Loading...
PC 1997 03 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Bob Skubic, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO REZSONE 102 ACHES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL) LOCATED AT THE SE QUADRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41, GATEWAY, STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address A1 Klingelhulz Rick Wrase Fred Rickter John Uban Tom Kordonowy 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 8175 Hazeltine Boulevard Applicant Steiner Development Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff'? Brooks: I have some questions. Is there any Federal... for this project or any State funding that's being used for this project or State permit? Aanenson: Well the access possibly... Brooks: What about wetland? Aanenson: There's no DNR wetlands or... Brooks: I guess, they're not going to fill any wetlands? Aanenson: Yes there will be some wetland mitigations that they will have to be permitting. The City would be improving... Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Brooks: But they are, how old are these structures that are being demolished? Aanenson: The farmstead, I'll have to let the applicant talk to that. Whether or not they're historic. There is a historic piece, the Wrase one and we've spoken to the Wrase's. That's certainly something, if they would decide to sell, that we would want to move that home and put it, as part of the large park that we're talking, as a possible interpretative center for that park. Brooks: Okay, but if that house is eligible for that and you move it, it will lose it's eligibility. Okay, so this is something to keep in mind. Also, it says that instead of an EIS you're recommending an AUAR. What exactly is that? Aanenson: What it does it scopes the same issues. It's on a little bit shorten review process. We believe that because of the level of detail that we do our ordinances already, our tree ordinance, our wetland ordinance, we already require so much in our city, that we're not requiring anything above and beyond that. Brooks: So are they going to be required to do a...resource survey? Aanenson: Yes... Brooks: Okay. You have to...three sites on the Villages so, and this with wetlands would be another good area. Aanenson: They've already done... Brooks: Thanks. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Joyce: Kate, the only thing I can think of, a quick question. What happens if you put Coulter Boulevard through, what kind of impact is that going to have on what we're talking about here? I didn't quite understand that. Aanenson: The Coulter Boulevard project, when we did the Autumn Ridge, we looked at the soils and that.., touch down point has already been established because there is poor soils in that area and there was a lot of discussion of whether or not we could abandon that.., but we believe with the volumes on Highway 5 that it is a good alternative, east/west connector that's always been identified in the City's comprehensive plan to have a connector... Joyce: But will it impact the conceptual plan that you have here? Aanenson: ... actually what it does, Coulter... significant change in grade between this development and State Highway 41. Joyce: So Coulter will stop right, or you will have to turn right? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Aanenson: Yeah, we have this movement coming in to the north/south. Joyce: Okay, yeah. I guess that's my point. There's going to be a T right there is what their plan is, right? Aanenson: Well they could build.., temporary cul-de-sac before it gets to TH 41. Joyce: Okay. Aanenson: They're going to need an east/west connection... Eventually this will come through. It's when Highway 41 is widened... Joyce: Okay, thanks. Skubic: Kate, which businesses qualify as service commercial? Aanenson: When we put.., what we talked about is maybe some restaurants, a gas station, bank, day care.., but it's certainly not going to be a big box user or anything like that... Sidney: I had a question about the mix of commercial residential and as I understand a PUD can have up to 25% non whatever it is zoned for buildings and things in it. And they're proposing 24.99% right now. I'm wondering about the ratio of commercial to residential in that 24.99%. If there's a rationale for more commercial than residential or what is that ratio? Aanenson: That's a good question. We really haven't done that many true mixes like this. I guess when they went back to the City Council, the area that we're talking about for residential is probably the most wooded piece. Concerned about the sensitivity of the development of that and some of that can build with the topography in mind. Certainly the intent of that commercial is to support the industrial, not necessarily the residential. The residential certainly can benefit from it but... Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have a couple quick ones. Talked about discharge into Chaska's system. 20,000 gallons per day. Is that something that's feasible? That the applicant feels is going to be a workable amount for them. Hempel: Again this is an interim situation until we're able to extend sewer and water services out to the site, which those utilities could be extended this summer out to that area. Blackowiak: But 20,000 would be sufficient until something is extended to them? I mean I have no. Hempel: That would be a question for the applicant. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Aanenson: That's something, as this evolves.., that they can meet that. Blackowiak: Okay. And secondly, the Park Commission, they met last night regarding this? Aanenson: I apologize, it's actually next week. Blackowiak: Oh, it's next week so the 18th, all right. That's it for me. Peterson: Before we call the applicant up I just want to remind you all that, the total Commission, this is a concept approval so the developers and staff are really just looking for a more general feedback and direction so they can move ahead and get more detail so we will see this again. So with that in mind does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address. Fred Richter: Good evening. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. We're in Wayzata. Let me just start off by introducing the gentlemen here with me tonight as part of our team. Tom Kordonowy, Steiner Development. Then our planning consultants from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Howard Dahlgren and John Uban .... we have over the years worked a lot with the city stafl~ Gone through a lot of gyrations and various directions.., and kind of enter into a dialogue... what we think is workable on this site.., not only to Steiner Development but also to the City in it's vision .... have industrial with the residential, trying to work the wetlands and kind of relate to the... Park Commission's desires and so on. So I think in a nutshell, we're pretty in tune with city staff and have some ideas that we want to share with you and I think my purpose is introductory. Is to introduce Steiner Development... proposal and then John Uban will go kind of a detailed... We've got a few, just images. This is a office industrial PUD. I guess the first question you ask yourself, what is an office industrial park. What does Steiner Development bring to the table to guide it that way. These images are a project that we accomplished in the southwest quadrant of the metro area .... Steiner and Koppleman, residential branch to commercial has done a lot of development in the southwest. We're very sensitive to some of the topographical as well as project features. It's our role as a developer to be the component of buying the marketplace... and livable project in detail. This project here, I put together the Edenwood. It's down by Valley View in Eden Prairie and I think one of the overall features in this development... This is an office showroom type of project that was built in the late 80's. Another project we did a little further out this way, is one completed just in the last couple years. It was more of a smaller site so the overall site issues weren't the same but again it was trying to take the industrial building, which by nature is long and horizontal and not.., talking about office industrial often 20% office. The rest of it is storage, distribution and in some cases light assembly... It's all driven by the southwest metro market, which is... We've built and manage over 2 million square feet of industrial area and we're constantly seeing things grow and change and in some cases we're talking... This project, it sits on a wetland.., the landscaping. I think some trails around the pond... Other Steiner Development projects have ranged over the years, our home building on TH 101. This could be an example of the commercial, which is a small quasi professional type building. We've done a medical building out in Waconia attached to the hospital... The large building here is the... building in Chaska. You can see that probably.., working in Chaska we came over the years 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 knowing that their interest in Highway 41 and keeping it, more of a rural feel... When you look at materials in an industrial area like this, our building here, this is actually right across 82nd. It's the United Postal building. You have a mixture of brick and masonry and the architecture is again an office industrial multi-tenant, but by and large we'll be... is masonry, either brick or architectural block or architectural precast so we can photograph to show those combinations. I say architectural precast. That needs to be added.., there's elements, windows and other... One other thing that... I think in summary, Steiner sees after being involved with this for over.., the land is owned by members of Steiner Development and other individuals. We've had several inquiries in the last three years. Specific ones and we feel now is the time to move forward. The timing issue is crucial in the sense that we're partners with the City. The utilities are brought in, area wide assessments in place, we have.., marketplace on several proposals... We have a first phase proposal for an industrial user... This is important because it establishes the overall framework of the development .... pay back the utility and street improvements, and we have that understanding with an end user. A local corporation. The other thing in the PUD I think to focus on, the main issue tonight is conceptual and that is... the overall concurrence that this should be guided under this framework. The framework being the 150 acres by the time we take out the TH 41 and TH 5 easements, 146 acres. Then we take out the parkland, wetland.., developable and we think because of the nature of this land, certain parts of it do lend itself better to residential and then some for commercial, we're into a ratio of approximately 67 acres that are industrial. Approximately 14 are commercial and then the residential, 23. And John Uban will go into that in detail so I don't want to get too far... But I think the thing I do want to stress.., to answer questions and try to, that you understand a lot of the background, not only from our own work but the city staff has come into this... John Uban: Good evening, I'm John Uban. I'm here really to give you an overview of the property and some of the design considerations that we're looking at, including the industrial business part of a varying piece of property. It's varied in that there's a quality wetland with extensive trees and so forth. On this initial sketch we've indicated a road system that goes through the property. Here's Highway 41. Highway 5. We've indicated some of the pioneering natural features of the site. In green, there's a wooded comer of the site. It's hard to tell on the screen but these two larger wetlands have been there for quite a while, and some of the sort of the extensions you found were agricultural drainage systems which we're working.., under the new criteria which portions are wetlands and which are not. However, about half of this wetland has always been under cultivation over the last 50 years. And so it has returned, on the wet years, been turned into a more natural state and then is cultivated historically during the dry periods. We saw all of this with the natural systems as being a very important part of the site. And when we first came to the City we proposed a park over all of these natural features of the site, and that would be donated to the city. And that really, at first we really did not have that notion in the.., but over the years with the wisdom of creating this natural park has grown with the citizens and city staff and we're really pleased at this point that 36 acres of this natural area is part of our plan as dedication to the city. These wetlands are quite frankly some of the most beautiful ones I've ever seen because of the growth that is around them and they off'er very nice amenities to be enjoyed by everyone. And so we are anticipating in the center area, that the 36 acre park. The wooded areas at this time are contemplated for a residential type development. They have the higher amenities. They have the nice views into the parkland. This open space. They have 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 trees.., and they're very nice. Also, in building.., the park department, they may be interested in part of that southeast comer. We do not know and we have to meet with them next week and so we will be finding out more as we go through this process what input from the neighbors... If that happens, a residential development in this comer will be... We have about 1.2 million square feet that we... 25% of that is proposed for other uses of support commercial and residential. About twice as much residential as there is commercial. So there's an actual... There's nothing really magic about that... The other thing I'd like you to notice on this diagram are where the lines are close together is where we find the steeper terrain in the properly. In order to develop this we have to do a fair amount of grading. Several things are happening around the properly that we have to adjust to. First of all, Highway 41 is scheduled to be lowered so we'll need to be grading portions of this site to accomplish that. And that is sometime in the future, and we don't know exactly when that will be scheduled. Sometime shortly after Highway 5 is completed we believe. Additionally we are leaving some of the natural growth in place. For instance this area where the slopes provides a wonderful view back towards the properly. We anticipate this would be a great place for a restaurant, theme restaurant.., or a hotel... The rest of the site will be reterraced to match into the properly lines that separate the different uses. And so what takes place is a terracing. Not a leveling of the site but a terracing. Where we have one building set higher or lower than the one next to it with slopes in-between. Then we're proposing also.., natural state so you'll once again see those edges of slopes between the buildings screening from each other the back side. Overall this gives you a polarized version of the land uses. We have park on the eastern side. Residential, associated with that park, and this is the area with the highest amenities. At the entrance to Highway 5, restaurant, hotel type of services up on top. And at 82nd, more convenience type commercial, whether it's a gas station, bank, those sorts of facilities. The rest of it, then moving over, will be industrial business type of uses. The road system supports that. This leg of the road will probably be the last one built .... have to be done with Highway 41. All of the roads anticipate this terracing of these lots so their grading has to adjust proportionately. So the whole site really has to be designed as one element.., out of 150 acres, 62 acres is industrial, 14 is commercial, 23 is residential, park is 36 and right-of-way 13. That's how it breaks down. The additional things that you will see as we bring, in front of you again will be the amenities referred as the design elements that we're putting together to tie this as a single business park. This is very guide.., does not equal a tree but it's to show the general intent and ideas that we're trying to accomplish. The plan here shows the sort of pairing of trees around the perimeter. This is to replicate orchard type plantings. This is... The area used to be an orchard. Next to an orchard. It's the closest to the Arboretum. This technique has been used I believe around the elementary school and so this is our theme for the perimeter. To use flowering trees in a setting of replication of orchard plantings. We also anticipate monumentation and signage atthe entrances. At three points. We also anticipate the gateway type feature at the very comer of TH 5 and TH 41. Within the development a streetscape that will include clustered trees. Not just trees lined up evenly along the street but placed in clusters. Lighting, individual signage. The whole package put together.., coordinated. In addition we propose several ponds and so the trail system that will integrate the site with the park. These are basic elements that we'll be bringing forward in addition to our... Overall the concept is reflecting this idea of returning.., some historical point that of an orchard and at the same time create an interior matching in with the natural setting of the park. Just to summarize, we have to do a phasing of this development. Utilities come from the south, from Chaska to begin with. The utilities from Chanhassen are 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 brought in from the east at a later date so there's a sequence of events. Each phase is sort of... on the development and it allows us to grade portions of the site at one time. We do not anticipate mass grading. Right now it's a little bit different scale from the sketch that we've completed. Phase I will include both development on 82nd Street, a portion of the road system and working with the Park Department on the timing of the east/west road. Phase II then is completing the north/south road with the lots that abut this area. This north/south road we anticipate being installed approximately when the completion of Highway 5 is done. And that allows that north/south road to act as a by-pass to Highway 41 when that is complete so we're trying to tie the interior development to help ofl~et against the... The last phase is along Highway 41. That is the last improvement. It also, we're saving this comer parcel, or group of parcels, for the very last. We're anticipating holding that to really see how, you know some premium development. We don't know what it is. Just something that the City will really go for. We don't know exactly at this point how long that will take but we're certainly willing to wait to find out. I think that's about it. If you have any questions, we're here to answer them. This is where we're at and when we come back again... Peterson: Any questions from commissioners? Conrad: Sure. Why do you need the residential on this? Why, it's the first thing you're going to develop. What's your logic in terms of persuading us that we should take our industrial and turn it residential, which may be a loss for us and we're probably not going to be able to find more industrial land in this city. So I guess I'd just like you to tell us, is there a demand right now for residential and that's what you're responding to? John Uban: Well there certainly is a demand and we did bring this through one time to be reviewed as all residential and we found the market was interested in this parcel for residential development. I think the important part is why residential in that particular spot and that really is a beautiful spot .... looking at that area, it is much more of a residential site than it is an industrial site. It has the amenities of view. The association with the future park and trails. Close facilities to the elementary school. It has many of the features that you would really like to have in a residential development. Now it happens to be in a development here that will have other businesses around it. So it has to be done carefully and we're fortunate that most likely it will be buffered by park on almost all sides except the west side and that side we are in control of. We already are looking at the development of the lot. This one right here that looks directly across the street from them. That will be a very handsome building. Properly landscaped up front. Car parking perhaps in the front with all the loading hidden around back. And on the residential side there could be berming and...to make that work. We also like to have a variety of uses in industrial parks. Opus is an example where that took place. Much has been learned from that. We're finding that, we've been planning.., relationship of business, housing and commercial coming closer together. Rather than placing one thing way over here and.., and then get in your car and drive over here... Now that will happen no matter what we do, but we think that designing and building things to a high standard where residential and businesses and other things really do have to take place in close proximity and perform well. So we're designing something that performs well enough to accommodate. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Conrad: What kind of residential are you envisioning right now? John Uban: Primarily townhouses would be our idea of what would happen today. Small lot single family maybe or townhouses. Not apartments... On the other side of TH 41, before the Arboretum purchased that. Conrad: What do you envision on the comer? The biggest lot you have, right on the intersection of TH 41 and TH 5? Fred Richter: ... at this point in time we don't have a specific vision. Your question, your first question about residential and timing. Right now.., marketable down here and as you move this way the time frame is further out. In the last year and a half. Conrad: Because there's not the demand? Fred Richter: There's not the demand for, to really justify... Right now there's a demand for a certain amount of office industrial, but we see this comer as being office, more corporate identity. In the last year and a half we have talked to people who have maybe entertained that area but they've found sites further in Eden Prairie... 494. It's our belief, as John said, as we move this way and start the quality development here, it's really in our best interest and the city's best interest to wait and see if we can't get something.., take advantage of the exposure... One of the things that we... we can't get too out of line with our development costs.., metro competition. As nice as we all think this area is, we're competing with Shakopee. We're competing with people moving out to areas... We know the quality of the site, a better site.., but we still want to keep competitive so we see that Phase I being very sensitive... So we're like to see stay with this plan to give us as much flexibility. We're not sure if it's a cul-de-sac or it could even be a loop road. It's somewhat conceptual over in this comer. I think going back to your question, you asked earlier about why residential. The other thing that you can see in this diagram here, industrial office, what's marketable today, really would just destroy. We have problems with this wetland... Residential is being tucked in. We could save a lot of the trees... Conrad: When you come back it would be very persuasive to show how residential fits there and is more sensitive to the environment than industrial. Very definitely. I want to see that so that's important. Fred Richter: ... townhouses. A 2,000 square foot or... footprint versus office industrial building which in today's marketplace is literally 50,000 square feet... 2,000 you can move with the topography versus 50 has to be just flat. Conrad: Kate, are we looking for more land for homes right now? Aanenson: No. I guess that's the point that we raised. Frankly we have a lot of that. I think what we're saying, our recommendation is to come in with.., product or a different price point. ... issue that we have. It's got to be something different. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Conrad: And it could be, you're saying different affordable. Aanenson: That's one option. Or just different architecturally. Price point or something that we've got a lot oftownhouses being approved. Autumn Ridge right to the east. I think you want to see, to give them that, we want to see something different. Conrad: What property's to the south? Is that Chaska? John Uban: That is Chaska and there are a variety of industrial uses but some of them have a lot of open space... Fred Richter: ... but there's Chaska Business Center here and another smaller corporate use. Conrad: When I look at one lot here, can I envision one building? Is that what we are assuming? Maybe not on that comer lot but when you divide this up, how should we right now respond to how you've divided them into the 9 or whatever number lots here. One major building per lot or is it just, this is how you think you're going to be able to see it off or? John Uban: Primarily yes. One building per lot. Some of them may combine together, if there's... Up here this may become two restaurants versus one restaurant, depending on the size. If it's small, a 5,000 square foot restaurant you could probably get two buildings there, versus the larger theme... Aanenson: ... that's one of the reasons why we want to do a PUD on this property. They've talked to some users, as they've indicated. We've talked to them too. We're happy with the people that are out looking at this, and it may just happen that someone wants to... on that comer. A big corporate user or something else. That would be fine with us. What we're trying to deal with in the environmental assessment.., and then if they snap it into different lots, that's okay. There will be some... Conrad: What's the biggest concern you have with the City right now and how we're fitting in? John Uban: Well getting it nailed down I guess. Fred Richter: ... to move the project forward. Our intent is to try to take an opportunity with... Not only take your leadership and guidance but we've got.., study and we're well aware of the nature of the you know... One other thing, kind of follow-up .... This is TH 5. This is TH 41 going to Chaska. This is the property under consideration. This is Peavey Road. This is all Chaska. What's interesting, as we look at this, developing this we have done studies... Until that happens, the type of land we're offering.., for this to become marketable. So to a large degree we see kind of the projects kind of moving up out of Chaska and at the same time we're constantly capturing the amenities coming down TH 5 from 494. Right now 494 and TH 5... would be more than happy to... The 5 corridor is probably where... Going back to the major site building... Peterson: Other questions? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Joyce: What portion of this is going to be a TIF District? First phase of it and everything involved here. I noticed you said in the first phase could be where you have the. Fred Richter: I don't see Todd. The TIF district, I know it's driven by the blue. Joyce: The industrial portion of it. Fred Richter: The industrial. Kate, some of the red can be in the TIF district, is that true? Aanenson: Yes. In order for the city... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Brooks: I'd like you to readdress the landscaping issues. I sort of liked what you showed until you said a tree doesn't necessarily equal a tree and that started concerning me a little. As you go west from Paisley Park studios, right now you get a real nice feel of Carver County as being agricultural. And when I see this, I just would like a better feel, you know I'm a little nervous if you put your restaurant and everything right up to Highway 5, then all we're going to have is a strip that's continuing all the way down to, well eventually unfortunately Waconia so I just, I would like a little bit better sense of if you plant to set some of these things back a ways so that the visual is less intrusive. The other question I have is when you border Chaska, I once heard the Mayor of Chaska say, and rightly so, that he wanted to green belt his city so that when you move from Chanhassen to Chaska, you know you've left one town and entered another town, which is a fair thought. Otherwise it just becomes endless suburbia. I would also be interested in hearing how you plan to landscape the division between Chan and Chaska. John Uban: I'll take both of those, and when I commented that a tree does not equal a tree here it means this is diagrammatic and we'll have more trees than what you see here. Brooks: Well that's good. John Uban: This is here for conceptual to try and get a feel for it because we haven't gotten into the detail of it yet. We do recognize the importance of having an attractive.., on Highway 5. Then with the issue of the restaurant, we have a lot of steep slopes in here and this will have to be sort of uniquely defined you know back and forth. How much should be landscaped. How much is for parking and things like that. The real opportunity comes from the larger site as you form the comer and that comer is where everyone stops and is part of sort of the gateway feeling through the Arboretum as you head that way. You know north, Minnewashta Park and... Chaska so we recognize that there are a lot of important ingredients that have to happen. And perhaps the City and the Arboretum have some.., feeling that surrounding that intersection you know with trees or something to form a very unified pattern that could take place around the intersection. We only have one comer. But those things we'll explore with the city and we've also talked to the City of Chaska and they have actually given us some suggestions on how to incorporate Highway 41 into their theme as you go through town. And now when it comes to separating 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Chanhassen from Chaska at the border, you have to recognize that Chaska didn't do their share. And we hopefully contributed to our share by working with the Arboretum and... Chanhassen portion, at least on the west side. On our side we just, we'll have an attractive development.., as well as what Chaska did. Now what happens, what makes these marked difference.., how the water tower is treated on the Wrase parcel. Something there might happen that might give some identity to that separation. But we'll have landscaping throughout but because 82nd Street is really on the line, there's no open space that can separate Chaska from Chanhassen. And so the other separation is then as you move to the east, and you know we're keeping all these wetlands and so forth, and if the park wants to expand, that also will help create a very definite separation. Whole different flavor.., so I think we'll try to do our best but we have to practical and we have recognized many things that we can do and we'll be bringing those details to you. Brooks: Yeah, I think you're just in a visually sensitive area, especially with the Arboretum so it's just important to keep in mind. Fred Richter: I think we... Chaska really invested a lot of money into protecting their "downtown". Being that the road leads away from them, the more natural terrain and less rural town center... At the same time we're in a very sophisticated suburban environment that needs industrial.., so I think what John is really describing is the landscaping that is... At the same time the residents are going to need some commercial support... Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I was wondering if you could give me a better sense of what you meant by terracing. I was wondering about, I hope you have pictures or something. John Uban: I do have just a quick sketch. It's diagrammatic in the sense that there's not.., on the site but this would indicate an upper and lower terrace. It will define... Where this land has some slope to it, portions of it get flatten out to accommodate the buildings and parking.., rear portions of the site. And then we have the change in slope and what we're proposing is the natural... slope. Nothing that we would mow. Put natural materials back on to... natural feeding and then following up with naturalized planting of trees and shrubs. When you do that on the slope you use lots of small material that.., very readily and yet on the upper portions obviously you have sort of shade trees... What's also nice is that we control the drainage so that we won't have erosion in there. There will be control of the water that.., controlled drain system that will minimize the amount of water that would want to run down the slope. And all of this together then starts to re- establish the natural edge. And we want to do this so that each building has it's own setting. Has sort of a frame or wrapping around it and although this you know, seed it and small things to begin with, with patience these things do grow very quickly, especially after the fifth year... Sidney: Are you making use of natural the topography? John Uban: Readjusting .... I mean the grade on the top and the bottom, we just have to adjust that and make plateaus at different levels... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Peterson: What kind of elevation drops are we talking about? When you go back to the top map. Can you give us some sense of what areas and how large of drops you're talking about? John Uban: From the very highest point to the very lowest across the site, there's about 100 feet of drop. The upper portion will be lower, I think around 15 feet, depending upon the elevation of TH 41. And then as you terrace in three sections, so we have probably 20 to 30 feet in a terrace. So that's.., maybe around the height of the building itself. We don't have... These will be different elevations and I think that will in of itself create an interesting arrangement, more so than you would find in sort of a flat corn field type of industrial park. Blackowiak: I have a quick question about the residential. Based on the plan, it seems like they're going to be somewhat landlocked in the middle of an industrial park to the west and an industrial park to the south. And no other residential around it. Can you speak to that issue? And also, do you have a potential number of residents that would be in that area, based on what you envision at this point in time. John Uban: Right now our program we anticipate, belween 100 to 120 units in that area. You probably, 2 to 2 1/2 people per unit. But the number of people, we don't know how many people. Whether it's isolated, there really is a neighborhood just 100 feet away from it. The Trotter's Ridge neighborhood really is right here. Directly to the southeast.., so the lwo together I think form a very nice edge from one residential development into the next. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Hearing none I'd like to have a motion please to open it up to a public hearing. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Rich Wrase: Can I say a couple words? My name is Rich Wrase. I'm representing my father and mother, Henry Wrase and Edna Wrase and this is... right here. And in the first place... We're interested, we're not against this development. We'd like to see this in the future be part of the development. We don't want to be a residential area in the middle of commercial property and that's all I have to say for now. We want a reasonable off'er.., access 82nd Street. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Can you state your name and address please. A1 Klingelhulz: I'm A1 Klingelhulz of 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. Henry Wrase and Edna, who own this property, called me this afternoon and asked me to come in front of the commission... I guess Henry's afraid at the present time, if you look at this plat here and you see a little.., from Highway 41 into the industrial property, but you don't see any into Henry Wrase's property. The Highway Department, when they improve Highway 41 is going to allow an entrance to Henry Wrase's property where it is at the present time. It looks to me like the lwo accesses are going to conflict on a major highway right there because normally there's a 500 foot distance spread and that.., so Henry's biggest concern at the present time is to see to it that 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 either.., development, there's access to that properly. For the time being I think he can keep the access he's got now and I think it's very important, and.., something about a water tower for his properly. If the Highway Department says no, there can't be an access to the properly, what is the value of that properly? Or what is the value of his properly to the City for a water tower? They're going to have to have access to the properly, for a water tower on the properly too. Henry would sell the properly...very reasonable price. There's two homes on the properly. One's fairly new and the other one is one of the older homes in Chanhassen. Henry Wrase's been a resident of Chanhassen for 82 years. He's a long time resident. His wife lived in Chanhassen. Was bom and raised in Chanhassen township and happens to need her own place in Chaska. Now if... so that's a real concern for Henry. Henry just recently came out of the hospital. He has cancer. Still recuperating so that's why.., somebody else could come up here and speak for him. I'd like to thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Dave, can you speak to the issue of access off of TH 41 a little bit? Aanenson: Maybe I can do that. The City Manager and myself met with Mr. Wrase and his son. The developer is aware of the situation and there's a number of different scenarios that can happen to this site. Certainly we need a water reservoir on this site, and that's one option. If we take it for public purposes, the City could acquire that properly which is certainly an interest. Or maybe.., developer... Certainly we would want to improve Mr. Wrase's driveway situation. The developers are aware of that. Even if no one buys the properly and they continue to live there, we would certainly recommend taking the driveway access.., but we're aware of that as this project evolves... Peterson: Okay, thanks. Anyone else wish to come up to Planning Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Skubic moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd, do you have any thoughts that you'd like to start off with? Conrad: No, I'm fine with it. Yeah, I'm not fine with giving up, we give them the same deal again that we talked with. That the applicants are very aware of. I'm not real thrilled about giving up industrial. But I think if they come back, but overall the PUD looks reasonable to me. I think if they come back and give us, to tell us a little bit about how they plan to put residential on there and if they give us a product that we may feel is appropriate for it, and a couple other things, for me we, you know I've got to be convinced that you're treating that properly with the residential, that's the best use of the properly. Very definitely. I've got to see that. It's certainly not going to make Chanhassen any money so I've got to make sure that it's doing something for the properly. Number Nv-o, I want to make sure that that comer is really a high grade comer. There's just no doubt. Again, the only, as we give up residential, I just want to make sure a couple things are happening and I think they'll take care of the landscaping but that comer just absolutely has to be high grade. This has to be our entry, our gateway to Chan so I trust that you'll make it that and it's to your advantage and obviously something that we want here. Other than that, I really don't have any major other issues with the project as defined in this sketch plan. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Peterson: Do you have any thoughts as it relates to the type of housing? Whether it be affordable? Whether it be, is that going to be... any more compelling. The aspect of how it fits in the environment or is it going to be the type or is it going to be a combination of both? Conrad: That's a good question Craig. We don't really need, we don't need townhomes. It's a sellable product right now and therefore they can sell the land, and that's okay. That's, but we should motivate them somehow and make sure that they can get this project rolling. You know for me, right now I think Kate worded it well. We need something a little bit different. I don't think we want the same old, same old. I wouldn't say it's got to be affordable but it would be nice if it were. It would be nice if we had a new product that complimented what else we had in town. I don't know what that is. I'm not smart enough to figure that out so. But it's got to be enough to motivate us to take 23 acres out of industrial. Along with whatever else we say here. That's sort of, you know we've got to say what we'd like to see on the other part. The part that stays IO... hear what that is. I'm trying with the support commercial. I think that's important. It's a PUD. I think that a hotel there is fine. I think that services are fine for the residential. I think that just makes sense. That's what a PUD is about. That's what we'd like to do. That's what we discovered in the Villages is to make sure that we give, we're not really, that we're supporting the uses there with other things so. Peterson: Good. Thanks. Kevin. Joyce: I actually like the plan. I don't have that much problem with the residential. I think it's a good opportunity for the city. That would be the place to look at securing some affordable housing. Some of the issues we have, I think that's just a good spot. I do agree with Ladd that townhomes, we don't need any more townhomes or anything. Come up with something a little more creative in that regard. But I do like the concept. Just a couple of odds and ends. Number one, as far as the Wrase's are concerned, I think that we should be a little more concrete when we come up with. I look at the recommendations, I don't see anything mentioned about the residential portion of that. And I think they do have some legitimate concerns and if we can put in something there to ally their concerns. If they do continue to live there, they'll know that they won't have these problems they're talking about with the upgrading of TH 41 and that, and I think that's important. I'm kind of hearing that on that compliance table, those are just guidelines of what possibly might be going into those lots. I understand that. I would definitely look at Lots 10 and 11 which are on Highway 5. Those are going to be sensitive lots and I think we're going to be very limited on what we can put there. I can't imagine putting.., stores and things like that obviously on the Highway 5 corridor. They wouldn't allow that but if those will become commercial type of lots we're going to have to look at those very seriously. The only other thing I have a thought on the orchard tree clusters. Personally, my own personal taste, I don't like the orchard tree clusters. John Uban: We need to know that. Joyce: And that's why I'm saying it because it just, I'll look to the other commissioners but I didn't like that idea. So other than that, that's all I have to say. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Well like the other two commissioners I don't have any problem with the plan. In fact I do like the proposal the way it's presented. I do have some concerns about the treatment of the residential area and how that fits into the parkland. I'd like the applicant to consider strongly the possibility of adding some of that land into the park system if possible. I think it would make a very good transition between the residential area and the other, that residential area and Trotters Ridge residential area. As well as help to act as a buff'er to the south to the Chaska area. And as I drove by that area this afternoon there are some very nice industrial properties to the south. However, I believe as you go along, is it 82nd? There is one property where you have truck loading docks right up to the road and I would think that the trees and that pond area would help to shelter the proposed residential area from that part of the Chaska development. I think overall I think it's a good plan. Peterson: Thanks. Alison. Blackowiak: Well I agree that the concept is good. My general comments in terms of guidance would be, sensitivity to the existing topography. I think that mass grading, that term just scares me and I think that the terracing is a good way to look at it. I like the idea of some type of a cover on the terraced slopes to try to keep more of a naturalized, natural look. But I would say to limit grading whenever possible. I just, I don't want it just a big flat piece. I mean if we're going to do this piece as PUD we need something interesting. We need something unique and this is going to be a very important piece in Chanhassen because it is the western gateway to the city. So I mean we need to really seriously consider that. I would stress creative use of natural landscape features. I would like to see, I like the idea of the ponds. The wetlands area. The things that, from what I've heard, that is pretty much in place to take the eastern couple of outlots and... I don't know what the specifics are but I'd like to take a look at something architecturally interesting to avoid the large rectangular industrial building. We've got a nice area so come back with something that will really wow us. I agree with staff on the building orientation, especially with respect to the potential residential component and loading docks. Loading docks are kind of a touchy subject right now so we need to be careful of loading docks and residential areas. And finally I'd say we need to give some serious consideration to the Wrase property. Their access issues and what they would like to do and what they would like out of this development because I don't want them to be just in there in a sea of office buildings. I think they should, I think they should really talk to, that Steiner should talk to them and work something out before maybe the next meeting or just so we can kind of be kept abreast of what's going on with that. And that's it. Skubic: This is the first extension of commercial business I've become familiar with since I've been here, outside of downtown so we want to be careful with what kind of commercial business we have here. And it sounds like we are. Do we need to review what support commercial is? Do we indeed have a support commercial? Aanenson: Right, what we're looking for is input from you tonight and we'll be developing a specific list. Whether it's square footage or specific list.., make sure that we've got that control 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 and then also feel like we're getting, those views that are close to TH 5, the architectural standards... Skubic: And I think what you have outlined here is pretty consistent with what I, with eat in restaurants and.., storage and so forth. And in a residential area here, one suggestion would be to do a cluster development similar to our North Bay, north of Lake Riley. You could preserve the natural features of the land and still get something that might be a little more unique. And regarding the perimeter landscaping, it's winter most of the year around here so I don't think those trees will be flowering very much. I would like to see some coniferous trees in there for screening. That's all. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I think I basically stated most of my concerns. I mean I don't mind the plan. I guess I'm just very concerned that we don't make Highway 5 look like a strip. I agree with Allison and I would like to see this stay away from sort of the massive, blocky structures. Some of the first buildings that were shown were actually quite nice. They looked like they were set back a ways and there were some others that were sort of bigger and grander that were more visually intrusive. But it sounds like you're thinking about that and you're working towards making it very sensitive to the landscape anyway. I think the Wrase situation is an issue. Which one, Kate, which properly did you say was the historic? Aanenson: There's two homes on the site. Brooks: Right, one is new and one is. Aanenson: Right, the original one sits to the rear of the properly. Brooks: And how old is it? You have no idea? ...yeah, that's pretty original. Rick Wrase: ... 1885. Brooks: That's pretty old for Chanhassen. Are there out buildings with that? The out buildings are not... Aanenson: They're falling down. They're actually probably.., right now. Brooks: Well I think that that's, you know even if we do end up removing the home, I would like to see some consideration. We do have a, there is supposed to be historic preservation component to our comprehensive plan and it would be nice to see some, whether it's a booklet on you know the history of Chan. Something to kind of contradict the fact that we may have to remove an 1885 home. There really aren't a lot of those left. Aanenson: It's been documented in the City ofChanhassen... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Brooks: All right. But that's basically some landscaping is my only concern. Other than that the proposal looks okay. A1 Klingelhulz: The home is probably in better condition than a lot of them that were built 10-15 years ago. Brooks: Well that's true. Yeah, I'd just like to see some kind of mitigation you know. If we are forced to remove a home that's that old, there is a loss to the city. It would be nice of the developer to propose some kind of mitigation to account for that. Whether it's doing presentations to school children or just something to account to the fact that we are losing something. Nancy Mancino: Or move it. Brooks: Yeah, move it. I like the idea that Kate, you talked about moving it as part of an interpretative center in the passive park. That sounds neat. Aanenson: What this area was like. Brooks: Exactly. Yeah, that's...just so as long as we lose something, we gain something. Okay. Thank you. Peterson: My comments are not that dissimilar. I think we've got a definite theme that hopefully we're painting a picture for the developers that is one that we, at least my sense is that most of us are in agreement that we would approve the conceptual plan. I would recommend that you spend a little bit more time working on the residential side prior to going to Council. In looking at the presentation tonight, I was searching to get, and thinking in my mind about, I had a difficult time picturing both the residential and some of the industrial. I think that the Council members would probably like a little bit more also. So if you can present a better picture, visually somehow, I think it'd be beneficial for you. The PUD I think is the best concept for this property because of the Highway 5 proximity and because of the wetlands and the general area. You commented on the terracing side of it and I looked at it and I thought to myself, I like the idea of terracing. At the same time I struggle with picturing, you have an office building overlooking another office building and you're looking at the roof of another office building so I think it's an obstacle that I think can be overcome but in my mind I've got that picture and I can't get that out of my head. I'm overlooking another office building roof. You know I think you also mentioned that the size and the pictures you presented are generally smaller to middle sized office products and you also mentioned that you may combine some of the lots, if the right purchaser would come in and want a larger unit. I'd be motivated to set some kind of limitations on size. I think Kate you mentioned briefly that, to try to keep the atmosphere a little bit smaller. Maybe go potentially larger in the comer and essentially give a smaller feel. Kind of a winding, terracing kind of uniqueness that's not dissimilar to the property that I think you mentioned in Eden Prairie that has that kind of a feel. The winding roads and different elevations. As far as the residential side. I struggle with this, just as everybody else does. In order for me to vote on rezoning, I really have to see something unique and even though that that site may be conducive from a visual standpoint for 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 residential, there are a lot of industrial office types of companies that also want that kind of a feel for a corporate office so that wouldn't be a compelling enough reason for me to say let's rezone that and take it out of industrial office. So I guess I would leave you with the fact that I wouldn't be comfortable, unless there really is a defined uniqueness, and that could potentially be affordable, as much as I don't like to say that, but that's something that the city doesn't have that would be unique to the city. But I would like to definitely be wowed as one of the other commissioners said earlier so with that, that ends my comments. Any other comments or questions from anybody? With that, can I hear a motion and a second? Conrad: Sure. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval for the Gateway Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on the site plans dated February 26, 1997, subject to the conditions on the staff report dated March 12th. 1 through 13 with the following additions. Point number 4. I'd add some verbiage to the multi-family development be developed sensitive to the landform with focus on preservation of the trees and the natural area and also with a direction for designing a unique product type for Chanhassen. Something like that. I'd also add a condition number 14. That the applicant, when they come back with preliminary design, that they present their idea for a gateway treatment and also that they present to us their concept for what's going to, a high grade use of the intersection. High grade business use of that intersection. Add a point number 15. That the Wrase property be incorporated into the presentation when the applicant comes back, and I'd be open for any other amendments to this. Peterson: Any friendly amendments? Is there a second? Joyce: I'll second that. that the Planning Commission reconunends conceptual approval for Gateway West Business Park PUD #92-6 as shown on site plans dated February 26, 1997 subject to the following conditions: Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit. Proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required. 2. The design standards be consistent the Highway 5 Standards. 3. A tree inventory be completed. The multi-family development be developed sensitive to the land form with focus on preservation of the trees and the natural area. Affordability be considered for some of the units along with direction for designing a unique product type for Chanhassen... 5. Completion of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). 6. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. 7. Dedication of park land as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15. The applicant should work with the City in coordinating a final location providing internal street access for the water reservoir site in conjunction with preliminary plat submittal. Sanitary sewer and water service from Chaska to the southwesterly portion of the site will be limited to a discharge of 20,000 gpd. The remaining portion of the site will require sanitary sewer and water service from Chanhassen via the Upper Bluff Creek Interceptor. The applicant should petition the City for the extension of utilities and street (Coulter Boulevard) to service the site. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required upon final platting for staff to review and City Council approval. Erosion control measures will need to be developed on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The developer shall incorporate the City's Surface Water Management Plan when developing a overall comprehensive master drainage plan through the site. The developer's construction plans shall also be designed to be compatible with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41. The developer shall work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans for compatibility with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41 improvements. A traffic study shall be prepared by the applicant to determine traffic warrants for intersection signalization, auxiliary turn lanes and street widths. The traffic study shall also address pedestrian circulation. ~Vhen the applicant comes back with the preliminary plat design, that they present their idea for a gateway treatment and also their concept for a high grade business use of the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. That the Wrase property be incorporated into the presentation when this application comes back. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Aanenson: ... City Council recommended that.., find another location. They have found another location. It does require a public hearing so we will have a special meeting, in order to keep them on track and to be proactive. That special meeting is set for March 24th. We're hoping that... meeting at 6:00. I believe Bob handed out the agenda item. Joyce: What are you doing? You're having a Planning Commission meeting and then a City Council meeting right after it? Aanenson: It's scheduled for 6:00 because there is a Board of Adjustment meeting so you won't be in here that whole time until 7:30. I don't believe it should take that long. Joyce: Well you guarantee it only lasts an hour... Aanenson: Well they do having them co-locate on one site so, it is a public hearing and... That's all I had for new business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 5, 1997 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: I'll be happy to. Actually there were several planning items on the last City Council meeting. The Planning Commission approved the three additional buildings on West Village Heights a number of months ago, but that was tabled while some negotiations were taking place, but the Council did approve that. Next to the Byerly's site so there will be... with a drive thru and one larger user then a multi-tenant building. So we're looking at construction this spring. Joe Scott's building on Great Plains was approved.., the Highlands was given conceptual approval. ... but that will be exciting. Woodridge Heights was approved. There was a preliminary and a final plat. So that's been a way. That's the Centex property off of Galpin. Lake Lucy. And then.., wetland, and that was the one that said it was expired... Peterson: Going back to the Byerly's, specifically with the Kinko's building. I know when that was presented to us months ago we talked about trying to get them to put some more landscaping in the Kinko's building. Were you able to do anything there or not? Aanenson: Yeah, I think part of the problem is that there is... down there with the brick but it's such a small, the course is so small, the shadowing isn't enough and... That would really need some arc. I think.., right next to the building you see that there is some change in the facade, it's just so subtle. And they have added additional landscaping. Generous: They have committed, at least verbally.., as one of the conditions of approval. Aanenson: So that will be done. And that's the concern that the Council had too on the comer... ONGOING ITEMS: 2O Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 1997 Aanenson: As I indicated last time.., that the Legion, that they were not selling the properly... Peterson: Are they waiting for more money or are they just playing hard to get? Aanenson: Yeah, I don't care to speculate. Peterson: Well you've got to speculate... Any other items? Aanenson: I think LuAnn is going to that Planning... that Planning Commission training workshop... Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21