They're mostly all half and in some cases a third of an acre. And these homes will do nothing but enhance the area. It's good for the area. There is no more land. All the land we had you see you know. God doesn't build any more you know. So you have to make use of what you have. Good use you know and it should be functional as well pleasing to the eye. I think with the way they designed this area, it will work well and probably half the people in there won't even own a boat. And I think the city of Chanhassen is remiss in not having a trail system around the entire lake. For the runners, the walkers, and that sort of thing you know. That's my only concern. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Joe Boyer: Along the lakeshore I meant. A trail system around on the lakeshore. Batzli: Right on the lakeshore. Joe Boyer: On the lakeshore, you bet. Scott moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Nancy, we'll start with you. Diane successfully avoided eye contact. Mancino: ...the Boyer Corporation's development in Shorewood, Gideon Cove and it's very top quality development. Wooded lots. Lakeshore views. Nature trail. Appealing exterior with the cedar shingles, siding...quiet neighborhood. Kind of off the beaten track and I think 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 there's no question that they would do a quality job here in Chanhassen and I would support their development here. I'd love to see it. I'm an empty nester. A young empty nester. However, I am uncomfortable, I think the core issue for me is changing the zoning of land and modifying the PUD ordinance. Right now it's zoned RSF, single family residential, low density which means that the minimum size, lot size is 15,000 square feet. Now if we were to, if they come in and asked for a PUD single family low density, the minimum lot size could be 11,000 square feet with the average lot size for the entire PUD, maintaining the a 15,000 foot minimum. But that won't work because they're asking for a minimum of 5,000 square foot. That's what the cluster homes have shown the lot sizes to be. So they're asking for 5,000 minimum square foot lot size so it would be down from our 11,000. They're asking for 5,000. I don't know what the implications for the average lot size for that would be. Does that make sense Kate? I'm kind of asking her I guess. Aanenson: As I eluded to earlier, it'd be the same scenario now with some of the ones that have requested PUD. You have to go through the analysis. • Mancino: But if we said, yes. Okay, to a 5,000 minimum lot size because this is a cluster home. Minimum lot line. What would be the average? Would you still have the average, 15,000. Aanenson: And you can't exceed the density requirements. You still have that range as I pointed out. What you're doing is you're just creating more open space. You're not putting in more units. Mancino: But these are pretty big changes because couldn't anyone where, through the whole rest of the city, let's say on Highway 41 which is fairly traveled. Someone could come in RSF zone and say I want to put a PUD in there and I want to do cluster, etc? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: So we have. Aanenson: You'd go through the same process you do now when you look at a PUD. As looking at the...same criteria. Whether you build... Krauss: I'm not sure if I see the issue as globally as you're implying. First of all I wrote that section of the PUD ordinance and to be honest I wrote it in another community and I wrote it for a specific project that's on Minnetonka Boulevard and we adopted our PUD ordinance. We felt we neede some way to regulate that. So I mean that was the, I mean it wasn't done to structure any particular situation in Chanhassen. So there's no real derivation 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 that you can associate with it. The Red Cedar Cove townhomes were done under an earlier PUD ordinance that have no bearing on this. I think the critical point though here Nancy is you keep reflecting on 15,000 square foot lot area and the fact that under standard single family PUD's you can get it down to 11,000 but you have to average it up to 15,000. I think we would argue here that you're doing the same thing. When you eliminate all the wetland areas on this site. You're only looking at dry ground and you distribute that dry ground amongst the units that are being proposed, divide it amongst the 26 units, you're getting more than 13,000 square feet of dry ground per unit. It's just in a different place. It's not in somebody's individual back yard or front yard. It's in a common space. This is not the wetlands we're talking about. This is dry ground and I think if that's a key factor. If you continue to look at the requirement that when you take a net distribution, that you still maintain that 15,000 square feet, I don't think we've done anything... Mancino: But that's also minimum. I mean if a traditional subdivision in there, we would have I think more open space. Krauss: Well, that's a philosophical argument or discussion we've had a number of times. I personally have argued that when you chop space up into yards, which is typically the case, you do a fairly crummy job of preserving natural features. You don't have any kind of common amenities. You don't have the ability to isolate homes from the highway. You = don't have the ability to isolate homes further back from the lake. Mancino: Well sure they do because they've already got that on Highway 7. If you go down Highway 7, if you go west on TH 7 to TH 41, a lot of those homes, a lot of those subdivisions were put in there are back away from Highway 7. I mean they're not right up to the highway and they were done as good developments and they were done as single family traditional and obviously the developer looked and said, none of the single familiy people want to live here want to live on Highway 7. I mean that's just a given whether you're going to do single family or you're going to do PUD. Krauss: But for every example that I can show you instances where homes are 50 feet away from the highway. I don't know what would actually occur here but anything's possible. Mancino: Do you think we should change the PUD just for this one parcel? I mean shouldn't we go back into the parcel and say well let's do this medium density then? Let's rezone it? ...don't we have enough, when we did the comprehensive plan. When the comprehensive plan was done, you know there was all this information gathered about what we needed for land use and I assume, because I wasn't here, that the Planning Commission and the City Council went through and said this is how much we need for medium density housing. Otherwise we want the rest of it to be single family. And have the numbers 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 changed so we need more medium density housing in Chanhassen? Krauss: I think what the comprehensive plan says is that you want that much land dedicate to low density uses, and this is consistent with that. It never says that all winds up being single family uses. One of the other problems you have with writing ordinances is that products change. Needs change. It's hard to anticipate everything that's coming down the pike with an ordinance. The idea of detached cluster single family housing is a relatively new one that's been around Minnesota for the last 5 or 6 or 7 years and a lot of ordinances don't deal with it very well. I think our ordinance in hind sight might not deal with it very well. Mancino: Well I'd like to hear some opinions from the other planning commissioners. Dave, I have a question for you about the traffic on Arbor Drive. Are Dartmouth Drive and Arbor Drive substandard streets or are they pretty good? Are they 32 foot width? Can they take this amount of traffic? Hempel: They are an older neighborhood. The streets are not quite as wide as we build them today. I'm actually not sure of the width of the street but I would imagine it's probably 44 feet wide without curb and gutter. MnDot, there's another development proposed west of this which will be coming in this winter on the northeast corner of Highway 41. Or actually southeast corner of Highway 41 and. Not 41, Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. Excuse me, which is kind of the same scenario of accessing onto the highway and providing secondary access to the adjacent established neighborhood. There's no doubt that the traffic on Highway 7, it is very difficult to make turning movements into the residential neighborhoods. MnDot is currently proposing to do some additional turn lanes...in '94-'95 along this segment of Highway 7. There's also proposed traffic signals at the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 at some future date which would also help gapping the traffic to assist in turning movements into these neighborhoods. MnDot's also looking at eliminating an access point or two onto Highway 7. Some of these neighborhoods that are capable of looping interior or whether it's a frontage road type scenario. Batzli: Are you suggesting that these people would exit via Dogwood eventually? Hempel: Well, it's possible of maybe accessing another street west of Arbor Drive. If that's Dogwood, that's very well possible. I guess at this point that's conceptual...certainly be in contact with them if this proceeded...along the preliminary plat stage...improvements that were proposed along Highway 7 as well as access points eliminating along Highway 7. As far as a secondary access out of this site, the engineering staff as well as public safety have always gone for a secondary access site out of a parcel whenever it's feasible. However this circumstance, due to the impact on the wetlands with the channel area there, we did propose... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Mancino: What about, and I think you already said no to me but the north/south private drive. Why can't that go straight up into Highway 7 and have an access off Highway 7 straight up? = Hempel: MnDot does regulate access points along the highway. Typically they're like a quarter mile apart, or they are nowadays. They limit access so we don't have all these turning movements every couple hundred feet down which would really make it hazardous. So I would seriously doubt they would even allow it. And then the other constraint is the grade. There's a severe grade difference there so that's the opposition to that. Farmakes: Is the wetland there natural? Aanenson: Along the channel is ag urban. But adjacent to the lake it's natural. Krauss: You mean is it natural as in... Farmakes: Yeah. In other words, by altering all the land, surrounding land around it. Krauss: It's hard to tell. It's pretty...that much of the land that's coming through that ag urban wetland is discharged from developments in Shorewood. Discharge from Highway 7 and it's focused through a pipe. Now there's probably a natural drainage pattern there of some sort before it...but it's keeping it a wet a lot more than probably it used to be...You know this is a concept and I think we should encourage people to throw ideas on the table. Kate and I were talking about something that may be a possibility. We know MnDot will probably kick if there's any additional access points onto the highway but there may be a possibility of constructing a better access through this development and actually closing Arbor. Aanenson: As you mentioned Brian, there is a significant grade change but it may be coming down. Making this a public street and then closing Arbor off. That would keep that, that's something that maybe we could investigate. Mancino: I guess that's about. Batzli: What do you think about the boats? Mancino: What do I think about the boats? Well, my core issue is whether I even feel we should be putting in any...with cluster homes with 5,000. I'm not sold on changing the ordinance to justify this development yet. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Harberts: Changing the zoning or the ordinance? Mancino: Changing the PUD ordinance to allow cluster homes, zero lot size to be in a low density versus a medium density design. Batzli: Okay. Mancino: So the boats follow what comes after that. My other concern about that is, I mean I like to have a lot of tools and diversity to plan and as things come in but you know if I lived in an area, in a neighborhood and beside me was undeveloped land and it was zoned RSF and I went to City Hall and I said, hey tell me a little bit about what can happen...and I come down here and do my due diligence and they say, well it's single family residential. You can have lot sizes 15,000. Besides you can have do it with the PUD ordinance...there could be some 11,000. Okay, fine. Good, I understand that. Then all of a sudden in the middle of things we're saying, you actually could have now. You've been here a few years. You could have cluster home, which I have nothing against cluster homes but 5,000 square foot lots, I don't know. I think I'd want. I know things change but I think that that would make a lot of people mad. Batzli: Well, just to play devil's advocate. They're getting further separation by doing this because if they did it RSF, they'd probably have a 30 foot backyard perhaps. That's about all that's required. Maybe 40. Right now they're spaced at least 100 feet from the existing home, at least according to the conceptual map and. Mancino: You mean on the east, on the west side? Batzli: On the west side. On the east side, I mean there's obviously an incredible space inbetween the houses as a buffer. And it does work out to be nearly, you know if you'll just take the net property, regardless of how you squeeze it in there. Pie shapes or weird jigsaw puzzle shapes to get the right footage, it does work out to be nearly a half acre per unit. The net. Based on the net acreage of the development so. Mancino: Taking away wetlands and what you do. Batzli: Well based on our report. The way it says the net. You know whatever that is. So zero lot lines was what I had initially, as we were doing the PUD. The clustering. The squishing in. Allow those people to live next to each other. They're buying into it. They know what they're getting into. They're leaving open space. You're doing unique things around the perimeter. I like that in a PUD. I'd want to see that and so I don't, you know the 15,000 square foot thing wasn't a big deal to me provided you were doing something unique 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 that justified it being a PUD. Maybe that's my focus here but I don't have the huge problem about the 15,000 square feet because this is kind of what I envisioned a PUD to be for. As opposed to making 11,000 square foot lots and then making one big one so somebody can keep all the trees in their backyard, which is what we've been seeing. So this excites me. So, I don't know. Mancino: In traditional or non-traditional developments? Batzli: I don't know that, I mean these are going to be you know I think, they're not going to be inexpensive homes. I think they're going to be nice homes and Boyers build nice homes so I don't have a problem with that, and I don't know that the neighbors had a problem with that so much as, you know if it came back in here with a regular development and they were able to fit 26 homes on there, we might not like it and the neighbors are stuck with the exact same amount of impact concerning number of daily trips. Because I really don't see us, although I'm open for suggestions, putting a road through the wetland and • across that other person's house that isn't part of the lot and then this 50 foot access. I kind of liked Paul's idea but this is going to impact it no matter how they develop it. And I'd like to see us obviously minimize the impact on the neighbors but I don't know that the fact that they're on small lots impacts them that much. So I think there is nice buffering around that side. We can argue. We can have them pull it a little bit or something but that's just my conceptual feel here. Jeff. Farmakes: I first of all have to give my sympathy to whoever was decided on this lot. It's almost like something out of a college exam. What a strange development problem. I, first of all would like to clarify what it is we're doing here tonight by approving or disapproving this. Can we do that again Mr. Chairman? Batzli: We're merely saying whether we think this would be a good PUD development. Something along the lines we're looking at but we're not necessarily approving what we're looking at. Farmakes: Okay. I think that's now abundantly not clear. I want to compliment the builder. I also went and looked at I believe the same development. Nice homes and I hope you build a lot of them in this city. And I like clustering also. And this piece of property would not be a bad idea for clustering. From a design point I think that you probably utilize this property to it's maximum potential by doing this. I'm not so sure given that with the surrounding property to the east and west that that fits in that well. I did not hear extensive comments by adjacent property owners to the density issue or PUD. I know sometimes when you're discussing PUD's they say get a little strange. They're not as easy to put your finger on as some of the single family traditional quotas that developers have to meet. And I am 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 wondering also, and calculating this property we look at these densities again. I have the same problem I had last week, or two weeks ago. Four weeks ago when we look at these issues and we talk about densities in our formula. I think there's something inherently wrong with our density formula. Particularly on these types of properties. When we get properties like this that have a high ratio of undevelopable property within the development. It's your wetlands, trees, in this case a channel dug years ago. You're getting density ratios that are skewed. They're really not telling us the same thing that they would be telling us if it was a piece of farmland. And we don't make allowances for that, that I know of. We're using tables to fall back on things to give us statistical, that it's okay here. We're going to do this and going back to the first one that I got onto when I was here up on the Lake Lucy Road. The Willows property. I was looking at these huge property alotments and these huge density. We were getting a low density but I was looking at these houses and they were all peppered very close to one another. And all these setbacks played into mind and the lot lines went into the wetlands and went out. They were calculated as square footage. I kind of came to the conclusion that these tables weren't telling me the story that I wanted to know.- Anyway, also I'd like to address the comment of the 1,900 square feet used for calculating some of the concern that was talked about here tonight with the boats and so on. Batzli: I'm sorry, you're referring to the shoreline? 1,900 feet of shoreline? Farmakes: Correct. What do we have? 17 issues that we went through here with the minimum lot size, or we had. Aanenson: The beachlots. Farmakes: The beachlots. Non-conforming beachlots. And so we spent the entire year going over lake access issues to this lake and so we do have some experience with dealing and hearing with many neighbors on Lake Minnewashta property owners. I know how sometimes there's cross jurisdiction between this in evaluating what is shoreline and what is boat averages or the formulas that we use for putting dockage and how many houses and there's so many formulas they're not to be believed but somehow they come to the conclusion that the most restrictive formulas apply. In looking at this, I wonder whether or not the County is evaluating this property as 1,900 square feet of shoreline in taxation. I can't imagine that the existing channel is not making up the majority of that shoreline that's being figured into the boating ratio. And I too would agree that it's a mirror situation. I think it's also giving a distorted view of shoreline. I have a problem with this as a cluster area in this location. Not in general terms or design terms. The fact that it's market application, whether it's a need or not is really an issue of marketing and not really something that we should be deciding here. Whether or not the market will dictate what these homes are, as they often have throughout the decades of real estate and Chanhassen will be developed between the 60's and the year 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 2000. And those demands for housing have changed along with the population. And the skew between these needs now and the needs on either end of it, I'm having trouble digesting this fitting in there. That's it. I guess I would go with the staff recommendation if they had a dock but I still have the problem with addressing that issue if I'm really having a hard time supporting the issue of clustering in general in this location. Batzli: Okay. Joe. Scott: I think from, to talk about clustering. I think an example of where that really works, and I can't remember the name of the development but it was part of the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. That made tons of sense. I mean it was zoned for that particular type of housing. I'll borrow a page from Ladd's hymn book. One of the things that is not entirely evident when you look at something like this is what's on either side and a lot of times what we rely upon is not only getting out to the site. Driving around. Walking around. Looking and going, oh my gosh. This is what RSF means here. That's what RSF means here. So trying to look at it in a total concept, I always have a problem when something needs to be rezoned, especially when you've got folks that have made investments on either side. And especially when you have the same developer who's actually developed the residential single family. So I would not be in favor of rezoning this particular property. I'm not going to dwell on other points that have been made that I also agree with. Just one question. Aren't we creating a heck of a cul-de-sac here with one entrance or shouldn't we just avoid that because we don't have as much flexibility with access to Highway 7? Is that something we just blow off? Because much has been made about cul-de-sac lengths and so forth. Hempel: The looped street system could be employed here by eliminating one of the lots or Lot 5 to loop back out. Scott: So that's doable. Okay. I don't really have anything else to add. Everything's been talked about. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think Joe said what my biggest concern is, and that's the continuity of between the neighbors and this property. In general the cluster housing, and I don't have a real problem with. I think I would, if I were to design this to protect the neighbors to the west, I would take off probably Lots 5 and 11 and have an access up to TH 7 out of this development and not run this development through the neighboring area. I really do have a problem running it all through the neighboring area right now. I think that's a major impact. That's not what we try to do here in Chanhassen. We kind of protect the people that are here and I think if there is a way to run this development out to Highway 7, I think that would, in closing off 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Arbor Drive, boy that makes a whole lot of sense to me. If that's possible. If it's not possible, then I have some real problems with the PUD. So there's some contingencies here. If I can get you out to Highway 7 without impacting the neighborhood, then I feel that maybe we can protect the neighbors and the quality of life that they have. Or the style that they bought into. If we can't, then I have a real tough time with this. In terms of density, this is a case where clustering I like. Again, and the planning department keeps coming to us saying this works. This is great. On paper it doesn't look like we've really clustered to preserve something because on paper it looks like a lot of this stuff has to be there then or preserved anyway. So if the developer came in and said well, we're going to buffer the development to the west with 125 foot open space, ah. I get it. I actually understand why we clustered the houses. I don't see that here. What we've done is run all these units out through the neighborhood to the west. I guess I'm not in favor of that yet until I know I can't get out onto Highway 7 out of this development. It is one big long cul-de-sac is what it is and we fight those every 2 weeks here. I don't like that. Staff keeps beating us up because we, I don't know. It's just one big long cul-de-sac. In terms of dockage. I think our ordinance should guide us. I don't count, in my mind and maybe the courts have to figure this one out but the channel is not lakeshore. The reason we have a lakeshore ordinance and all the things that we do is to kind of protect the lake and the channel doesn't count so for the first 200 feet you get 3 boats. For the next 300 feet you get another 3. So whatever the land is on the lake, that's how many boats you get. I think in my mind it's real clear. We don't have to be arbitrary about that and maybe our ordinance never considered channels that were dredged into what we were doing but the channel in my mind doesn't count. So we're someplace between 9 and 12 boats. Someplace like that and I think staff laid that out. Number 2, or my final point is, I really don't like to have a development dictate something. Changing the PUD ordinance. I wouldn't mind revisting the PUD ordinance to see if it should happen. If we should have zero lot lines in the residential. I think what that would force us to do is say if we do, then we're looking for this so there would be some give and take in that ordinance that we develop. But again, I wouldn't mind revisiting that myself. I see some nice things about this. I don't see it in sync with the neighborhoods surrounding it. I think however if it can have it's own separate entrance, I think then some of my concerns vanish. And if I saw Parcel 5 and 11 vanish, maybe we have buffered the neighbors to the west. That's my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane. Harberts: I guess I like the higher density use of land. Discuss regional issues with regards to sewer and all that but I'll just leave it at that tonight. You put in the 7 or 8 15,000 square feet lots with...you've got 48 trips compared to what, 52? So in terms of traffic that's going to be generated, I think it's to some extent 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other one when you look at something like that. Is it more a matter of system management. I do have a concern 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 though with the streets are, I guess as I will describe it as maybe substandard because they're 24 inches, or 24 feet but again you're putting in your 8 lots. You've got the same traffic going out on the streets. I think Ladd's point through about access to TH 7, staff's perspective of closing off Arbor I think has a lot of merit to look at. That would make me a little bit more comfortable with that. I'm a little, I'm uncomfortable with changing this to a PUD simply because again if you talk about affordable housing, I think that's one of the strong merits of PUD that should be looked at and it's being compromised. I know markets, land prices dictate. You know people have to get a buck out of this. I understand that. I guess from a city perspective, as we talk about our planning goals and objectives, I'd like to see a little bit more emphasize in terms of affordable housing. I think it's appropriate for a community to have more diversity in housing but getting off of that, going back to this particular project. I'll support it. I'll support the concept. Interesting with clustering. I'm guessing there's going to be an association dealing with the snow and things like that. I'm going to leave it to the expertise of staff as well as public safety or the fire department or whatever to address traffic. Taking into consideration I think those comments made by everyone has a lot of merit on this. With regards to the boats. I also agree that, I don't count the existing channel. I think staff used at this point a good methodology as I understand what's available in terms of calculating that. So I'm just going to, I guess I'll support this in concept. I will be interested to see what comes back in as a preliminary site plan. Bob Boyer: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. Bob Boyer: As a developer, will we have an opportunity to just address the commission just one more time? Address just some of the issues that I think we can maybe clarify a few things. I guess my presumption is we're going to take a vote here at some point in time. Batzli: Yes. I have to ramble here for a few minutes but why don't, go ahead. Why don't you, I'll give you about 3 minutes if you want to address specific points. Bob Boyer: I know there's, as I listened to each person present their concerns, probably the biggest concern I hear among the Council members is missing this housing type in sandwiching between existing single family homes, residences. I think if you look around the lake area you'll see examples of this. Gideon Cove certainly is an example of a development of this sort. It was put right smack in the middle of a single family development and yeah, we had some opposition but I think what we're hearing people saying as demographics change and people you know, our society's aging and they're housing needs are changing as well. What all these people are saying is, don't stick us by the highway. I don't want to be 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 along 494. I don't want to be along the corridors and major freeways which is typically where a lot of cities are positioning their higher density type of housing. And I hear a lot of these people saying, we don't want it either. That's why there's such a tremendous demand for this type of housing. People want to continue to be in the neighborhoods they raised their kids in. The neighborhoods that they enjoyed through the years. They don't want to be stuck out by the freeway so we've found that there's a tremendous acceptance of this type of housing amoung the people that we've worked with in the past. Single family homeowners that are now living adjacent to developments that we've put in, as well as other developments other builders have done such as Amsbury. Certainly Gideon Cove is one that we've done and Red Cedar Cove is one that's done on the south side of the lake. We've seen tremendous success in the acceptance level of those in the neighboring communities. Not only that but the neighboring communities have actually benefitted from those type of housing developments because they are a planned development. They know the archtectural style. They know in the beginning that those homes, those areas are going to be planned and they're going to be maintained perpetually by professional people. We know that there are going to be enhanced and attractive for many, many years to come. You don't have that kind of assurance when you plunk a house on a half acre lot and each person is responsible for determining how they will have maintained that property. That's just kind of defense of using mixed housing types. I don't think we need to just, you folks staying on one type of housing but we can, I think it's appropriate to mix housing types in a neighborhood. As far as out traffic, I'd like to just kind of reiterate what Diane said. I think originally when Dartmouth Drive was put in, this little leg of Dartmouth Drive was intended to service this property someday in the future. It was originally intended to do that. We're doing that and obviously there's going to be some opposition but if you wanted, if you say okay. Now we're dumping 26 homes on this property, that's not fair. I think what you've got to do is say what is the alternative. The alternative was to have single family development with much higher traffic levels and have them... Obviously we've got to exit somewhere and this doesn't seem to be appropriate, at least from our standpoint, an appropriate alternative. This was originally intended and designed for that purpose. I think it's a natural thing to do. Batzli: Would you be willing to look at trying to develop an access out through this development and closing Arbor Drive? Bob Boyer: Well there is an access right here right now. There's a drive that comes out right through here which we're going to be required to close down at some point in time. Dave here, is it Dave. Is certainly probably more knowledgable on that than we are. One thing I am concerned about however is there is a considerably thick buffer of trees along TH 7 here which we want to retain. I mean that is critical to the success of this property. If that is destroyed, not only that but there is a significant grade difference as he mentioned from Highway 7 here to this property here. You've probably got at least a 25-30 foot grade 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 difference. I would think that...I don't see how you're going to accomplish that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I guess I've heard several people talk about not wanting to change the zoning. What I would like to see is something on the order of what Ladd proposed and that is, what we really need, if we're going to do it, we need to take a look at it in more detail to see whether it's something we want to do. It may look good on this one parcel but we really haven't considered what it will do for other parcels and whether it's good, bad or indifferent. So I have a hard time kind of changing the ordinance based on this suddenly coming in and maybe it's because the light bulb hasn't gone on in my head as to exactly why we want to do it or not do it yet. And maybe we just need more education on that as a commission. And have it be a separate issue. Harberts: But aren't we doing that by the proposal of supporting this in concept? Have it come back in detail so we can in a sense understand that? Batzli: Well one of the conditions would be that we would amend the PUD ordinance to allow these types of homes in RSF. Is that right? Aanenson: Yeah. Well, zero lot lines. Harberts: Well, I mean it's like. Mancino: Yeah but we want to deal with it as two separate issues is what we're saying. Batzli: I would like to deal with it as a separate issue. I don't want to deal with it as part of this project personally. So if there was a condition it would be that, our approval of this is contingent on us looking at it separately and deciding that it was a good thing. I don't like the way that this is kind of being done. Harberts: Well basically Brian what we're doing is we've got an ordinance and this is, and I've only been on here a short time. Isn't this like a test application of the ordinance? I mean isn't that what's happening right now and what we're saying is we don't know if we like what we have. And with your experience and your experience Ladd on here, have you had experience with this kind of proposal? Looking at that ordinance where it's tested? Where it's applied like this? Batzli: Yes. Harberts: So isn't that what we're doing? Are we consistent or is the logic consistent with what your experience has been? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Well I think normally we've done exactly what, at least I'm trying to suggest and that is, we normally put the brakes on and say, we need to look at this in the bigger picture rather than saying knee jerk, well yeah looks good here. Let's do it. Scott: I don't think that, at least personally, I'm not willing to say this is the new ordinance and then come what may because I don't think that I'm in a position to deal with another, because you know that people who are really sharp in the development area, and you have options on property in a particular municipality, you're going to go oh, well here's a change in the ordinance. And you know, we're going to get more of these things and I think about the Lundgren proposal that we had a major objection to which was a PUD which had all the right things but didn't pass the sniff test. I kind of see this as being somewhat similar in that we were uncomfortable with it. Could quantify it somewhat but I think we need to do, as you said, is put the brakes on this particular project and then address the ordinance and then work with that and say what are we going to be getting if we make this kind of change. Batzli: I think that again it would be nice to somehow be educated as to, you know I like the concept of clustering. ]: think that on a lot like this that's going to hard to develop, it makes some sense. I don't know that the issue with the neighbors is necessarily that these people are on small lots so much as perhaps the more intense use of the access roads. And like I said up front, I don't know that it would be any less if it was developed in another manner with larger lots. So I'm not sure about that. I know that this is an incredibly dangerous stretch of Highway 7. The turning on and off the road is dangerous and it concerns me and anything we can do to make that safer or convince MnDot to put in some stop lights or whatever we've got to do, I think eventually we've got to get that done. To basically put 26 people entering and exiting off of Arbor, I know that's not really Arbor Drive. Whatever the real name of it is I think, that really concerns me right now. I think that needs to be looked at, even at a conceptual stage. Boats, I think staff is being consistent actually with what we've been doing. So if this showed some sort of NURP pond or something with the drainage coming off from the northeast side, if we had a little bit more buffering to the west, if we talked about the z.ccess issue, I can support this in concept very easily. I did have one question for Dave and that is, why would we go with private drives here rather than public - streets? Hempel: That's a gooc. question. I guess just based on the amount of right-of-way required, certain number of homes designates for net density as well as a wider pavement section. Typically when you have a cluster type home, condominium type homes...private drive is... homeowners association. Batzli: I assume we need the turn around at the end of Dartmouth Drive so since we're not going to plow the stree s we need some place for people to turn around before they get 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 dumped into a private system? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Okay. I don't have any other comments. Is there more discussion or a motion? Conrad: I'm not sure what our motion would be. I think the developer, this is a sketch plan review. The developer wants to take it to City Council and see what they think. There's no reason for us to table it. It's their chance to get feedback. Yet on the other hand, I don't think I want to be talking about conceptual approval right now because so much of this is dependent on whether we want to change the PUD ordinance. So to make a motion in favor or opposed to the, I'm lost. I can't do that. I think, you know what I'd like to do is note what we've said and send it up to the City Council with a note saying that would they like us to review the PUD ordinance for review of the issue that this brings up. Batzli: Well let's assume that the Council wants us to look at the issue and that somehow this is contingent on us passing favorably on that issue. Would then people like this or, now assume for a minute that the Council is going to say yes, we want to do this to the PUD. Makes sense to us. Quite putzing around Planning Commission. Say yes or no. Do you like it or not. Assume for a minute that they want us to do that in a PUD. Do we like this as a concept or no? Without taking a formal vote. I mean everybody seems hung up on the PUD issue but, amending it but let's assume that the PUD is going to be changed and the Council wants us to do that. Do we like it? Do we not like it? From a concept standpoint. Not that you like this exact plan but does this make sense in this spot. Farmakes: Are you asking me? Batzli: Sure. Farmakes: I don't think so, no. Mancino: Because of the east/west neighborhoods? On each side of it. Farmakes: Yeah. I think it's just stuck in the wrong spot here. I'm not talking about the cluster or the PUD. I also think that there are other issues. The reason that I didn't address the traffic, would it have to be altered from what I can see would be traffic areas outside of this development and I'm not sure, MnDot would be a major player in that decision and whether it's traditional or PUD. Because of the way that the development is effectively cut off on the east side. So I don't know how you're going to get around that short of putting a bridge over that channel. You're going to have to redo, it would seem to me some of the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 highways to the west. I don't know how you're going to handle that, no matter what goes in there. Batzli: Well if they come in with a standard subdivision, they're going to get out on Arbor. Farmakes: Well, no matter whether it's PUD or a standard, if Arbor's already a problem, a safety issue, no matter if it's intent, we're contributing to the problem and it would seem to me that outside of this development issue, public safety and highway and engineering need to address that issue no matter what goes in there. Batzli: I think what we need to do is basically make, I would like to at least see us make two motions. One is basically to somehow or another ask the Council whether they want us to take a look at the PUD. And then make a motion on our gut feel on this and with the understanding that we think it really depends on what we end up doing with the PUD. Farmakes: I agree to a certain extent. Also, it's not just the PUD. Our shoreland ordinance I think needs a little look at. As I recall, ditch digging was not, we didn't cover that on it. Conrad: That's probably true. I think they can take advantage of whatever it is right now so we probably should look at what it means. Scott: I think it's the spirit of the ordinance versus the intent. Or the zoning. Batzli: The spirit versus the intent? Harberts: ...higher level here of intent. Scott: I just wanted to see if anybody was listening. Harberts: Sounds kind of ghostly huh. Scott: It is. I'm thinking that we should table the development and use that, and say the reason why we've tabled this is because of this issue with regard to the PUD. Use this as the test case and then, you know they're experienced in this because obviously they're the body that makes the decision. And I just use this as an example. Say this is the reason why we think we need to look at the PUD ordinance because we're probably going to get more of these. What do you want us to do? Conrad: Well does tabling allow us to pass it up to City Council? I don't think it does. I think we have to do something. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Our comments here are on record. This is a conceptual review. It's not, we're not approving anything here right? Aanenson: ...clustering, zero lot line. Batzli: Well let's assume for a minute Paul that we tabled it and said, we want to look at the PUD. We want to be educated more on what those changes mean. How quickly could you come back to us with those kind of changes and that kind of report given the fact that we've just cleared all of our agendas into February. Krauss: ...sometime in February. Batzli: And what does that do to the applicants if we sit on this for a while? Bob Boyer: Well, it delays our project...we're concerned about getting this project moving. Anytime it's held up, you said you're waiting until February? ...obviously we're concerned about moving along with this project. Batzli: Okay. The risk, I think you run a greater risk right now. Just to give you my sense of what the motion's going to be is that if we move it on tonight, we will recommend denial. I haven't counted any noses here but that's what I'm hearing. So be that as it may, is there a motion? Conrad: Yeah, I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case #93-7 with all the conditions of the staff report. Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: I'll second it. Batzli: Discussion? Mancino: Discussion would be only adding to it the highway problem. The traffic that we're putting in. Seeing if Dave can check out with MnDot putting in that road. Conrad: Yeah, in fact I'm glad you brought that up Nancy. I would like to make that point number 16 in the staff report. To re-examine access to Highway 7. Scott: And also too do we want to re-visit the applicability of including channels and like. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Definition of shoreline. Scott: Definition of shoreline maybe excluding channels or whatever. Batzli: I'm sorry, Ladd. Was your motion that you recommend that the Council instruct us to look at the PUD? Conrad: Right. The PUD ordinance. Batzli: Okay. And in the meantime are we tabling this? What are we doing with this? Conrad: Until, I would have to read my motion back. I only remember a 30 second retention span. Batzli: It was just such a clever motion. Aanenson: What I wrote down is that you recommended the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before you make any recommendation. They can remand it back to you and they can go ahead... Conrad: Right. Right. Batzli: Okay, so our recommendation on this. So this goes up with that as the recommendation? Conrad: I think the developer should hear what they think. I don't think we should mess around with the ordinance if the City Council doesn't want us to. Batzli: Yeah, that makes sense. Conrad: We have so many other things to do that if this is a priority, we'll do it. Batzli: Okay. Now you wanted to amend your motion to include the access onto TH 7. And our second accepted that? Conrad: Yeah. Batzli: And we had another proposed amendment here to shoreland something or other. Conrad: I don't know that I want that as a motion on this. I'd like staff to look into that and 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 make a. Harberts: A clever way of pushing it up. Conrad: Well, to review what a channel does in terms of our ordinance. In terms of lakeshore footage. Batzli: Okay. Just so that the applicant knows what we're about to do here. We're going to vote on, we're going to recommend to the City Council that they instruct us, whether they want us to look at the PUD or not. We're really not making a recommendation on your conceptual plan but it will go along with that as our recommendation up to the City Council. Correct. Bob Boyer: So the next meeting would be with the City Council? Batzli: Yes it would and we basically would not have made a yea or nay recommendation other than our comments on record. Tom Merz: Can you explain what does the City Council then...what will be happening with this? Batzli: The City Council can then choose to approve the concept, disprove the concept, or table it pending us looking at the PUD ordinance. Tom Merz: Will they do that with or without you looking at the ordinance? Would they just approve or? Batzli: Yes, they could. They could approve it. Disprove it or as a third alternative, table it while we looked at something. Farmakes: But what they would be approving though would be the concept. It would still come back... Conrad: It's still in the concept stage. Batzli: One at a time. Harberts: Quick, take the vote. Batzli: Sorry. Okay, is there any other discussion? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Resident: I had one question. You're stating that as it sits then the City Council makes the decision either way. Are you not advocating your responsibility to provide them with your expertise? You have just said that you believe that the nay's would have it but instead of letting the City Council know that, you're simply going to pass it up saying if you want us to look at an ordinance, we will. Otherwise here it is, you decide. Batzli: No, I don't think so. I think the record will very plainly speak for itself. I'm having a tough time counting noses because the initial hurdle that we have to get over is in fact this PUD issue. And if we can't get to that, we really can't recommend yes or no. And so by sending it up to the Council in that manner, we are going to see this again as a site plan. Assuming that the City Council approves it as a conceptual plan. We will see this again and make a recommendation yes or no in it's final form. But I don't think we're able to say that it's a good concept or not given the piece of property that it sits on. And that's really what we're saying. Resident: You're definitely not through with the issue then? Batzli: We are not through with the issue. We are going to see this again in all it's gory, in fact in more gory detail the second time as an actual site plan rather than as a conceptual review, which is what we're doing tonight. Although you wouldn't know it by the discussion. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case #93-7, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the City in designing the interior storm drainage system in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be compensated for oversizing costs on the 30-inch trunk storm sewer line through the site. All internal storm sewer pipes shall be designed and constructed for a 10-year storm event. 2. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat approval process. 3. Detailed grading and drainage and utility construction plans and specifications will be required as a part of the preliminary and final plat approval process. The construction plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's construction standards. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 4. The private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable turnaround at the end of Dartmouth Drive. 6. The applicant shall have the wetland delineated by a qualified wetland specialist and the wetland boundary accurately denoted on the grading plan. 7. The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Health Department, City of Chanhassen, MnDOT, MPCA and MWCC. 8. Soil engineering on lots shown with peat or muck will be a requirement with any future review. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official letter dated November 10, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's letter dated November 9, 1993. 11. Only 12 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at a common dock and two storage racks allowing up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be permitted. 12. The existing home on the development site be removed prior to any new construction. 13 Amendment of the PUD Ordinance allowing for cluster of zero lot line homes low-density designation of the 2000 Land Use Plan. 14. A tree preservation plan and wetland re-vegetation plan shall be submitted for approval. 15. Park and trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate currently in force. 16. Staff shall re-examine access onto Highway 7. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons for voting nay? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Harberts: I support the concept. All we're doing is supporting the concept. I think the discussion points that were brought up were valid. I think they can be incorporated into more of a conditions report. I got over the hurdle. I'm over the hurdle folks so, that's it. Batzli: I'm over the hurdle as well. I like it in concept. If we have to look at the PUD we will and the Council will tell us to and I think we should take a vote. Harberts: I've been in the minority all day so what's one more. Batzli: So this goes to the Council when? Aanenson: January 10th. Batzli: January 10th this will be in front of the Council. We encourage you to follow the issue up and let them know your concerns as well. Thank you all for coming in tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE PARCEL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 64,132 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, A 26,100 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 13.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address Charlie James T.F. James Company John Meyers Byerly's Dan Beckman 6895 Chaparral Lane Craig Hallett Future Resident of Chanhassen Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Lyle King 7629 Oakland Bill King 4801 Minneapolis Ave, Orono Tim Menning 980...Circle, Burnsville Bob King 6122 Arctic Way, Edina Arnie Privie Gateway Foods, Minneapolis 44 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: So do the plans that we're looking at have any rational equivalence to what's actually going to go in there? Generous: Yes. Except for the sidewalk and the reduced elevation. All the building locations. Batzli: And all of the landscaping? Generous: Well, we'll have improved landscaping. Batzli: Okay. Can you go back to the Rhorshak one you had up there. Can you explain what that was supposed to tell us? Generous: This is just that southwest commercial building. What they've done is reduce this elevation by 5 feet. The ground floor elevation. Batzli: So this is just showing the new grade? Generous: Yeah. What they've done is created a steeper grade from here to this parking area and then this is just, it's 5 feet lower. The ground floor elevation. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Thanks. Does the applicant have a presentation for the Planning Commission? Yes. Harberts: I'd like to ask one question. Is there any involvement by the HRA in this project? With Byerly's or this first segment of the project. Generous: I believe they've had discussion. Krauss: Yeah, I don't believe they've come, and Charlie you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think they've come before the HRA yet. It's been discussed at a staff level. I think they're scheduled for Saturday? Harberts: So there's an opportunity? Krauss: Yeah, I think there really is, to be honest, there's almost nothing that I know of that's being done in the downtown area in the last 10 years that didn't had some sort of TIF package attached to it. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Harberts: Does that proposal that will come before them include the whole plan or is it just for the Byerly's, or that...? Krauss: I assume it's the entire. It's based on how much taxes are going to be generated by building a development in there so, and the HRA does have, it's kind of...they do look at the quality of the project and would basically defer to you, the Planning Commission and the City Council on the site plan issues. Harberts: With regard to the proposed senior housing, is that just concept or is that perhaps more than a concept in what happens? Krauss: Well let me give a...of that. When we were at the Vision 2002 meetings, there were comments pro and con about senior housing showing up on the corner and a post office site. I even heard some accusations cast towards Charlie James for, somebody accused staff of being in the hip pocket of the developer. That we had a deal on the side and really nothing could be further from the truth. What's happened is we designated several sites for potential senior housing and we've referred a number of developers who have come to talk to us about senior housing, to go talk to Charlie James. Mr. James is aware that we're seeking a site for senior housing. He's also aware that we may need to seek a site to relocate the post office. In the interest of meeting the city needs and offering a proposal to the city in terms of settling, we had...land acquisition for the realignment of 78th Street. Mr. James presented this as something for our discussions and if it's, that's simply all it is. There's no deal. There's no guarantees that that's to be decided. It was for illustrative purposes only. Harberts: For discussion purposes only, with senior housing, who would be the owner or is that part of the, does it generate taxes I guess? Or is this something that the city will own or the HRA will lease out or what's the potential relationship there? Krauss: I guess the answer is yes. We've discussed all those options... Harberts: Just a question for Brian, or the commission here. When we look at this, are we just looking at this tonight or are we in a sense looking at this? Krauss: No, you are just looking at the Byerly's and the commercial strip component. Scott: Can I ask a question? When was this, I see we have a site plan. When was this a conceptual? Krauss: It's not. It's not a PUD. I know you haven't seen it for a long time but this is actually straight zoning. This is under the CBD district. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Scott: I see site plan approval and then for 100,000 square feet and I've got an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of paper that I'm supposed to use to do this. I mean that seems to me to be, when we have a lot of. Krauss: Didn't you get the full sized copy? Scott: No. No. This is it and we have a guy who wants to subdivide something into 3 lots and we have 3 or 4 pages. Krauss: There was some error on our part because we had full sized copies and. Scott: I'm not that good to be able to render an opinion on this based upon what I have in my packet. I don't know about the other folks but I sure can't. Farmakes: The elevation plan is illogical. Krauss: That's real unfortunate because it's not the developers fault. We have those in our office and we assumed they got distributed last week. Scott: Maybe we should have called. Mancino: We haven't seen architecture designs, nothing. Scott: No. Harberts: That's the end of my questions Brian. Batzli: Thank you. Threw a monkey wrench into that one didn't you? Does the developer have a presentation for the Planning Commission? Before we get started Charlie I should admit that the last time I think you were in front of us you told the story about a chicken and a pig walking down the road and I've used that. I've kind of stolen it from you and I just wanted to get that upfront. Charlie James: Have you kept track of how many times because I have a royalty. A nickel. Batzli: Well yeah, I just used it once but I was planning on using it again shortly so that's why I was thinking about it. I was hoping that you would maybe have something like that again. Harberts: Well enlighten the new ones here. Come on. Don't keep us in the dark. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: I think I've exhausted the Council's tolerance for stories. Harberts: I think this is going to be a condition of approval. That we hear this story. Batzli: I'll tell it to you afterwards. It's a good one. Charlie James: Well, for those of you that I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, my name is Charlie James. I'm with the T.F. James Company. We're a privately held firm headquartered in Eden Prairie. We're essentially a family business. We were incorporated in 1946 and we've been doing these types of projects throughout the Midwest since the early 60's. And I'm pleased to be here tonight. I think we've got really a first class project here that would be an asset to any community. If I could put these together. I apologize too that you didn't have the large drawings. We submitted 27 copies of those folded to the city at the time of submission. Why don't we start with this. Batzli: You need to actually move stage right or left. I never did quite have that down. For the camera if you could for just one second... Scott: Stage left. Batzli: Okay. I don't know, are you facing the audience or the camera? Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Charlie James: And my able assistant is, his name is John Meyers. John Meyers is a Vice President of Byerly's and what we have here basically. I guess we can start with a building and I'll go into some of the site issues. We have a brick building that we brought you a sample of the material that we're talking about. It's probably good if I hold it back this far from you. And we'd be using this material in conjunction with some native Kasota stone. Some Mankato or Kasota stone. That'd be rough cut stone accents in these areas here. And we started with the design of the Byerly's. We tried to articulate the front of that and then have varying heights for more visual interest. And once we established the motif here, then we tried to repeat some of these same patterns with the balance of the center to give an overall cohesive feel to the project. We varied roof heights and this building's moving in and out of the plane here as well as up and down. We have an 8 foot grade drop from here to here and we wanted to avoid just a one long monotonous looking building here and want to link this and the clock tower, this is actually a functional item and what would be in here is stairs and elevator. And what you're seeing right here is an enclosed walkway that would take you into the second level of this building here. So this is functional as well as I think sort of aesthetic and we try to incorporate some design references that already exist in town. One of the things that we did here in working and getting some preliminary feedback from 48 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 staff was when the Target was done there was a concern about the wall. There being just a flat wall so what you're seeing here are little shadow lines and what we're proposing there is we'd pull the brick out from the face and create little shadow boxes in here. And then there'd be base planting of that so these are like little rectangular elements and then we've basically repeated that on the other side of the building here where the restaurant is and we've put windows, arched windows within those same elements. So we've tried to break up just the monotony of the big flat expanse of wall here. Let's see. This is a drive thru here and the way that this functions is that the automobiles are entering through here and coming out on this other side and then this building is stepping out and playing this. This shot is a little more shadow here and it's back in. Recessed probably 30 feet and then this one pulls out a little bit more and then this element pulls out again so this is stepping out in 3 steps and then the entry again is accentuated by being pulled out. So that kind of creates this area where cars can come through. We have a double lane in there so that we have ample stacking for the parcel pick-up. And then we've provided some planter boxes. Batzli: I had a question. Is there internal access from Byerly's. Is there a covered walkway, internal walkway down through the retail or is it entrance only through outside sidewalk and then in through these entrances? Charlie James: Well both actually but where we want to direct people. John Meyers: Well there's no internal access. Batzli: There's no internal walkway? Charlie James: No. I mean people could go that way. There's nothing to prevent them from walking along underneath here. John Meyers: Not inside the store. There's a walkway, but it's a sidewalk from our door underneath a canopy for the drive thru right down to there. Charlie James: Okay, but yeah. And then all of us, from here all the way down is enclosed. I mean the sidewalk in front of the shops. You have a. Mancino: So at what point does the walkway, internal walkway start? John Meyers: It starts at the retail. At the other end of the retail. Batzli: Okay. So there's no internal access between the grocery store and the retail? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 John Meyers: No. Harberts: Mr. Chair. How tall is the canopy? John Meyers: Which part? This? Harberts: Where you drive thru or drive under or whatever? John Meyers: Probably about 25 feet. Charlie James: It's 25 on there now. Harberts: From road surface to the... John Meyers: Oh, on the inside? Harberts: Yeah. John Meyers: It's a minimum of about 18 feet I think on all our stores. Charlie James: This, I'll just have to hold this one up. Batzli: Has our Fire Marshal looked at that? Charlie James: Yes. There was a meeting with all mechanical and building inspection people. Batzli: Did we have a report from the Fire Marshal in the packet? Has he looked at this stuff? Generous: He said they have no comment at this time. Batzli: Really? Okay. John Meyers: I mean if it's an issue that we...we wouldn't get a permit obviously to build it. I mean that's something we deal with. Batzli: Okay. Charlie James: This may help explain what's happening across the front of the building here. 50 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 This represents the edge of the Byerly's store here. So here you see the drive through coming out and these are the covered walkways here. So there's a, when you're coming into this store, you're walking through a planting bed and then you're in a covered walkway situation and the grade drops occur at the building wall so there's a grade drop here and then this is held at pretty much the same elevation for the sidewalk and this area is going down. _ So at this point you're going down on.the sidewalk into the covered area. The planting beds in front and by the time you get down to this other end, you would be going up because we're holding this, the elevation from here to here constant and the site is going down a little bit. And then we have a covered walkway here and unfortunately this wasn't big enough to fit on, all on one sheet but there's a projection out this way. Now the parking that staff was concerned about is right here. That sounds like that was confusing to you folks earlier this evening. Staff had a concern that there'd be some traffic conflicts between people backing out here and entering the center from the driveway so what has been suggested is that we take this parking out of here and put a planting bed in front of this plaza area out here and then take that parking, put it down here. There was also 11 parking stalls that functioned off of this driveway and it was...to be combined. John Meyers: It's shown on the plans. Charlie James: What we're talking about is taking these out. Extending this planting bed all the way across. Removing this parking here and then orient the parking through here. John Meyers: That was a request of the staff...confusion here. That was also a request asked if we could drop this 5 feet. So the sketch drawing that you saw is just a result of meeting with staff on Monday. They asked, can you drop this 5 feet? We said we'll see what we can do and dropped it 5 feet. Charlie James: There was a concern here about, there was a reference made to Rapid Oil Change and I'm not familiar with that but I'm not sure that we have the same situation because we have over 200 feet from the center of the road back so I think we have maybe a longer slope than we do out there. I don't know. But in any event, we can drop this and there would be, the slopes would occur here and here within the green area. About the only thing that happens is that this gets, this driveway becomes a little bit steeper in here so this would be down. Held down a little bit from the rest of the project here. One of the things that we're talking about is trying to create an amenity area down here with some picnic tables and I just want, this looks like, maybe this looks like this is rather random but there's been enumerable drawings to get to this point. You start first I guess along with the topography and we have a situation here where we have a hill going up anywhere from 12 to 21 feet above what our grade would be here. So it gives us the opportunity to take some of those areas of the loading areas and by having them at the toe of the slope, the people up here 51 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 wouldn't really see them, I mean they'd be down like this at the toe of the slope. So then there were many refinements that we went through about experimenting with the drive thru on this side. Drive thru on this side and there was just many permeatations before when you combine with the need for parking and need for open space and you're trying to meet all of these...to the code with no variance, which is what we have attempted to do. All those things work to kind of push the site into a certain configuration. Batzli: What is the impervious coverage on that? Charlie James: Impervious would be 70%. Batzli: What's our maximum? Generous: 70. Batzli: So they're right at the maximum? Generous: Yes. Charlie James: I think we're half a percent. John Meyers: There was a little margin. Mancino: There was interior landscaping... John Meyers: Actually more interior landscaping than it looks... Charlie James: I think there's 8 1/2. Well that was before the, then I guess staff was requesting that we have some islands in here in addition so I haven't looked at those calculations as to how that will increase the green but we started out in excess of the ordinance and then in the process here of designing this, the ordinance was changed from 5 to 8 I believe. Is that right Paul? At 8 and I think we came in at about 8 1/2% before these subsequent changes that are being suggested or recommended by the staff now. One of the things that came up at one point was the view from City Hall. I asked the engineers to come out and get some elevations near your City Hall. Here's a cross section. We have your City Hall building here and this is a YMCA and Kerber, there's going to be a berm along Kerber. What Kerber is doing. What this drawing shows is, it shows the size of the trees at a certain level of maturity in relationship to the building. The green would be the top of the berm and the orange represents the center line elevation of Kerber and so the combination of Kerber coming down would be the berm on top. And then rather than just indicate that the trees 52 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 would be placed directly on top of the berm, if they were off to one side or the other, that's why I mean if they were on top of the berm there'd even be more height here but I guess what this shows is that the combination of the trees and the natural topography in the area will serve to further screen this side of the building. This shows the trees that are, the ornamental trees that are proposed at the ends of these planting islands. This is overstory trees that they had requested along the central access to the site. Again, here's reference to the arched windows and those are set within a rectangular pattern. That's a repetition of this pattern here up front. This is a design reference to your fire hall. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Is the back brick also? Finished in brick... Charlie James: We're proposing, let me get back to the site plan. Mancino: And I love the mature trees that you're going to plant. Those are wonderful. Charlie James: One of the reasons for this plan here is that you have an ordinance that says the trees have to be planted every 30 feet so all we were trying to do here is show massing and 30 feet but I mean obviously we'd like to do some groupings and do some other things but all this plan was intended as is to show the quantity as required by code and that code says every 30 feet and staff had a good idea back here. There will be a retaining wall element in here someplace to keep the slopes down. We've got, we won't be able to make the final determination on the length and the height of that but what we intend to do is, rather than go up in just one wall, we'd take it up in segments and we want to use the same materials that Dean Johnson is using. The...block or. John Meyers: The Keystone brick. Charlie James: Yeah. So all of this would look tied in up here. And then staff suggested that a lot of this plant material go up the slope rather than being on the base of the slope because you've got a condition like this where it really doesn't serve to screen much being at the toe of the slope. It'd be more effective and you could almost see some of it behind the building too as it goes up. Batzli: Where are your loading docks on that? Charlie James: Here. And so what we've done. John Meyers: Well here, here, here, and here. Charlie James: There's a loading dock here, here, and here. Down here. And what we've 53 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 done. What we've shown on the plans. It's hard to pick out here but we have kind of provided a brick screen wall that runs all the way down to the end of the building here and it's hard to pick it out against. Batzli: Which elevation is that? That's east? Charlie James: Yeah, facing City Hall. And see there's a truck dock in here. So we've run the, there's a line in here. That's the top of it. It starts at this point here and it runs all the way over as far as it can to here. So it's like a 8 foot high wall here out of brick that screens this loading dock here and we're showing how the topography would. John Meyers: The site plan shows it. Charlie James: It's not as red as it could be but that's a masonry brick wall. In response to your question about materials. One thing that we would like to look at is we're trying to - make a determination whether this will be brick on masonry or brick on steel frame and that's going to be a function of the weather and one thing that we're looking at is we'd like to have the opportunity to consider some alternates in this area right here. Stucco that would be kind of the same color as the brick and be virtually indistinguishable from it. Mancino: On the front side? John Meyers: No, just in back. Just the north side. Charlie James: And this is a hill coming down here. There's quite a slope in the topography so we're talking brick wrapping around the building here and Byerly's completely in brick here. That's just a segment back in here. One of the reasons for that is, is that this is a small tenants space and you don't really know some of these people in the future may have a need for additional space. For instance it's nice to be able to have what they call a knock out wall or something. This gives you more flexibility in the future but the tenant stucco would be the same. If we went that route, it would be the same brown. It would only be putting this segment and it would be visible from any direction. It'd be totally hidden from view from all sides here. I guess one of the things that, if there was one area that we're trying to come in under straight zoning and meet all the codes and ordinances. The one thing that seemed kind of problematic was the, was your sign ordinance. You have a sign ordinance that says that no signs can exceed 15% of the wall area of the building and each individual sign can't be more than 80 square feet in size. Well, for instance on a retail center here, what we're proposing. This would be like maximum but this would be worst case scenario. Batzli: Is that what we're going to get? 54 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: Well, what I mean by that is, we have a tenant that wants this whole space here now but it has the potential to become individual spaces so I'm going to show those signs here but more than likely this is, from here to here is going to be one tenant. But in any event, what we've shown here are eight 80 foot sign areas and two 48 square foot sign areas which is the maximum that's permitted in your code. That 80 square foot. With 15% of the wall area here, we would be allowed 1,188 square feet of total signage. We're proposing 736 which is 400 square feet below what your ordinance allows. John Meyers: 60%. Charlie James: It's 9% instead of 15%. And similarly on the west end of this building here, the code would allow 528 square feet and we're proposing 320. Or 9% instead of 15%. And all the signage on this project will be cut out letters. Individual cut out letters and so what I've done here. I don't want you to take this wrong here but the only way I could figure out how to calculate that would was just to kind of draw like an imaginary rectangle around an area that cut out letters might go in. So there isn't going to be any pan signs you know where they paint plexiglass. They're going to be individual cut out letters but I'm just trying to give you an idea what an 80 square foot area might look like at the max. Where this gets problematic for us, is with the Byerly's. Okay, now. On the Byerly's here, the total wall area on the south elevation is 7,500 square feet. We would be permitted under your ordinance 15%, or 1,125 square feet in signage. We have shown 431 square feet, which is only 5 3/4% of the wall area. We're allowed 15% so we're about a third of what we're allowed. The problem is that the ordinance says that no one sign can be any bigger than 80 square feet and we have 72 square feet total between these two here and 75 square feet here but in order to get the signage here that would be visible from the street, we're at 304 square feet for this element here. Now when you add all those up, as I say, you're at 431 feet total which is a third of what would be allowed. But it's one of those areas where we could put, I guess what I'm saying is, we could put. Mancino: You want to do a total aggregate. What's that 80 square feet look like for Byerly's? Did you do a rendering of it at the smaller size? The size that's allowable by ordinance. I just wanted to see it proportionally. Proportionate to the whole wall. Charlie James: Here's 72 square feet. Scott: What about the one on the bottom? John Meyers: It'd be about the size of this. Scott: What about that Byerly's down there? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 John Meyers: That's 304 also. Because that's the same size height. Scott: Okay. John Meyers: Basically the same logic applies. We just don't want to get into an interpretation problem. You know technically does it say each letter of the sign? I don't know. Each one is 80 square feet and we still wouldn't exceed the 15% maximum. We're just trying to give you, we're telling you this is what we'll do without trying to...If you've seen our stores I think you'll, I don't know if you will, I think you'll agree that they're not overly signed. Farmakes: I didn't see any monument... Harberts: You didn't see any what Jeff? Farmakes: Monumenture. Is there monument signs involved? Charlie James: Yeah. There'd be a pylon here and what that would look like, if you take one of these arched elements and it would be out of brick that matches the building and. Scott: How tall are the dimensions? Charlie James: Well I guess whatever the ordinance allows. Farmakes: Are we talking a pylon here or are we talking a monument? Charlie James: Well we're talking about the brick going to the ground. Krauss: The architectural monuments signs... Charlie James: What we're talking about is not having to sign something, come out and stick a pole in the ground and put a sign. What we're talking about is the architectural design and arch element that repeats this motif and we will have signage within that that meets the ordinance. Batzli: Okay. Any other issues? Charlie James: Well, I'm sure I probably forgot something here but maybe I should just field some questions. 56 - n Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Alright. I think we're going to have a lot of questions. What I'd like to do is hear from the other people that showed up here tonight to make sure that they didn't show up in • vain, or that we start losing them due to the lateness of the hour. So unless you are taking issue with other conditions in the staff report, we should know that but otherwise I think you'll probably field some questions as we all talk about the project. Charlie James: Okay. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Are there other people here that would like to address the commission? If there is, please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm here to speak probably on three different categories. As you know I've been involved for a long time in the downtown planning and have gone through a number of planning processes with all of you in developing those sites. We're also a developer, or co-developer in the project above the site call Oak Hills that looks down on this particular site. I didn't see too much discussion about that so I'll pretend like I'm a resident up there. And then also we represent Market Square, which is an investment that the city has. First of all I'd like to deal with just the presentation that we've just seen and I'm going to ask questions. I'm not going to expect answers but probably questions that you should ask. And the first thing is that, from what I've seen so far, this does not conform at all to any of the requirements that we've been asked to meet relative to a downtown plan. I see no peaked roofs. I see nothing that I'm being real constantly...as far as the architectural style. This is a complete change in style from what we're being requested to do and currently the three projects that we're going through the city with, all of which we'd love to have it be only a flat roofs and types of things but I know that were not going to be accepted. So I think we were listening but I think that's a really major deviation. The second thing is that there was a number of hearings that were held at the time the Target store evolved and I think for many of the Planning Commission people participated in that and the number of different type of site plans that were prescribed for that particular site and as they were with the Target site and as Target was developed, you adhere pretty much to that particular site plan that was requested as a part of those hearings. There was a site plan proposed for this side of the street. One of the major objections that you all had was the parking that would be out in front of the store. Currently I think this violates all of the issues that were addressed by the public at that time and I think you should at least revisit that in question. As far as the view from the north. I would think that you'd require the developer, just as you did. I guess there's somebody living in City Hall so somebody did ask what it would look like from City Hall. It'd be interesting to see what it would look like to look down from above onto this roof. What type of parapets. Target was required and I think we did a good job on Target. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 You can drive just about any place and because of the height of the parapets and the siding of that, you cannot see any roof units. And I'm sorry to say with Market Square we weren't required quite to do that and you can see some roof units over there. It does cause some problems so I think those are three of the issues that I perceive as far as the plan is concmed and the primary one is I don't think it fits any of the architectural requirements that you're currently requiring ourselves as a major development in downtown to meet. The rest of probably our discussion, I'm going to ask the folks from Gateway Foods who are here and also the owners of the store, Festival Foods to comment. These are probably not so much issues that have to do with planning as much as we have to get it as part of the record as we go through this process. They have requested additional TIF assistance from the city and we might as well start now addressing the issues that we're going to have to address as we go through this process. So I'm going to introduce two people. One is Arnie Privie. He's been in the food business for some time and he has some concerns about this particular project. Arnie is the Vice President in sales and marketing for... Arnie Privie: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Arnie Privie. I'm with Gateway Foods. I've been up in front of you before. I'm not too sure if it was the Planning Commission or probably the City Council about 2 years ago and 2 years ago we had been requested to look at the project here as far as putting a Festival Foods ;tore in town. A major supplier, and when I say major supplier...probably one of the largest wholesalers had turned the project down and then they came to us and we looked at the project and I can truthfully tell you that we had an awful hard time of getting the project approved by the company I work for from the standpoint of us being able to lease and guarantee a lease on this project. Because when we did do a survey of the community, the numbers just didn't come out to where if we put an independent retailer into here, would it be feasible that he'd get a return on his investment. Fortunately Brad Johnson worked out some things with the City of Chanhassen that made it a little bit more palatable to go ahead with the project and I guess the only thing I want to express this evening, and I'm kind of mystified right now as to how the city of Chanhassen is going to support another supermarket. I certainly have nothing against competition. Competition is very healthy but at the time of getting our project off the ground, and in looking where our retailer is today. We supply the King family that owns the Festival Food, we supply them with their grocery products. So I have a couple concerns. Number one I have the King family who owns the store. There are primarily our concern for their well being. Also I have the concern thz.t we are on this lease. I guess I just want it to be known at this particular time, and as Brad Johnson said, there's certainly going to be more meetings in the future. I can guarantee I'll attend every one of them but I just want it to be known up front our feelings from Gateway Foods distributor with people who have guaranteed the lease on this project, Festival FoDds. And I thank you for your time. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: We do have the person then that co-signed the lease I guess, Lyle King. Lyle, do you want to come up and say a few words? Lyle King: Good evening. I'm Lyle King. I'm not a public speaker. I'm a butcher by trade. First of all I wanted to say that the plans that were introduced here tonight I think are beautiful. And I think would be a real asset to your city. But I'm going back to 3 years now and Super Valu was the one that was asked for a store in here for Cooper's and I know Gary very well. A friend of our's. I was with Super Value for 20 years. And Super Valu wouldn't go on it because there was no way that they could get any projection to come out and he was told at the time it'd be at least 5 years, even to 10 years before this city could support a store that he wanted to put up. And so they dropped Super Valu and they came to, Brad came to Gateway. It was Gary McCullough at the time. One of the developers. And I worked with Gary McCullough at Super Valu so I knew him quite well. When they put this plan together they told us it would be about a 3 year break before we would break the store in black so we knew that the help that you had given the developer on their store, or the development that he put up, which helped us a little bit. But the store's still in the red and I do have a couple of other little businesses that are supporting it. And this store is not going to be in the black within the next year when that help is stopped. And so I just want you to know that it's not I'm against competition because I think they're the best competition there is for their price store and my price store, I think they go along and compliment each other very well. So I'm not here to knock their business because I think they're good people. I'm just saying right at this time that there's no way that if another store comes in here within the next year, that I can be there 2 years from now. And I thank you for your time. Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: Which brings me to my point. This is a conditional use? Krauss: No it's not. Brad Johnson: Why does it say in here it is? Krauss: The store itself is not a conditional use. It's a site plan. What the conditional use. Brad Johnson: What they're approving this evening is a conditional use. Krauss: Yeah but you're insinuating that the store itself is a conditional use. The store itself is a permitted use. What makes it conditional is the fact that they're asking for a free 59 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 standing bank building. Brad Johnson: But that's the request this evening. Site plan approval for a bank plus a :;tore. Was there a public hearing called? Krauss: Yes. Brad Johnson: Did you send out notices? Krauss: Yes. Brad Johnson: Do you have a record of that? Krauss: We should. Brad Johnson: Okay. I'd like to have it. We don't remember receiving one. If it's a conditional use, is that what we're approving? I see that in the Minutes. Batzli: We're looking at tonight a site plan and a conditional use for a free standing building. We're looking at both. Brad Johnson: For the site? Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: Two buildings. Batzli: Correct. Brad Johnson: Okay. This is just technical from here on in. Number one is then, if you're going to approve a conditional use, item 1 would be, will be not detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. Our issue with this is, the city currently has one million dollars invested in Market Square. We have a very good chance that if this project is approved, we'll lose that tenant. That's just a real. We don't think therefore that that's for the good, welfare, health of the city. Second thing is, under the conditional use permit, item number 3, will be designed and construc;ed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. And as I stated in the beginning, this is a complete change in the overall plan of the downtown based upon every meeting I have ever gone to. Finally, item number 11. Will not depr rciate 60 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 the surrounding property values. I submit to you that if we lose our major tenant in that store or if it goes black, we will have a significant decrease in property values in this particular area. Now what you have before you, and again this is for the record. I realize a lot of this stuff doesn't pertain to what you're doing, is basically a development that makes no economic sense to all the people that we have talked to, and we've gone out and talked to a number of other managers. People are coming up to me and saying, what on earth are you doing? Wasn't there a feasibility study done. You know all that kind of stuff and I said, I really don't know how it's going to go forward. The city has tremendous liability related to this in money, and that's the money they've got invested over in Market Square. We would recommend, and I realize this is not your area but as you go through this process, and if you want to consider a conditional use permit, that an economic study be done by the James Company as to the financial liability of this particular product either at the stage of the Planning Commission. It may or may not be your particular thing. But for sure by the time it reaches it the City Council and by the time it gets to the HRA because I think we all should be made aware of the financial impact of this particular proposed project will probably have on downtown Chanhassen. What you have before you is the classic over development of real estate and if you can look at, we've got an office tower over here somewhere that's about half full, and that's Market Square. It looks full but we have about 40% of our tenants are just getting up to the break even point. They require high traffic due to...as you just heard, which we'll be happy to give you the records of. The Festival store is losing money, as projected. Nothing new. And now we're going to build another office tower. And that's exactly what's happened in most real estate. You get too much real estate and too much of the wrong type of real estate in an area. Now that is the case we'll carry forward as we go along. I have I wish, Byerly's sounds like a good idea. We have to protect our investment in whatever way we have. We feel the city has a responsibility to our particular thing in some fashion. And I know Mr. James has a job, he wants to develop his property and that's, I'm not against development as you understand... We're just majorly concerned and I guess if somebody came to us with a legitimate study that said these two stores will survive. Don't worry Brad, we could care less, and I think the city should be in the same position because they stand to lose a considerable amount of money. Potentially. Thank you. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Craig Hallett: Hi. My name's Craig Hallett. I currently reside in Richfield but hope to be a _ member of Chanhassen soon. We purchased one of the townhomes that you discussed earlier north of the property. I basically came here to see where Byerly's, where this proposed development was going to lay in relation to that and I was wondering if I was going to be cooking my hotdogs in the summer and watching people unload fruit. It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Could you throw up the slide for the proposed development? I just want to point out a couple things. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Generous: The site plan? Craig Hallett: Yeah. I just had a couple questions and then I'll sit down. It's getting, the first time I've been to one of these. It's amazing how long they go. My father used to be on a planning and zoning board...and I remember him getting home. Batzli: Did he get home before midnight? Craig Hallett: No, I remember Monday nights usually went pretty late for him. We're actually purchasing one of the first townhomes, if they ever start building them, right about here. So I'm less concerned about the Byerly's from the selfish standpoint and more curious going forward on the proposed senior development and things like that. So I'm curious how I can keep in contact as those plans move along, if there's any projections for that. Batzli: Give these guys your name and address. Craig Hallett: Okay. The other issue I have, and question I have for the people developing too, would be for the residents of that community I'm moving into that are not here to speak and my main concern would be the people have the southwest facing units, or the southeast facing units, there's some patios that are going to be abutting up against that land and I'm curious about elevations. Are those people going to be looking at part of the top of a building now or are their properties actually going to be...the roof so they will be looking down. And you talked about trees and I read the plans. Spacing them every 10 feet and things like that. How will that provide that buffer for those people, and when we moved in we, or when we signed the purchase agreement we knew that, I called anyway and...zon rd below us so we knew potentially what...30 or 40 foot building versus a 20 foot building. How that... Batzli: I'd rather have Dave answer. What's the difference in elevation there? Hempel: In that particular area I guess...I do believe there's a pretty uniform significant difference in topography. I don't, we do have a site plan with grades...but I would say it's at least...At the rear elevation of the Byerly's building...elevation is on the average of 983. And the top of the slope, this would be at the easterly, southeasterly corner of the Oak Ponds development. The top of the hill there is approximately 997. So that point there is approximately 14...elevation difference. As we continue down towards the west... Mancino: How far away are they from the back of the building?...back of the building, you've got the slope and then where does this development start? Is it 20 feet away? Is it? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Hempel: Well that scale... Generous: About 110 to 120 feet from the building... Mancino: Thank you. Batzli: 110 feet. Okay. Hempel: Pretty close. Okay, as you extend westerly, at the very westerly edge of this development, we have the parking lot elevation of 968 with an elevation at the top of Oak Ponds there of approximately 978. More than 10 foot difference there. Craig Hallett: That's a 10 foot difference from the base, is that right? Their building is going to be 30 to 40 feet... Hempel: Right but... Batzli: Let's have, is there anyone else that would like to address the commission, while these guys huddle. Dan Beckman: Good evening. My name is Dan Beckman. I live at 6895 Chaparral Lane. I too would like to be kept informed as this proceeds forward...I guess, when does this go up to the HRA for seeing if this TIF money is being given or not? Does anybody know that? Batzli: I don't know that it will necessarily. Charlie James: The next meeting is the 16th I believe. Dan Beckman: Of December? Charlie James: Yes. The third Thursday. Dan Beckman. I guess I'm a little offended by Paul's comment earlier. I'm a little baffled why a city would have to buy every business into the community over the last 10 years. If the city is truly ready for these businesses, they should want to come in. They shouldn't have to be purchased and I guess as a taxpayer and as a resident here, I'm really offended by that. There was talk earlier about a traffic light. An additional. Is this in addition to what we have up? Hempel: The previous traffic studies for the downtown area, there's a series of traffic signals 63 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 were designed in the upgrade of 78th Street with this intersection in front of the Byerly's was proposed for a signal when this site developed and conditions warranted based on traffic volumes...78th Street. The wiring, the conduits with the posts was cut. They were all installed so it would not be torn up and rebuilt. So it was always our intent to signalize the intersection when traffic volumes warranted. So yes, there will be another traffic signal at the Target entrance. Dan Beckman: I really am in opposition to this. Do you people drive down main street? Just a question. It's worst than driving into Minneapolis. I just don't see why we need another stop light. Stop lights, in my estimation, will stop the traffic. Four way stops can then be used efficiently I would think, and I'm not an engineer. I don't know. But I think we're a little bit over kill on that. And secondly, who's paying for the stop light? Is the city footing the bill on that? Hempel: That is all a part of the downtown upgrade with West 78th Street which is a combination. Krauss: Maybe we can touch on the TIF for a moment and I feel no obligation and need to defend TIF. I mean the city has been doing that for the last 14 years and Brad Johnson has been the primary benefitter of the use of TIF. Brad Johnson: The city has. Krauss: I don't deny that Brad but the fact is, it's been used extensively and the policies that have addressed TIF are set through the HRA and are not under the purview of the Planning Commission, and I wouldn't ask you to get involved in the financial deliberations. I stay out of them. It's really a whole separate field of endeavor. As to the need to induce development to occur downtown. You know there's been a, I think the HRA's talked about it extensively. Market Square was very heavily subsidized. Target was less so. There's different levels of subsidy that fed back into it. But what's important to note is that the money that's circulated in TIF is money that is paid by these projects. It's not money that's being paid by any resident elsewhere in the city. It's the dollars being paid by Festival. By Target. By the bank. By Town Square. They're recycled back to pay for the improvements and pay for basically the inducement to get them in there. All the improvements to the 78th Street roadway, all the signals, all the storm sewer, everything that you see. All the landscaping has been paid through TIF, which is essentially recycling those tax dollars. Dan Beckman: Maybe I don't understand how this TIF money works but let me just interject something here. If I...them right in my background that I've learned on this, is TIF money not a speculation on developed property that you're going to have increased taxes that will be 64 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 paid on this property. Is that not how these things...? Krauss: I think the word speculation is wrong. I mean basically it's a contractual arrangement. If we have a Target signed up to go to a property. If Target is going to general x number of dollars during the life of the district, the deals that the city with the HRA has usually been made is that 3 years of the increased taxes goes back to offset the cost of the special assessments and improvements that the city has put in. But that's basically, that project is paying it's own way essentially, if you understand that concept. It's not general tax revenues of any sort. From any outside source coming into it. Dan Beckman: But there are other problems that arise from having them there? Police protection, this kind of stuff and for the years that we don't reap any benefits. Krauss: Well there's all kinds of things that accrue but what also accrues is tremendous increased tax base to pay for those things. Dan Beckman: Down the road. Krauss: Even during while it's happening. I mean right now TIF is paying, when you see somebody mowing the lawn down medians of downtown, that's being paid through TIF. When you see the signals going up, that's being paid through TIF. When the trees are being planted, that's through TIF. So it's not an easy issue to digest but it's being used solely to benefit Chanhassen. It's keeping dollars in Chanhassen that would otherwise be distributed outside the city. Dan Beckman: Okay. And just for the record, I don't have any ties with Brad Johnson. Okay. We're in Rotary together. That's how I know Brad. We don't have any business ties. Batzli: Anything else? Dan Beckman: I guess that's about all I have. I did have one other issue though. They talked about the slope. The grade of this massive 500 and some car parking lot. Did I hear that right, like 24 foot drop from the building to the street? John Meyers: It's 2 1/2%. It's less than what Target's lot is. Dan Beckman: Okay. I'm just wondering what a parking lot of that size, at that angle, will do...it might be something to check into. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Tim Menning: Good evening. My name is Tim Menning. I'm one of the partners in Market Square Associates. I've always consider the city a partner with us in that project. Both due to their large investment in it. Of which we owe the city upwards of $800,000.00 and depending on what happens with Lots 2 and 3, it's going to be closer to a million dollars. I also consider them a partner from the standpoint that they participate in any profits that that center turns as long as there's debt outstanding on it. We pay not only a 10% interest on that debt for the city or the HRA, whatever the case may be. But we also pay 25% of the cashflow of that project. They are a partner with us. I realize that in the request for developments such as this, particularly is TIF monies are looked for, and other...it does put the city in a precarious position. It would be as if Brad decided tomorrow to build another store and not bring us other partners along for example. Kind of equivalent to that. It is an awkward position for the city but I think that before the city can move forward on this project at all, it's got to request an economic study and if that study would not show that the Marketplace would support, not only the existing businesses. Not just Festival Foods. The liquor store. The center. The other commercial businesses in town. Not just in our center. That if it can't support the existing businesses, plus what's proposed here, the city has definitely got to rethink this issue. Maybe it may be in a position where if it meets all these requirements, and no TIF money or assistance is asked for in some manner, they may not be able to turn it down. We may have to accept that ourselves. But if an economic study shows that it's going to be detrimental to the existing businesses in town, that the market can't support both, the old and the new, the city's going to have to be very careful in moving forward in this project at any point. Even on simply the Planning Commission approvals. I don't think it's possible for that to be done before this economic study is done. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Let's see if anyone else would like to first. Anyone else? Okay, go ahead. Charlie James: I didn't know if now was the time, that it'd be appropriate for me maybe to respond to some of these concerns. Or would you like? Batzli: No. Why don't you hold off a little bit. Harberts: I think Brian, excuse me, that we need to ensure that we are keeping in mind what our scope here is tonight, given the lateness in the hour. Batzli: Okay. Yeah. I think most of your response is going to be to economic issues, which is something that is with, it's not in our jurisdiction. It really isn't and I think that's what's going to be what you're going to respond to, I would imagine. Charlie James: Yeah, there were some other things but I'll. — 66 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay, yeah. Let's wait for us to have questions on that. On those things. The TIF money and things like that, that will be handled by Council and the HRA. We can espouse personal views but as a Planning Commission, you know we really can't do anything on that. If there's no one else that would like to address the commission, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, it is late. Batzli: Yes it is. Conrad: And I think I have, I think there are going to be a lot of questions. We have a choice, and I have another problem and that problem was that we really didn't get the material for reviewing. It's just like I've only done part of the job and I really don't know that I want to discuss this until we get the plans in front of us. And maybe all the information was in the planning packet but for some reason when you have the real blueprints in front of you, it triggers a lot of stuff. And I guess my preference Mr. Chairman is to table this issue so that we can really look at the plans. And the other thing is that we probably have an hour, hour's worth of discussion if I were to guess, and I'm, I'd prefer not to stay here until 12:30. Batzli: Okay. Took the words right out of my mouth. Mancino: I'd like to second that. Batzli: You wanted to be focused Diane. Did you want to talk about certain issues? Did you want to raise. Harberts: I just wanted to raise one comment, and that is with regard to, you know I'm excited about developments in Chanhassen but given the participation that I had in that 2002 thing. Planning scope or whatever that was. When we talk about a downtown area that's more pedestrian oriented, and this particular piece is right across from this concept of a central park, community park that everyone was talking about that it should be more pedestrian oriented. Is there an opportunity, was there some opportunity to look at this project where this would be more pedestrian friendly? Less traffic friendly and it's just a question I want to throw out. I don't know if I'm looking for an answer right now but I'm just looking that when we're looking at this global picture and the amount of time that was spent and the amount of input that was provided by a diverse group of people from residents 67 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 from Chanhassen, I need to understand. So I guess I don't know if I'm looking for the answer but maybe it's something if this is going to be tabled that staff can address at the next meeting. Or next review, if that's what happens. Krauss: If that's what it takes. I guess again we have to apologize for the materials not going out. We had a short week and my secretary was swamped but nobody told us that you didn't get it either so. We don't know where they are. They're not upstairs. They're missing. Batzli: The Sheriff's got them in his trunk. Krauss: That might be. Along with whatever else they picked up. In terms of your question Diane. We heard through Fred Hoisington, some of you were concerned why wasn't this brought up to the street frontage and that was something that we looked at very early on. We didn't think it worked then and we played around with the design and we still don't think it works very good. And we could show you why. Basically you've got a site that should be buried on one or two sides and when you stick it out on a corner, there's no way to bury any of it except for false walls and having a berm there and a lot of landscaping. So instead of looking at a landscape parking lot from City Center Park, you'd be looking at a landscaped blank wall from City Center Park. So there are pros and cons to it and we've got some illustrations of how that might work. There really aren't that many options. Harberts: Well and I just wanted to have at least the comfort that it was looked at, because I certainly look to staff for that type of review so, it's just maybe I'm the one that voiced the question. But that was kind of my underlying concern with this project. And the fact that we look at Kerber, and I drive down there and on Monday thru Thursday night there's all these cars in the community, for the community park there and then if we have semi's coming in and out, how does this work? But I can certainly defer those questions if this project is going to be tabled tonight. Batzli: Okay. I know we have a couple other quick comments here before we talk about the motion. I want to ask Paul about that. Farmakes: A couple of things. One is on the site plan. I would like to see a more detailed signage, at least a comparison to what we're seeing rather than these blocked squares and so on. And I don't think it's the correct forum for us to be deciding whether or not we're going to take half an ordinance and discard the other half when we're talking on these square footage issues. We have a signage ordinance in place. We have another one that's fairly inclusive that we're talking about the corridor. This is in the corridor and some of these issues pertain to what we're discussing here. I do think however, I was a bit surprised by the quality of the building that I saw. Very nice. Now if we're talking anything about style, 68 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 talking about the elements that you had in the building. It's not something that you normally see in a retail development and my compliments to that. Utilizing limestone in a building for retail level is I think terrific. Very nice. Anyway, I agree that this issue of competition that seems to, trying to rear itself here is to me a bit disturbing and that seems in the realm of politics and not in the area of planning and what we're doing here. Planning and development I guess we should say. Although it maybe sounds like a contradiction in terms. It seems that the issue, if we're going to get into, we already have one liquor store. Therefore we can't have another liquor store. Business is inherently a risk and the question is, who risks? Three years ago Super Valu decided not to risk when they came in here. Gateway decided through whatever incentives the city put forward, to take a risk. The city had a risk. And the question with this stuff always becomes egg and chicken. Who's going to take the first risk to build something that people are going to come to and the issue is draw. And no matter what market or business you're in, if you're looking at a retail area, you've got a draw situation from either the existing area or the surrounding community. = Some people take a risk that they're going to draw from the surrounding communities. Target did and the question is, with these stop lights and so on. They may seem like a lot of stop lights now but when there's 30,000 people here, it may not seem so many. And the question again becomes, as you look into your crystal ball, where these businesses are going to draw from and I believe that, particularly with Target here now, that we're going to have people drawing here from miles and miles away, outside of Chanhassen. When you look to the west and where some of these opportunities to buy are, it really is a changing picture and it's not even the place it was 3 years ago so I'll leave it at that. Batzli: Did you want to say something? Mancino: Yeah, I just wanted to add. I'd also like to have included in the packet a perspective of the homes on the north, what they're going to see. Exactly what it will be. Whether it's going to be the equipment on top, etc. And I'd also like to hear a little bit more of what...Diane's question about the 2002, that we all participated in for the city because when we were all asked what are the center's most significant weaknesses, it's major problems. The first one was access, traffic, parking problems, traffic lights and number two was lack of pedestrian routes accessibility. So I'd really like to hear a little bit more on, because that's what we all as a group decided. Or felt...business district. Farmakes: There's an inherent problem though with grocery shopping. You don't grocery shop by foot, particularly in the suburbs. Chanhassen, we've had that discussion for pedestrians here for a long time and it seems like the city's committed to the car. Mancino: Well we have individual shopping centers now all in the city. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: But I mean versus the old, say Excelsior where you can walk down. Batzli: There's really two issues, it's kind of interesting because, not to pick on Market Square but the biggest complaint I hear from people as I'm wandering around in those stores and areas, is the parking lot and the access between, even the stores. You almost have to get in your car to go from the hardware store over to the grocery store. That's their thought and so we didn't make it, it seems to me very user friendly if people are getting in their cars to go from the liquor store over to the grocery store. They're not walking. And they don't like the way it's laid out and so it doesn't seem to me, something wasn't quite right there. Paul, we cleared our December 15th meeting and we're going to interview people for at least an hour or so. We have to look at this next time. I mean we can't sit on it. The only reason we're not going to talk about it tonight is because we don't have the D sized plans here. I think we need to talk about it. And what does that do to our schedule of looking at the Highway 5 corridor that you've been ordered to clear everything out of the way. Krauss: Well, more importantly what does it do to your schedule. I mean you were ordered to get it to the Council by February 1st. We've only got three dates to do it on. Harberts: Brian doesn't care. Krauss: I know that Target has. Batzli: I do too. Krauss: I know that Byerly's has some very stringent time deadlines that they are working with. Scott: What are those deadlines? Batzli: They want their store to be open by August of next fall, or something. Krauss: I'll let them deal with that but the first open meeting you have is January 5th. Now I suppose it's possible if you say you wanted to meet, I mean if we started at 6:00. Batzli: He leaves. He leaves. We're talking about trying to cram it into our schedule and he leaves. Unbelievable. Krauss: If we wanted to get it on the 15th and devote the first 2-2 112 hours of the meeting to Highway 5 and the second you know, an hour to interview and then you had this on. I think most of the questions you're raising in terms of the site plan, can easily be addressed. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 They already have been addressed to a large extent, or can be provided in that time. We're willing to stay. Otherwise this slips a month. Actually more than a month. It goes to the 5th. Mancino: What time are we starting on the 15th? Krauss: Nancy, I don't remember but I think it's 6:00. It's 6:00 and you get your bite to eat and then we want to put in a good 2 hours on the Highway 5 plan. And so that makes it like 8:30 and you have until 9:30 for the interviews. So you're looking at tackling it at 9:30, which I suppose is possibly better than doing it tonight... Batzli: Yeah but that always, the interviews always seem to slip a little and then we have to talk about it while it's still fresh. December's just a terrible month for a special meeting. I was thinking more for the Highway 5 thing rather than this. Harberts: What's the magic date with that February, first or 15th? Is there some priority from the Council in terms of why that's such a magic date? Krauss: Because I swore on a stack of Bibles that you'd do it. Mancino: They're hot to trot for it. Batzli: What do you guys want to do? Do you guys want to have, try and put a special meeting somewhere in on, an additional special meeting or a special meeting on the Highway 5 corridor? Mancino: We're doing a special meeting on Saturday. Batzli: Yeah I know. Well I'm a lame duck so I don't want to speak for the group. If you guys don't want to put in a special meeting after the 15th or the 1st or whenever, whenever I'm gone, I mean just say so. Harberts: I would prefer to put in special Wednesday when you're gone. Batzli: I think we're going to have to anyway. Mancino: I do too. Harberts: But we didn't swear on that stack of Bibles either. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: Well, the Council basically said, either you're done with it or they get it anyway. So you've got to convene a public hearing...their guidance and whether you're done with it or not, they're going to get it at their meeting in February. Farmakes: See, that's what I find unfortunate about that is that we've spent an inherent amount of time with 12 acre developments in the interim and these type of things, these are really, there's a couple of crucial issues here in front of us and those are the ones that we should be dealing with and if you've got the authority to put whatever you need to on your - schedule, go ahead and do it. If you need, I'll come in if you have a special meeting. But I'm not, it seems to me we're not doing our job if we let these things go by whether, are we supposed to rubber stamp it? In particular the Highway 5 things. That's going to be a long, long deal. With a lot of information. Batzli: Is everyone willing to tackle this at a special meeting? Okay, we'll do it then? Charlie James: Mr. Chairman...I guess with all due respect, I have to express a bit of frustration here. Ladd, I've been working behind the scenes on this since last January. There's been two market surveys that have been done. One by Retail Systems Inc. and one by Super Valu's own admission. We have been frantically trying to pull this thing together over the past couple months. What you see tonight is a...of many, many, many attempts to arrive at what we think is probably going to be one of the best projects in the city of Chanhassen. And I guess I'm frustrated because we have just been working so hard and given a time schedule that we're on and we've been turning all the stuff into the city. We've been meeting with staff. I've been going to the 2000 meetings. There was some suggestion that I thought was highly ironic. It almost made me laugh. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. That I was in the pocket or the city was in my pocket on the senior housing. I don't want senior housing on my property. That wasn't my idea. I mean I was asked by the city, would you do this as something. I don't do senior housing. I don't know, I have commercial land and I had to roll over and play dead on the Target thing out there and let them run a street. I waited out there for 4 years and the city defaulted on a contract they had with me to put a strip center and build a street so I could finish a strip center that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Legally I could not sell a lot out there because I did not have frontage on a public street and then to have the city come in and run me, the street through my property out there because essentially Target didn't want any buildings out in front of them. Or didn't want their view obstructed. And at every step of the way here I think I have cooperated with the city. There wouldn't be a Market Square if I hadn't cooperated. I originally had a letter of intent with Festival Foods. They came to me when Brad was trying to put Cooper in there and I knew that Super Valu wouldn't sign a corporate lease and give a corporate guarantee and I just finished building a store with Ed Heiser. I know Arnie Privie well. Arnie Privie and my family have had a relationship going back 72 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 many years, and at the time they were trying to do Market Square with Super Valu, Arnie Privie's predecessor, Ed Heiser came to me. I just finished doing a store for them and they wanted me to build a store out here where we're proposing a Byerly's for them and I said, hey wait a minute. I'm going to start at the west end of my property with my little strip center with a little PDQ, with Edina Realty. All these little offices. I said because I can't afford to be in competition with downtown. I've got the city's been trying for so long to pull this thing together downtown that I don't want to do anything to screw up their deal. They're finally getting the downtown as you know and Ed said fine. We'll wait. John Kranke came to see me with Jay Cooper. We met over at the Prairie Restaurant. They said we don't want to be part of that project Charlie. We want to go on your land. Your land surveyed out better. We've got a higher thing. What are you going to do? I said I'm not doing anything for 3 years John. I said I'm not going to get in competition with the city on this project. So I was, there was forbearance on my part on that. It was because of a phone call I got from Brad. I mean Brad called me at one point and wanted to move the project onto my land. That's when I told Brad that Festival was already interested in my property and that's all it took for Brad to put Festival into his project. And I guess I'm frustrated tonight because I've cooperated with the senior housing thing. I have been working diligently. Having almost, I won't say daily but I think Paul's getting sick of seeing me out here at City Hall. We've tried to pull together a project here that has been anticipated for this piece of property. This property is zoned. It's a permitted use. We're not requesting any variances. It's a first class building. It's something that everybody can be proud of. The staff had Hoisington come in. Look at our landscaping and said, Hoisington said, if you read your report, we'd do this, this, this and of course as I said earlier this evening, our landscaping plan was merely intended to be schematic. Ordinarily what you do is just hire a landscape firm and they kind of buff up the final plan. But we were showing quantities and what was required. But when staff hired Hoisington to look at the landscaping. Hoisington made the recommendation. I looked at staff and I called, I said I'll do whatever Hoisington wants. Whatever the city, they came to that Vision 2000 and said that that fellow there, Schroeder or whatever his name was, was the best landscape architect. I don't know if you were there when Mr. Hoisington said that. And he looked at this and he said, this is what I recommend. We said, we'll do it. Now I'm standing here tonight. It's taken us, from my perspective, I've been, it's taken me 9 years to get here. I was also the person who brought Target to town. I worked for 2 years. I was the one that contacted Target. Ed Bierman who is Dick Brooks' boss. He used to work at Wal- Mart. I've done 22 Wal-Marts and knew Ed Bierman from there. I was the one who went down to Target's offices. Sat down with Ed Bierman and said you should look at Chanhassen. Here's my site and then they got out here and decided, well we think we'd rather be closer to Highway 5 and all the time they were stroking me, because they knew I was...and they could go there but they wanted to be next to Highway 5. The City did a PUD. Brad was part of that. They claimed in their PUD that they had the consent of all the property owners, written consent. They did not. They did not have my consent but I 73 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 acquiesce. Allowed that to happen. Allowed a road to get relocated through my strip center. Allowed the city to come in and say Charlie. We need senior housing. I don't do senior housing. We need a place for it. We like your site. So I draw it on there. I mean it seems like the more I cooperate, the more obstacles I run into. I am frustrated ladies and gentlemen. Now we have got a beautiful project here and you're telling me the hour's late and we've got an hour's worth of questions. I mean I've been working on this from my perspective for 9 years. Is it too much to ask of you to spend another hour with me? Batzli: No. I think you're missing the point. We found out tonight that we don't have, we didn't have the materials for our review prior to the meeting and that's why we're going to delay it. It's not that we don't like the project. It's not that we're going to vote it up or down. It's not any of that. It's the fact that we get in here and suddenly in the middle of your presentation we're looking around and saying, well where's all this stuff coming from. We didn't have the materials to review it prior to the meeting. And I don't think it would be prudent for us to, you know without a little bit of study and, you know that may be fine for a working session to be going over the plans and seeing this stuff for the first time but that's not how we're going to operate. And I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, from our standpoint we've seen it for 3 days. I understand that it's taken you a long time and if I would have had the material and had an opportunity to look at it, we'd stay. We do 1:00. I mean we've been here before but I don't even know where to start because everything you've shown me is new. I don't even know how to react. I don't know how to tie it together. You know. I don't know what we, as a commission can do tonight. We could stay here until 6:00 in the morning going over your plan by the time we thought it all out, and I don't think that will get us where we want to be. So I think the only thing we can do, and what everybody has committed to doing is staying as late as it will take next time and go through it. Krauss: May I make a suggestion. We have not notified the planning commission candidates yet of when they might be on. In fact I told one or two of them it'd probably be the first meeting in January before that occurred. If we did delay the interviews, you'd have to serve another couple meetings. But if we did that, we'd spend the early part of the meeting on Highway 5, from like 6:00 to 9:00 and then convene, the regular Planning Commission meeting but that would at least give us a 3 week jump on bumping this to January which is. Batzli: No, we can't bump this to January. Charlie James: The reason that I'm, I mean I'm sorry that I'm getting out of joint here tonight and kind of foaming at the mouth but I mean, it's been a long road. Mancino: Paul, what you just came up with sounds fine to me. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: But I want you all to be aware of, we're working on a construction schedule here. Here's the issue is that you either open a grocery story before Thanksgiving and in the fall. I mean there are certain times of the year you don't open it and if you can't get a certain amount of business and you don't stock the special items for Christmas and the holidays, then you don't open it until spring. I've got a situation here where Byerly's has another, they're building...their progratn to build a store in '95 in Chicago. We've got a window of opportunity here for them to, what we're working against here and what we've been struggling against all year is a very real construction schedule and outside date and that's why I guess I'm babbling. Batzli: By doing this at our next meeting, this will go to City Council their first meeting in January? Krauss: Yeah, on the 10th. Batzli: Would it have gone any quicker if we acted on it tonight? Krauss: Yeah conceivably. We talked to Charlie about trying to get...we talked about trying to roll it over to the 13th. Now there is grading activity that's already been approved out there. I don't know, I'm going to leave it up to... Batzli: I can't see us approving it tonight. I can't approve it tonight. Okay. Harberts: So the option that we discussed about the 15th, is that the likelihood? Scott: Yeah. I think what we're going to do is have the working session from 6:00 until 9:00. Blow off the interviews until January and get on this item at 9:00 on the 15th. Farmakes: I'd make a couple of comments if we're going to see this again to make them useful in the presentation if it comes back. I would like to see the north elevation where that grading is done, that we see a side cut. How that's being proposed. I'm having trouble translating that from verbal into visual. And the sign issue. I'd like to see some more, I'd like to see a worst case scenario as to what we're looking at and how that's going to be coordinated with the building. Batzli: From my standpoint, discussion on the architectural styles. Screening stuff on the roof and/or in back. If they have trash enclosures. Wherever they're going to put it. The issue of parking, crosswalks, cars, sidewalks. I don't think Byerly's does the parking lot but the view from the north. We normally ask, and I don't think Byerly's does it but we normally put conditions regarding outdoor storage for these types of things. Those are some 75 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 of the things that I found missing. Scott: Interaction with semi traffic with the park traffic. Little League, etc, etc. People that are parking up and down the street. I suppose that's a signage problem more than anything else. Harberts: I'd like to also see an element of how maybe a presence of a bus shelter and public transit facility in this area. Krauss: ...something in the order of what we have at Target? Harberts: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Farmakes: And speaking of Target, their signage package also presented a monument design. Krauss: I'm sure...Can we get a sketch of the monument... Batzli: Is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we table site plan approval for a commercial development consisting of a 64,132 square foot Byerly's, a 35,700 square foot retail center, and a separate 7,000 square foot commercial office building and conditional use permit approval pursuant to Section 20-902 to permit the grouping of buildings on a single building lot until our next meeting which is December 15th. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Charlie James: Would the Planning Commission consider, if they're going to have...to have a special meeting like next week or something that would allow us to. Mancino: We can't turn it around. John Meyers: If I could just clarify something. My name is John Meyers. I'm the Vice President...Byerly's. The schedule, so you know, we came into the hall and the City Manager and everybody back in, on November roughly, and here's the schedule that we have. We need to try to meet this schedule...I'm just going to be real frank...if we delay it past me 76 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 going to the City Council on the 13th, we'll have to sit down and...If you want to schedule it for the meeting that you have the 15th, I understand that but I'm not sure...to the project. We're trying to go to the Council on the 13th. The HRA on the 16th. That could possibly be delayed to the first of January. That maybe we can deal with but we'll be done at that point and we can start construction. We want to do this with Paul and the City Manager. Unfortunately it's a reality. I'm not trying to get you to come in on an extra day. We'll do it anytime you want. We'll try to deal with all the issues that you've got inbetween now and then. Maybe get with Paul to make sure we do address the issues correctly... Batzli: I won't be able to do it next week. If everyone else wants to come in next week. If they want to try and do it. Krauss: Unfortunately I think the reality of it is, even if you did it next Wednesday, the City Council packet will have gone out 3 hours before you would have met. John Meyers: Meet Monday. Or Tuesday. I mean we'll crank it out in a day. Batzli: Why don't you have someone from the city call people tomorrow when they have their calendars in front of them. See if it's even a possibility to do it next week. Krauss: I suspect the legality of it is that. Batzli: We'd have to notice everybody several? Krauss: Well, I'm not sure that that's the case. I mean City Council can technically call a special meetings but they have to call...while the floor is open. Harberts: Well, point of order here. If we are to look at a meeting before the 15th. Rather than table it, if we were just to, help me with this. Postpone or continue the meeting at a later time, don't we get away from the notices? Krauss: Yeah but. Batzli: We closed the public hearing. Harberts: But we haven't closed our discussion. That's what I'm saying. Couldn't we just continue the meeting rather than adjourn the meeting tonight? Krauss: You can do that but again, I'm not an expert on Robert's Rules of Order...but the way the Council has to work is, the Council has to designate a special meeting date during 77 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 the Council meeting. They can't just say... Farmakes: Well, I'm open to meeting whenever on this issue. I think it's a major issue downtown. Perhaps the Council can also consider a special session or the HRA. But I'm perfectly open to whatever's being suggested. We probably, you know we probably do have an obligation not only this but the fact that we, there was a slip up here within the scheduling and I'm not, being that it's the holidays, probably going to be quite difficult but I'm open to suggestions. Mancino: I'd rather do 2 hours on Saturday. Farmakes: Suggestions. 2 hours on Saturday or something... Scott: How many of us are going on Saturday? Farmakes: Do we have a quorum going on Saturday? Krauss: We're not sure about Matt but otherwise. Scott: So we have four. That's a quorum so. Harberts: I can do it Saturday. Monday or Tuesday night. Farmakes: I would prefer actually, if we can do it Saturday, I mean it's already a dead spot because of the other issue. I don't know if that works into the legality of notice. Harberts: Well there's the options. If we can make it legal or otherwise show up here on the 15th. Scott: Well how is this meeting, this meeting on Saturday is a work session. There's going to be a quorum of the Planning Commission in one place and from what I understand, an open meeting rules and so forth, that carries some legal responsibility. Krauss: Well you have a work session designated... Scott: Well bearing the fact that we don't have legal counsel, I think we need to, because of the nature of the issue, I think we need to continue it and deal with it on Saturday. Krauss: But keep in mind, I mean hopefully we can find our plans but you're still only going to have a day to look at those. And we're really not going to have the opportunity to write 78 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 anything new. Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that. I mean a day with plans is fine... Harberts: Is the consensus here Saturday? I need to do a little rescheduling on Saturday. Scott: Drive fast. Tell your bus driver to be lead footed for this thing. Krauss: So we're looking at? Harberts: Saturday at 11:00. Krauss: That's when we're supposed to be back here right? Batzli: I'm sorry, Saturday what day? This 4th? Scott: Yeah. This coming weekend. Batzli: Okay well, I don't know. I don't know the legality of continuing versus tabling. Harberts: I believe we can do it. I just don't know if we can do it as a Planning Commission. I know from a Robert's Rules of Order, I'm pretty confident that as long as you continue the meeting you're alright. Batzli: Well we have a motion on the floor right now to table. Are you withdrawing your motion? Who made it? Mancino: I made it. I'll move that we continue discussion. Harberts: So are you withdrawing? Mancino: I'm withdrawing my motion. Batzli: Who seconded the motion? Scott: No one did. Batzli: Yeah we did. We were discussing it. Harberts: I think this one did. 79 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: I think so. Farrnakes: Are we going to get a review whether or not this is legal? Krauss: Well yeah. I mean we'll... Farmakes: Just so the time that we do spend on Saturday goes. Batzli: Okay, since we're not sure who seconded the motion, we're going to call the question on the motion to table. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #93-1 and Site Plan #93-7 until December 15, 1993. All voted to deny and the motion failed. Batzli: Motion fails. Is there another motion? Harberts: I'll move that we continue discussions for Saturday the 4th. Let's begin the meeting at 11:15. Batzli: How about pending clarification that that is proper. Harberts: Works for me. Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Harberts: Oh, and the only item would be this issue right here. Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission continue discussion on Conditional Use Permit #93-1 and Site Plan #93-7 until Saturday, December 4, 1993 at 11:15 a.m. pending clarification by legal counsel. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Motion carries. This item will be continued on Saturday pending Roger Knutson's review. Thank you all for coming in. We have new business but we'll put off our goals again because we have no goals. We actually do have goals but let me put that off. Open discussion? 80 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Harberts moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 81 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order, and then turned it over to Vice-Chair Joe Scott at 11:15 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli, and Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; and Bob Generous, Planner II PUBLIC PRESENT: Bob King 6122 Arctic Way, Edina Bruce Mattson 2020 Crestview Drive Dan Beckman 6895 Chaparral Lane John Meyers 7171 France Ave. Tony Olgh 5437 Grand Ave., Mpls. Tim McCoy Byerly's Architect Brian Burdick CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE PARCEL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 64,132 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET, A 26,100 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING, AND A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON A 13.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE 2ND ADDITION, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Charlie James: ...Architecture and then went on to get a masters degree in architecture from Harvard University. And I'd be happy to...your concerns and answe any questions. We prepared the cross section that you had asked for. I guess one thing that we've thought about at this time is that we are going to, not going to see, we're going to show you how we would propose to handle a pylon or monument sign but at this time we're not going to, we're going to ask you to assume, and we're going to assume that we're going to meet the sign ordinance and what we'd like to do is come back in with a contractural agreement. Set of covenants and show you everything in infinite detail of what we would propose to vary from that ordinance. At that point the decision is entirely your's whether you wish to do that at that point in time or not. So we thought that might remove one more cloud of uncertainty plus it gives you something in the future over which you have absolute control on that particular issue. But we can show you the pylons and that sort of thing but at this point I guess I'd like 1 to have Mr. McCoy respond to some of the questions. Mancino: Would that come back to us? If it won't come back to us. Krauss: Sign covenants, yes. That's not an uncommon condition for the Planning Commission to do. Farmakes: Does this also include the...that we're seeing here or the pylon or however. It looks like a monument sign. Generous: Yes. It would exceed what the code would require. Krauss: But if you would prefer to have the whole package come back before you... Farmakes: I would, I guess at this point, I'd rather see it piecemeal. I don't know about the rest of you. Charlie James: I guess my thought in doing the sign, and correct me if I'm wrong Paul but I read somewhere that aren't all pylons under the proposed ordinance going to be a conditional. use or something? I don't know, you gave me some handouts about your, one of the things that you're working on a new sign ordinance so we're kind of between the old and the new. That was another reason that we decided, even if we get it approved now, you've got a new ordinance coming in. By the time we get around to hanging them on the building, or whatever so, but I guess what we wanted to do is the same overall coordination of how we're going to incorporate the same materials and the same design elements in the monuments and pylons as we are in the buildings so the whole project has an integrated feel. We use the same materials out there but as far as the height of the letters, we'll come back on that. We'll have a legally binding contract between the city and our firm that you would be able to use, if at that time you had decided that you would...that we were talking about. What we were going to be looking for is to come in anywhere from a fourth to a third of what the allowable area is but we just want one sign that's the Byerly's component to be larger than the maximum. Everywhere else in the center right now we comply but it's the issue on the Byerly's sign is larger than the 80 square feet that is allowed by code but you...a third or a fourth of what's permitted so it's kind of, it's one of those kind of issues where it's how the code was drafted perhaps and not... Tim McCoy: Good morning. Perhaps it'd be easiest if I set this up on here to show you. Okay, what we have prepared here are three cross sections through the site in the north/south direction. The first cross section shows the entry driveway at Byerly's as it goes all the way through to the townhouse project. This is the property line at the south out at West 78th Street. And this is approximately the, I guess it's about a 2 1/2% slope up to the entry of the — Byerly's store. This is drawn at 1 inch equals 50 feet in this scale and I'll probably speak to some of these issues from this lower section because that's essentially a blow up of this back half. That indicates some of the grade elevations that were prepared by Jim Hill and 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Associates and also show some of the relative floor and roof elevations as we've got them designed in the "retail" portion and the Byerly's relative to what the elevations are at the floor slabs of the townhouses. This particular section is through the center of the retail space. We have a more severe situation to deal with here in terms of variation in grade. Our top of the floor slab in here is at 977 in the retail. Up at the multiple family housing, we're up at, that's 1005 in there so we're up about 30 feet from the floor slab in here. We're proposing to carry the parapet wall at the back of the retail area up to the level of about 996, which is still about 9 feet below what the floor elevations of the multiple family housing is up on top of the hill. Now one of the potential advantages that we have in the retail space relative to the Byerly's where we have less flexibility in terms of where we can locate those rooftop mechanical type units, is that if we want to try to locate these, which we do, back towards this parapet wall, it will be a more effective screening in here partially because we'll have shorter rungs and more flexibility to locate those where we want. We don't have to service freezers and coolers and all the various functions that they've got in the supermarket. So that's one thing that minimizes this greater height differentiation between the retail space arid the townhouse area. And in the Byerly's store, once again we do have a less severe condition in terms of grade variation to deal with. We're up at 996 at the first floor elevation of the townhouses. We estimated in here that we would be up at about 1005 at the second floor. Bob Generous gave us these floor elevations of the townhouse project. We're at 982.5 down at the floor elevation of Byerly's but the most important thing here of course is the top of the parapet elevation as we're proposing presently. That's at 1002.5, without getting you all confused with all of the numbers here. The top of the parapet, at the back of the Byerly's is about 6 1/2 feet higher than what the floor elevation is at the townhouses directly behind it. A couple other things that we've tried to do to give us more flexibility in terms of where we might locate rooftop mechanical equipment is that we're going to be developing a compressor mezzanine enclosed, entirely enclosed over the loading projection at the back of the Byerly's store. I mean that will have louvers which we're certainly going to try to put into the south side of that for air circulation and so forth. The other feature that you probably saw the other night in terms of the raised entry to the Byerly's...is something that we would like to develop some mechanical...house also that would probably have louvers on the back or whatever but nevertheless...a condition where you could enclose some of this rooftop mechanical equipment and what would not be screened, and I don't know what that is right now. I mean it may just be by necessity that we may have to locate some things towards the center of the roof that we would certainly screen with a trellis and type of thing or whatever. And oftentimes the conditions that we run into is that we'll propose certain equipment that we know is going to have to be screened, will be visible from various surrounding site locations. But after that, typically what we do is we go around with the building official and he says, oh. You'd better take care of that one. You can see that one or there might be some condition on the job site where we might relocate it slightly or make some modification relative to what was originally proposed. But if you've got any more questions, which I'm sure you do, relative to this, I'll 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 try to answer those. This, once again, is the top of that mechanical mezzanine that we're proposing to develop on top of the rear loading area for the project. Scott: So that's a 50 foot wide section that's right inbetween the two rear most loading areas? Tim McCoy: This? Scott: That piece right there. Tim McCoy: This piece? Scott: Yeah. Tim McCoy. That's 26 feet wide and I think it's. Scott: Oh, 26 feet deep and 50 feet wide, okay. Tim McCoy: Another thing that we've done and proposed on the site plan, after getting feedback from the staff, is to move the trees that were previously shown at the lower portion of the slope up to the upper portion of the slope so that they could be more effective in terms of screening elements. And those are predominantly spruce trees and we do have some deciduous mixed in there also. Farmakes: Is the staged area on the cut away, the side cut away, that's notched as it comes down, is this the retaining wall that they were discussing? Tim McCoy: Right in this location? Farmakes: Correct. So there'd be two walls then, is that what you're saying? Tim McCoy: There will be probably two walls because you do not want to carry the walls up themselves very high because then we start getting into reinforcing the retaining walls and so forth and we try to limit those to about a 4 foot height each with a maximum of 3:1 slope so it would require two walls. Farmakes: So the raising of the...would be moved up then to the second tier or what's the, what were you referring to when you're talking about pulling it up? Tim McCoy: When I was talking about pulling up the screening? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Mancino: Yeah, according to this where are, in your original landscape plans, where would the trees be on your... Tim McCoy: Oh, the trees were right down at the bottom in here. In both of these locations. Farmakes: I see. So the drawing is showing them already pulled up then? Tim McCoy: Right. Farmakes: I see. Is the indication that's shown on the right of the plans, is that the building plan or the property line? To the adjacent property. Scott: With the vertical line behind the last tree? Farmakes: It's showing a person there that's shown out. Yes. Tim McCoy: That's the base of the townhouse. Farmakes: That's the face. So is that the actual extent that they can...if they have a deck or is that the edge of the building? Generous: They have a 30 foot setback and I believe they're at that. Farmakes: So is that the line that we're seeing there? That's the setback that they cannot build on? Is that correct? Krauss: They also have landscaping up on top that doesn't show on this that's supplemented too and in that 30 foot area. Farmakes: In the 30 foot area between the tree and the little person there or to the right of the individual that's sitting there in the drawing? Krauss: Yeah. Well, it's in this area right in here. This area. Mancino: Paul, is that the back of the townhouse? I mean I don't know how the townhouses face. Krauss: That's the back of some of them. It's the side of some of them. I don't have, some of them are turned so that they face an internal courtyard so there's a side wall somewhere. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Charlie James: It's in the back of the staff report. There's a map on the second to last page of the staff report. Townhouse Developer: The building that you see, these are what you would call back to back townhouses. So each side of the townhouse is a front face and the driveways go in on that. This building here or that line that you're seeing there would be like the end of the building. Krauss: Yeah, they were designed for the most part to face on internal courtyards. Farmakes: So we wouldn't have decks going out to the south? Krauss: No, you're looking at the side wall...but the patio is facing east or west. Farmakes: Not north or south? Okay. Harberts: It seems dense. Farmakes: Alright. I think I understand from this position. Scott: Maybe you can go through. We have the addendum to the staff report. I think that was very neatly, this issue number one. Second issue I think Nancy was one of your areas of concern. About the Vision 2002. Mancino: Yes, and I'm just...I haven't read this yet. Scott: Is there any other discussion of the Planning Commission about the view from the north? Has that been answered? Farmakes: The landscaping plan for this. I know that the property changes somewhat, or it raises as it goes to the west I believe. The height. This type of effect or this notched effect would be continued then behind the property that's currently shows some drawings for potential development? Krauss: Oh you mean as far as...Powers? Farmakes: Correct. They did a blank area that's to the left up there. The present drawing that's there. Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, I mean we honestly don't know what's going to go there but to the extent that this is in effect a...yeah, certainly. We'll try to do something similar. I 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 think you can look up the hill right now and see how close the first model home is to the... Farmakes: Yeah, but it's substantially higher too I believe. Krauss: And the slope is steeper but it drops down. Farmakes: I have a couple other questions. I don't know if they can answer that in their presentation or not but can you go over a little bit for me the detailing. You're talking about limestone. You very briefly described some of the limestone with the brick and if you can clarify that on some of your drawings. I had a little bit harder time seeing some of the detailing. I noticed that there seems to be more extensive detailing on the cap areas of the building where say the clock tower is as compared to some of the detailing where the liquor, or the drive thru is. It comes out at a greater angle and so on. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Charlie James: I'll talk a little bit and I'll let Tim carry on here. I guess one of the mission statements that I gave the architect was, is that having observed the Target process here, I knew there was a sensitivity towards big blank walls and having read the proposed draft of the Highway 5 corridor, there was talk in that about trying not to have this big monolithic walls and to have different materials mixed in. So although that hasn't been adopted yet, we've tried to anticipate some of those issues and my mission statement to the architect was try to give us a building that has some variation not only in depth, but also in height and it's volume so we have nice shadow lines and we create a very varigated front appearance to the shopping center. So it's just not some long flat typical retail strip building. And I talked about the sight from the hill and I talked about, and I guess the metaphore I used was like a Tuscan, Italian hill town you know where you see, in Italy you see the tall church tower or the clock tower or whatever and I said we want to have some references to some of the things that had happened in town. And so as you go and look at your fire safety and health building, they have the same pattern here and they're using what I believe is the specterglaze block. It's a block that has an epoxy coating on it and what we're proposing is, this is limestone and what we're proposing is that all the accents on the building would be, this is a native Minnesota stone. It's kind of a little, Tim learned in architecture school about trying to use...so this is a native Minnesota stone that we're trying to incorporate here into the project and Tim, maybe you can address how this stone relates in the arches and entrances here. Tim McCoy: It's a kasota stone which it would probably be a polished type of finish and we just happen to have a rough type of finish to this. This is the same stone that's used on the Norwest Bank building in downtown Minneapolis. Identical kind of buff coated stone. At the present time, and of course with Byerly's is that typically people associate something 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 that's more or less the monolithic brick building with them so they have not incorporated other materials into their buildings locally to date. So we've taken kind of a conservative approach in terms of using stone with the development at the present time. Where we're got it shown right now is in all of the brick's pure and column areas we've got these little space groups between brick coarses and so forth so you have something like a foot of brick in there and then you have something like a 4 inch band of the stone. We've also proposed using it in some upper areas just to give a little accent to some of those areas. And quite frankly, I mean we're doing some additional studies related to how else we might be able to treat those and like I say, quite frankly at the present time we would rather come in and show a more limited or conservative use of this. Or I should say limited use and add some, for instance, we may find out that we want to do the arch face or something like that in stone rather than brick. I mean that's one of the things we're still studying. But rather than come in and show a whole lot of stone in here, and then 2 months down the road or something like that say well, I guess we decided that we really didn't want to use that much. So the specific detailing of how it's used is still under study but in general we want to use it down at the pedestrian level where you can get that variation in the material is much more apparent. But right now all of these things have little stone, horizontal endings in them. Farmakes: So if I was looking at the verticals coming up on the wainscoated area down below there, I'm looking at those little vertical directions. The little small square ones then would be the limestone, is that correct? Tim McCoy: These veriticals? Farmakes: No, on the lower area. The wainscoated area down below there. Tim McCoy: All of the horizontals are, if I may bring this up closer and it might be a little bit easier for you to read. Right now we have all of the horizontals for the project... Mancino: Oh I see. Now this is limestone? This band is limestone right here. Tim McCoy: The little tartish colored bands are limestone. This is limestone. Farmakes: And then this is brick. The vertical brick. Tim McCoy: Right, excuse me. I thought you were referring to the vertical. Farmakes: And the limestone that you're talking about here, when you're talking about arches, would be. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Tim McCoy: Will most likely be brick but one of the things that we've done one sketch of is, gee what would it look like if we faced the arch in limestone or whatever. But this is what we're proposing at the present time. Scott: Is the facade for Byerly's, it kind of looks like it's drawn where it kind of goes back maybe a brick and then out in back. Is that kind of the effect that's going to happen? Tim McCoy: Right. Scott: Is it a cornice then that's kind of coming forward out of the top? Tim McCoy: Right. That's what we're proposing to do. Is to corble the brick at the top so you get a little bit of a cornice line or a crown that goes around. Scott: So it'd be kind of a crown not only on the top of the Byerly's...the main entrance but then also moving out horizontally for the Byerly's. Mancino: But not through here. Farmakes: I noticed you have more extensive detailing on the center than you do on the support units that come out from the side there. So how do you, you don't see any limestone going up to the capping areas or you see those as detailing on these areas in here? Tim McCoy: Just in some detail at various places that might relate to this module stone below. Farmakes: What is the...made out of. Mancino: The planter box. Tim McCoy: The planter will probably be a brick face and if we can't use a limestone top, we'll use something like a cap stone top, which is essentially almost like a concrete product but it's a nicer product. I mean we want to get something that's, it's...impossible out there for the...but you can consider it to be brick. Scott: Will there be any sort of seating area design or just strickly planter border? Tim McCoy: Something that would be low. 16 inches high I think is what we've shown it as, or something close to that anyway, which is a 16 to 24 for seating height out there. One of the things I should mention also that shows up at least on the new site plans that you had 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 there is that we went through a whole range of different front elevation options with Byerly's in terms of full arcade, no arcade, arch, no arch, full arch type of designs and this I think everybody would agree represents somewhat of a departure for the store in terms of what people typically associated with it. We've lined up this feature with the center line of the driveway coming off of the existing...and so forth. We're always limited in terms of the amount of glass we get to work with in a lot of large retail users because they use the wall space for merchandising, so where possible we try to make some type of featured element out of some of the things... Mancino: Now on the restaurant facing 78th, there's no windows there. It's just on the east side. Tim McCoy: Yes, there are windows on the east side. Around the corner. This is actually Wines and Spirits all the way along here. We do have an elevation...which I think is, if I'm not mistaken John, this will be your first local restaurant with windows in it. John Meyers: Correct. Tim McCoy: Correct, so. Mancino: Signage wise there is no, is there anything in the ordinance that allows for...open 24 hours? Farmakes: Well, first of all I think that's a different package than the one I've got here on my drawing. So I'm not sure how, we'll be discussing signage at a later date correct? Mancino: Okay. Tim McCoy: I should go back right here but when I started speaking about the additional drawing sketches that reflect what we've got in these boards that we're showing the cross sections and so forth, is that what we've finally arrived at in terms of kind of canopy covered pedestrian way was a situation where we had the covered drive thru grocery pick up and then we just, this is actually where the drive thru goes into the grocery pick up right over here. But also on this side of the entry we've got an area that's about 18 feet deep by 50 feet wide that we're proposing be used as the transit stop in there. Put some benches in and so forth. Just a covered waiting area. One of the reasons why we didn't use the full arcade all the way out to the sidewalk line, or curb line, excuse me, is the fact that because of the drive thru, the entry of the Byerly's store was already so far recessed from the curb line that we didn't want to accentuate that even more. We would try to minimize that so that's why we essentially cut that, the covered areas to face. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Mancino: We're going to have buses coming up here? Tim McCoy: No. I should show you in the site plan. What you're seeing here would be arches just at the face here. The face of this comes across and then this little flatter portion is just over the driveway but here's the other covered area that I had indicated in here. And in times of really severe traffic or whatever, the day before Thanksgiving or whatever, they found it desirable to have something that might be a little bit of a pull off in stacking lane in there. That's about...3 cars in there...but what's proposed is that the transit bus can pull off the driveway that runs to the south, along the south of the center here and that people can sit on benches in there. Harberts: And the benches are covered. Tim McCoy: Right. Harberts: The waiting area's covered. Tim McCoy: This area is about 18 feet deep and 50 feet long. Harberts: And you see the transit bus...dropping employees off right here or waiting area right over there... Mancino: That concerns me. I mean... Krauss: We're talking about circulator buses here. Like we rode around in this morning. Tim McCoy: Yeah, we're not talking about MTC or anything. But one of the things that we've done also, after consulting. Harberts: We didn't tell you about park and ride on here. Tim McCoy: We did have head in parking right in front of the center section of the retail space that shows up here, which is desirable for running in and out of the video store or whatever it may be but probably not the best thing when you've got a lot of traffic going in there. So what we had done is combined the parking spaces that were located off the loading zone here and taking...little drive thru at the west side of the building. And we're still proposing to have some type of pull off lane up there where somebody can, whether or not we've got when people stop and... Mancino: Diane, do you have any concern? I mean I do, and I said it afterwards at the last 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 meeting. I mean we have all this parking in the front and I'm going to walk from my car up to the front door and not only am I going to have people driving up there to get the drop off of their groceries but now we're going to small buses coming in through there. Harberts: Yeah, I guess that's always part of the question. I guess what I look at, from a public transit perspective, is that it's going to be signed. It's going to be designated in the sense that we've got where the bus will be laying over so people, when it's on a circulator or somewhat of a schedule, people will start watching for it. Because you know people are going to be exiting and entering out that same door where the bus is sitting. And so are they going to be in the line of traffic, or cross traffic? Farmakes: Well they do have the option of walking along the arcade. Harberts: But if they're parked over here, I mean I can see people coming from this way and pulling in here and then there. You know people that are coming from this way, maybe...that I would be concerned with from a safety perspective. Mancino: That's what I mean too. Farmakes: I know but you also have, you can go this way as well. You don't, yeah I see what you're saying about not having sidewalks but. Mancino: Because you cut, I mean I cut right through the parking lot to get to the front door. I don't go up and. Harberts: Well and with a bus too, you know we're talking what maybe, we're probably talking maybe a 2 minute, 3 minute layover depending if they're, you know if they're someone in a wheelchair, then you're talking like 5 or 6 minutes to board them and strap them in. Farmakes: But in the course of the day, how many buses would show up there? Harberts: Well, if it's on a circulator schedule, it could be twice an hour. If it's demand response, then it's based on the demand of the public. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Harberts: I'll take the plans back and sit down with my people. Charlie James: We had a second place, excuse me for jumping up here but, on your site 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 plan. We had a second place right here where we thought that this is kind of the entrance to the shops and I guess... Harberts: That's where I was looking at too the other night. Charlie James: ...buses out here and aren't these big MTC things but they're more like a little Metro Mobility, little short thing. Harberts: Wash your mouth out. Charlie James: Is that a bad thing? Well I don't know. Harberts: They're like a... Charlie James: In any event what I'm saying is, we provided, when staff asked us to take parking out of here, then someone had the idea well geez, maybe we should have a place out of the traffic lane here where. Harberts: But is it covered? Charlie James: It's a drop off place but it's not a covered place to have them to wait. I mean if they wanted, if the weather was inclement, they could wait under here. Harberts: And I think at this point the best thing to do, the condition that's outlined in the staff report is just to sit down and work with us and we can sit down and chat with these folks and then also bring in public safety. So I think that the condition that's in there is, there's opportunities that are workable. Farmakes: As to the relative location to the grocery pick-up to the entrance. I know Byerly's in Edina for instance has it on the side of the building which is away from it but both our grocery stores, well one in Eden Prairie and the other one here in Shorewood that both have similar type of pick-ups next to the entry point of the store. I don't really see any danger problems there from a. Mancino: Well I brought it up because I go to the grocery store on Highway 7 that has it like this and I always feel when I'm going to pick up my groceries, that I have to be careful of everybody going into the front door. Harberts: And it might be just as simple as just signing on the pavement in terms of a walkway. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Mancino: And it's usually at peak hours. I mean it's not at 11:00 in the morning. It's not 2:00 in the afternoon but at 5:00 in the afternoon you get a long load of people in their cars waiting for pick-up. Harberts: And from our perspective, the circulator would be there more during the non-peak times. So like I say, the way it's written in the staff report, and the opportunities, it's just a matter of sitting down and flushing out the details. Farmakes: Well out of the lane of traffic there, the distance scale wise, how many cars would that be? If they're backed up. If they were backed up. Tim McCoy: It's about 130 feet. But we've got about 60 feet in here because I did scale that. Well I've got a scale here. Why don't I try that. John Meyers: Just so you know, you should mention that's double lanes through there also. It's two wide. Farmakes: So you're talking about 20 cars? Tim McCoy: Yeah, we're actually only about 85 feet in from the curb there which is about 4 cars and I go to St. Louis Park also. As a matter of fact I will be stopping there today before I go home. Farmakes: The St. Louis Park location of Byerly's? Tim McCoy: Right. On Highway 7. Mancino: Well Highway 7 is a Lund's. Charlie James: Mr. Chairman, motion to strike that. Harberts: Hey, I go to the Byerly's in Golden Valley. I'm sorry. John Meyers: ...and we have some of them on the side and quite frankly they'll work either way. The way it is here minimizes, we looked at all three sides. We looked at trying...a lot of time and Charlie knows. We drove him crazy with it but we looked at trying to do it here. We also looked at leaving some of the shops off. Pushing them down and putting one in here. Quite frankly this creates, or allows for the least amount of cross movement between cars, people and other cars. If you put it on this side, you're going to have cars stacked on the wrong side of the road to turn in. This side, at least we're stacked on the right hand side 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 on the one or two days a year that it actually needs, they stack up. The majority of the time, even on a Saturday, you're not going to have the stack up. If you think of Edina or if you think even of Ridgedale. The Ridgedale Byerly's. Even though the drive thru is on the right hand side, to pick up the parcel end of it, where the kids stand when they load, will be right at the end. So you really don't pick up substantially more stacking room by siding around to the side of the building. That's effectively what we figured out. And if you put it on this side of the building, they still have to cross through this traffic again. So quite frankly this allows people to stay on the right hand side. Right hand lane. They pull in on the right and they come out and they stay to the right. And so there's as minimal cross traffic as you can get. So that was one of the reasons that ended up there. Farmakes: Does that cover your concerns now? Mancino: Yeah, that covers my concerns. And as long as they're going to work with Diane. Scott: We'll see the signs again and we'll see the, also the plans... Farmakes: I would like to talk a little bit about the outlot, or the commercial building that's away from the rest of the development. Can you tell me at this time is there, what were the restrictions then be on the lease for that building, since there isn't a current tenant. I know the plans...Can you go over the zoning restrictions to that particular building? Generous: ...commercial, I believe a retail or office. Farmakes: We've had some cloudy interpretations of what retail and office has been in the past and I'm wondering if we have some idea of what's going in there as far as signage requirements. I know that we're not discussing that here and we'll do that at a later date but what are we looking at there? Are we looking at an Arby's or are we looking at a bank building? Are we looking a pair of eye glasses sticking out of the building? What are we looking at there? Charlie James: If I could speak to that a little bit. I guess one of the reasons again, that this building ended up detached, was it's hard to say all this stuff without it just sounding...self serving or something but I mean we have really tried to put our best foot forward here and I...with John and particularly his, the CEO of Byerly's, this building for them represents another step up for them and we had months of discussions on getting them to go with anything that they, they're a very conservative company. So one of the things that we were trying to address here is the idea of the 2000 thing and the pedestrian thing and that's why this in essence, we had no idea that this was a conditional use when we went into this and that, everything that we're doing here and have in front of you today is a permitted use on a 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 zoned lot and we're not asking for any variances. In the middle of this process we found some, staff found some ordinance somewhere, buried back in that said you can't have more than two structures on a lot. And what we were trying to do, by putting this building down here. We could easily attach it up here but we think that what we're trying to do is respond to that part of the discussions about the pedestrian element and bringing something down towards the street and that was a trade-off. You know and that unfortunately got us into a conditional use. But it was trying to, we've got a sidewalk going up here now and there's a sidewalk running along here and it was trying to not have everything back from the street but try to have something that's architecturally integrated with the same materials and the same designs that will draw that project closer to the street. And we have two parties that we're dealing with on this right now and one of them is a retailer that would take the entire space and the other one is essentially a service type office user who would take the entire space. As it happens, both of their space requirements are 6,500 to 7,000 square feet. So what we were intending to show you here is this is how we had envisioned this coming in and if there's any change to this, we'll come back to you and we'll say, you know if it's going to have 3 doors or whatever but we felt that the intent here was to show you that we were meeting the ordinance in parking and the setbacks and open space and green area and the whole thing and if this is the best that we can say at this time, what this building's going to look like. Again with the stone being brought in and the arches and this sort of thing. But again, the reason for that was that it's sort of impractical. I think as one of the commission members here pointed out, it's sort of a...people that go grocery shopping. They're not, you don't leave your house and say I'm going to walk up to the supermarket and get $200.00 worth of groceries. I mean people take their cars and so you know we all are automobile oriented. Most of us I'm sure came here by automobile this morning but you know I guess we're trying to give you something here you know. We were trying to pull something down and bring an element closer to the sidewalk into the street. Farmakes: My question wasn't in regards to it's location. My question was in regards to what it's use was. Some of that you've answered. Maybe the staff can answer a question in regards to, whatever goes in there, are they looking at separate pylon signs because it's a separate building now or? Charlie James: No. Krauss: No, we wouldn't even add that as part of the conditions. It's on a single lot...is entitled to one pylon and that we would evaluate. In terms of uses though. Mancino: Can it be... Krauss: The building's not designed for that. I mean the building you're approving doesn't 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 accommodate that. Mancino: What if somebody wanted to change it in 20 years and add on a little drive thru. Krauss: It would have to come back through you, as a site plan approval for an intensification of use. Charlie James: We're not drawing drive thru lanes. We're not showing gasoline. So if there's a departure from that, it lands us right back here. Harberts: I have a comment. A question. I like the idea about trying to help us focus in on that 2002 vision. Making it more pedestrian oriented. Is there the opportunity to take it maybe, the way I see it, just a little bit further. You know we talk about the sidewalk going up that alley way or whatever. Well, whatever it is. Hey, you called it Metro Mobility buses. I can get that too. But starting at West 78th Street, there on the corner and going up. Charlie James: I'm going to put my finger here kind of like a mouse on a microsoft window. Roll it where you want it to go. Harberts: Come to the intersection there. The entrance. Other way. Other way. There you go. Stop. Now go up just a little bit. Okay, now go towards the building. Yes. And connect that sidewalk. Can we put more sidewalk in there? Charlie James: Sure, we could. The element there is in then you're losing permeable, is that the word? Harberts: Impervious. Charlie James: Impervious. You're losing green space. Harberts: Unless we put green space someplace else. Farmakes: Or unless you just run it down to the sidewalk instead of along the side. Just run it down. Charlie James: Down here you mean? Harberts: Right. Just somehow access that sidewalk. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Charlie James: Yeah, we could do that. Harberts: I guess again, I like what you're doing with trying to help us encompass our 2002 vision and I think if we can just put that sidewalk in, it's an element to help. Charlie James: Be happy to do that, sure. Harberts: So I appreciate your willingness. Conrad: Is there a sidewalk entirely on 78th? Charlie James: It runs right along here. Conrad: All the way? Charlie James: Here and here. Down here. We went out and tied in here Ladd so it comes all the way through the project here. And we are anticipating in the future whatever's going to happen here. Believe me. I'm not... Conrad: I know...senior stuff down there Charlie. Charlie James: Well, actually the reason that was on there is I was told by some people in the city that by the time I ever got this built, I would be living there. They'd said I'd be...out in my walker. Harberts: This is on public TV. Charlie James: So anyway, in response to your question Mr. Conrad. We've shown the sidewalk extending down here so that in the future. Conrad: Yeah, I really like that. Put this back up. I don't know if we're moving into architecture. I've got a whole bunch of questions of staff on architecture. Harberts: Can I ask one more related parking question then? Conrad: Oh go ahead. Harberts: On the handicap parking stalls, I'm reading they're 13 feet. What happened to 16 feet? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Krauss: Well whatever it is, they've got to conform to the Uniform Building Code. I don't know what the right dimension is. Harberts: Well I guess from my perspective we certainly see 16 feet because if someone has to transfer out of their car into a wheelchair. Can we just ask that you look at that? Look at 16 feet width parking stall for handicap. Otherwise you put 13 feet in and it gets totally disfunctional. Krauss: We can sure look at that. I honestly don't know what the appropriate dimension is. Harberts: I recall 16 feet so...no it was just my sidewalk and the disabled parking spaces. Conrad: Yeah, put that back up would you and I'll try to integrate this and be real quick. The other profile of the main building is real pleasing. But then when you look, and this when you look at it in relation, it looks great but it's kind of what we didn't want on 78th Street. So I'm trying to just challenge you know everything that's come up to us that's had a flat roof, we said go back. Now we have some nice building materials here but I guess I'm real curious. We've turned down banks and we've turned down a lot of things that really had a flat roof just like that so Paul, I'm curious. In your interpretation of, well we don't really have architectural standards as such but how are you feeling comfortable with that design? Krauss: Well I think it was Commissioner Farmakes who continually pointed out that we do not have, I mean Frank Lloyd Wright, the prairie design. There is no Chanhassen design... desire not to see that. That there's a lot of architectural diversity. Now what you're talking about specifically, with the pitched roof is a factor. And we have made developers put those on rather uniformally on small buildings. Conrad: And tell me why. Because it's an easy way to make it look better? Is that. Krauss: Well it does make a building, well. This is subjective but I think there's a consensus that it makes a building look classier but more importantly we have built, such as in the St. Hubert's Church, such as the Dinner Theatre which is a plywood building but has mansard. There are a number of significant buildings in town that have incorporated that as a design entity. I think Bill Morrish pointed out that you look at Chanhassen from a distance. You see the steep...pitched roof of the St. Hubert's Church sticking up above the oak trees and it's the kind of thing that we push quite strongly. At the same time, we've acknowledged that you cannot do a pitched roof system on a big box building. Market Square does not have a pitched roof. Target does not have a pitched roof. Scott: Market Square does... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Krauss: No, Market Square does not either. Market Square has a few design elements that mimic a pitched roof. Farmakes: That's correct...isn't the real asset here, often for some reason we go to a pitched roof when we're discussing these things. When we get a proposal of a square building. And really the issue I think the people are talking about, when they glob onto that, they're talking about issues of detailing. So many of the franchise buildings that we often see in retail, and in franchise type of operations, are devoid of it. They have little or no detailing. It increases the cost per square foot of putting up a building. It sometimes increases the maintenance issues and they avoid it like the plague. And consequently we get cookie cutter type architecture and we seem to be reacting to that by saying, well put a pitched roof on. Mancino: And it might be equipment on top. Farmakes: Well hiding equipment, sure. And a lot of the, I think the terms that we lock into and when we talk about compatibility of architecture and so on, I get a little uncomfortable when we use words like that because they're subjective to the person who's interpretting them. What's compatible. Does that mean the same mass? Does that mean like it? Same color. There is a tendency here I think even to, at one time every building in Chanhassen was going to be gray. Conrad: And western. Farmakes: When you get locked into trying to put down in words what we're trying to say or think in our minds, we have a tendency to lock into sort of a tunnel vision that everything comes out the same. I understand what you're saying here and interpretation of the out building. It does not have the same architectural detailing that you're seeing in the larger structure. Conrad: And it's real clear that the main building is quite nice. It's like an immediate read. You don't even need to play around with that. That is...really proud of that. But the out building, boy we turned down a lot of stuff that looked like that. Farmakes: The...although you can go to Florence and see pitched roofs, some of the angular detailing that they're using that conteracts some of that. And certainly the materials that they're using where they, you don't have one building that's all brown. I mean you've got some natural differences of the material where you have a like color and a dark color and so on. We've seen other retail areas out on the corner of 394 and 494. The Oxboro development. The one in Edinborough. You're seeing some detailings. These are not buildings necessarily that have pitched roofs. In the case of Oxboro, or Edinborough, they 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 actually did a little pitched roof coming. The building's flat but they have a little pitched roof coming out from the side of the building. And these are things that create shadowing different times of the day to give the building depth and. Conrad: So what do you think about the out building here Jeff? Farmakes: I don't think that it's in line with the quality of some of the direction of the other building. What they're trying to achieve there. I think it could be. Perhaps if they broke up the tangent line across on the roof but again, they don't know who's going even in the building. So that's why I was asking if this building, if we approve this, are we approving this out building as well and not knowing what's going in there. They're going to come back for the signage package but if we're looking at, you know your comments are valid. It's a square, from the site but it seems to me that incorporating some of these other elements that they have perhaps in the entrance or so on. That they could, some of the corbeling that came out. They could conform that building with some minor alterations. - Scott: Are there some southern, do you have a southern and a western elevation of that small building? Mancino: Can the builder respond to this? To Jeff's point of view. Farmakes: Well actually it's Ladd's questions. Charlie James: I guess I'd just say that I can't bring you a finished building on that because we've got two parties that are vying for that right now. So what I was trying to say to you, is look at this is my pledge to you. We're going to, this is what it's going to, we're trying to show you that we're concerned. We're trying to get it down to the sidewalk. We're going to try to incorporate the materials. We had a requirement from this one user where they had two separate, they needed two separate entrances and they needed a certain amount of program space, of offices and this sort of thing. So we drew that up but, and so the intent isn't to say gee, this is absolutely, positively it. It's to say, whatever we do here is going to happen to signs, to everything down to the level of the street is going to have the same materials. The same design elements. The same references to the other part of town and I'd be happy to come back to you and, if you have immediate comments right now, and say well we like this or we don't like this or could you work on this or whatever, but I mean when we get this thing nailed down, this is the part of the thing that's a conditional use. I guess is there some, this is the problem that you get into when, I think you're so used to looking at PUD's and we're probably the first project that you've looked at in a long time and a lot of times in PUD's the city demands all these things and says we want this. We want this. Because we're going to give you something here. Here we're coming in and we're saying, 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 we meet all the codes. We don't need any variances and the only conditional use that we're asking is one that came out of a result of us trying to please you with a detached building. But if you have concerns, like this isn't all in one plane for instance. This pulls out just like these pull out. It doesn't read that way but these are coming out just like. Let me take you along here. On this building, this is in a plane and then this pops out. Goes across here. Goes back in. Goes here. Turns the corner. Comes out. This is all pulled away from the building in different planes. This is recessed. Goes along. Comes back out this way. Reads along this plane. This element steps out. Goes across. Steps back. Goes across. Goes back straight. Goes over here. Comes out. Over. Out. Across. Back. And we've got that same thing happening here and on the corners. Farmakes: I think that the issue that we're talking about was the tangent line on the roof. Conrad: Yeah...Charlie, that's a little. Charlie James: You'd like to see more of this? Conrad: Probably, yeah. I think that would do it. John Meyers: ...out the entrances. Conrad: Probably would do it yeah. Yeah. I think it's... Scott: A pitched roof is going to look silly. I think by raising them up. Kind of following along that line, it will tie the two structures together and I think you have a valid... Conrad: I really hate to play architect and I always have and I don't like Planning Commissions to do that but on the other hand, we've gotten used to doing some of that as we monitor what goes in on 78th Street. The main building just looks terrific you know. As I said before, it's a quick read. The shadows, from a distance you've done all the right stuff. It's just neat. But then there's the contrast, then all of a sudden I look at the building that you're putting up to make it more of what we want but it's real plain in comparison. And compared to the other stuff that we've tried to do in downtown, it's not there and it's really dealing with the roof line and I really don't need to put on what we've been trying to do. I'd just like to build a little bit more character in and some elevation changes in that roof line and then I think you've got it. But my problem is, if I don't make those comments, I don't know that it's coming back. Now you know I don't know that I get to see this again and that's my problem Charlie. Charlie James: Well, here's what I would propose. We will, architects...you will respond to 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 all of this. We will make these entrances like this. We'll pull these elements up and it won't just be a western face, store front either. Okay. But also, if there's anything that isn't the same, I'll come back and see you again. It's kind of hard, it's a concept thing. I mean you do concept things in PUD's but I'm trying to say to you, if I get these people in here and if we pull this up, this is how it's going to look in the site plan and coverage ratio and _ everything. We'll put the sidewalks in there and then I don't have to come back. But if we change anything or if they say, no. We're only going to have one door or anything, then staff is going to kick me back... Conrad: Well, and I want to reinforce you. I really like what you're doing and it's really nice. Nice quality buildings and pretty and it's different than what we've been doing and I like some of that. But again, I appreciate how sensitive you are trying to be to where we're going Charlie in downtown Chanhassen. I appreciate that. Charlie James: Well thank you very much and I want you to know that this hasn't been something that we've thrown together in 2 weeks or whatever. I can tell you that for instance on the issue of circulation here in Byerly's. When did we start that? June. I mean just that issue. I've got a stack of reject drawings at least an inch thick, just on the issue of which side of the building and how do we do that. And then we had to go back to them and say, to John's boss and say, we'd like to do some things a little bit different here and so we have been working on this, I first started working with Byerly's in January of last year. So this hasn't been something that we've just kind of, you know thrown a bunch of stuff against a wall. We've put a lot of thought and we're trying to put our best foot forward and sincerely build something that we think is going to look for 50 years in this community. But as Tim says, one of the things that he's always said to me, he says I'd love to buildings that would be great ruins 2000 years from now. You know. And so we're... Scott: Do we have any other questions from the Planning Commission? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions in regards to the ordinance. We're talking about this as a straight ap and I'm not sure that it is. This is in a downtown area correct? In the business district? Do we not have an ordinance that discusses the issue...vague, discusses the issue about compatibility issues? And issues of architecture. Krauss: Well it's been a long time, and I think Charlie's right, since you've viewed a straight subdivision. It's probably the Abra/Goodyear was the last one. There is an architectural review. And it's fairly vague as to exactly what goals you set for...You are being asked to do a CUP for that building. Now, as we pointed out, the CUP is not for any use, which is typically the case. Uses are fully consistent and permitted. The CUP is the fact that you have two buildings on one lot, which wouldn't have been an issue had it been a PUD but 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 time didn't permit that. But it is a CUP and you know there's several, you do have some leverage. I think Charlie's indicated a willingness to respond to those issues. You know you can ask for that architecture to come back in front of you. If there's some acceptance particularly that the space where the building is, the space. The location is okay but you want to work out a condition on that particular aspect of the architecture. You feel comfortable with the Byerly's and the.adjacent building and that can go forward. Farmakes: You pulled the building down which made it a conditional use to create a common areas to the left of the development. The retail development, is that correct? Alright. And that would not be built on at a future date, correct? Krauss: Right. They're... Farmakes: So if that was at the city's request, I think we all kind of have that in our minds so what happened there. The other issue of looking at this is, in the future, or in the immediate future I believe that this will be going to, not only the City Council for review but also the HRA. So we're not quite sure, usually when we talk about PUD's we know that the city is investing, and we're not sure on that at this point because the applicant has not...the same as we would any other type of development. Not granted there's different forms of investment and different interpretations but I believe that the downtown, as I said, there is an ordinance because there's some latitude and I think Paul's reaffirmed that for us to make these comments. I fully encourage everybody to do that. And there is also the issue I believe, in the earlier statement that you're talking about variances in regards to the signage. So it's not like this is a straight application, and so it should be clarified. Scott: Diane, do you have another question? Harberts: I just noted in the staff report with regard to the discussion I had at the previous meeting with oh, semi trucks. Are we guessing that the semi's will either come off of TH 5 on Powers onto West 78th and perhaps off of TH 5 onto Market? Is the turning radius on Market onto West 78th adequate for large semi's? Audience: It is now. Harberts: Okay. That's what I figured. Kerber, I don't have any problem with Kerber. I guess overall, I know that some of the issues that you brought up Jeff. They certainly will probably be discussed and I guess we're here as Planning Commissioners with responsibility to look at this from codes and so on and then also we're here with our hats on as residents. I guess overall I'm going to support the project. I think it's going to be a welcome addition to 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Chanhassen in terms of the way this community is growing. I think what, it makes me all warm and cozy I guess to some extent you know with our last meeting with the willingness of the developer. With the players involved with Byerly's. There certainly are issues for discussion and I guess I hope that whatever level that those issues should be raised to, and discussed at, that they look at, you know as we talked earlier, about the vision of what we're trying to establish for our community. And I just offer those comments to my colleagues here but I certainly like the project and what's really a welcoming feeling is the responsiveness by the owner/developer to really work with the community. That carries a lot in my feelings here. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Mancino: I just have maybe one more comment and question about parking lot lighting. Will we be seeing that? And my comment is, is that I would like to see the lighting in the parking lot no higher than the roof line of the main building. And you're going to ask me which roof line. I guess I would say the lower roof line. What I don't want to see is coming south on, as I'm coming south on Kerber and I see some lighting higher than the buildings so it becomes a beacon in the night of this lighting. I'd like to see a little, not like what we have in front of Target. Generous: You could make that a condition of your recommendation...the illumination off site which is a half foot candle. There might be some building code. Mancino: Well I want to make sure that it meets public safety, etc. but. Harberts: Has public safety, did they comment on this? I don't have my packet. Generous: They said no comment at this time. They're most concerned about their access and... Harberts: That's what my, yeah. Generous: As far as the circulation, they didn't have a problem. Farmakes: We're showing a flag pole out in the building. Where are those? Those don't come under signage. I think those come under what? We're seeing flag poles... Well there's one drawing that has flag poles on it. Krauss: If there is, the position we've taken in the past, and this is somewhat clarified hopefully in the new ordinance...is that if there's a sign up there that says Byerly's...or a flag 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 up that says Byerly's, we would consider that to be a sign. If it's an American flag...Now this doesn't relate to this discussion here but we know that a Perkins is potentially looking at the site across the street. And Perkins has a number of issues with their 50 foot flag and most recently I think they turned one down in Minneapolis. I think they were taken to Court and the city won. That that is an over representation. That's not necessary to represent the nation and that itself was a sign. But that's not an issue here. Farmakes: So we're talking a flag pole? It's not a line of flag poles? Krauss: Well I guess I'd defer back to... Farmakes: We're discussing on the drawing here they're showing flag poles. Is that? John Meyers: If you go by every store that we've got, if you go by all the stores we've got and all of them have...American flag. Farmakes: So it's a singular? There's no several flag poles? John Meyers: No. One flat pole. If you go back to our Edina store that's right out on the corner. R.idgedale's...I believe but all the stores have them and it's not something we started in the last 5 years...If you go back to Golden Valley where a 9 inch flag pole has been there forever. It's something that we've always done. Farmakes: Okay. We'll be looking at the monument sign then at a later date, is that correct? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: We're not commenting. I'm real comfortable with signage as I see it. Jeff, I think you brought that up. Should we talk about it. Farmakes: No. No. I said they have a drawing here of, that they did for the monument but that we can discuss at a later date when we discuss the signage at that point. Conrad: My last comment, and this is one for staff and it's, it makes it tough for me to vote on this conditional use permit. I wish it was just, I wish it wasn't. Because it gets into TIF and it's something that I don't even want to play with. It's not my job. But I'm curious. In the CUP there are two points. It talks about will not create, and this is something that the HRA has to deal with but two points. Will not create excessive requirements on public facilities. And I'm not sure where that one really goes. And another one, will not depreciate 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 surrounding property values. I really do believe that two grocery stores can't survive in Chanhassen based on all the stuff, you know over 10 years I've been around and we couldn't get anybody in and now we have 2. So my perception is that Festival will go out of business. My perception is that that will decrease the property value over there. Staff, speak to me about that. Krauss: Well, I think you're reading...something that we've been drafting up for the last 4 or 5 months with a couple of CUP's and there is some standard language to that effect. I guess we need an interpretation from the City Attorney but honestly that language was supposed to deal with things like a contractor's yard going up next door to somebody's house. You know it wasn't any idea of guaranteeing a monopoly or some sort of business sphere of influence. That's not the interpretation of that. We could ask for a clarification of that. The CUP itself does not relate to the fact that there's a supermarket there. Doesn't relate to it in the least. The only thing that the CUP is talking about is that there's two physical buildings of whatever use on one property and the fact that you have two buildings doesn't do anything _ good, bad or indifferent to Festival or anybody else. Conrad: I think commission members, I don't think my comments should relate to what we're voting on today actually. I'm just real interested in TIF money and, we've put TIF money into Market Square. And we have. It's been rerouted to stay in Chanhassen. It's not going to other places basically so we've earmarked it and so it is an investment in Market Square, right? Krauss: Well if I could touch on that. Again TIF financing is the tip of the iceberg about... The City of Chanhassen has not invested a penny into Market Square or anything else. What we've done is we've taken the taxes that Market Square would have paid and through TIF re- invested that back in there to make it more attractive for development. Farmakes: That's another way of saying the same thing Paul. Conrad: Yeah, it's like. Farmakes: It's money you would have gotten but they get to keep it. Or excuse me, it's makes the...coming back. Krauss: The only thing the city would have gotten if you assume that development would have occurred irregardless. Farmakes: In the first place. Egg and chicken. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 Krauss: Right. And the presumption is with TIF, is that Market Square wouldn't have happened. I mean you had this...This is a philosophical issue that the HRA is into more and more. Just what level of assistance is actually validated to make things happen. And of course the presumption is that in the interest of moving these funds back in, that the city is in a much better position to get a much higher tax base in the long run, which benefits everybody. So that's the simplistic version of TIF. It's also a fact that, and this gets into probably more detail than you want to, but that Festival, the lease on the Festival store was guaranteed by their parent corporation for 20 years. Whether it's empty or not. I think everybody's hoping that we don't lose Festival. There's no intention to lose Festival and I think the best of all possible worlds is if Festival decides to expand. Conrad: Well, they're not going to survive. You know Paul, that's really naive. You know they will not survive. Krauss: Ladd, I honestly don't agree with that. But whether I do or not is indifferent to the fact that you've got a site plan request for today. Conrad: Ah, absolutely. Krauss: The CUP that you're quoting, validly quoting, doesn't refer to the use. It just refers to the fact that there's two buildings. Conrad: Say that one more time. Krauss: It has nothing to do with the use. This is not a CUP for a church in a residential district or a contractor's yard or gas station or fast food. This is solely a PUD because you have two physical building footprints sitting on the same lot. That's the only aspect of this that makes it a CUP. Conrad: Right. I understand that. Farmakes: I think we touched on this at the last meeting. About being drawn into issues of competition and risk when the city winds up making, or not TIF. Trying to originate some destination for people to come to downtown. Particularly at the beginning. I mean to create a reason for people to drive here. And the question whether or not it's something we should be discussing here, in the issue of planning where it seems to me that this is somewhat more of an HRA issue. Not to defer the responsibility but it seems to me that that's something that we, that's not our charge. Conrad: It's not our charge unless, unless point 11. If you agree with the CUP, you have to 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 know exactly what point number 11 really means and based on what Paul just said, he probably is saying that we don't need to concern ourselves with point number 11 on the CUP. Farmakes: I'm not sure that this development needs to be a conditional. Conrad: Oh, it doesn't. No, he's only doing it to, because that's how, that's what we want. So you know, developer and Charlie, I'm not even, they're doing what we want in all these cases. Farmakes: But the issue of property values I think is not necessarily the same as the value of your business. The value of the building and the land that it's on. Conrad: You know but really, if you can't fill buildings. Farmakes: But then they're guaranteeing competition and loss. There's no risk in being in business. And again, it seems to me that it would be a bad thing for the city to get drawn into that argument. That we are in fact business partners. That's, although it sounds good it's not factual. Scott: Are there any other comments before I ask for a motion? Farmakes: I thought this was an open discussion, or we won't be making statements afterwards as individuals then correct? For the record. Harberts: That's the way I understood it. Farmakes: Fine with me. Then I have a few more comments. A couple brief comments on the architecture. I guess I feel a little uncomfortable, in particular with a development that's usually considerably higher cost per square foot than what we're used to seeing on retail. Making comments when we don't have the detail, and by the applicant's own admission, those are yet to be worked out. I would like to see some of the details come back here again but I don't think that I would at this point tonight I feel uncomfortable about voting on this. And approving it based on some conditions that I've heard here. But what I would like to see, I'd like the applicant to consider, rather than the smooth facing buildings that are a majority of Byerly's, to cross over between the old and new in Chanhassen. Consider a rough faced limestone. John Meyers: The brick that's used...is a rough coarse brick... Farmakes: The reason I bring that up...is somewhat of an identity crisis. It thinks of itself as 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 a small town that's been here for 100 years, which in fact it has but there's unfortunately not much left of the old town. So you have that mindset but you don't have the physical representation that typically you'd have of an old village downtown. It seems to me that you have an opportunity to do something different from your standard buildings which are very conservative and flat glass coverage to mix this type of, I call it wainscoating or semi covering and get the contrast between the color of dark brown and the limestone. I know the city has an existing structural limestone entrance for the Dinner Theatre and so on and it would be nice for the city to work that color in. Chaska now has several buildings, and Shakopee also, with Chaska limestone. And Kasota stone also is different colorations. But to work that in. I think it's perceived as a sign of quality and of heritage here. And I don't know how much limestone they use in Florence but I know that it's...contrast here. I would like to see you use more of it in the detailing that you're using rather than just adding a little color. I don't know what that does to your cost per square foot but I'd also like for you to consider at the top of the building, on your capping and your corbeling to work some of that in. Or at least look into it. It also would, I think break up the brownness of the building overall and the flatness. It also, I think may be an argument to some of the proponents of pitched roofs and so on. Some of the PUD applications that we went ahead with. I think some of the comments that were made by the people at the last meeting and issues of hey, they've got to build the same building we had. Or that we did. So they're talking about physical representations of what they did when in fact those representations or things that they did were actually trying to solve a problem, or visual problem. I'm not sure we have to duplicate the same solutions to the problem. Although that problem exists there. There are different ways to approach that and this is one of them. And again I come back to the issue of detailing. It's not something that we see a lot of because of the cost of it. Although when you look at percentage of the building, when you get into aesthetics, it's hard to justify cost and I know we get this with retail buildings all the time. Particularly franchise buildings. We ask for detailing. We ask for these things because it represents character. There's not a lot of character that you're going to get with some of these, use the Goodyear building as an example. You get Option A, B, C and D and the black asphalt roof and a plain sided back. And they come up and they say hay, we don't want to put any more money into that because we're not going to make any money off of it. Then the community sits back and says, well we don't want a whole city of that. And this would really, this building would really change that I think. It's a nice building. I'd like to see the details that you have in those insets up above where you have little cross sections to the right of the Wine and Spirits. If you would work in some of that detailing when you come into those tiles on your out building as well as with the pieces that come up. It would take away some of the slab appearance of it and I think again, the issue of slab is another one that keeps on coming back here and I think that it's a reaction by the commission and I think some of the citizens in the city because they see this slab thing over and over again. And since you're in the business I think you can see the difference between an Oxboro and some of these, I'd say different retail applications. What 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 you have here and standard retail building that we often get. And I think you've designed a pretty distinctive building and I don't know if my comments are constructive but, and I don't know how much that will cost you in additional funds but I'm glad that you preservered with coming up with an innovative use for that particular piece of property. I think it will be a nice addition to the city. Mancino: Jeff, when you said you wanted to see more details, what does that mean? Does that mean you want it to come back? Farmakes: Well the applicant said that he'd be willing to bring the building back, or the out building back again to show. I don't know how we work that in to the conditional use or if the applicant wants that. Mancino: But are you asking also for not just the commercial building but for the main building also with some of the suggestions that you made? Farmakes: I think we've made these points. I don't know if that's something that the HRA and City Council can't hash out. I think what I'm talking about is basically how the material's finished and where exactly it's applied and I'm just critiquing. I don't think, you know unless the city starts investing in this building or so on that there's a question where you draw the line on that. You know either if they built what's proposed here, it's certainly a step up from what we've been seeing. I'm just talking about integration into other things that are going on in Chanhassen. The contrast between the kind of clean linear look that they have on all their buildings. Sometimes when you get an...mix going on with some of the older materials and the newer facings, it comes out with a pleasant...I'll leave it at that. Maybe we should clarify from Paul what's coming back and what isn't. Or what the applicant is bringing back to us. I don't think that the intention is to hold up this from going to the. Scott: No, and I've noted a couple of conditions. One involving transit and one involving signage. And another one, architectural detailing. Harberts: I've got 5 conditions. Scott: Well if you have some conditions, perhaps you'd like to make a motion. Harberts: I will...if we're ready, let me take a crack at it. I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit #93-1 to permit the grouping of buildings on one lot, one building lot and approval of a site plan #93-7 dated 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 November 18, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Item number 16. That the word bus be struck and inserted with the word transit so it would read, locate a transit stop area. Condition to be added would be 21. The addition of sidewalk connection between the out building down to that sidewalk and staff would work with the applicant to work out the best location for it. Condition number 22. That with regard to the out building, that the detailing of that out building, is the word match the main building and that that detailing information would also come back to the Planning Commission. Item number 23. That staff work with the applicant with regard to the comments made by Nancy with the lights in terms of the height. Condition number 24. That the signage package return to the commission for approval. And condition number 25. That the Public Safety provide written correspondence to the City Council specifically addressing the traffic impact with the new curb cuts that are proposed for Kerber Boulevard, especially in the 4:00 to 9:30 p.m. times, Monday thru Thursday because of the amount of parking and traffic generated by the park across the street. They should specifically outline what they see, if there's an issue. What the impact is so that the Council is aware of the impact because of the curb cut. Scott: Diane, did you want to mention the 16 foot handicap parking space? Harberts: Thank you. 26 is that the staff revisit with the applicant reviewing the opportunity for a 16 foot disabled handicap parking spaces to provide more functional use by patrons that require that type of special need. Is there a 27? Scott: Just a point about, did you make sure the notes are very copious because we have no idea whether, since you're undersupervised on setting up the video and the audio and these comments may not be on the public record but if you could take very copious notes on that to make sure that at least we know precisely what the conditions can be. Is there a second to the motion? Mancino: I second but I have a friendly amendment. On 1(b), last line. And this has to do with the landscaping between, on the north side between the development. The last line. I would like to read, the use of more planting materials may be warranted to achieve better long screen planning for the development. I would like to delete the words, but smaller. Scott: You'll accept that amendment? Harberts: Yeah, I guess. Scott: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we accept the matter before us with conditions as stated and a friendly amendment. Is there a second to the motion? Mancino: Yes. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 • Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approves the Site Plan #93-7 dated December 7, 1993 and the Conditional Use Permit #93-1 to permit the grouping of buildings on one building lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a revised landscape plan for City approval. The plan shall include the following: a. The applicant shall provide interior landscape islands in the parking lot areas. In particular, landscape islands measuring approximately 29 15 feet by 48 38 feet (two parking stalls wide by two deep) shall be provided for every other aisle of face- to- face parking (minimum of three interior planting islands). These islands shall contain a minimum of three overstory trees and they shall be alternated with the tree - groupings to be provided at the perimeter of the site. A aeration/irrigation system consisting of perforated PVC pipe or other flexible tubing in a looped system with at least two risers extending above the planting surface shall be designed and installed as part of these planting islands (see attached Figure 11-3). b. The Hackberry trees proposed for the northern perimeter of the site shall be replaced with oak trees (either White Oak, scientific name Quercus alba, or Bur Oak, scientific name Quercus macrocarpa) in order to continue the tree planting theme begun in the Oak Ponds townhouse development located north of this development. In order to more effectively screen the development from residences to the north, the trees should be placed closer to the top of the slope, as opposed to near the bottom of the slope where they have virtually no effect on screening. Spacing of conifers should be ten (10) feet to allow them to grow together in a more solid mass at a younger age. As at other areas of the site, these trees should be placed strategically in groupings to increase their effectiveness as a buffer and to lend a more natural feel to the planting. The use of more but smaller planting materials may be warranted to achieve better long-term screening for the development. c. Perimeter and parking lot boulevard medians shall be provided with low level shrubs and other plant materials to help soften the appearance of the parking area. Evergreen shrubs are great for winter and also add to summer landscape, but use of more flowering shrubs in combination with the evergreen shrubs would be appropriate. The plan should consider the use of more shrubs and perennials (such as daylilies) in important areas of the site. These plants could be used as accents at site entries or pedestrian areas. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 d. Alternate ground cover such as sumac shall be used along the steep grade to the north. The steepness of the grade precludes the mowing of this sodded area. e. Ornamental trees should be interspersed within the landscaping boxes located in front of the building to provide architectural highlighting and to enhance the facade of the structure. Adding ornamental trees (crabapple, hawthorns or japanese tree lilacs) in planting areas near the building would add interest and color to the expanse of wall, especially at the front of the building. Care should be exercised in selecting plants that do not set fruit (which can be very messy in the case of some crabapples) for areas close to pedestrian ways. Areas near the building would benefit from the introduction of more colorful planting materials in the form of flowering shrubs and perennials. f. A landscape box with shrubs shall be provided to the north of the trash enclosure located adjacent to the detached commercial building to screen this enclosure from view. g. All landscaping areas shall have the proper soil preparation to ensure the viability of the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper soil preparation. h. Consideration should be given to placing plant materials together to create a bolder, more interesting landscape, without excessive alternation. Plantings shall be massed, creating a more diverse and dynamic landscape. Within massings, similar species should be used to ensure the greatest effect from the individual specimens. Consideration shall be given to maintaining views to the building when placing tree groupings in the perimeter areas. i. The plan does not recognize the street tree plantings at West 78th Street and Kerber Boulevard where the City has installed, or has planned, for trees at 50 feet on center (West 78th Street) and 35 feet on center (Kerber Boulevard). The City's plans for West 78th Street show a permanent landscape easement (eight foot typical) at several locations along West 78th Street. The landscape plan for the project should start with the pattern of street tree plantings at the streets, allowing these trees to provide continuity between this site and other developments. Trees for this project can then be placed in groupings within the setbacks or berm areas of the site. j. The more formal placement of trees along the entry drives works to continue the feeling established by the City's tree plantings at the street. Tighter spacing of trees along the entry drives is desirable. Shrubs along the entry drives would reinforce 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 views of the building and obscure bumpers and hoods of cars. k. Entries could be marked at the streets with more colorful plantings, creating a break in the rhythm of street tree plantings and providing emphasis for site entry points. 1. Care should be exercised in spacing shrubs to ensure that complete cover of the planting bed is achieved at maturity. m. At the perimeter of the parking areas, the large expanses of sod from the back of the curb to the property line should be planted with trees and shrubs in significant groupings. This should also occur between the westerly entry drive and the east side of the detached commercial building and at the area west of the retail building. Conifers in these areas would be useful for the winter landscape. n. Financial guarantees shall be provided to insure installation and maintenance of landscaping. o. All planting areas must have an irrigation system installed. p. Benches and picnic tables shall be provided in the landscaped area west of the retail center. 2. The screen wall located at the eastern rear of the building shall be extended to the beginning of the radius of the curb. 3. A sidewalk shall be provided from West 78th Street to the retail center along the western entry drive, east of the commercial/office building, into the development. 4. As a condition of site plan approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for applying and obtaining the necessary permits for the City's Building department for the installation of the site improvements. 6. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for berming and landscaping over the City's drainage and utility easement along the west side of Kerber Boulevard. The applicant will also be responsible for adjusting the existing sanitary manholes to the new grades. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 7. The applicant shall remove the fourteen parking stalls in front of the retail site directly west of the supermarket. In order to make up for lost parking stalls as a result of changes to the site plan, compact parking spaces may be used. 8. The applicant will be responsible for furnishing and installing the appropriate traffic control signs and pavement markings throughout the site. 9. The turning radii at the driveway access points along Kerber Boulevard should be expanded to 20 feet. The turning radius for the service drive located in the northwest corner of the site should be expanded to accommodate large semi-trailer accommodations with a wheelbase of 50 feet. 10. The applicant's engineer shall supply City staff with detailed storm drainage calculations for the entire site. Storm sewers shall be designed to handle a 10-year storm event. Additional catch basins may be needed after review of the storm water calculations. 11. The retail building site located in the southwest corner of the site plan should be lowered by a minimum of five feet. 12. The applicant shall provide the City with a $10,000.00 financial security to guarantee installation of the curb cuts and boulevard restoration. The security may be included with the security requirements for the site landscaping. 13. An erosion control plan shall be developed and incorporated into the site plan and resubmitted for City staff review and approval. Staff recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for the plan design as well as site restorations. The northerly back slope behind the building should be restored with an erosion control blanket. Plans should also employ erosion control measures around proposed catch basins with hay bales or silt fence or other approved measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 14. The final site grades shall be compatible with the final grade of the Oak Pond development directly north of this development. 15. The entry drive from West 78th Street in front of Byerly's shall be revised to a boulevard type separating the major traffic aisle from the parking area. (Note: The developer has already agreed to this and revised the plans, however, since they are different from the ones initially submitted and provided to the Commission, I thought that I should add this as a condition.) 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 16. The applicant shall work with SW Metro Transit to locate a bus transit stop area on-site. 17. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods or materials after construction is completed. 18. There shall be no trash pick-up between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. 19. No overnight parking of refrigeration unit trucks and/or trailers. 20. No use of trash compaction equipment between 10:00 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. 21. A sidewalk is to be provided from West 78th Street to the detached building. The appropriate location of this sidewalk is to be worked out with staff. 22. The applicant shall be required to match detailing work for the detached commercial building with that of the main building. Prior to development of the outbuilding, the applicant shall come back to the Planning Commission for architectural review of the buildings design. 23. Applicant shall work with staff on the site lighting. Parking lot lighting may be no higher than the main building. 24. The signage package for the development shall come back to the Planning Commission for approval. 25. The Public Safety Director is to provide specific comments to the City Council on the curb cuts and truck traffic on Kerber Boulevard. Particular mention should be made of the truck impacts on park use between the hours of 4:00 and 9:00 P.M. 26. The applicant is request to revisit the handicapped parking with staff. Specifically, the applicant is to look into the opportunity of providing sixteen (16) foot handicapped parking stalls. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained and the motion carried. Conrad: Just for your note, I abstained. I didn't vote. Scott: And this is just a comment to the developer. We've had some background on the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1993 work that you've done with Super Valu and Wal-Mart and so forth. I think you're the type of developer that we like to see in Chanhassen. You've been incredibly patient with all of the city staff and various commissions that you have to work with and I know personally you've been through a lot in this project. I'm personally quite pleased to see it go forward so thank you for your patience. I'm personally excited about seeing this. The impacts that it may have on the existing uses, that's competition but thank you for your preserverance. Charlie James: Thanks all of you for coming in today. I just wanted to say one thing Ladd. I don't know if you, and I have to get this out just because you had to get it out. Did you know that on my property that I'm paying taxes into a tax increment district and my money is going to projects like Market Square. That money that I'm paying in taxes is going to other projects in town and when Brad built Brooks, Kennys went out of business. And he built a pizza place there and he put in a Brooks. Then he went across the street and put in a second pizza place and put in a supermarket...and the pizza guy and Brooks said, what are you doing Brad. You're using TIF money to build another pizza place for competition... Harberts moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38 CITY OF i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: November 10, 1993 SUBJ: Industrial Performance Standards I have completed my review of the Planning Advisory Service Report Number 444 entitled "Industrial Performance Standards for a New Century," Jim Schwab, author, and compared this with the City's Performance Standards and Industrial Office Park zoning district. It appears as if the City's Code addresses the standards specified in the report and unless the City wants to provide greater specificity and purchase the necessary equipment for monitoring, as well as required training, no changes to the performance standards are merited. SUMMARY The report enumerated fifteen components that are generally addressed as part of performance standards. The following are the components and the location in the City's Code that addresses them. Nuisances are defined as anything that annoys, injures, endangers, offends, interferes, obstructs, depreciates, or makes insecure in life or use of property. Section 20-955, Nuisances, states that "No land, existing building or proposed structure shall be used or occupied in any manner creating dangerous, noxious or otherwise objectionable conditions which could adversely affect the surrounding area." NOISE Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20-951, Noise. Noises shall not become nuisances. Noise levels governed by the Minnesota State Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards. Schwab: Noise levels must be looked at in three ways: intensity, measured in decibels (dB); frequency, measured in hertz (Hz); and duration. The City would need to specify levels for each of these measures that would not be allowed to be exceeded. Paul Krauss, Planning Director November 10, 1993 Page 2 Additionally, the City would have to have a person present at the site, with a measuring instrument, at the time of a violation in order to enforce the Code. VIBRATION Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20-957, Vibration. Vibrations perceptible beyond the lot line of the site are prohibited. Schwab: Vibration measurements specifying the amount of displacement based on frequency would need to be established. May also establish setbacks from lot lines for vibration generating equipment. AIR POLLUTION Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20-954, Odors and air pollution. Air pollution standards are governed by MPCA standards. Schwab: This is a very complex issue and may be beyond the expertise, financial - ability or will of a local community to undertake. Would definitely require a professionally trained staff person or contract with outside group to enforce. Most localities rely on state or federal agencies to enforce the standards set at the state or federal level. However, if a local government desires to have standards stricter than or addressing specific substances not addressed by other levels of government, the local government would then have the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the standards. ODORS Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20-954, Odors and air pollution. Odor standards are governed by MPCA standards. Schwab: Performance standards are effective in targeting stationary sources of odors e.g. landfills, slaughter houses, chemical reactions, etc. It is best to set specific standards rather than subjective guidelines. However, where this problem is expected to be infrequent, the prohibition of odors perceptible at the property line may be sufficient. GLARE Section 20-913, Lighting and Section 20-958, Glare or heat. Glare shall be shielded to prevent detection at the lot line. Paul Krauss, Planning Director November 10, 1993 Page 3 Schwab: Many localities specify that it shall be shielded. There is no reason to write lenient standards for glare. HEAT AND HUMIDITY Section 20-958, Glare or heat. Heat shall be shielded to prevent detection at the lot line. Schwab: This condition does not appear to be a common problem due to modern manufacturing processes. Some communities specify British Thermal Units (BTU) that shall not be exceeded. ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE Section 20-956, Radiation and electrical emissions. No electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operation of any equipment other than that of the creator of the disturbance is permitted. Schwab: There is no need for leniency. Simply prohibit interference with normal radio or television reception across lot lines. Many add a requirement that operators must comply with Federal Communication Commission regulations regarding the operation of the equipment. - RADIATION Section 20-956, Radiation and electrical emissions. Prohibit activity that emits dangerous radioactivity beyond enclosed areas. Schwab: Most ordinances require compliance with state or federal laws. BLAST OVER-PRESSURE Not addressed. Schwab: Only one ordinance studied addressed this which set a standard of 0.5 pounds per square inch at the property line. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND WASTE DISPOSAL Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances and Section 20-912, Storage of garbage and trash. Prohibits outdoor storage of garbage or trash. Must be in an enclosed building or in closed containers within a totally screened area. Paul Krauss, Planning Director November 10, 1993 Page 4 Schwab: Encourages strict performance standards to alleviate potential nuisance problems. TRAFFIC Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Off-street Parking and Loading. Addressed outside of performance standards. Require screening of loading areas. Provisions for adequate parking and traffic circulation. Schwab: Most are addressed outside of performance standards. Some ordinances address screening of loading and unloading areas. ENCLOSURE OF USES Not delineated specifically. — Schwab: Some ordinances require every industrial use to occur within an enclosed building. This will limit the types of industry that may locate in a community. LANDSCAPING Chapter 20, Article XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal. Part of the City's Design Standards. Schwab: Normally a part of local design standards. Sometimes included to address screening and buffering. FIRE AND EXPLOSIVE HAZARD Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection, Chapter 13, Article I, Nuisances, and Chapter 20, Section 20-911, Accessory fuel storage tanks and Section 20-959, Explosives. Reference the 1988 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Fire Code standards and the 1988 National Fire Codes recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Schwab: Should specify fire equipment required on site, type of structures within which materials are stored or the types of containers used, and limits to the nature and quantities of materials stored on site. References the use of NFPA standards. Performance standards for fire and explosive hazards will relate in part to the types of — industry the community wishes to attract or tolerate. Paul Krauss, Planning Director November 10, 1993 Page 5 TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Chapter 9, Fire Prevention and Protection and Section 20-953, Toxic and noxious matter. See Fire and Explosive Hazard. Schwab: Due to the complexity of the topic and the proliferation of state and federal laws governing this issue, local governments might question the utility of performance standards for this subject. Relates back to Fire and Explosive Hazard. Should the City decide to expand on this issue, a convenient starting point is the use of Community Right-to-Know research materials. CONCLUSION The City's current Code appears to adequately address the performance standard issues contained in the report. The one area that was stressed by Schwab was the need for specificity no matter what standards are used. This creates a level playing field for all potential developers. However, it also increases the need for training and upgrading of equipment on the part of city staff. One area that the City might wish to investigate changing is in the Industrial Office Park District regulations. Currently, the City allows "Light Manufacturing." The report suggests that local government instead use the Standard Industrial Classification in determining what types of industry shall be permitted. Finally, the City should strive to review and permit industrial development as part of Planned Unit Developments. In this way, we are able to limit the kinds of industry that come into the City as well as build in various measures of protection for surrounding uses. As part of the review, staff would check the proposal against the fifteen performance standard components. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 _ w December 16, 1993 Mr. Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Services P. 0. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Brad: For the past two years the City has been involved with developing the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Plan has been completed but has languished on the desks of the Planning Commission due to the need to process a large volume of new development proposals. Their meetings have regularly gone past midnight making it impossible to address long term planning responsibilities. The City Council has sought to resolve this situation believing it to be far more important to have this type of planning effort completed before addressing short term development plans. In November, they considered imposing a moratorium on new development to give the Commission some breathing room. Instead, they supported my proposal to clear regular agendas and establish special meetings to expedite the review process. They gave me the authority to delay items and rearrange agendas to meet the goal of delivering the plan to them by early February. Consequently, the only non-Hwy. 5 item that will be scheduled for the January 5 meeting will be the Chaska School District building plans. No items will be heard on January 19 which is reserved for the Plan's Public Hearing. We will begin scheduling items for the February 2 meeting; however, I may need to book this meeting date as well if the Hearing is continued. December 16, 1993 Page 2 At this time I have developed the following schedule. I regret any inconveniences this may cause. January 5, 1994 January 19, 1994 Highway 5 Corridor Plan 6:30 p.m. Highway 5 Corridor Plan -public hearing School District#112 Plans 8:30 p.m. February 2, 1994 February 16, 1994 Highway 101 Realignment Official Market Square II - Site Plan Edina Realty/Wendy's Mapping Restaurant Hiscox Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Jehovah Witness Site Plan Minnewashta Subdivision - Harstad Co. Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Prelim:.nary Plat Chanhassen Corporate Center Concept PUD Sincerely, r �� Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Planning Commission City Council Chanhassen Villager CITY OF i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 14. December 16, 1993 Mr. Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Hiscox: For the past two years the City has been involved with developing the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Plan has been completed but has languished on the desks of the Planning Commission due to the need to process a large volume of new development proposals. Their meetings have regularly gone past midnight making it impossible to address long term planning responsibilities. The City Council has sought to resolve this situation believing it to be far more important to have this type of planning effort completed before addressing short term development plans. In November, they considered imposing a moratorium on new development to give the Commission some breathing room. Instead, they supported my proposal to clear regular agendas and establish special meetings to expedite the review process. They gave me the authority to delay items and rearrange agendas to meet the goal of delivering the plan to them by early February. Consequently, the only non-Hwy. 5 item that will be scheduled for the January 5 meeting will be the Chaska School District building plans. No items will be heard on January 19 which is reserved for the Plan's Public Hearing. We will begin scheduling items for the February 2 meeting; however, I may need to book this meeting date as well if the Hearing is continued. December 16, 1993 Page 2 At this time I have developed the following schedule. I regret any inconveniences this may cause. January 5, 1994 January 19, 1994 Highway 5 Corridor Plan 6:30 p.m. Highway 5 Corridor Plan - public hearing School District #112 Plans 8:30 p.m. February 2, 1994 February 16, 1994 — Highway 101 Realignment Official Market Square II - Site Plan Edina Realty/Wendy's Mapping Restaurant Hiscox Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Jehovah Witness Site Plan Minnewashta Subdivision - Harstad Co. Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Preliminary Plat Chanhassen Corporate Center Concept PUD Sincerely, aul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Planning Commission City Council Chanhassen Villager CITY OF 101‘11C IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 16, 1993 Mr. Steve Schwanke RLK 922 Main Street Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Schwanke: For the past two years the City has been involved with developing the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Plan has been completed but has languished on the desks of the Planning Commission due to the need to process a large volume of new development proposals. Their meetings have regularly gone past midnight making it impossible to address long term planning responsibilities. The City Council has sought to resolve this situation believing it to be far more important to have this type of planning effort completed before addressing short term development plans. In November, they considered imposing a moratorium on new development to give the Commission some breathing room. Instead, they supported my proposal to clear regular agendas and establish special meetings to expedite the review process. They gave me the authority to delay items and rearrange agendas to meet the goal of delivering the plan to them by early February. Consequently, the only non-Hwy. 5 item that will be scheduled for the January 5 meeting will be the Chaska School District building plans. No items will be heard on January 19 which is reserved for the Plan's Public Hearing. We will begin scheduling items for the February 2 meeting; however, I may need to book this meeting date as well if the Hearing is continued. December 16, 1993 Page 2 At this time I have developed the following schedule. I regret any inconveniences this may cause. January 5, 1994 January 19, 1994 Highway 5 Corridor Plan 6:30 p.m. Highway 5 Corridor Plan - public hearing School District #112 Plans 8:30 p.m. February 2, 1994 February 16, 1994 Highway 101 Realignment Official Market Square II - Site Plan Edina Realty,Wendy's Mapping Restaurant Hiscox Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Jehovah Witness Site Plan Minnewashta Subdivision - Harstad Co. Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates -Preliminary Plat Chanhassen Corporate Center Concept PUD Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Planning Commission City Council Chanhassen Villager CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 16, 1993 Mr. Paul W. Harstad Harstad Companies 2191 Silver Lake Road New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Harstad: For the past two years the City has been involved with developing the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The Plan has been completed but has languished on the desks of the Planning Commission due to the need to process a large volume of new development proposals. Their meetings have regularly gone past midnight making it impossible to address long term planning responsibilities. The City Council has sought to resolve this situation believing it to be far more important to have this type of planning effort completed before addressing short term development plans. In November, they considered imposing a moratorium on new development to give the Commission some breathing room. Instead, they supported my proposal to clear regular agendas and establish special meetings to expedite the review process. They gave me the authority to delay items and rearrange agendas to meet the goal of delivering the plan to them by early February. Consequently, the only non-Hwy. 5 item that will be scheduled for the January 5 meeting will be the Chaska School District building plans. No items will be heard on January 19 which is reserved for the Plan's Public Hearing. We will begin scheduling items for the February 2 meeting; however, I may need to book this meeting date as well if the Hearing is continued. December 16, 1993 Page 2 At this time I have developed the following schedule. I regret any inconveniences this may cause. January 5, 1994 January 19, 1994 Highway 5 Corridor Plan 6:30 p.m. Highway 5 Corridor Plan - public hearing School District #112 Plans 8:30 p.m. February 2, 1994 February 16, 1994 Highway 101 Realignment Official Market Square II - Site Plan Edina RealtyfWendy's Mapping Restaurant Hiscox Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Jehovah Witness Site Plan Minnewashta Subdivision - Harstad Co. Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Preliminary Plat Chanhassen Corporate Center Concept PUD Sincerely, /,.,(.,,....(37_,:--(__________ _ Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Planning Commission City Council Chanhassen Villager - a 12/01/93 13:40 e612 452 5550 CAMPBELL ILNUTSON -44 CHAN. CITY HALL x1002/002 / CC—SBL CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law (6:21453-5000 J.G:r:,p�rll hnx(612)452-5i5;Roger N.Knutson Thomas NI.Scott C,.,r,0.Ft:c�: James R.':'.da:'n EI!:u;r B.Knetsch December 1, 1993 }Ii:ahcth A.Lunar AnJrca McDowell R)ehlcr VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Mr. J. E. Brill, Jr. Siegel , Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A. 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No. 90-27099 Our File No. 12668/201 Dear Mr. Brill: This letter is in response to your November 30 to 1: 5 correspondence concerning the restoration of the property to 1 slopes within 100 feet of the property line. As we discussed, if your client accepts the legal description line as the north boundary as opposed to the "fence line" , we would be willing to consider agreeing to an extension of the 120-day time period (which would expire on or about December 30, 1993) in Judge Kanning's Order for restoring the slopes in order for Zweirs to use material as it becomes available to him. Under no condition will we agree to the fence line as the boundary between the two parcels. Best egards, C BELL, KNUTSON, SCO T S, P.A. By: TMS: rlt Thomas M. Scott -Vt, cc: Mr. Paul Krauss (via fax) iiitc 317 • Eagandal: Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 - 12/01/93 13:40 '$`612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 44-4 CHAN. CITY HALL a002/002 {Ykoo v. u- Q.Q,y ; c-c- / cc_.!Qc_ CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law (6:2)qSZ-5��0 Thoma:t.l_:::rt}':rtt F:ts(612)452.555: R ,.r N. Knu,:.:n i h.n i>N1. S;:ott jair.::R.N. .tl t:n El!xo B.Kriet>ch pecember 1, 1993 Elcatkth A.Lancer AnJrr.t MJ)oweii l:'.0 ler — VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Mr. J. E. Brill , Jr. — Siegel , Brill, Greupner & Duffy, P.A. 1300 Washington Square 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. -' vs. City of Chanhassen Court File No. 90-27099 Our File No. 12668/201 _ Dear Mr. Brill : This letter is in response to your November 30 — correspondence concerning the restoration of the property to 1: 5 to 1 slopes within 100 feet of the property line. As we discussed, if your client accepts the legal description line as the north boundary as opposed to the "fence line" , we would be willing to consider agreeing to an extension of the 120-day time period (which would expire on or about December 30, 1993) in Judge Kanning's Order for restoring the slopes in order for Zweirs to use material as it becomes — available to him. Under no condition will we agree to the fence line as the boundary between the two parcels. Best egards, C BELL, KNUTSON, SCO T S, P.A. — L By: TMS:rlt Thomas M. Scott cc: Mr. Paul Krauss (via fax) 9i?ite 317 • Ea andal: Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 56 (C City of Golden Valley November 23, 1993 Mr. Paul Krause Director of Planning City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, M 55317 Dear Mr. use: On behalf of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Associa- tion I want to thank you for your participation and contributions to "Planning for Community in the Twin Cities" seminar. I have only heard positive comments about the seminar. The comments and informa- tion brought out by the speakers and panelists challenged planners to always consider how planning decisions will affect social equity and that planners should find ways to be as inclusive as possible in the planning process. Thanks again for your help in making "Planning for Community in the Twin Cities" a successful program. Mn APA looks forward to helping planners and others make social equity a priority in the planning process. Since ely, / • Mark W. Grimes, Chair Program Committee MWG:mkd RECEIVED NOV 2 G 1993 CITY OF CHANNktsLI, . Government Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Otto G Bonestroo.PE Howard A.Sanford.PE Michael P Rau.PE Mark D.Warns.PE B o n e s t ro o Robert W Rosene.PE• Kerte A Gor..on.PE Philp J.Pyne.PE Miles 8 Jensen.PE Joseph C Andeork PE Robert R.Pfeffer*.PE Agnes M.Ring.A.IC P L Gravel IS.PE Marvin I Sorvala.PE Richard W.Foster.PE Thomas W Peterson.PE Karen L Wiemer PE Rosene Richard E Turner.PE David C Loskota.PE MKhae!C Lynch.PE Gary 0 Knstofrtz PE Gienn k. Anderlik & Thomas E NoyesEPE Robert ACBourdon.PEA Jerry D.Peruscnh..PE KeahR Foster PE Robert G.SchunKht.P.E. Mark A Hanson.PE Kenneth P Anderson.PE Do,glas J.Senor.PE Associates Susan M Ebernn.CPA Michael T Rautmann.PE Mark R Roth.PE Shawn D.Gustafson.PE •Senior Consultant Ted K.Field.PE. Mark A.Seip.PE Cecdio Oliver PE Thomas R Anderson.Al A Gary W Moven,PE Charles A.Erickson Engineers & Architects Donald C Burgardt.PE Daniel J Edgerton.PE Lec M.Pawelsky Thomas E Angus.PE Allan Rick Schmidt.PE Haitian M.Orson Ismael Martinez.PE Philip J Caswell.PE James F Engelhard: pad( eke _ v 19930' 0; November 18, ,/y)afr /„ / ; A� -4 CITY O Charles Folch City Engineer City of Chanhassen NOV j 1993 PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 t«e Erp,+r � i # DEPI. Dear Mr. Folch: The October 30 edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune contained an article entitled "Houses, Trees are Lost to Runoff in Woodbury" which discussed the creation of Bailey Lake. While this article was based on some facts, the conclusions drawn present a complete misrepresentation of the actual situation. Without the negative "spin," we believe the article would have been better titled "Sound Advanced Planning Makes Woodbury Technically and Financially Fit for Runoff Generated by New Development." Because a number of our clients and other friends have asked about the article, we have prepared the attached summary of the history of Bailey Lake, up to the present time. In this summary, you will find that: * The creation of Bailey Lake has been planned for 15 years * The houses "lost" were actually purchased by the City as part of a phased Qan for the creation of Bailey Lake * Because of sound advanced planning, the City of Woodbury has accumulated approximately $1,500,000 in funding for joint improvements required downstream of the Bailey Lake outlet in Cottage Grove * The trees "lost" were on a City-owned easement purchased several years ago for the creation of Bailey Lake * The highest water level reached on Bailey Lake was three feet below the established 100-year high water level and nine feet below the lowest structure elevation in the adjacent development. There has been no damage to private property. * The outlet for Bailey Lake was planned for the mid-1990s, but the extreme rainfall events this summer (the wettest three- and four-month periods on record) accelerated the need for the outlet's creation. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 November 18, 1993 Page 2 Our firm believes in advanced planning for necessary improvements and in early establishment of the means to finance those improvements. The fact that Woodbury had the technical knowledge and financial ability to successfully meet the Bailey Lake challenge is a testament to our philosophy of thinking about the future of our clients. As a matter of fact, our firm has done stormwater management and utility systems master planning for quite a few other major metro area communities as well. So if you have questions on infrastructure planning, please feel welcome to call either Robert Schunicht or Daniel Edgerton at our office. We'd he happy to discus, .'our situation and your needs. Meantime. please don't believe everything you read in the papers. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Otto G. Bonestroo Bailey Lake Chronology 1979 Storm Drainage Plan prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates is adopted by the City. The preliminary design for Bailey Lake--currently in a landlocked depression-- is established. 1979 to Present City acquires easements for Bailey Lake during the platting process for land development. 1988 Cottage Grove Ravine WMO Watershed Management Plan prepared by Bonestroo,Rosene, Anderlik and Associates is published. It recommends purchase of land for Bailey Lake. 1990 City purchases easements for the creation of Bailey Lake. Construction of an outlet is planned for mid-90s. January, 1993 City begins process to rebuild Dale Road above Bailey Lake's high- water-level (HWL), a road that has been flooded in the past but which has only recently been reached by development. May-August, 1993 City receives 18.35 inches of rainfall. Bailey Lake rises to elevation 874, three ft. below HWL. The City's schedule for providing the lake's outlet is accelerated. September, 1993 City begins process to construct the outlet. Preliminary engineering feasibility report is completed by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates. Approximately $1,500,000 has been collected over the years in a special fund to construct the required downstream improvements. (over) September, 1993 Bailey Lake water level begins to fall. Current water level is elevation 872. Meetings with DNR reveal conflicts among DNR personnel on where the Lake's HWL should be set. October 30, 1993 Minneapolis Star Tribune article is published. Fall, 1994 Completion of the outlet construction is projected. . + �I I c5 '' _; t=t +F'11 LUNDGREN BOB. CONST. F u_ P.2/4 '-/`i rVdll'Uliclr RSSULIduuUII UI hUfne I:5UI;OE1S '�, it .,,,. . / 1 5.(.' , {---,, , „.. „„;_,. ,".„,„....,: ,; „:, .,. . .. i '7..,' :,:i . , ..,,...:7,,,:,..- ..=•;p: .,-;:c.,*.7-:;• ' .1''.-. 6!:;;-‘,.. _ ?J- •. • ':, . -'?••:.; •', • .•. LIE/ • -- yN r- i' - l n� ,^. ''•_ •/c• ,gam A: National Housing Center • 1201 15th Street, ,N.Vi. r Washington, D.C. 20005-2800 • (202) 822-0254 ':'' ' '''' NOTE TO EO: A copy of this news release has been sent directly to your local newspapers. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Cynthia Adcock (202) 822-0450 COURT DECISION DEMONSTRATES COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO WETLANDS REGULATION, BUILDERS SAY WASHINGTON, August 5 — A recent U.S. appellate court ruling underscores _ the need for federal legislation proposed by Rep. Jimmy Hayes (D-La.) that would categorize wetlands based on their environmental value, according to J. Roger GIunt, -- president of the National Association of Home Builders. Glunt was referring to the July 19 decision by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, which ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had no justification for fining Hoffman Homes, Inc., a suburban Chicago home builder, $50,000 for filling and — grading a small isolated wetland without a permit. The EPA had claimed that the depression collected rainwater and was used by migratory birds. "It's a common sense decision by the appellate court," Glunt said. "The court found that the EPA went well beyond what would be considered reasonable and — practical in fining the developer $50,000 based on some far-fetched migratory bird theory. If we had a good system for sorting out what differentiates a significant wetland from a marginal or environmentally insignificant wetland, this case never would have seen the light of day and American taxpayers would have saved millions of dollars in litigation costs." - more - 'Housin.g Makes a Difference,, HUG 2F.. '93 03:30PH LUNDGREN"1 SOS. CONST. P.3/4 - 2 - The case arose when Hoffman Homes attempted to develop a subdivision in the Chicago suburbs. On the site was a small,clay-lined depression located hundreds of feet from the nearest body of water, with no connection to any surface or groundwater. However, due to the clay lining, rainwater collected in the depression. The EPA had asserted jurisdiction over the 0.8 acre wetland based on its potential use by migratory birds and ordered the developer to pay a $50,000 fine for filling and grading the area without a permit, as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Court vacated the order to pay the fine in its recent decision, finding that there was "no justification whatsoever" for "interfering with private ownership" in this case. The Court rejected the EPAs's attempt"to expand government control beyond reasonable and practical limits." Among other findings of the Court in this case are the following: • The government must establish that an isolated wetland could have an effect on interstate commerce in order to regulate it; and — • The government failed to establish the required effect on commerce in this case based on its theory of potential use by migratory birds. In the Seventh Circuit's original opinion in this case, issued April 20, 1992, the court held that the EPA may not assert jurisdiction over isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. That opinion was vacated in September of 1992 when the court granted the government's petition for a rehearing of the case. This latest decision, while not as broad as the original, clearly indicates that in asserting jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, the government may not attempt to "expand government control beyond reasonable or practical limits." - more - .RUG 2 '93 L :31 FH LUNDGREN DOS. CONST. F.4'4 - 3 - Glunt said NAI-113 had provided financial support for the Hoffman battle. "This is exactly the kind of ruling we hoped for,something that most reasonable people would agree with. I think the best comment of all on this case came in the actual court ruling to the effect of — not every April shower does a wetland make." The Hayes bill, H.R 1330, would provide a more balanced approach to wetlands protection. It would reduce administrative gridlock by giving the Corps of Engineers sole responsibility for the program. It would protect private property rights by ensuring that landowners are compensated when they are left with no economically viable use of their land. It would also revise the definition of wetlands, so that a wetland is a land that is saturated at the surface during a growing season, thus making wetlands more easily identifiable for the landowner. fr1-# NS53-93 Principals In Minnesota's Fastest Growing Area Brian H. Burdick B.C. "Jim" Burdick 426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474.5243 November 18, 1993 _ �,r� -S°' -1_ ,.....i/y'°,.."- c... G't'r // 7 /y� f1bbLL��iairc�, Mr. Don Aschworth, City Manager NO/. 7V /�� , City of Chanhassen / 690 Coulter Drive 7h4„f(r Chanhassen, MN. 55317 40..." Dear Don, •es /..►.4 e ,N c/_ .01,_ 4°1- 'eC4r e A/c' Today, November 18, 1993, I received the enclosed notice which reads in part "Planning Cmmission Meeting, Wednesday, November 3rd - 7:30 P.M." The envelope was postmarked November 17th. This notice refers to a matter that might be of significant interest to us, but we surely cannot cane to a meeting that occured over two weeks ago. Please write to me or telephone me with an explanation. • Cordially yours, / / t 1 � "JIM" BURDICK BCB/clm Enclosures cc: Mayor Don Chmiel Chanhassen City Council L %. 4.1-44) r'L4 -tom u.�.¢.v�;r Gf-eLb- 6'7'; "`t • 2164--P\A5:4 ii;he,ti ! ► C(.r C..6✓�•..1. k , RECEIVED .,c• —c.4)-3I-0 'i"— NOV 191993 Q-w/— Lie-4-7- 4-4-1--- CITY OF CHANHASSEN Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H 1� g 1 MEMORANDUM Date: November 19, 1993 From: Fred Hoisington To: Paul Krauss, Planning Director City of Chanhassen Subject: Trunk Highway 101 Neighborhood Meeting of November 17, 1993 Present: Al Klingelhutz Lori Jesberg RECEIVED Mark Jesberg NOV 2 11993 Wayne Holtman Walter Paulson CITY OF CHANHASSEp Marge Shorba Paul Krauss Fred Hoisington We began the meeting by recapping the range of alternatives that are being considered for the future alignment of Trunk Highway 101. We presented the criteria to be used in evaluating alternatives and the scoring of alternatives for each criterion, indicating that Alternative 3 scores the highest and could be termed the preferred alternative based - on its relatively higher score. We also explained that the criteria had not been weighted which means that all criteria are considered to be of equal importance. We then opened for questions. Mark Jesberg asked why Alternative 2 scores lower in neighborhood compatibility and we explained that housing of lower value than that which already exists in the neighborhood would likely be constructed in the area between the two highways and that that housing would not likely be comparable in value to the Jesberg property or homes west of existing Highway 101. Mr. Jesberg asked whether they can make improvements to the property and expect compensation for those improvements given the rather long period before the property will actually be taken. We explained that any improvements associated with normal maintenance would certainly be compensated for and all improvements, including additions, would be compensable up,i ntil the time of the official mapping of the new Land Use!Environmental ■ Planning/Design '300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 ' (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 TH 101 Neighborhood Meeting of November 17, 1993 Page 2 highway alignment. After official mapping,additions should not be constructed because they will not be compensable. Mr. Jesberg asked how soon they should expect to move and we indicated that it could be a rather considerable period of time given that the Highway 212 construction schedule has been pushed to at least 1998. He wondered if once the property is officially mapped, the City would buy them out in the event they find another home in the near future? We indicated that that may be difficult in a non hardship case but that — the City would strive to accommodate the owners of the houses on the east side of 101 should that circumstance occur. Mrs. Jesberg asked what the Highway 101 scenario might be if Highway 212 were never built. We answered that the traffic volume on Highway 101 would continue to grow as development ensues warranting expansion of the existing highway in the event no alternative alignment is provided. Mrs. George Shorba indicated that her son may have an interest in building on the vacant lot on the east side of existing 101 and we indicated that that is possible but not recommended. Al Klingelhutz spoke in favor of Alternative 3 stating that the remnant of land that would lie between the two highways would provide opportunities only for modest value housing construction. Mr. Jesberg conceded that his house would be taken as part of the project but reiterated his concern that the City work with him to make the transition acceptable. We explained that the process from here on will include the preparation of a summary report of findings and conclusions, followed by the official mapping of the highway. We indicated that we expect the issue to be on the Planning Commission and City Council agendas in January for selection of an alternative. QIANHAS\93.21\NII GHB ORMEM tol Q-EA,G4J, -,HiG4 4)s›Dok? qa, ' 7 r 16 ao 2, G61/ f d4,t), _ er IJs.n • SS,9� J CITY OF CHANHASSEN 01111.' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 November 15, 1993 Mr. Dale Runkle Joe Miller Homes/Argus Development Suite 204 3459 Washington Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Dale: I am aware of the fact that you tried to contact me several times, but frankly I had many other more pressing matters to deal with. I am also somewhat confused as to the apparent lack of communication between yourself and Ron Isaac. You should be aware of the fact that I met with Ron twice in the last two weeks in an attempt to gain an understanding of protected trees that were removed and/or damaged by Argus Development and your subcontractor. I am copying you on a letter that I have sent to Ron that outlines our proposed understanding. You should be further aware that the City Council has been approached by an area resident who was concerned about the tree cutting on the 9th Addition. Consequently, the City Council has asked that I bring this matter back before them for consideration at their meeting of November 22. I am asking that your company have someone in attendance. Relative to your letter of November 9, you appear to continue to be angling for permission to cut additional trees which had previously been designated for preservation on plans approved by the city. You seem to be implying that you could willfully cut trees that were supposed to be preserved in the expectation of their replacement on a caliper inch basis. This is certainly not the intent of the project approval. The tree replacement on a caliper inch basis is to cover trees which were inadvertently or mistakenly damaged or removed through the construction process. It is not an open invitation to flagrantly disregard the tree preservation plan that was presented by your firm and adopted by the city. The fact is Dale, you are going to have to make sure that people put the right home on the right lot and it is further going to be a fact of life that not every home will fit on every lot. I view these discussions with potential lot purchasers as a matter of Mr. Dale Runkle November 15, 1993 Page 2 your responsibility. I am instructing my staff that if they receive calls from lot purchasers regarding cutting of additional trees on the property, they are to refer the matter back to you. Sincerely, / „ • Paul Krauss, • CP Planning Director PK:v pc: City Council Planning Commission Ron Isaac, Argus Development CITY CF H A E N f - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 November 15, 1993 Mr. Ron Isaac Joe Miller Homes 3459 Washington Drive, #204 Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Ron: This letter is intended to serve as the outline for an understanding on revised tree preservation measures for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Based on a recent inventory it was clear that approximately 17 trees designated for preservation on the city approved subdivision plans have been removed. We have discussed the matter at length, and made several site visits. We have been unable to verify the status, or health of these trees after the fact. However, the city forestry intern recalls seeing several dead trees in the area. Furthermore, it appears unlikely that live trees were willfully destroyed. A professional tree service was used, and live trees remain standing in and around the area where the trees were removed. We are therefore concluding that the trees that were removed were likely dead or damaged, and the removal was done in good faith. With the large number of trees that were surveyed, it is quite possible that some existing damage was not noted or that summer storms could have caused damage after the survey. The error was in the developer's failure to notify the city prior to removal, and you have assured the city that this will not happen again. Based upon these findings, no further action vis-a-vis replacement or fines are to be levied. Additionally, tree protection fencing has been removed in several areas, and equipment has been driving over the root zones. This has the potential for causing long term damage. You acknowledge your firm's liability in this regard and need to take remedial action. City staff has maps illustrating the reflected areas. Normal procedures in these cases is to withhold costs or letter-of-credit for a period of two growing seasons to the health of the trees. At the end of the - period, replacement is provided as required. _ As an alternative, your forestry consultant has suggested a pro-active approach. He proposed undertaking deep root high pressure fertilization on 3 foot centers in the root zones of the November 15, 1993 Page 2 impacted tees. The aeration of the soil from this procedure offers the possibility of reversing the damage. Staff is proposing that we accept the fertilization approach. The work would be undertaken in the spring of 1994. Within the next 30 days we expect you to furnish us a copy of a contact where you undertake the work. The contact should specify cost, outline procedure and map out of the acres to be treated. The city will withhold sufficient financial guarantees to insure compliance. You will have the obligation of notifying city staff when the work is to be done, so that it can be inspected. The City Council has asked for an update on tree loss in the 9th Addition, and one other subdivision. The item will be reviewed at their November 22, 1993, meeting. Final approval of the proposal outlined in this letter is contingent upon approval by the City Council. Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director pc: Park Commission City Council Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Dale Runkle, Argus Development PP..ANT OF`Tye� TAKE_ United States Department of the Interior +ERlca ;� ommismimmEn smaimmion FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE .ice d a 4'9gcH s � ' Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge U 3815 East 80th Street i '— ,ti,, Bloomington,Minnesota 55425-1600 "/''_ "� Lj 1"` October 21, 1993 OCT 2 Mr. Douglas Hall �_.__ P.C.A. Industrial Section �� 4'---TAY rt; Water Quality Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 RE: DRAFT NPDES/SDS PERMIT MN 0061662 Monn Valley Mining Area Chanhassen, Ninnesota Dear Mr. Hall: Following are comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) referenced above. The U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is concerned with the sediment entering Rice Lake, which is located on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife — Refuge . The heavy erosion results in a heavy layer of silt accumulation on submergent vegetation in Rice Lake and restricts the potential for new growth by increasing turbidity and drastically reducing the penetration of sunlight. The objectives set for Rice Lake in the Refuge Master Plan cannot be met because of this condition. Although sediment does enter Rice Lake from other areas , the severity is not equaled per unit area in any other area of the watershed. Past experience at the quarry has shown that erosion control practices have been insufficient to control runoff and resulting sedimentation. At the present time, erosion from the quarry has resulted in up to 2 feet of sand/gravel fill on approximately 0.5 acres of wetland on the refuge. The erosion from the quarry has created a delta of fill in Rice Lake that starts at the culvert under US 169-212. The fill material includes sand and rock up to 4" in diameter. Not only does this have negative effects on the Minnesota River Ecosystem but it is also a violation of the National Wildlife Refuge System Act. The erosion has also resulted in filling the 48" culvert under US 169-212 with approximately 36" of sand/gravel. Because of the Service's concern with sedimentation into Rice Lake, I recommend that Section B (Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements) be revised to include a greater frequency of measurement of Total Suspended Solids . Measurements should be required after all rainfall events. The current frequencies of measurement may not be sufficient to monitor the effectiveness of erosion control efforts. Based on the summer/fall of 1993 , flow events during September/October resulted in a large amount of sediment RECEIVED Nov ,, 2 199' - rm, or l.rtemtlAssEr. City of Eden Prairie :e f• 1 _. 3, C ty Offices �� 7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262 p i TDD (612) 937-8703 gzo October 8, 1993 OCT 1 2 1993 M.P.C.A. Douglas A. Hall Wags Quality Dig Industrial Section Water Quality Division MPCA 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 • SUBJECT: Draft NPDES/SDS Permit MN 0061662 Dear Mr. Hall: The City of Eden Prairie, as an abutting community to Moon Valley, has interest in the individual NPDES permit for this gravel mining operation. Our Staff concurs that sediment from Moon Valley has washed over U.S. 169-212 and deposits into the Minnesota River bottom flood plain and Rice Lake. Rice Lake is located both in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This sediment impact upon the floodplain and lake has occurred over the years, and measures installed last year did not appear to control the problem. The following comments are submitted on the permit: (Permit Item) 1. (B.) The effluent characteristics from the outfall should meet with the approval of the D.N.R. and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service due to its impact upon the water quality of the public waters/refuge area. 2. (C. 5,6 & 8) The City of Eden Prairie would want to be on a notification list of any expansion plan or new outfall location. -- 3. (C. 10.) The requirement for temporary protection of exposed areas should be closely monitored. This can have significant results in controlling erosion. The City appreciates the opportunity to comment on the permit. This facility's operations has periodically impacted the safety of U.S. 169-212 (heavy sediment on and over the road) and the water quality of a lake and floodplain shared by Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The proposed permit should alleviate the past problems. tiai) Recyctee Paper ItMetropolitan Council Advocating regional economic,scxaelel end environmental issues and solutions • October 27, 1993 . ✓ brand tax transm Post-le brand MOM()7� MVIII t d.I t ilii—VM-1"1"....., dis Industrial Section • • i . • Water Quality Division l'M -`'�'L= Minnesota Pollution Control Agency • I,,.f. 520 Lafayette Road St- Paul, MN 55155-4194 f : - Y C'�QY . . RE: NPDES Permit No. MN 0061662 Applicant Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15895-1 • Thank you for sending the Metropolitan Council public notice on the draft NPDES referenced above. We have administratively reviewed the permit renewal application and offer the following comments. • In January 1990, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and EPA developed a goal to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by 40 percent by July 19%. The Council responded by adopting an interim nonpoint source pollution strategy which took effect September 30, 1992. That strategy calls for use of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) criteria in designing stormwater ponds and Best.Management Practices (BMP:) in dealing with nonpoint source pollution. According to this permit application, stormwater is discharged to Rice Lake at outfall 010. Rice Lake discharges to the Minnesota River after high rainfall events. Stormcvater discharge from the site is in violation of turbidity standards, and turbidity and total suspended solids ('CSS) are a major problem in the Minnesota River. Tu obtain the beat'overall view of ex*1 amounts of TSS discharged to Rice Lake, the Council recommends that the permit require monitoring which focuses more on a composited event-based sample rather than a instantaneous grab :,ample. Because of turbidity violations in the past, the Council also recommends a stormwater • management plan be required for the site. The interim strategy described above provides the necessary components to controlling nonpoint source pollution. Sincerely, . Dottie Rietow Chair DRrjs cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District No. 4 Mors Park Gnus 230 Fast Fifth Street St Paul.Minnesota 55101-1634 612 291 359 Fax 291-6650 TDD 291-0904 �� An Equol Opportunity Employer L? neq.,.n Paper ., Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Tos, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Telephone No. 582-1286 November 9, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Krauss: SUBJECT: S.P. 2701(5=121)901 Parcels 202B and 202C 0.2 Miles West of Dell Road in Chanhassen RECONVEYANCE REQUEST Thank you for your letter, on behalf of the City of Chanhassen, expressing interest in acquiring the potentially surplus highway right of way located on the southerly side of Trunk Highway Number 5, and approximately 0.2 miles west of Dell Road, in Chanhassen. The Metropolitan Division Office, has begun the reviewing process to insure that the subject lands are no longer needed for transportation purposes. As our review process involves soliciting comments from a variety of engineering areas within Mn/DOT, please allow us a minimal of one month to complete the study. Upon completing our review, you will be contacted by means of a follow-up letter, specifying the results. During the interim should you have any further questions related to this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Axel E. Ridell , Jr. Right of Way Technician RECEIVED 1 -Z 1993 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF CHANHASSEN