The URL can be used to link to this page

1f. Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 1996.J CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 3, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Don Mehl, Jeff Farmakes, and Kevin Joyce. Ladd Conrad arrived after item 2. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Phil Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 0.862 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON ORCHARD LANE, LINGUIST ADDITION, STEVE LINOUIST. Public Present: Name Address Dick & Yvonne Brown 2630 Orchard Lane Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Nancy Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Craig Peterson: Can you give me a sense of the ditch? The perspective of it. How significant of. Aanenson: Fill? Craig Peterson: Yeah. Aanenson: Do you want to answer that Dave? Hempel: The property slopes off northerly from Orchard Lane towards Highway 7. It appears that approximately 6 to 8 feet of fill will be needed adjacent to the homesites once the homes are built. The lots actually are pretty conducive to walkout type lots. Mancino: I think that 8, 6 or 8 feet is from the northern side of the road. It needs to go just straight north, right? Hempel: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: So it will be much like the house that's already there. That's on the western lot. Where it looks like they've added fill to the yellow home. The existing home. Is that correct Dave? Hempel: Yes. Peterson: Thanks. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Okay, having no questions. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission tonight? No? Applicant: No. Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing then? Fanmakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Any of those wishing to come up and address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. Please come up to the podium. Dick Brown: My name's Dick Brown. I live at 2630 Orchard Lane, and I'm the first house west of the existing home on Orchard Lane. And I guess I have a question as to what impact cost wise to the neighbors this project will have. Will there be street work done? It would cost the neighbors one way or the other and I think there's people here that live across the street too. Will any street work be done or any cost be incurred which we have to share? Mancino: Dave, will there be any infrastructure cost that the residents in the area will have to bear? Hempel: Madam Chair, not to the adjacent property owners. The applicant is the one that's going to be responsible for the extension of sanitary sewer to service these lots. As a result, part of the road may be disturbed and have to be replaced and that cost would be born by the applicant. Not the adjacent property owners. Mancino: What will that do, the disruption of the street? How long will that last? I mean is there a period that they have to tear up the street so that those in the area will know how long that will go on? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 t Hempel: This is a very small project. I would imagine that it would be completed in a couple of days and the street restored probably within a week to two weeks after the initial utility installation. ' Mancino: Okay. Will the neighbors be, will they be notified when this is going to happen? t Hempel: We do require traffic signage on the road. Utility road work ahead. That type of notification. We don't typically notify individual homeowners unless we do have to shut the water off. Then we do require at least a 48 hour notice to the homeowners that are affected by the turn off. We don't anticipate any of that in this situation. We will maintain traffic on Orchard Lane, or that will be the responsibility of the applicant at all times. There may be a period where you have a flat person or they have to direct traffic and periodically stop it but for the most part it will remain open. Mancino: Mr. Brown, do you have any other questions? Dick Brown: I have a question. Will the City require those lots as they're developed to trees or shrubs or anything of that nature? Aanenson: Sure, I'll be happy to answer that question. As a part of the landscaping tree ordinance, canopy coverage. It is deficient in trees and we are requiring that 8 additional trees be placed on the site. Dick Brown: Thank you. Mancino: You're welcome. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? If you have any questions whatsoever, now's the time to ask. So please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don. Mehl moved, Joyce seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Mehl: I think it looks pretty straight forward. I think the city probably will ... I support it. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: It looks like a straight forward subdivision. I don't have any further comments. Mancino: Jeff. 3 Planning Commission Meeting e April 3, 1996 F'armakes: Nothing additional to add. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Ditto. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: Nothing additional. Mancino: Thank you. I just have a couple questions. Dave. We are asking that we create, is it swales on the west side of Lot 1, and a swale on the east side of Lot 2. So that any of the runoff will go down the swale, into the northern part where there's going to be a retention pond? Hempel: That's correct. Mancino: Am I explaining that correctly? Hempel: Very well, yes. We just want to maintain the neighborhood drainage patter on the site. That we're not forcing any of the drainage as a result of the building onto the adjacent property owners so typically the drainage swales are on the common property lines to maintain that drainage through the property so it can get back towards Highway 7 where it continues underneath Highway 7. Mancino: And there is enough room between the house pad and the property line to do that? Hempel: There will be as a result of the building. There's a minimum of 10 foot side yard setback. It should give sufficient. Dick Brown: I have a question in that regard too. Mancino: Can you hold on just one second please Mr. Brown. So within that 10 feet, you should have enough room to do that? Hempel: That's correct. Any house plans that come in to the city for review, that's one thing that we will look at and require as a part of the building permit. That they show the drainage swale on the certificate of survey so they know up front that's the way it has to be graded. 0 I Planning M in - ril 3 an g eet g Ap 1996 ' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Kate, one other question that I have. I'm assuming that the Colorado Blue Spruces that are on the eastern side of the property that abut the property line are going to stay there? They will not be. Aanenson: Correct. Those are on the adjacent property. They shouldn't be destroyed. ' Mancino: Okay. And the ones that are on Lot 2 are going to stay? Or will be moved. Aanenson: You can see the limits of the grading. These are the limits of the grading right here so they shouldn't be. Mancino: They should be okay. Okay, thank you. Those are all the questions I have. Mr. ' Brown, the public hearing is closed but please come up if you do have a question. Dick Brown: What good would it do me now? ' Mancino: Pardon? ' Dick Brown: What good would it do me to talk if it's closed? Mancino: If you have a question, I will open it for you to come up and ask a question. Dick Brown: Oh okay. I do have an objection I think. If I understand, you're talking about putting 6 foot of fill roughly... property behind here. You're also talking about draining the ' water to the north or towards Highway 7. I think that's probably going to impact my property because my property was about the same level as the current property. It does get wet in the spring and when it rains and I can just see that water draining off to the north, coming over to my property. How would you prevent that? Hempel: Madam Chair, the amount of drainage from the site will not significantly increase with this development. Right now the water does drain north to Highway 7, towards that ditch. There's a culvert underneath Highway 7 at that location on the property. ' Dick Brown: Where's that location? ' Hempel: I'll show you on the overhead. The low point in the area is at this location here where there's a culvert underneath Highway 7. It takes the drainage from both Highway 7 and these back yard areas underneath Highway 7 to a pond on this side of the street. With ' the homes here, all we're saying is the drainage from the front of the house will drain this J Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 way, around the houses and continue on in back to where it drains today. Just to maintain that. We don't want to push the water off onto the adjacent property owners. Dick Brown: I'm not trying to tell you where to drain the water. What I'm telling you is, I'm here to tell you that there is more water back here and more water that goes to the west than you're indicating. We live there and I see that all summer long. So I can see the drainage as being a problem for our property. If the water comes over, we have a tree grove between the existing property and our home now. Mancino: Yes, I've seen it. Dick Brown: What I'm trying to do is to develop some kind of a walking part in there. To keep it natural and during the summers I work out there. There is, or there are lots of water problems already. I can see it being worse now. Hempel: Mr. Brown, your residence is over here? Dick Brown: Yeah. I didn't see where you pointed. Hempel: In this area to the west of the existing home here. Dick Brown: Yeah, right. Hempel: The back yards all drain north towards Highway 7. There is a break here. I'm assuming there is a drainage ditch along Highway 7 that takes the water either to the west or back to the east to this low point. And that's all, it could be maintained that way. Mancino: It won't be any better than what it is now but it won't be any worse. Dick Brown: I hope you're right. Mancino: I hope so too. We will do what needs to be done to make sure it isn't. Dick Brown: Well, I don't agree with it but ... I'll be down to see the city if it doesn't work. Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Dave. May I have a motion please. Mehl: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision 994 -19 as shown on the plans dated March 1, 1996, subject to the following conditions as outlined in the staff report. no Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: May I have a second please? Farmakes: I'll second. Mehl moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision 994 -19 as shown on the plans dated March 1, 1996, subject to the following ' conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to Lots 1 and 2. ' The city shall be responsible for extending water service to Lot 2. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and City Council approval with final plat consideration. The applicant shall also enter into a development contract with the City and provide the city with a financial escrow to guarantee installation of the sewer line and street restoration. ' 2. Access to all lots shall be limited to Orchard Lane. ' 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and PCA for extension of the sanitary sewer line. ' 4. The applicant shall be responsible for a storm water quality /quantity charge of $768.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to final plat recording. ' 5. No landscape materials shall be planted within the northerly 25 feet of Lots 1 and 2. This area is reserved for future stormwater ponding. ' 6. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along the front of Lots 1 and 2 during site grading and a rock construction entrance employed and maintained until truck hauling operations are completed. 7. Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hook -up charges and Lot 2 will ' be subject to a water connection charge. These charges shall be collected per City Ordinance at time of building permit issuance. ' 8. Drainage swales shall be designed and constructed along the east line of Lot 2 and the west line of Lot 1 to maintain drainage between the houses to Highway 7. ' 9. Full park and trail fees be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application. C 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 10. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to excavation or any construction on the site. The tree fencing may follow the proposed erosion control fence as drawn on the grading plan received by the city March 1, 1996. Erosion control fence shall also be extended along the east, west, and south sides of the lot at the grading limits. 11. The applicant shall preserve the 20 inch maple located on Lot 1 and consider transplanting the four pines within grading limits along the eastern property line of Lot 2. 12. The applicant shall plant 8 trees on site. Lots 1 and 2 shall receive two trees each in the front yard. The remaining 4 trees may be planted anywhere on site outside of drainage and utility easements. All voted in favor- and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING A RESTORATION PROJECT THAT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR A CITY TRAIL ALONG CO. RD. 117 (GALPIN LAKE ROAD). THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO FILL 0.13 ACRES (5663 SQUARE FEET) OF AG-URBAN WETLANDS. WETLANDS WILL BE MITIGATED ON SITE AT A RATIO OF 2:1. THE ON SITE CREATION WILL PROVIDE FOR NO NET LOSS POLICY. A 0.22 ACRE WETLAND WILL BE CREATED ON SITE AND 0.05 ACRE WILL BE PART OF A WETLAND BASIN LOCATED IN A FUTURE PARK IN THE SAME DEVELOPMENT, THE WOODS AT LONGACRES 3RD ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Maureen Farrell 7336 Fawn Hill Road Phil Elldn presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this point? May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please, and a second. Fwmakes moved, Peteison seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. 8 1 u I I i� �J J Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. Maureen Farrell: Actually I was just, my name is Maureen Farrell and I'm a resident in this area and actually. Mancino: Could you give us your address please? Maureen Farrell: Yes. 7336 Fawn Hill Road. And actually I'm interested in finding out what the overall plan is. I see this as a section of the bike path, but is this to connect onto TH 5 and how far north is it to go and... interested in finding out. i i� Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Phil's going to quickly run and get the trail plan map. Just so you know, it's tied into the updating of Galpin Road. Right now it is under the jurisdiction of the County. It's possible that it be turned over to the city in the future. Depending on whether it's upgraded at urban section. What type of cross section it would be and at what time it's upgraded is when the trail will be built. So at this time it's on our master trail system. It will connect down to TH 5 and all the way up north but it's not on a specific time table yet, but we are making provisions for it to happen. Mancino: And it usually happens as development comes in. As each subdivision comes in, then that part of the trail is continued. Aanenson: But not with this segment because we're not sure exactly what the section of this road will look like. Again because we're not sure, it's under the County's jurisdiction and we're not sure at this point. There's talk that with the TH 101 turn back, that maybe this will be given back to the City and it may have a different design standard than maybe the County would give it. So that would mean whether or not it would be at grade, which would be similar to other trails that are like maybe Kerber Boulevard or it'd be separated. Maybe benched in to, benched in a little bit off separated so there's different design techniques. What we're trying to do now is acquire the right -of -way. Actual right -of -way width. Maureen Farrell: So as this part of the development goes in, it doesn't necessarily mean that the bike path will come in... Aanenson: That's correct, right. N Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Maureen Farrell: Is there any, I mean is there a point where you say it needs to be done or is it really just open ended? ...time frame at all. Aanenson: Again it goes back to when the negotiations with the County, because it is a County road and normally it's tied in to when Galpin be improved as a whole and widened at a future date. They would do that as a part of that project. Similar as they're doing Powers Boulevard and Lyman. Those projects are being done by the County and then the improvements are being put down. You mentioned Lake Susan has been down there a long time without trails and that's being done now as Powers is being widened. So it's kind of done as an overall improvement project. Mancino: So the County would want to give us back the highway so we could keep it up, right? Aanenson: If they give TH 101, yeah they may give it. It's part of the discussion. Mancino: Okay. But there's no question the City has a master plan to, as Kate said. Aanenson: It's highly desirable for this trail to connect, certainly. But it's not going to happen as a part of this. Maureen Farrell: Okay. I guess my concern is that it is going to be a very large development and you have a sizeable development across the road and right now with the grade school just down, and the community center, I am concerned with how narrow that road it and there's no place for children and bikes presently. So my concern would be that that is part of the game plan in deciding when that does become effective... thank you. Mancino: You're welcome. There will also, there may be in the fall a referendum the city will have to create and to build more trails and one of them would be on Galpin and it would be hopefully connecting to the Bluff Creek Elementary School. Maureen Farrell: Thank you. Mancino: So we all may be voting on that soon. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Faimakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hearing. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Comments from commissioners. Craig. 10 1 i i Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I'm fine. No comments. Farmakes: Nothing to add. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Nothing. Mehl: Nothing. Mancino: I don't either. May I entertain a motion please, and a second. Skubic: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 495 -4 for The Woods at Longacres 3rd Addition, subject to the conditions 1 through 3 as outlined by City staff. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Farmakes: I'll second it. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 995 -4 for The Woods at Longacits 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be completed by the City. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 3. The City shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetland. All voted in favor- and the motion canied. (Ladd Conrad arrived at the meeting at this point and was present to vote on the following items.) PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS, THE VILLAGE AT BLUFF CREEK, D.R. HORTON, INC. Public Present: Name Address Allyson Brooks Steve Schwanke, RLK Associates George Seagraves, D.R. Horton Inc. Roger Christensen Corrine Erb Neil Hansen Douglas & Cindy Merrigan Luke Sydon Ed Sieber, East Associates Inc. Russell Hagen, Data Recognition Corp Charles R. Poppler, RLK Associates Charles W. Mattson Kevin VonRiedel, RLK Associates Michael Crosby 1831 Sunridge Court 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan 6960 Fernbrook Lane, Maple Grove 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan 3459 Washington Drive, Eagan 8736 Valley View Place 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka 11792 Rawhill Road 5900 Banker Road, Minnetonka 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka 2870 Wheeler Street No., Roseville 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka Landmark Holding Company Bob Generous presented the staff ieport on this item. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' Mancino: Thank you very much. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? ' Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates. I'm here tonight on behalf of Joe Miller Homes of Minnesota, a Division of D.R. Horton. Madam Chair, if I could just take a moment. It's going to take us a moment to get set up and we've got some booklets that Mr. Sydon is going to be distributing to the Planning Commission members and the staff, and we do have some extras. I don't know if we have enough for everybody in the audience. We might. We'll be ' close. If there are those in the audience who would like a copy of the booklet, we did make some extra copies and just contact Luke to get a copy of that. It will just take us a moment to set up Madam Chair. While they're doing that, let me just mention a couple of things here ' quickly. Again for the record though... aware of this. I'm with RLK Associates, Steve Schwanke, 6110 Blue Circle Drive in Minnetonka. Unlike other times I've been before this commission, we typically come here and say we concur with the comments of staff and we're ' available for questions. Tonight unfortunately we have a bit of a difference of opinion. Of recommendation of staff and we accept full well to demonstrate tonight the request that's before you that this concept... and for the land use change. In regards to that, we have ' prepared a full presentation and we'll take a little bit of time to make that presentation tonight and we do believe that at the conclusion of that, we'll fully demonstrate the appropriateness of property for industrial purposes and even more appropriate for a multi - family type of ' development. Before we actually get into the presentation there, I'd like to take a moment to introduce the remainder of the development team who are here tonight and will be making various parts of the presentation with me. It's going to be a very interactive kind of thing and ' we certainly do encourage the Planning Commission at any point in time if there is a question, if it is the pleasure of the Chair, to stop us and ask the question. We're happy to ' address them that way and of course at the end of the presentation we're certainly available for questions as well. George Seagraves is here this evening on behalf of Joe Miller Homes. George is the President of Joe Miller Homes Division here in Minnesota. Neil Hansen as well is with Joe Miller Homes and Neil handles for the most part the sales and marketing of the product that Joe Miller Homes constructs... here in Minnesota. Has a very good handle on the marketplace and the type of buyers, the type of product that Joe Miller Homes does ' produce. Those gentlemen will be on talking about the product. The architecture. The type of people who buy these types of units and Joe Miller Homes in general as well. Also here this evening we have Mr. Roger Christensen who is with Tobin Real Estate. Roger is an ' expert in industrial development. Many of his clients are industrial users you retain him exclusively for the purpose of their relocation efforts. In addition Roger has actually looked at this property on behalf of a client in the past and as you can imagine, that property had ' been rejected for that corporate client. Roger, for the most part, is going to speak tonight on behalf of, regarding the subject property and the suitability of the subject property for �i 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 industrial purposes. And the profile of typical industrial users and what they look for when it comes time to relocate. Mr. Russ Hagen is President of Data Recognition Corporation. Russ is really here tonight as the guy on the street. Russ is not with RLK Associates. He is not a consultant. He's not a real estate person. He's not a developer. He's a business owner, and he's an industrial business owner who right now is trying to relocate his facility and would like to share with you tonight just some of the things that he's taken a look at. Some of the problems he's running into as he's going through that process. Really again, no ax to grind on the part of Russ. He's really just very interested in this topic. He's right in the mist of many of the problems and issues that are associated with this and was willing to come here tonight and tell you a little bit about what he's going through. On behalf of RLK Associates tonight, Kevin VonRiedel is here. He's a senior designer associated with the project. Kevin not only worked on the multi - family component but we have worked a couple of industrial designs, conceptual in nature, just to see how the site might work for industrial purposes. Kevin did most of the work related to that. And Mr. Chuck Poppler is here tonight also with RLK Associates. Chuck is the person in charge at our firm who, when things are approved here, Chuck's responsible for getting them constructed out in the field. Again, Chuck's going to share a little bit of his perspective of what it would be like to actually construct this site as an industrial site and what it would be like to construct this site as a multi- family site. So he moves us perhaps a little bit from the theoretical to the product. Where we're really at tonight, and I do want to take a moment to distinguish that Bob did a very good job. This is our perspective tonight and the hooks of our presentation really is related to the comprehensive land use guide plan change. Very much a policy related kind of issue. Many times when we're here before the Commission it really relates to site design related issues. Is the berm too high? The setback appropriate? The design of the buildings appropriate? A lot of our focus tonight isn't going to be related to that. If we do talk about that, it's really going to be related to making the policy point more than any specifics related to the site design. And as Bob indicated, what we have prepared for tonight is a concept PUD. Again it's a little different from what we had typically presented before this commission. Even when we've been presenting PUD's, we've attempted to combine two parts of the PUD process, conceptual and the preliminary and as a result, in many cases that taken us into a little bit more of some of the design issues. But that isn't the case tonight. This really is just the concept PUD. I say that to an extent as to justify a little bit some of the drawings and a little bit of a preliminary to some of the comments that will be made tonight. Our plans that we have prepared really are concept, and what we really want them, in doing the plans and preparing the plans, we're attempting to portray a big picture. We're attempting to illustrate in the nature. Bob mentioned for example some of the issues related to wetlands. Some of the issues related to the bluffs. We can assure you we have no intentions of filling any wetlands. If we missed a wetland on site, we'll certainly pick that up as we get into the next stage. We hope to get into the next stage of this process, so I just wanted to again make sure that we're all aware of that. We believe we're at the concept stage. That's really where the product of 14 I n 17, ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 3 1996 g g p t ' our material is at tonight. We also think that we've had, in addition to where we're at in the process, we think we've been able to bring a rather unique perspective to this type of discussion. I suspect your staff, like I when I was a public staff planner, and the work that I ' do when I work on behalf as a consultant for public agencies, for the most part the review I suspect of your staff has been in response to the existing comprehensive plan and in response to your existing codes. And that's how it's supposed to be. Those are the public documents. ' Those are the official documents that are in place. From where we sit we've got a little more freedom and we've got a little more access to what the private market is actually thinking. Again, Mr. Christensen is here tonight. He's going to be able to elaborate a little bit on that. ' George Seagraves ... is going to be able to elaborate a little bit on the residential. We've actually been able to go out and survey several cities and we'll be talking about that data some tonight. So we've been able to broaden the discussion a little bit we hope. Bring in ' some pertinent data from both the private sector. Bring in some market research that Roger Christensen has to contribute to this discussion and with that hopefully bring a little bit more perspective that broadens this out a little bit. Comprehensive plan was last updated in 1991. ' I trust based on information that was probably gathered in 1990 -1989 and so we're hoping tonight that one of the contributions we can bring is really things that are going on in the marketplace right now as well as more of a detailed analysis related to the developability of ' this. So then Madam Chair I'm going to sit down and ask Mr. Seagraves and Mr. Hansen to come up and talk a little bit about Joe Miller Homes. A little bit about the product and the organization. ' Mancino: Thank you. t George Seagraves: Good evening. I want to take a few moments to explain who D.R. Horton of Minnesota is and the connection with Joe Miller Homes. D.R. Horton of ' Minnesota is a wholly owned subsidiary of D.R. Horton Inc. We are a publicly traded, national home building company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We do approximately 3,000 homes as far east as the Washington D.C., west to California, south to ' Texas and north to Minnesota. We have currently about 25 operating divisions. There's an exhibit in your packet that identifies some of the locations where we build. In the spring of 1994, D.R. Horton acquired selected assets of Joe Miller Homes. We do business, or we are ' known in the marketplace as Joe Miller Homes when we sell our homes to buyers. Mr. Miller is a consultant to us but he is no longer involved in the day to day operation of the business. What we have done is to try to maintain the quality of the construction that Joe ' started. All of the superintendents and the construction people that actually build the houses for us are the same ones that were in place when we acquired the company. What we've brought is a financial strength to the company and hopefully make it a little more long term ' thinking as to where we want to take the company and the type of product we want to present to our buyers. Really the only person who is any different in the company is me. I moved 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 up here from Florida about a year and a half ago but otherwise the people who work on the homes and sell the homes are all the people who were... I can see Madam Chair will question why I moved? Actually I had an option. We're a rapidly growing company and I had a choice of 3 or 4 locations that I could go to and I chose to come to Minnesota. I heard a lot about the people in this market and I looked forward to coming up here. I've never lived in the north before and I can tell you that it has exceeded all the expectations that I've had. I've really enjoyed here. I wish summers were a, excuse me. I wish winter would have ended about a month ago but that's part of the price we pay and I've enjoyed it. I like the winter and hopefully here for a long period of time. Here in the Twin Cities we do approximately 200 homes a year in various locations. As you all know we're in the process of finishing up our very successful Lake Susan Hills development. We're in the 9th Addition. We have just a very, probably 20 lots, give or take a few to have that project and we'll be finished out. We build basically four product types in the variety as a market. We build a condominium type townhome that is priced in the 80's up to the low 100's. We build a town, a rambler type townhome that is priced between 130 and about $200,000.00. We build a Presidential Series single family homes that are priced from about $130,000.00 to $160,000.00 and then we build a Charter Series of single family homes that start at again $190,000.00 and go all the way up a half a million dollars. You're probably familiar with our Charter Series. That is what we're building right now in Lake Susan Hills. As Steve had mentioned, I also have Neil Hansen with me tonight. Neil personally has been with Joe Miller Homes for 14 years. Here in Chanhassen he is responsible for, he's done about 400 homes—in the Lake Susan Hills development in the neighborhood of about half of those. Our application tonight, what we are indicating to you is that we would like to continue to build homes for the citizens of Chanhassen. We feel like we have an excellent relationship with the city. Our approach to business with the city has been whenever issues arise, to handle them in an expeditious and fair manner. I think that if you were to ask the people that deal with our company on a daily basis, the people out in the field perhaps inspecting our homes or reviewing the different ordinances that we have to work with, we'll find that our people go the extra mile to do a really good job and also try to eliminate as many problems as come up that the city staff has to deal with from time to time with homeowners. So I think from that standpoint we're good corporate citizens here in the community. The other thing I'd like to mention is our philosophy as a company is that we are the developer and builder. Should you decide to allow us to develop the property... which we're showing here tonight, we will be the person who develops the lots. We will also be the people building the homes. So whatever agreements are made up front, there'll be one entity, in particular one person that you'll be dealing with. And I think that that offers us a big leg up over some of our other competitors or some of our other people in the marketplace where they kind of separate the development part of the operation and the building operation and both sides tend to point fingers at each other and say they didn't do this and they didn't do that. We will be the only party responsible. Now the development of this site, what we've tried to do is identify within I ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 3 1996 g g p ' Chanhassen as a city, groups of people where we feel like maybe the housing needs aren't being met today. And that's basically how we came to the product that you see on this site. We've identified a couple groups. One is really a first time home buyer looking for a more affordable shelter for their families. Closer to work. You will see that one of the product lines that is here directly at this group. The other group is families. They perhaps have had their children grow up but still like to stay in the Chanhassen. They want to be near their ' churches and their neighbors and the group of people they've been around for the last several years but perhaps would like to move into a smaller home, and maybe a maintain a different lifestyle where there's a homeowners association that takes care of some of the responsibilities ' that people that have single family homes only have to take care of themselves. One of the first product that we're talking about here is for a single level townhome. What this is an indication, this is an end home condition. What we've done is kind of highlighted one ' particular home of the series that we'd be the time. This would be part of a townhome configuration but this is the end unit. It's approximately 1,366 square feet. It has 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car garage. All of the homes in this particular series will have 2 car ' garages. Right now we believe that we would be able to bring these particular homes into the market between $105,000.00 and perhaps $125,000.00. One other thing to point out is that with our proposal in mind, we only sell homes. We don't do rental units. We don't do ' apartments. We are strictly a homebuilder and a for sale is the only products that we offer. We have never done rental as a company anywhere nationally, and as long as Bob Work ... is the chairman, I'm sure that will continue to be the case. Tonight is the first time that we've ' actually showing, we have a couple of other sites in other areas of the Twin Cities where we hope to begin construction on these units towards the middle to the later half of the year, but we'd like to be building these here in Chanhassen and this is the first time that we've unveiled ' any of this type of product to the public. Okay, the other product, this again is an end unit condition. This is our condominium type townhome development. We are currently building ' these in Burnsville at the northwest corner of 13 and West River Hills Drive. We have a couple other sites that we're working on so we should be doing this in other areas of the Twin Cities as well. This unit is again very close to about 1,350 square feet. The price point on ' the condominium townhome will probably start in the 80's and perhaps get into the low 100's. The end units that you see here will have 2 car garages. The interior unit has a 1 car garage. All of the products that we're showing you here tonight has 2 bedrooms. Why I think that is ' important is the profile of the people that we've looked at is not, there will be some children in this group but from our experience in selling them and then looking at the other communities where they've been built, typically what happens if a young family does have a ' child, this may be the first home and then they move into a single family home as they start, as their family starts to grow. The other group of people that you will see in here are primarily single. Unmarried with a variety of professional and jobs. The income levels that ' we expect the minimum to be able to purchase a home in here will need to have a combined family income of approximately $30,000.00. This group we anticipate would have to have a 1 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 minimum of about $50,000.00 but typically this group of buyers is a little bit more affluent and the income is not as big an issue to them on the housing product whatsoever. Basically that's what I have for the product right now. If you have any questions you want for me now or if you'd like to later. We enjoy being in Chanhassen. We like building here and we would like the opportunity to continue. Mancino: Thank you. Steve Schwanke: We're going to move now Madam Chair to the next part of the presentation really focusing on the development of the industrial market place. The suitability of the site for industrial development. And beginning with that, to kind of back up a little bit. Perhaps get a little bit back to what Bob went through. Again, we want to identify the site and really how we view it a little bit different... I'm going to start over here and use this a little bit. This is the subject property right here. Again as Bob had indicated, Lyman over here. Galpin through here, the railroad tracks in this area here. You're probably already familiar with the 1995 study area is in this area here. Our perspective on it is that really this property here is very much of a transitional piece of property. An island so to speak if you'd like. There is residential over in this area here. I'm sure you're all well aware of Residential over in this area here. Industrial over in this area here. So in effect you have industrial up to about this spot here. You in effect cross the road and now you're into residential of varying types. Obviously we can't say much about this area down here since this is we understand currently under study right now. So as a result, if you have, if you take a look at it from an east, or excuse me from a west -east perspective, the industrial being over here in the city of Chanhassen. Of excuse me, the city of Chaska. Single family, excuse me residential over here in the city of Chanhassen, the question really becomes what are you going to put, what do we do with this piece of property here. Part of this thought, to be very honest with you, came from reading the city's comprehensive plan. We took a look and read the discussion relative to this piece of property and it appeared to us, our interpretation of it was, there were a number of pros to the property relative to industrial. There were a number of negatives relative to the property for industrial. There are a number of pros to the property in regards to residential. There were a number of negatives to the property relative to residential. So if that is indeed everyone's interpretation of it, we're in effect saying we agree. We think this is indeed a transitional piece of property. But perhaps you could flip the coin and say we'll take 2 out of 3 and see which way it goes. Only that, what we'd like to do this evening in addition to some of the work here, is take a detailed look at the piece of property and really see if you were to develop this property industrial, what would that really take. And if you were to develop it both in terms of residential, multi - family, what would that really take... Since doing that, I'm going to start a little bit by just reviewing some of the specifics. Again, this sheet here should be in the packet, if it's not clear for the Planning Commission. Just to review some of the specifics relative to the property. Again, this is the subject property in IN 1 7 J 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' this general area here. As has been indicated by Bob in his staff report and to an extent in the comprehensive plan, it is a difficult site. You have the wetland here, which is again to the best of our knowledge. Wetland in this area here, to the best of our knowledge. The tree ' line over here. The railroad in this area here, which also creates some constraints that Kevin and a few others will go into later on. Of course this bluff area here. Again to the best of our knowledge that we've been able identify so far and again we haven't been out in the field ' to actually stake and determine precisely where that bluff is but to the best of our knowledge, the bluff area here. And very steep slopes over in this area here. 16 %, 20 %, 16 %, 25% and again the power line running through this area here. Flood plain. Again serving both as an ' amenity and as a constraint. One of the interesting things about the property is that nearly a third of it is undevelopable just because of flood plain and wetlands and because of how this area in here needs to be treated. Also with the wetland over in this area here. Major county ' road here, county road here. The industrial again over here. And the residential single family over in this area here. Again, we believe it's very much of a transitional piece and a very difficult piece that does take sensitivity. That will take sensitivity to develop. Should this ' affect the site, and again Kevin and a few others are going to go into a little more detail about that shortly. I'd like to take a minute now and just shift a little bit to address a couple of the issues that were raised in the staff report relative to industrial development, and the ' issue of how much industrial land the city should have. What would be appropriate. What's good for cities and take a minute and talk about what's on page 4 of the staff report, specifically referred to as the PAS memo that's been published by the American Planning ' Association. As part of this, as I indicated earlier, we've actually completed the survey of 15 cities here in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in terms of finding a sense of how much industrial or land in those respective cities, that they plan for industrial in each of those cities. ' I wish I could come here tonight and tell you that we found some great consistency. That we found some great relationship between residential development and commercial development and industrial development. I don't have the overhead for it and I can't tell you that, because in our survey of those 15 cities here in this metropolitan area, there was no consistency. They ranged all the way from 0.6% to 12 %. And there wasn't any relationship that we could ' see in terms of residential development, commercial development, or anything like that. Our observation was that it appeared to be specifically related to the characteristics of other cities, and let me take one that I can speak to with some knowledge. The City of Eagan where I ' used to be employed, they had 12% of their land dedicated for industrial purposes. That's a lot of land. Again we need to take into consideration the unique characteristics of Eagan. They've got phenomenal access, roadway access with 35E, 494, Cedar Avenue, and a number ' of county roads. They also have the corridors for the airport that go right over the northern part of the city. And it's part of the agreement with the metropolitan agencies, the vast majority of the northern part of the city has been dedicated for industrial purposes. The reason being because that's the type of use that's most compatible with the type of noise generated by the airport. Again, no great relationship between residential and commercial. 19 Planning Commission Meeting s April 3, 1996 Just the unique characteristics related to the city. So back then to the PAS report and the study that was done by the EAPA relative to the amount of land that would be appropriate for industrial or residential or commercial uses. This was a study that was done by the APA as a way to take a look at the type of land uses, the composition of land uses in the cities of varying sizes throughout the United States. The staff report goes into a little more detail about that and I won't discuss it too much more. In your packet are two data pages from that report however. I'd just call your attention to that. I wouldn't necessarily expect you to spend a lot of time on it right here and now but those two pages are in the booklet I handed out and again, just to call your attention to it and at your convenience for you to take a look at it because I think it's one of those pages, it's one of those things that you'll see that again there is no relationship. There's no consistency in terms of the amount of industrial land that a particular city has related to any other type of land use that's related in the city. We would argue or suggest tonight that that relationship again, as it's related specifically to the unique characteristics of each of those cities that are identified that will serve as part of that report, and unique characteristics related to the land in that city. I think what I'd like to do is now take a minute and read the last paragraph of that PAS report that in fact we think says the very same thing. It's on the screen up here and again it's in the packet and I'll just take a minute here to read it. It says it is not recommended that these ratios, these ratios being the ones that are surveys as part of the report, be used as urban land use models. Any city predicting it's future land use requirements solely on the ratios of other cities could be seriously misguided. Every city has different factors affecting it's land use designation. Instead of considering these numbers as rules of thumb, consider them examples of land use ratios that exist in the cities today. Look closely how factors affect your city's land use before comparing your ratios to these data. We go into just a little bit of a warning as to how the data should be reviewed and then how it should be interpreted. With that I'm going to ask Kevin and Chuck Poppler to come up and talk a little bit about the site specifically and it's use for industrial purposes. Kevin VonRiedel: Good evening. Bob did a pretty good job going over the characteristics of the site and ... this site, here is roughly 978. It drops down ... 50 to 60 feet of relief on the site, which makes it difficult to develop virtually anything... that is land use intensive. ...we had a neighborhood meeting last week and although it was lightly attended... Betty O'Shaughnessy and all of you are fairly familiar with Betty and her work in the city and she... We had large boxes down here for industrial and we had a similar situation office, warehouse building there... industrial and office and typically what we're finding are smaller boxes. Not large ones ... We came up with approximately 500,000 square feet of office industrial space. Right now you see ... you have large areas of flat land that require industrial development... same location to illustrate our section line and as Steve had mentioned earlier ... site plan review process but generally speaking that's how we... Chuck, do you want to address the rest of this issue... As you're looking at this, when I told you... ce 1 J 1 1 C Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' Chuck Poppler: What we've developed here is a plan that shows the impact on the contours or the grades of the site as it relates to an industrial park or a commercial site and as it relates to a multi - family site. The black line is the existing contours of the hill depicted on the ' topographic map. And you can see it drops off and the roadway comes down and climbs up rather quickly to the top of that knob that we're showing. ...develop the commercial plan that we're showing you, that dark red line that was shown as the center line, is this line as it's ' depicted by the blue line right there, the blue line. And that would be the street grade of that road coming. And we ... we tried to set the large commercial pads and parking lots in there to make them work. Typically how you'd have to do it on a commercial site, and you start ' seeing the impact that we're having to the hillsides, just to move that amount of dirt. It's very costly to move that amount of dirt to balance the site in there. As opposed to a multi - family use with smaller pads. We decided another road grade which is the light red line and ' designed in the multi - family pads that were shown on the conceptual plan that we did. And you can see, you can start to fit a development like that into the existing terrain with a lot less disruption to the natural amenities of the site, and maintain a lot more of the natural ' aesthetics. That tends to work if you're already through the site with utilities, wetland alterations and everything that you might run into on the site... Any questions on that? I Mancino: Any questions commissioners? No. r� r t Chuck Poppler: Okay. I'm going to introduce Roger Christensen to talk a little bit more. Roger Christensen: My name is Roger Christensen. I'm with Tobin Real Estate Company. We are a commercial real estate consulting firm. We work with end users. With corporations and organizations and their real estate needs relative to the Twin Cities as well as across the country. As part of that we do a good amount of work... We take the user's requirements ... strategic planning process. We do the planning and acquisition process of land and development management process. One of the things that we always emphasize is that each project needs to be something that is feasible economically for any industrial or commercial use. And let's go to the first line and just take a quick look at, what an industrial user looks for as they're looking at different alternatives. And I'll give you some examples as we just walk through these. The first one is an industrial user loves flat land. They also love dry land but that's not always possible and we end up having to go ... but the flat land is very important on the economics of the deal. You may be familiar with FSI International that just finished their first building down on Highway 41. That was one of our clients. They took a piece of property that was quite hilly. Not as severe as slopes as this one, and we removed so far approximately 250,000 cubic yards of dirt. Taking that off the area just to make it flat. It's a very expensive process and you only want to do it when it's absolutely necessary. For FSI International it made sense because of the economic incentives that the City of Chaska provided. But otherwise, that is a severe constraint for any end user for the industrial land. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 The next one is easy access. Very important, especially for trucking that access can be easily had so you can get on and off roads immediately as well as get on and off the highway system. The third spot is that good transportation routes. Besides the access, is just getting onto it. There needs to be good roads that can handle both the weigh of these roads. Unlimited vehicles. That is something that, especially during the springtime is most important because there's a lot of times you have the restrictions on those and you want to have good routes to the highway system again. The fourth one is compatibility with the existing uses. No one likes to have neighbors that don't use the land in the same way that you do, and the reason for that is that everyone sees that as just, it's uncomfortable. There are uses that will have friction. That will become a problem. Safety, possibly for industrial as well as the noise problems. They don't want to be a bad neighbor to someone, and they prefer always to have users that are of like minds. And then the last one is there developable quality land. You're always looking for land that again is neither wet nor unsuitable soil. You want to have land that you can immediately start working on. You don't have to take out a lot of land and put good soil back in. So those are some of the different aspects that a typical industrial user will be looking at. Let's go onto the next slide and take those factors and look at our targeted land characteristics. The first one is, this land has hilly terrain as you've seen a couple times on some of the different overheads and charts. There's going to be significant excavation and grading for this property. Especially for industrial use where you have grade changes ... on the type of use instead of distribution. Type of buildings. You're forced to go with more either maybe ... or corporate office type of area. This location may not have the same benefits for a corporate user because it's just, how far out it is from the main freeway system. As well as the cost of that hilly terrain. Getting in and out. The next slide is, there's no optimum access for this particular site. It's approximately 2 miles from Highway 5, if you're driving by car or little truck. If you have a full truck, you're over 3 miles from Highway 5 because of axle weight restrictions on the roads in and around that area. So you do have to go quite a ways from this site to get back to Highway 5. The second aspect is there's congestion problems currently in that area. Currently the intersection of County Road 17 and County Road 18, this area here. There's a stop sign here, but other than that there's no other traffic flow—dealing with traffic flow. This area has changed dramatically within the past two years in terms of the number of cars and trucks that pass through there. Especially during the peak hours. Besides this intersection, you also have Lake Hazeltine Drive that comes out onto County Road 18 that also has significant number of vehicles that... The problems aren't very significant but you're looking, if you're going northbound on County Road 17, looking to turn left and go westbound on County Road 18, you're faced with the peak hours with a minimum 15 minute wait. Just because the traffic is flowing back and forth between those two roads. Same thing with Crosby Park. On there, an example is if you're looking to take a right, going out of Crosby Park and going eastbound on County Road 18, just taking a right, you're looking at about a 5 minute wait at the stop sign. Very significant. The land that we're looking at here is right adjacent to that and so, and 22 r 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' industrial development you'd be adding 1 or 2 different curb cuts here, increasing dramatically the amount of traffic in and around this area. That's slow traffic. There's always going to be a hazard that's going to necessitate upgrade of the two road systems there for both turning ' lanes as well as signals, which I don't think too many people would have thought that that area just a few years ago would necessitate that type of structure but looking at industrial development, and you would assume I think the same numbers as what the staff had of ' 500,000 to 600,000 square feet of industrial development. Pretty significant. A traffic estimate is done as to how many cars are actually going to be produce by developing the site as residential as well as industrial. For multi - family residential, I'm assuming the 500 units ' that are currently just being proposed right here. During the weekday total traffic stands at 2,930 trips, and during the peak hours in the morning, approximately 220 trips and during the peak hours in the afternoon, 275. Now to give you a contrast, because that is just numbers. An industrial park, assuming 600,000 square feet of industrial space, that would generate a total volume of 4,182 trips and that's compared to the multi - family residential of 2,930 so significant increase. What's more important for industrial is the peak hours. The peak hours ' for a.m. is 522 and in the afternoon is 546. Those compare to again the a.m. peak for residential 220 and p.m. peak as 275 so you're looking at double the amount of vehicles that would be passing through and generating traffic in this area if you go industrial. Very ' significant issue that the County and the City will be dealing with here. Let's then move on to, just quickly touching back on the overhead. The indirect transportation route that we ' talked to and then I'll move on to the next slide. Go back to compatibility of uses. Currently this site has both residential and industrial uses. From an industrial perspective, the visual buffers are very acceptable here. To the north of this site where it meets up with the railroad, ' as well as single family residential, you have both a tree line and the railroad, and that's considered quite acceptable there from a visual standpoint, and obviously if it gets developed, we'd be developing other buffers there as well to enhance that. And then to the east you're ' significantly away from the other residential development so even with the substantial change in the topography, you'll still have plenty of buffers on that side. Not so much from the tree line perspective because simply you're too high to make the trees a real effective for quite a ' long time, but it's... On the other hand, the safety buffer is quite a bit different. The safety buffer is especially important in manufacturing where you may have chemicals that are being used, both high tech as well as lower tech type of manufacturers are very concerned that they t have proper buffers, and usually the city is too so if there's any kind of spill or any kind of exposure, that there's time to get residential areas cleared out. That's not the case on this site. The safety buffer is more of a concern here right to the north because of the closeness to the ' residential area here and then off to the east, we usually have northern and western type of winds so very quickly that's going to be quite a bit of an issue for that. So that's one of the things that this particular land has to deal with. The other area of significant cost necessary ' to make this land developable, I mentioned the amount of dirt that's going to have to be moved and removed from this site, as well as putting in the sewer system, water system back 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 to this type of...quite a bit of time, it's costly and industrial users don't like to work with those type of costs. One way that cities usually work with that is by developing tax increment finance districts. Things have changed with tax increment financing districts in terms of the ability to create those on different plots of land. The State legislature saw fit to reduce, or at least make that process more difficult for cities. Even now if a TIF district was created, you're penalized on your LGA rate, which is local government assistance and HAKA assistance. The City of Chanhassen does not get LGA funds but they do get HAKA funds and so that's an area that you have to look at seriously before creating a tax increment financing district. Let's move on then to the next slide. With these things in mind, we look at this site as being land that really could be used for either residential or industrial. The land does not meet ideal industrial characteristics. It does have industrial to the west of it, but it's not physically linked. Visually linked with that and with the other characteristics that we mentioned here, it could work for residential just as ... as industrial. In fact we think it would be easier to develop this as residential. Industrial development also does not make use of the vistas and future walking trails that are planned for. Inbetween this property and the other residential areas, you're probably most familiar with the plan to have parkland and walking trails in and around that ... area. And that would be a very nice amenity that residential areas can use. Industrials don't tend to use those to the same extent as residential areas do. Then we'll go to the next slide. Estimated development timing for this particular land. If you were to use this plat as industrial, what are the factors of how long it will take before this gets developed? You know very well that various different pieces of land that you have that are looking to be developed over here and to the west for industrial use in the city of Chanhassen. Some very nice plots of land that have very good access to Highway 5. That don't have the same topography as this site does and meets some of the characteristics that we're looking at as the ideal characteristics. Because of that, that land most likely will be developed prior to this targeted piece that we're talking about tonight. That Highway 5 land is at a higher price than this targeted land, but with the development costs that this one has, the Highway 5 land probably will be comparable in an overall development cost price. Because of that, let's go to the last slide. We estimate that the targeted land, if it is continued to be slated for industrial development, would look at an 8 to 10 year development time period. When you start to take a look at that type of timing, it starts impacting your tax base. Eventually this will get developed, one way or the other but it's a matter of how does that affect your tax base. If it's 8 to 10 years out, it's fairly significant if it's developed industrial, the amount of taxes that you won't be gaining during that period of time. And that's my part of the presentation. Do you have some questions? Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this time? No we don't. Thank you. Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, I'd like to just acknowledge that this will probably take a little longer than we anticipated. We acknowledge that we'll make every effort to summarize 24 1 u u Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' fairly quickly and move on. We're going to move this now to the residential component. Again, we've attempted to create a case that what we've done with the property is appropriate for industrial and we're open to questions from the commission relative to that. We do ' believe that there are a number of unique features that does make it a residential piece... Kevin VonRiedel is actually going to address the issue about the availability of multi- family housing space units...number of spots. Again, for people who need to work in the private ' marketplace to eventually option those pieces and purchase those pieces. Kevin's going to go through really the reality of those pieces are and we'll conclude with... The reason we think, again a number of reasons exist for why we think the property is very appropriate for ' residential purposes. Roger mentioned the amenities. We think that actually is a very compelling reason as to why this property will be a very good residential piece. It's not often that a city is able to develop a trail and park system that then can be used by residential ' people right next to it. I don't think it takes much to say that industrial people don't have a lot of use for industrial and park facilities. It's not that they don't have use for it but we'll compare it to residential residents, citizens of your community have a much better use for that ' property than industrial users. We also believe that, again if there's a slide in your packet, if we would put up the overhead there. It appears from the data that we've been able to compile that the city of Chanhassen does have a need for a variety type of housing units here. I don't ' know if there's actually one that shows the types of housing units. It's also in your packet. While Keith is looking for that, it provides a breakdown. The type of housing units in the city. The diversity of housing units. The availability of housing units. The density. I trust ' Madam Chair the commission members have seen this data before. It came from the Met Council relative to the Livable Communities Act. Because of that I'll just point out a couple ' of components that we think are rather significant. That being in the affordability category there under ownership. City index being 37% benchmark. That being what to shoot for so to speak as a goal as well. The benchmark being 60% to 69 %. The goal being 50 %. We think ' there's a rather large gap in that area there. The only one I'd like to take a moment ... as well as in the life cycle housing. Type being non single family. Again, the city index being 19 %. Benchmark 35% to 37% and the comprehensive plan has indicated the goal section of 34 %. ' We do believe that there is a need for, in this community, for a diversity of housing. And not just because that's a nice planning term ... related to that. One of them is, housing in particular, affordable housing is, Mr. Hagen I think is going to address here in a couple of minutes from ' a very practical perspective, is just as important as any other infrastructure issue for industrial users as a road is. As water is. As sanitary sewer is. Industrial users need a labor market that is close and for the people who provide employment for a variety of people, those who ' are at the high income level as well as those who are at the low income level, those people need all types of housing and Mr. Hagen is going to go into a little bit of detail as to the difficulty of providing and finding a labor supply in this area ... one of the reasons of course ' being the lack of affordable housing. So there's some very practical aspects to it as well. We're also going to go into a little bit of detail here momentarily. Because of the difficulty 25 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 of developing this site, it's our belief, as Mr. Christensen indicated, that industrial development's going to be some time before you see industrial development on this property so that has an affect on the tax revenue that's generated by the property and that goes to the city and other jurisdictions. Consequently, and we'll go into a little more detail here, multi- family development actually ends up generating more taxes. More tax revenue than industrial property does. With that, I'm going to step down and Kevin's going to actually address some of the supply of multi - family housing... Kevin VonRiedel: ...put up a slide on the overhead showing some locations that multi- family land is available and this one differs slightly from Bob's. I think Bob's may in fact show a few more sites ... but if you take a look at this picture down here...212 proposes to go through. North of that would be parkland. Rottlund's proposing a detached townhome ... This is proposed or guided for high density residential. We believe that it's ... it's not available for purchase to do that. It's being held for development by the current owner. ...between these parcels, if you take the lots out of the picture, this one's currently under consideration for development. None of these are proposed to be in the range of affordable housing. They're all in the $140,000.00 on up range... run through the site plan. I don't want to, I'm just going to ... again. This is conceptual, as we said earlier, and we again... wetlands, although it should be noted that the developer... Steve Schwanke: Again, we're going to summarizing quickly Madam Chair. If we can ... a couple of comments regarding fiscal issues... It's this one in your packet. The commission members may recall we actually had a discussion regarding this property I believe it was in September or October of last year. One of the issues that was brought up was the fiscal impact that this property were reguided industrial to a residential use, the commission members at that time may recall one of the things I said, I was actually against doing that because fiscal issues are so very difficult, particularly here in the State of Minnesota to actually gauge and estimate because of the supports and money that comes from the State as well as just our taxing system here for property taxes. It's very difficult to estimate this type of stuff. And secondly, very candidly, you can play with the numbers any which way you want. So at that time I suggested that we not take a look at fiscal issues and yet there's an item raised in the report. It is an important item. I used to be a fiscal consultant. This is one of the things that we did do. I put a very simplistic spread sheet up and it's in your packet. I am the first to admit that this spread sheet is totally predicated on a number of assumptions that we have made, and I'm going to go through a couple of those to share ... and then just make one other comment. If you take a look at the residential and commercial components, that is on the left hand side there, we show the project being staged over a period of 5 years. That's probably very realistic. It may be conservative. Mr. Seagraves indicated that it could even go faster than that. 5 years ... so we put 5 years in there. The commercial part of this project... And as we saw, if you see the tax generated, or the tax 26 1 L n I Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 3 1996 g g p , ' revenue that's generated from that. Reduce the numbers that were in the staff report ... take a little bit of exception to those numbers but they're close. They're ballpark so the numbers that I've used as part of this are from the staff report. Specifically I guess the generic tax ' revenue... If you go over to the industrial side, again based on Roger's comments that the property would not probably be developed until, for 8 to 10 years, again it's anyone's guess. We don't know for sure. Roger works in this business so we figure he's probably one of the ' better people to get numbers from. What we did here for simplicity sake is show all 600,000 square feet of industrial use coming on the tax rolls in year 11. Now...I or 2 are going to come on in year 7 or 8 or 9, yeah probably. Again for simplicity sake, we show all 600,000 ' square feet coming on in the year 11. You'll see that at the bottom, the difference is rather dramatic ... A cumulative amount of residential and commercial is in that range of $172 million. Cumulative for industrial is 72 million. A difference of about $100 million. Again, ' this is very quick ... attest to it's complete accuracy. One of the things that I do want to show is that if you look at the top of the page, on a project by project basis, that indeed industrial does generate a little more tax than residential, commercial development does. The major ' difference here is the amount of time, again based on Roger's estimate... and that's in effect what you're seeing here. The only other caveat that I'd like to offer is ... these industrial numbers do not reflect the affect of fiscal disparities... part of staff right now, the city of ' Chanhassen does not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. We've done a little bit of research into that. It is our guess that at some point in time the city will contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. We did not make an attempt to ... It is fair to say though that it would reduce the amount of tax revenue generated by the industrial development because it would go into the fiscal disparities pool. One other comment before I introduce Mr. Hagen. We could have, probably should have made an attempt to estimate the cost ... multi-family ' development and for industrial development. And again for the reasons that I stated earlier, we simply didn't want to touch that. To a large extent because estimated service cost is more difficult... than tax revenue basis and it just didn't appear to be ... Again Madam Chair, I'd like to introduce Mr. Russ Hagen, President of Data Recognition Corporation. ' Russ Hagen: Good evening. My name is Russ Hagen. I own a company by the name of Data Recognition Corporation. We're headquartered in the Minnetonka area and the reason I've been asked to loin you this evening is, I have spent the last roughly 15 months on a ' property search looking to consolidate 5 locations that I occupy right now and have been asked to consider by my real estate person who is helping me do the search, to consider the Chanhassen area. Eden Prairie area and just generally the southwest corner. And my ' response has been unequivocally no. The reason being is the labor pool out here is too tight. I have friends who own corporations or manage corporations in the Hazeltine, out in the park area out here by Hazeltine, and they're having a difficult time finding labor, and I elected as a ' result and with the concurrence of my management team, to limit our search area to the northwestern quadrant of the Twin Cities, primarily because of the issue of labor. We 27 L Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 currently employ about 135 people full time, and as many 450 part time and the ... part time people we primarily get out of the south, well about 50% of them come from the zip codes immediately adjacent to the downtown Minneapolis area so for us to stay in closer to the city where there's access to bus routes and a little easier transportation, is of concern to us. But over and above that, some of the people that we're trying to reach are people who work in the warehouses. Who work on the in service. We do work very similar to what United Mailing does but certainly not on the same scale. And we would be competing with that same company for a common labor pool. Moving out to this area for us just wouldn't make sense so we're electing to go probably, I'm going to say Plymouth or Maple Grove or something like that. We're also considering Eagan but I'm not, at this point I am not willing to say that we're going to go out that direction, primarily because of where our work force lives. Mancino: Have you had a chance to talk with Jerome Carlson at all about where he gets? Russ Hagen: No. No. The guy that I hired to run my operations here used to work for United Mailing as an Operations Manager and is intimately, as a matter of fact he lives out in this neck of the woods and is quite familiar with the labor pool that's out here. And like I say, I'm also good friends with the CEO's of a couple of companies that are located out here in the Jonathan Industrial Park and well aware of the labor issues that they are facing and given the fact that I'm having trouble finding both the skilled people and unskilled people at the present moment, I see no reason for me to try and find 15 acres of land so I can build a campus out here when I'm having a tough enough time as it is so I need to go somewhere else_ Mancino: Okay, thank you. Russ Hagen: Any questions I, okay thank you. Steve Schwanke: Finally Madam Chair in summary. Luke, would you put up the last overhead there. It's ... in the back of your packet... again, I said it in the beginning. We truly do believe this is a transitional piece. The reasons that we've listed that we do believe that it's best used as a multi - family use and ... through multi - family use. It's certainly not an industrial use. This multi - family use land to the south ... We also believe that because of the existing proposed amenities, particularly the park and trail system being considered for the area, that the residential use is the best use for that area. The buffering issue that was raised by Roger, particularly for safety ... We appreciate Madam Chair the commission's patience this evening. Again, our desire is of course to ... have the opportunity to come up and say that we're in full concurrence with staffs... available for questions. We thought we did need to provide a full presentation tonight. As always we're available for questions now... 28 F 1 I I u u i i Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Thank you Steve. When we are deliberating and talking after the public hearing, if we have questions, we'll ask you and you alone to answer those. Steve Schwanke: Please. And if it please the commission, if it's possible if I need to draw... Mancino: Sure. Steve Schwanke: Sure, thank you. ' Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. Fat moved, Skubic seconded to open the public heating. The public heating was ' opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do. Please come up to the podium. State your name, your address ... your comments. Allyson Brooks: My name is Allyson Brooks. I'm at 1831 Sunridge Court and I'd like to ask some questions. ' Mancino: Okay. And would you direct those to me please. ' Allyson Brooks: Okay. Mancino: Thank you. ' Allyson Brooks: I guess I'm not really sure about the wetlands issue. The industrial versus residential and... Maybe I could call the staff at some point and get more information... ' Mancino: Sure you can. ' Allyson Brooks: Is there going to be an environmental assessment done? It had been mentioned. That was something, I wasn't clear if there will be an environmental assessment or not. Mancino: Yes. If this goes further, there will be an environmental assessment done. ' Allyson Brooks: A full environmental assessment. Okay, because I know there's also some historic structures down there that don't look in great condition but. Then the, since I just 1 29 Planning Commission Meeting m April 3, 1996 moved here I'm not sure, are all the ... on septic systems or is this going to be a sewer system that's put in with this division? Mancino: Dave, do you want to? Hempel: Again, municipal sewer and water services. Allyson Brooks: Okay. And as far as the traffic on Lyman Boulevard, I know this sounds smart but the difference between 2,000 cars and 4,000 cars at this point, there's so much traffic on that boulevard. There was a huge accident tonight. I think the Planning Commission, if this goes through, you need to consider what you're going to do it with that street. Either widen it or something. It's just, it's a mess. Mancino: Okay. Allyson Brooks: And there's accidents all the time so you know, housing or industrial. Mancino: Whichever way it goes. Allyson Brooks: ...cars. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Allyson Brooks: And the other thing I wanted to say, ask them. They said they had a neighborhood meeting and I was kind of curious ... I never even heard about it. Mancino: Steve, when was the neighborhood meeting? Steve Schwanke: Madam Chair, we held the neighborhood meeting last Wednesday. It was last week at this time last week. We used the mailing list, of course we need to ... within certain distance of the site. We used that same list for the notification of our meeting. Mancino: So Allyson how far, when did you move in? Allyson Brooks: Pardon? Mancino: When did you move in? Allyson Brooks: In November... 'Ll Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Allyson Brooks: The town, we get the information from the county. I'm not sure. Mancino: And how often are those updated? Mancino: So you should have been sent one. A notification of the meeting. Allyson Brooks: When I came here I was actually for it, but after your hour presentation, it actually made me more uncomfortable... So it will actually be April 22nd? Is that when? Mancino: This will go in front of the City Council, yes. Allyson Brooks: Okay, thank you. Mancino: If you have any comments that you'd like to make either for or against. Why you are for it or why you are against it. Allyson Brooks: Part of it, to be honest, if they tell me it's like 8 years before an industrial park goes in ... have a field for 8 years... Also and no offense to the guy that's not going to build his little mailing facility here. I don't think that like a few townhouses on a hill is going to help him with his business and his labor force. I found that a little condescending. I guess I'm not, I didn't realize that the townhouses versus houses. I'm not much with the wetlands issue and I guess the reason I changed my mind is that ... work it out in my head in a little bit. Mancino: Okay. Allyson Brooks: So I'll probably think about it some more maybe and make some comments later. ' Mancino: Great. Appreciate your comments. Dennis Dirlem: My name's Dennis Dirlem, 15241 Creekside Court in Eden Prairie. I am a ' partner with Stan Hemerski and Betty O'Shaughnessy. We own the piece of property to the north of this parcel. An 8 acre parcel that I ... working our way out of our development said would be serviced from this side of the development so our piece would be serviced... With ' the parkland that's been sold to the city adjacent to the east of this piece, we're basically landlocked. This development does not address an access to our site so we have an 8 acre site that's landlocked. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Bill Sandberg: I'm Bill Sandberg. I live at 8757 Valley View Place, which is on the other side of the valley from the proposed development. My comments is, even though I'd like to take a chance on the 8 years of an open field, it'd be better for me ... for leaving it residential just because it is becoming kind of landlocked. That Bluff Creek Estates with industrial to the north and now it's talking about this. And the point they said, with that road coming between, across the park and the new one, there's no strategic reason, they don't connect. So I'm just making a point that we would also agree... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? Skubic moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Craig, do you want to start off? Peterson: I guess I've got a lot of questions and one of the things I'd like to maybe offer back to you, if you would maybe have the staff comment first. If they have any reactions to the presentation. Whether that's appropriate or not, I guess I ask for your opinion on that. Mancino: I'm assuming staff, this is the first time you've heard the presentation... Dave in general, can you talk a little bit about transportation and access in and out of this site. Hempel: The environmental impact statement, one of the things that will be done is a traffic analysis of the area. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the city's comprehensive plan as a minor arterial street. It is a County road and the County does have plans in their capital improvement program in the next 5 years I believe, 5 to 7 years, to widen Lyman Boulevard. It will be a 4 lane road in the future. They're requesting additional right -of -way be dedicated with any type of development on the property to facilitate the upgrading. Right now the County /City is upgrading Powers Boulevard to a 4 lane urban section. They're also upgrading Galpin Boulevard north of Lyman between Highway 5 and Lyman to 4 lane to help ease traffic congestion on some of the collector streets through the city. Transportation, I guess I heard some numbers tonight. I'm not a traffic engineer but off the cuff I guess I don't totally agree with their numbers in residential trips. I think it'd be higher than that. So the long range plans I do believe that traffic will be addressed with the upgrading of future roads. You also have the potential Trunk Highway 212. Whether it's using the existing 212 through Chaska right now is a major, Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road is a major truck traffic corridor with all the industrial, commercial sites in Chaska and growing in Chanhassen so it will continue to be used as a traffic, truck traffic route. 32 ' Planning ommission Meeting -Aril 3 1996 g g P ' Aanenson: If I could just comment on that. When we did the environmental study for the Chan Business Center, it was also determined at that time when 212 opens up, that a significant amount of traffic will be diverted that way so as Dave indicated. Again, if it ' doesn't happen for a number of years, it ties into the timing of 212 but we believe that a lot of traffic will probably go to the south as opposed to going towards Highway 5. It has a different orientation but as Dave indicated, we did have foresight when we did the zoning of ' this property and tying it in with the Eastern Carver County Transportation Plan. Working with the County. When we guided this industrial, looking at transportation, obviously the two go together and the foresight was given as to how this would be handled and we believe that, ' as Dave indicated, that roads in the future will be sufficient to handle the traffic generated. And I did Dave, I think there were some numbers that we would like a chance to look at. I don't agree with some of the traffic generation numbers. Mancino: Other comments on affordable housing. And that was one of the big issues that was brought up that certainly we as a community understand the need for a diversity and the ' need for affordable housing. And I think we as a community would like to plan that ourselves and where we would like it and how we would like it to grow. And what are we doing about that right now? ' Aanenson: I'd be happy to comment on that. The numbers that were given to you were based on the Met Council numbers that they gave. A lot of those numbers are 1990 data. Just for your information, and we reviewed this recently with the Planning Commission. Last year the city approved more multi - family permits than they did single family permits. Again, development as Bob indicated, is cyclicle. Predominantly we were a large lot community. ' We didn't have a lot of commercial base. Things are changing. Last year we did have more multi - family. We predict this year we'll probably have another couple hundred in that same ' range. We are working with a couple other developments. The numbers you're looking at are pretty stagnant in time. Again going back to 1990. We believe that we've got appropriate land uses. We're working with developments. Again, we have the luxury of knowing all the ' things that are happening in the city. Not looking at this piece in a vacuum as the applicants are. But we believe that we are working and managing, considering the land uses that we have to meet those goals based on the land uses that are in place right now. Mancino: Okay. Dave, another issue that was brought up was about grading. Would you be grading more for having this big industrial site. Industrial office versus the 504 townhomes ' that we're seeing now plus the 5 acres of commercial. Hempel: Given the significant grade differences on the site, there would involve quite a bit ' of site grading for the industrial site. It's probably better fit for residential use because lot bench the home sites in here better. You're probably a little more flexible with street grades 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 from a residential use versus the truck traffic. We do have Chan Business Center to the east that had somewhat of a rolling terrain and that site did undergo quite a bit of site grading. They also had poor soils though to contend with on the site. We have another piece of industrial land on the corner of Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 that is similar terrain. Preliminary sketches showed industrial sites benched in on the terrain. Rolling, meandering street through there to service those sites so, no doubt there would be significant grading on the site for an industrial site. But also there's going to be a lot of grading for a townhouse as well. Mancino: Staff, could you also speak to the concern about industrial and chemicals and toxic use. Aanenson: The types of uses that we have in the city I don't think, I don't want to be flippant but we've have some, Redmond Hair Products kind of smell complaints but normally the types of businesses we have in this community, we haven't had too much of that sort of problem to my knowledge. Certainly the zoning that we do have in place, as I indicated earlier, we do have a lot of mix of office, industrial use. We have some assembly with an office component with it but the mix we have right now isn't what I would consider kind of the hazardous sort. It's really light industrial. Not what we would call the heavy manufacturing type. I just wanted to comment a little bit on the recreational component too, to the industrial parks. I'm a little bit surprised hearing about the recreational component because that tells me that somebody doesn't know Chanhassen very well because I think we're kind of on the cutting edge of some of that. If you look at our Lake Susan Park, which is in the middle of an industrial park. There's a wonderful opportunity to put a park in an industrial area. That makes good use with the lighted ballfields. And also what we've done with the Chan Business Center. When the City bought a piece of property along the Bluff Creek with the trees and it has a trail going towards it so I think there is a wonderful opportunity to provide people in neighborhoods to get in and use some of these other trails so, I think it's a good mix and I think Chanhassen's done a good job of providing that opportunity through industrial parks. Mancino: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Generally, as far as the rezoning issue, I have a number of comments to make but first I guess is the comprehensive plan itself. I think we, as a commission, do have an obligation to follow that as often as we can in an effort to, when we decide to move away from that, I think there does have to be that compelling reason. Whether that be a unique development. Something that is very atypical and bring some extra to our city in a PUD. And I'm concerned that, I believe that office industrial zoning is being used up faster than what was presented tonight. We've seen that 34 L J � I ' Planning ommission Meeting - April 3 1996 g g p ' trend even over the last 9 months. I think that's an issue that we have to consider. On the opposite side about bringing additional bedrooms per se into Chanhassen. I think we also have to be concerned about bringing additional jobs into the city. That really wasn't ' discussed tonight. I think we should also consider that. I think the fact that was brought up that 8 to 10 years is when the site may be developed. I think if we use that as rationale for change, I think that is rather short minded of us. We've got to think in the long term when ' an issue is before us to consider. So that would be my general comments as it relates to rezoning. I think the space, the PUD itself, my many reactions are that I think the open space seems very limited. I'm concerned that it is very tight and condensed. The number of units in there seems rather overwhelming as you first look at it. I don't find it extremely unique to Chanhassen at all. I see a very typical townhouse development. I guess I would concur with Dave in everything that we've done before with the traffic, it doesn't seem, the figures were ' almost double for commercial and office industrial versus residential and I guess I'm a little confused with that number. I'd like to have that looked at a little bit more. I think lastly I would be concerned about the access with the property to the north. That the access would ' go through, what would seem to be a very high density residential area with winding roads, and I would have some concern with that too. First overview, I think those are my comments. ' Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I agree with much of what Craig has said. I think it's a good proposal, or presentation. Appreciate that. Joe Miller, or Horton, they're good folks. They're good to be around. They do good work. We also had similar discussions with Rottlund. They're out ' here looking at sites so this is sort of like an instant replay to other things and we're getting kind of used to that. Maybe we're getting a little bit more savvy what we want. I think ' proposals make us think about things that maybe in the past we haven't. Just, I'll make my comments real brief because I think Craig touched on them. I still think the zoning, or the way we have it guided is a reasonable use of the land. It's not perfect but it is reasonable. I ' think we still need the tax base. Nothing says we're wrong. Our 8% or whatever says we're right in the ballpark. Cutting it down would make me real nervous. I don't think it would be good planning right now. I think we are doing appropriate planning. Didn't hear a whole lot ' of concerns from the neighborhood in terms of one way or another, which is another issue that we could look at. See if the neighbors are violently concerned, even though we're still looking at the whole community in general. What's good for the community, I think that's ' more important but again the residential, the neighboring folks were not really here in force and that kind of says we did some planning. They knew this was going in. We're doing our job. The city's doing the appropriate thing. Some of the real key things is, I think if we saw ' something really innovative, really innovative, you might start pushing a button or two on our part. If it was really innovative. I don't know if you call them zipper homes or whatever you ' 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 do but something that might say, that's what we should be doing. But that's not what I'm seeing. It's still, what I'm seeing is pretty typical and you gave us a rough concept plan so I don't want to pin you down but even in that concept it was contradictory to some of the philosophies that we have here and that's taking a look at nature and see how we fit in. We do preserve the nature and then we go from there so even in a concept plan. I don't think you're real sensitive to that. Your words might have said that but the plan didn't. Regardless, so you obviously can tell that I'm not really in favor of doing any change in guide plan or zoning. Yet on the other hand, these folks brought up some good points and I really don't even want to ask staff. You know we did ask staff to respond. I think because it's such a big project Madam Chair, I just really want to make sure, like we did on the Opus site on TH 5 and TH 41, that this is not something that's just unreasonable to expect it couldn't be developed that way. So I guess my direction would be, and I'd sure, whenever I table something it imposes work on these individuals... we know that. But again, I would like written response to review the applicant's proposal in terms of grading impact, in terms of the traffic impact. In terms of access. In terms of financial review and in terms of affordable housing. Those are five key things. If I were to take a look at this site and see should I rezone it. So again, my direction right now is I wouldn't close it down. I think they brought up some good points. I think we owe it to them to say hey, our staff has looked at it and they're not shooting from the hip right now. They've given us their best shot and give us an analysis. Mancino: So you'd like to see it back again. Conrad: I really would. Yeah, I'd table this just to give staff time to give us a review so we don't have to do this again. I just want to know that this is, I really think it's an appropriate use the way we've guided it. I just want them to take a little bit of an additional look and then review the applicant's numbers and tell us what they think. Mancino: Okay. Kevin. Joyce: First off I do appreciate the work you put into this presentation. It was obviously well organized and well prepared, and I don't want to be repetitive at all, so I'll be real brief. I have a number of problems with this particular project. I agree with Craig, I think it's extremely high density. I just, I don't see the purpose. I think it's an unnecessary high density for that particular location. I think the repercussions would be severe on that area of Chanhassen. It was mentioned that the optimum access for trucks, similar question about the optimum access for trucks and I'm just curious, what about cars. We've got congestion problems now. I don't think this project's going to solve those congestion problems. 500 units with 200 car garages, I still count 1,000 cars any way you look at it so I just think there's a lot of congestion problems. I briefly heard about some environmental problems. I 36 L P Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 agree with Ladd that, I'd hate to see you take away that portion of the IOP that's available to us. It's a limited availability. And we have a comprehensive plan that we're obviously trying to follow here and we'd be changing that and I just don't see the purpose of it. They can ' certainly push the affordable housing button. That's kind of, or lack of affordable housing. That seems to be a popular thing to do, but I think the staff is right. There's no compelling reason to have this project. I think it's just a development for development sake type of ' situation and I think it'd be short sighted on our, as a Planning Commission, to go forward with it. So I'd have to agree with staff and oppose this plan. ' Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I don't disagree with what's been said here. Over and over again I see sort of ' short term planning on the part of some of the applicants. As to what we should do with the city and it's a good thing that we see other points of view on how we can develop the city differently than... come up with over the years. One of the things though that I always caution ' when I listen to that is that ... to develop this to create profit for your business and when you're done developing, you move on to the next different project. After a while you start seeing how that process works. There's nothing wrong with that. Development makes the world ' better but the good thing about the long term plan is that when the machinery is all up and running, it works and is it because of a cynical kind of, if it's good for business between 1996 and 1997, therefore that's what we did. Now it's not so good 5 years from now. We have had cases where, in the past, we have changed that plan and we have looked at doing different things and those things have come back to haunt us. It's also driven development around where if we had to do it over again, we may have changed that and we may not have placed that development there. I would stay ... that we stay with the long term thinking and that we look at how that area would develop overall and I think the decision that was made, ' and you said this before, I think the comprehensive plan is the correct one. I have nothing further to add to the comments that have already been made but I agree with them. ' Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: The applicant reviewed the status of some of the other high density residential areas ' in the city. Could staff review the current status of the other industrial office park areas? I think there was a land use map displayed at one time here. What is currently available and what are our plans for it? ' Generous: I'll preface this, they might be right that the other lands aren't available under, are currently held by the current property owner. ' Aanenson: Are you talking about just the industrial lots? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Skubic: Office industrial, yes. Generous: Chanhassen Business Center, the industrial park. Immediately to the northeast of this site I believe there's something like 5 or 6 lots left within that development. We just received a new site plan application. The post office annex is also supposed to go into that but we haven't seen any design plan on that. We have on the eastern end of the city, the DataSery site. There were site plan approvals for that and subdivision approval. The preliminary plats that were approved. That process is on hold at the moment I believe because of DataServ. Aanenson: Part of that property will be developed. We're working with the Gateway West Properties to develop that piece, which is the 140 acres on TH 5 and TH 41. We're seeing the development plan for that piece. The remaining piece, the large piece adjacent to Highway 5 going over. We'll be talking about some of that later tonight. But we are working with the property adjacent to the school site as potential development. We have met with people on the larger Redmond property, and that's ready to develop so industrial's hot right now. As Bob indicated, we believe we'll see a lot more industrial permits this year. A lot of it is predicated on infrastructure. What was holding up some of this development along Highway 5 was getting sewer to the property. The city's completing the frontage road, Coulter Drive between McGlynn's and the school site. That's precipitating a lot of development in that industrial area right now. So a lot of this is timing of services. That's why things were held up in certain areas. The same with the large property on TH 5 and TH 41. It's getting sewer to that property, which is now going to cross from Galpin over so a lot of it is based on when we can provide service to the property. So we are meeting with all those developers and projects are being developed. Plans are being developed. Skubic: Thank you. It sounds like there is a demand for office industrial land within the city and you can make the argument whether 8.2% is adequate or if we can give up some of that if we develop this parcel here and it gets reduced to something like 7.5% and you can argue about the tax base but there is competition for industrial and I think some of these other sites, there are also attempts to rezone them for some residential purposes so we have to, we're trying to stand by the comprehensive plan here and despite some pressures to do otherwise. One thing in particular about rezoning is a hot button at this time I think is the expenditure side. The infrastructure. Particularly the schools and one of the points raised in staffs report here was, this development would add substantial demand on our schools and I think the residents of the community would not be serving the residents well to place further demand on them. I think that the industrial office park would serve a better purpose. Mancino: You mean there wasn't a school as part of this plan? Don. 38 i� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mehl: Yeah, I really can't add a whole lot to it. I think the comments here have been made, I pretty much support them. I think one big thing that's been mentioned here before, I think it's too densely populated. You've got 500 and some units and only a couple of different ' styles. That's just one unit right after another, closely spaced, 504 units and no mention was made of color or how things could be made interesting or. I'm also concerned about the bluffs and slope areas. I think that would need to be addressed. I'm very concerned about ' the traffic. I guess at this point I did not see any compelling reasons to support the project and I'd support the staff report recommendation. ' Mancino: Thank you. Any other last comments or questions after listening to commissioners? I really don't have anything new to add either. I do think it's good to evaluate our comprehensive plan and what we've done in the last 5 or 6 years and how we've grown. And ' I would like to see this developer work in other areas of Chanhassen. I'm not sure that this, I would rezone this but I would certainly like to have open arms. It was a good presentation. You certainly have evaluated our city and so I hope you look at other areas. But I also ' would be in favor of not changing the comprehensive plan from office industrial. I would leave it as it is. I think we've done good planning. I think it shows. I think we have a great city. I think we're in good financial status right now. I want to keep it that way. So with ' that, may I have a motion? Please. Farmakes: I'll make a motion. A motion that the Commission recommend to the Council denial of the Land Use Map Amendment #95 -2 and PUD 996 -1 based on the following findings. ' Mancino: Is there a second to that motion? ' Farmakes: That was 1 through 3. Joyce: I'll second that motion. ' Mancino: There's a second. Any discussion? ' Conrad: Sure. Would it be staffs intent before this got to the City Council to analyze the proposal as we saw tonight? ' Aanenson: You just want to look closely at the traffic numbers. Generous: You mean those 5 points that we had, sure. ' Aanenson: Sure. 39 1 Planning Commission Meeting m April 3, 1996 Hempel: If I could make one point I guess with regards to site grading. It's very difficult from a conceptual stage to try and predict, depending on what type of unit you're going to put in here. If you're going to lessen the density of the units. All these are factors in planning for the grading. Mancino: Which both sides have, yes I understand that. Conrad: But Dave I would expect you could tell us whether industrial grading of this site is unreasonable. Hempel: We can certainly look into that, sure. Conrad: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. It's hard to guess but you know, what I'm interested in, and like we found on the Opus site, we had some access problems to turn, it's going to be tough and I don't know where it is now but that's what I'm looking for right here. Is to say, do we have a site that's guided for something that really is going to be extremely harmful. Grading wise or environmentally or traffic wise. That's really what I'm looking for staffs wisdom on. Aanenson: Well I hope, we wouldn't have made the recommendation if we would have felt that way. I hope you're confident that we. Conrad: Well I'm supporting your recommendation. Aanenson: Right, I'm just saying, but what Dave's saying is it gets very difficult to get a real close comparison. What you said on the other project is, until you've exhausted the industrial, you didn't want to consider anything else so that's kind of where that one got left. So they're pursuing that. It's kind of hard to track two at the same time. You have to try to exhaust one before you pursue the other. And we're saying it's sometimes a timing issue. So we believe that it could be, that's why we ... the recommendation. We certainly would be willing to look at those issues more closely before it goes to Council, sure. Mancino: Ladd, is that a friendly amendment you would like to the conditions? Conrad: No. I don't need that as an amendment. Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion? ►e FI Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Land Use Map Amendment 995 -2 and PUD 996 -1 based on the following findings: 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate, A2. ' 2. The legal description of the property is not available. 3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible ' adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposal has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. f. Traffic generated by the proposed use may require the expansion of capabilities of streets serving the property. An EAW would address the exact requirements for the development. ' All voted in favor- and the motion carded. 41 LI b. The proposed use could be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. However, the existing land use designation could also be compatible with the surrounding uses, and in the case of office uses, may be more compatible with the ' surrounding uses. c. The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically bluff protection, wetland protection, and excessive site grading. ' d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. ' e. The proposed use may be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. The EAW would be required to determine if additional services would be required due to the proposal. Additional school ' capacity would be required to meet the residential development's demand. f. Traffic generated by the proposed use may require the expansion of capabilities of streets serving the property. An EAW would address the exact requirements for the development. ' All voted in favor- and the motion carded. 41 LI Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY- LAWS. Mancino: Do I hear any nominations for election of a Chair, or any volunteers for being the Chair. Farmakes: I would nominate you again. Peterson: Second. Mancino: How about somebody else? Are there any nominations for Chair? Any other nominations for Chair? Farmakes: All in favor say aye. Mancino: Come on. Any volunteers for being Chair? Peterson: Are you inferring that you no longer wish to be chair? Or are you just being nice? Mancino: No, I would be chair. I've learned a lot and so I would like to make sure that somebody else would like to, I mean I really learned a lot being Chair this year so I'd like to pass that on for someone else who would like to. Joyce: How long have you been Chair Nancy? Mancino: A year. Joyce: One year. For another year... Mancino: ...no, I really put that out there. I have learned so much so that. Okay. Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carded. Mancino: Okay, Vice Chair. Nominations for Vice Chair. Farmakes: I nominate Craig over there. Peterson: I thought we just did you about 3 meetings ago. 42 C Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Craig is a nomination for Vice Chair. Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Conrad: I'd nominate Jeff. Mancino: Two nominations for Vice Chair. Any other? Okay, two wonderful people up for Vice Chair. Conrad: Can I ask a couple, Jeff. How long's your term? Farmakes: I don't have a clue. Conrad: You're not coming up to a, I don't remember the last time you got reappointed. Farmakes: I'm not sure either. I'm having so much fun, you lose track of time. You've been here about 100 years, haven't you? Conrad: Really. That's why I don't run for any of this. Joyce: And Craig, your term is? Mancino: He just started. Peterson: Started a brand new one. Mancino: So Craig and I and Kevin are just on for another, what is it 3 years? How long is it? Is it a 3 year term? Aanenson: You just got reappointed. Peterson: I'm 3 and I think ... what was Mike's? Aanenson: It should be 3 years so... Mancino: I think you're filling for Mike. Aanenson: Oh, that's correct. So you'd have 2 years left, correct. Mancino: So we have 2 nominations for Vice Chair. We have Craig and Jeff. Gig Peterson was appointed Vice Chan- of the Planning Commission by a show of hands. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Now we have an adoption of the Planning Commission By -laws. Any discussion on the By -laws? Kate, I have a question and that is under composition. 7 members shall be appointed by the Council and be removed by the Council. It doesn't have under what conditions a Planning Commissioner would be removed. I don't, I mean this doesn't quite seem to have enough checks and balances here. Aanenson: I'd have to check on that. Mancino: Okay, could you? I don't know if anyone else is concerned with that. But I would hate to see that number used wrongly. Do we need to adopt these tonight or? Aanenson: Yes because at any time you can amend the By -laws as long as they're published so if I can get a clarification, and bring some clarity to that issue, I can put it back on the agenda and you can amend it. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Moving onto the approval of Minutes. Aanenson: Excuse me, you do need to adopt them though but ... you should adopt them as they are. Mancino: May I have a motion to adopt the Planning Commission by -laws please. Farmakes: I make a motion to adopt the Planning Commission by -laws. Conrad: Second. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By -laws as presented. All voted in favor- and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 6, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Actually there wasn't a lot of items. We only had 3 people so anything that needed a 4/5 vote wasn't heard. They did approve the Woods, the Longacres 2nd Addition They approved the Market Square 3rd Addition, which was the one that you took two meetings to review. Again there was some discussion on architecture. And they approved the first reading of amendments to the sign ordinance and the shoreland regs. They also M r L� n 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 asked for some clarification on that, which we have provided and they were on for second reading this next one. Peterson: What about the signage on the building for Market III? Aanenson: They went with the two. Mancino: Oh, so they did resolve that? Aanenson: Yeah, they're just going to have two signs. Generous: Until they come back for a variance. Mancino: Oh, I was going to say, okay. Were there any other significant architectural changes made on that they requested? Aanenson: No. There was a lot of discussion about whether or not it architecturally was different enough. You know the gray tones. Some of the same issues that you addressed. But they did approve it pretty much the way the Planning Commission. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any ongoing items? ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know again, the next Bluff Creek meeting, if anybody's interested in that. And hopefully you've had a chance to meet Kevin. New Planning Commissioner. I did let Kevin know the next Bluff Creek meeting, which would be June 24th. Excuse me, April 24th. And then the Park Task Force was the 25th. Is that your next one for April? Park Task Force. Mancino: Next Thursday, which I don't even know what the date is. The 11th? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: April 11th is the next Park Referendum Task Force. Joyce: So there's not one on the 25th? Aanenson: Either one. They usually meet twice a month. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Yeah, every other Thursday. Any other open discussion, or ongoing discussion Farmakes: Something I could bring up just quickly. I thought we were going to touch this issue on presenting presentation materials in an open meeting without having a chance for staff to respond. I thought we weren't going to accept these. Aanenson: You could have cut them off. Farmakes: Well can we do something more formally? I mean I'll throw that out that we can either limit these presentations so they don't go beyond an hour. Certainly that's pushing it considerably. I'm not saying the entire discussion but put a time limit on. The presentation certainly shouldn't take 60 minutes. Aanenson: Well you have to realize this was a complex issue. It was one once before and after they, let's go back and re -trace the whole history. If there were compelling arguments for us to change the zone. We consistently said no. We said okay, you go to the Planning Commission. They came under an open discussion. You said no. They came back and submitted a formal application. We said, no. They got the report and said, I guess you guys meant no, we need some more time to respond so if you recall, it was on your last agenda before the work session and they asked for more time in order to respond. The problem is we didn't have time to articulate the responses that they built up. Farmakes: ...also comes forward with these long dissertations and we have to go through them in a public forum while we go through page 1 and we get to page 20 and I was just wondering, because I'm thinking of the people that are coming after these people, as to what's a reasonable amount of time to make your presentation. Aanenson: Well I think, in all fairness, I think there was some interesting, as you all indicated, there were some interesting points brought out. Whether you agree with them or not and it's up to you at that point. Mancino: Well, are we for limiting presentations? Aanenson: That's your call. Farmakes: Is the City Council looking at the presentation? Mancino: I don't think anybody does at this point, do they? Aanenson: It depends. r r Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' Farmakes: Well when you have a debate, you limit the amount so you can proceed to the next step. That's why I bring it up. ' Aanenson: Sure, that's up to you. Conrad: I think the Chairperson can do it. If you feel it's going to be a 2 hour deal, you can ' at the onset, you know just say it's an hour. You've got an hour. Tonight we didn't have a full agenda, or we weren't that packed so I thought it was probably appropriate tonight but I think, I'd prefer to have it in the Chairperson's hands to really manage it. Because we, I think ' it's sometimes those issues, I don't think we can come up with an arbitrary, you can only have an hour. Some issues take 2. Oh a lot of issues take 2 hours. What bothers me is you didn't see what they were presenting, and that's why, you know I want to close the deal. I want staff to say that's not right. These are our opinions and you know, I don't want to do the hearsay, well what do you think? That's wasting everybody's time. How quick are we on our feet? I think staff should see what they're presenting so then they can put the counter points ' and we should be able to review it. Now whether that can all happen, or as I see it, we table it and they... ' Farmakes: Well how do you define that? How do you tell Terry that if you take this forward and place it in front of the commissioners in the forum, that it is tabled automatically. ' Mancino: No, but staff should have our support that prior to the Planning Commission meeting, if someone is going to give a presentation, that you haven't seen it... ' Conrad: Again, I think we can put it on your shoulders Madam Chair. ' Mancino: Thank you. Conrad: You can say, this is new stuff and I think we should table it, seriously. We never ' do that, and I'm not pointing at you. When I was Chair, I never did it. I very seldom did it but I think, just say this is new stuff. I want the staff to review it. Let's not talk about this anymore. Let's just get it off the table right now. After 10 minutes take it out and go back, and that might happen. I think you should feel that strongly that you can guide the meeting. We do that quite a bit. We go, we'll follow our format because we're used to it. Go around the table and then we'll table something. 1 Aanenson: And we've already spent 2 hours, yeah. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Conrad: And we've spent, that's right. We've spent 2 hours and I'll guarantee you, we'll spend another 2 the next time it comes back. It's just so predictable. Whereas we should table it right away, if we can think about it. Mancino: Well that's happened twice now. That's happened at the last, the Market Square. Aanenson: Yeah. Can I talk about that same issue, because we saw this coming on the Villages, which we believe is moving a really exciting direction. Bob and I had a good meeting. We're excited about the way that project. Again, you're talking about an 80 acre project. Mixed use. Very complex so what we've asked them to do is have a series of 2 or 3 meetings where we break down several of the components. Architecture, grading and wetlands so we're going to do it in a work session so when you have the public hearing, you're up to speed on all the issues because there's no way, even in a 3 hour meeting, that we can cover all the issues so we're going to try and do it in the series of work sessions over the next couple of meetings before we have the public hearing. And hopefully that way, by the time the public hearing comes and we have neighborhood issues, you'll be able to address those in a reasonable manner. So we hope that method works. Mancino: And you will have reviewed everything before it does come in front of us? Aanenson: Absolutely. And give you a report. Farmakes: Before we finish though, let me ask you one point. In this forum, if the presentation, and I'm not talking about the overall discussion. I'm talking about the presentation. If it goes beyond 60 minutes, how much of the first 20 minutes do you remember? Mancino: Well you'd like to have an executive summary and that's it. Conrad: And that's what we do. Unfortunately the City Council does it too, but you know, literally that's our job is to listen. Farmakes: It's not listen, I'm just saying do we have ways so that, does it encourage long winded presentations? Mancino: Well, how many long winded ones have we had recently? Farmakes: It's usually the same kind. It's usually a controversial, sort of change of use or changing of the rules and then they have 9 experts to come forward and give their 10 cents. I 48 1 �I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 ' think there were a couple of people there on this one that I was scratching my head and why, everything but the kitchen sink here. I couldn't figure it out. ' Peterson: I've got two points. I agree with Jeff. I think it's important that, not important but I think it'd be beneficial to set some time frames but I think it's also important that the developer knows that they may have time constraints of approximately an hour. That the ' Chairperson may ask them to, for closure. So I think they should know that before they come in, at least an operating frame. ' Farmakes: As a guide or staff knows that and can relay that to. Mancino: That would be a good guide so that they can gear their presentation. Aanenson: Well we also have to judge on what the length of the agenda is and believe me, we try to structure the agenda based on, we believe which is going to have the most people ' there. Which one's going to go the longest. You can see tonight we put the ones we believe are the least complex to try and get them in and out so we're not keeping people waiting. So we do try to structure that. We can't always gauge what's going to end up being more ' complex but we try to gauge a little bit. And fill the time you've got so. Farmakes: Of course the other thing is that, obviously somebody's coming forward with, who ' owns an acre and wants to split it or something and they're out passing out pictures or something. That's obviously not appropriate but it can be a real play to pass this forward without review and, particularly if you have a sophisticated presentation to try and get your ' point across... advantage. There's an encouragement. ' Peterson: One last point as far as tabling the presentation. I think that what about the option of, prior to us tabling for staff review, that we ask, do you feel it appropriate that we table this. ' Aanenson: That's fine. ' Peterson: I don't want to table something that you don't even feel necessary to. Aanenson: I think that's appropriate too. I think we've asked you that before. Do we feel there's enough information that we haven't seen, that we're uncomfortable with. Mancino: You did on Market Square. I Aanenson: Yes. LI 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 1996 Mancino: Because we asked that, and I knew prior to the meeting that you hadn't so. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion? The public portion of the Planning Commission meeting was closed at 9 :43 p.m. and the Planning Commission held an open discussion to consider amending the IOP, Industrial Office Park District to include auto sales at this point. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 50