Loading...
CC Minutes 8-8-05 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: On or before. Councilman Lundquist: Or before. Mayor Furlong: On or before. If they’re ready to come back earlier. th Councilman Lundquist: On or before the 26 of September. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 446 units, 3 Outlots A, B & C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the Flood Plain and a Wetland Alteration Permit, Liberty on Bluff Creek, Planning Case No. 05-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL; PETERSON BLUFF; J. EDWIN CHADWICK, LLC; PLANNING CASE NO. 05-20. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This subject property is 71 acres and they’re requesting a PUD. Obviously noting what’s happening to the west of them, want to tie into that. Again this property also has dual guiding. These are medium density, or industrial. The applicant is requesting a low density zoning which would require a land use amendment. Again this is concept approval. I’m not going to go through all of the issues in here. It does require a 4/5 as per city code vote. The concept doesn’t have legal standing. What the applicant is looking for is they would like to again proceed at a relatively fast time track to develop this property. The project you have in the packet reflects what they submitted probably 6 to 8 weeks ago but it doesn’t reflect the current layout as proposed with the new road. As shown on this. They’re proposing to do some twin homes and predominantly single family. Again they’ll be a tie into the collector road to the north and then as I indicated the AUAR requires this connection down to Pioneer with single family. So when you’re looking at this site plan, we haven’t looked at it to scale it. To look at it. That will be the next level. Really what we’re here to discuss is the land use itself and if we were to stay with industrial, over here we have this little remnant piece here. Again we looked at that with the change in grades, connecting to so really you’re into this area right here. From the very beginning Mr. Peterson’s requested residential but this isn’t showing it here. What does show up on the overall flood plain, it is a significant amount of property in the flood plain. If you look at the computation that’s in your report here, Mr. Peterson’s property would be, as I indicated 70 acres. Quite a bit of it is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Actually approximately 29 acres and quite a bit of it was bought or acquired by MnDot. Approximately 43 acres so of his entire piece that goes all the way over, it’s encumbered by 71 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 either right-of-way or flood plain so we had this little remnant piece. We think this makes a good transition between the two. Again I’m going to see how that lays out exactly and again the concept is really to get some direction from the council on whether you would consider the low density, which would be up to 4 units an acre. It may come back at a different configuration, iteration, how they see in making a transition too so with that, the staff is recommending approval of the concept again based on the fact that if this was residential, we think that the two kind of partner together based on the fact that this creates that bigger neighborhood. With that I am recommending approval of the concept and I’d be happy. I did mention that the Planning Commission also recommended conceptual approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Discussion or questions for staff. Excuse me. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate right now it’s guided office industrial or a combination of? Either or? Kate Aanenson: Correct, half and half. And what they’re requesting is…land use because you’re actually going down. Our comp plan says you have to meet the minimum so to go through the less than, under 4 units an acre would require a land use amendment. So that would come with the next stage. Councilman Lundquist: So how much was guided, how much was guided industrial? How much was guided. Kate Aanenson: The way they put it in the comprehensive plan was that, if it was 40 buildable, 20 of it would be industrial. 20 would be multi family so it’d be 20 apiece. So again, so we had looked at whether it was ever on this side of the road would blend into that. If we were to do that, that would be the portion. Todd Gerhardt: And Kate, how are you proposing to make up that 20 acres? Kate Aanenson: We do have a proposal that’s coming in. Two different proposals. One is 5 acres. 4 ½. And another one at 10 acres that’s coming in for a request to go to actually, one would be pure office. And the other one would be probably more, and it would also be office. So they’re both office. Pure offices. About 15 acres. Mayor Furlong: About 15. Excuse me, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Please. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What are those properties guided now? Kate Aanenson: Both guided residential. But they’re in, I believe in good location that makes good transitions with appropriate buffering. And office, not industrial. Just office… Yeah. I think they’ll both be very palatable and accepted in the neighborhoods. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Kate, a couple questions I guess in terms of layout and the thought process used. The first is the cul-de-sac up on the northern part of the piece here. The 72 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 two cul-de-sacs I guess. Would it make sense to look at the eastern cul-de-sac there down to connect with the road below it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we had mentioned that to them. And that’s just going to be the final design. But agreed, they should connect that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe I’m jumping ahead past the level that we should be asking for a concept but in terms of the location of the twin homes on the north versus, and single family on the south where the right-of-way is along the south, is that, I mean my observation was to possibly flip those. To move the twin homes to the southern part of the property along with 212 right-of-way and move the single family to the north. Kate Aanenson: To be perfectly honest with you, we haven’t looked at it that close. We just asked them to give us what they’ve got to date that matches the road alignment because we wanted to look at where the touchdown points were. What they submitted is actually completely different with a different road alignment, so really what we’re looking at is to give them some direction for the next go around so if your direction would be maybe to look at putting better transitions, I think that’s appropriate that…where there’s greater density on the one side. I think that’s the direction we’re looking for. But we didn’t comment too much on that but I think that’s very appropriate. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the question is, is that the comment at this point at the concept plan or is that… Kate Aanenson: Sure. No, I think to comment now so when they come back at the next level… Mayor Furlong: We’re trying to build efficiency into this process. Kate Aanenson: They’re set to go. Mayor Furlong: I don’t know if we can do that. Todd Gerhardt: Maybe we should break it up, move it around… Councilman Lundquist: We haven’t done anything else tonight. Let’s just table it now. Mayor Furlong: We approved the minutes from the prior meeting. That being said, I guess those are a couple observations and I would defer to the better planners in the group about the transition period to the western property line, as well as the right-of-way on the bottom and the location of the twin homes versus the single. And certainly the connection of those, there’s no reason I believe to leave those two cul-de-sacs up there by themselves. We’re still trying to build a city here I think in terms of patchwork of developments. So those are a couple of initial comments or questions I guess I’m asking. I think I’m getting into comments. Other questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: I agree with your comments. No questions. 73 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Is the applicant here this evening? If you’d like to address the council. Good evening. Thank you for waiting. John Chadwick: Thanks for letting me be here. My name’s John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle here on behalf of the Peterson family. Happy to be here. Thanks for our mayor, staff. We’ve all been working on this for quite a while and it’s great. We’re here to do our very best to build a signature project for the city. You’re sitting at number 16. Why can’t we advance a little bit. Let’s do that and as far as your Money Magazine rating. Councilman Lundquist: You need to build a restaurant. John Chadwick: I’ll get back to you on that. But Kate was correct, she said you know we put this together pretty fast. We got the, I think Thursday we got the diagrams from Mr. Horn as far as where the road would be and that’s great. We’re happy to respond as very fast as we can. Comments well taken as far as connectivity and do you want to move those in different areas? Absolutely that is something to look at. Very blessed with beautiful views on this site. A lot of topography. A lot of Bluff Creek overlay. A lot of congruity of your park system here. And what I’m leading up to is it’d be a shame to put that in there industrial between two residential, potential residential areas with all of the relief that we have there. I’ll come back to that in a minute. As far as you know the kind of layout and we’ve got some cul-de-sacs and a beautiful view. We had great support out of Planning Commission. It was kind of like gee I want to get that tape so when we have a bad day I can put that back in and listen to that. They were very kind to us. And I thank your compatriots on that commission. Additionally Mr. Horn said well I can see in that cul-de-sac where I want to have my lot and that was totally unsolicited and I’ll take these things so we’re very happy and we’re very happy to work with the staff extensively on this and want to continue to do that. And we’re here you know kind of in support, well very much in support of AUAR and these roads that are being built here and in order to do our part we have to have a revenue in, have a revenue out to support that. A year and a half ago I think I was here and was mentioning to Sever, I said you know Sever you’ve got to go along with these road projects. I know sometimes it gets a little nervous. Our family had to, was happy to go along with some out in the Shakopee area. Didn’t know quite how it was going to turn out. It turned out just great. You see you’ve got to be a little patient, have a little faith and here you go. And to date that has been a good move and we want to continue that to be a good move. Our desire would be to keep moving and keep pace with you and the whole team here and that’s, let’s get a concept plan rolling and then beyond that then is the next step where we’ve got to get our preliminary plat in order. And in order to do all of that, we need some, well obviously we need some direction from your folks here tonight and respectfully I would ask, if you look at the conditions, the first condition is number 1 and that says, gosh we need to come up. I guess all have been addressed here as far as what are you going to do about industrial, but we can’t really move forward if we don’t know what we’re doing. If that’s a hold out over our head. I think you can understand that. So if we could respectfully ask that that maybe be stricken or reconsidered or something, that way we can get the rest of the team moving and keep, and continue to keep pace with what you folks would like to do. Beyond that looking for input. Suggestions. Want to build a nice project. Get this connectivity going and support what’s, a lot of effort that’s gone forth on behalf of the city, want to continue to support that so. If there’s questions, I’ll take them. Otherwise I’ll sit down. 74 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any questions for, no? Very good, thank you. If there’s anybody that wishes to provide public comment on this matter, the council would be happy to entertain that at this time. Nobody? Okay. Very good. Let’s bring it back to council for additional questions or comments. Keep it moving here. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would not disagree with the comments you made before Mr. Mayor. But this one, I’m going to just hold to the, not necessarily the industrial piece for this property given some of the things that Mr. Chadwick said too as well as some of the views and things, but it seems to be a theme tonight at least that we’re trading this stuff out for the industrial for the residential so. I would, my preference would be to hold off on this until either we see some of the other parcels that Kate that you were talking about. Some of the others so we’ve got some idea on where we’re going to start to trade some of this, some of these pieces out and given that the right-of-way is right there on the highway, the best spot we’re going to have for office industrial I think is going to be along the highway I believe and so before we put twin homes or single family homes or something in there, take a serious look at that so I need some more information or assurance that we’re not just going to continue to replace our industrial guidance with residential on those choices. When we’ve got a choice we seem to be going more and more residential so. Got to have a mix there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments. Discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think I disagree. I think that it’s…to get into the whole scheme of what’s developing around this area. And Kate, did you tell me or did I hear that you did trade spaces. That you did? Kate Aanenson: No. We’re working on one right now. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So that’s not chiseled in stone as far as industrial. Kate Aanenson: As far as office, correct… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I’d play back my statement from the previous presentation I guess it was. The item before on the agenda. That I’m not, it doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo but it’s got to be distinctive and unique for me to make a decision to move it out of industrial. To Councilman Lundquist’s point, there are, I mean this is a pretty good area for industrial because of the access points so it’s even further reason to leave it but I’m not adverse to seeing a product and saying that that is what the people of Chanhassen are looking for and say yes without replacing it. It’s more of a task for staff to let them run after the industrial as best we can. Mayor Furlong: The access point you’re referring to is off Pioneer Trail? Councilman Lundquist: 212. 75 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Peterson: If it can be accessed there. I don’t know the elevations and. Mayor Furlong: Well the road map with the AUAR includes that connector coming south from the east/west connector down to Pioneer Trail, so that’s where the AUAR and it was put in place with some development, either industrial or medium density here. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I agree with Bethany. This would be the ideal piece of property for residential and I like the fact that we have some twin homes for some empty nesters and a nice, quiet little nitch. And then some obvious nice single family that are out overlooking a beautiful Bluff Creek primary zone. So I like it. Mr. Chadwick talking about the topography down there and how this would be a very unique spot for some single family spots, I could strongly support that change. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Question for Ms. Aanenson. Condition 1, which was raised by the applicant. That requires another property within the 2005 AUAR to request a change. Are the properties that you’re considering, are they within the 2005 AUAR? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: They’re not. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: So something less restrictive there. One might gain a little more comfort based on the comments I’m hearing, you know really we don’t, you’ve always preached to us that don’t just look at the AUAR for land use. We look at the entire city and so to the extent that we have other parcels, property owners that are looking to change to industrial throughout the city, may address Councilman Lundquist and Peterson, some of your concerns there. And that doesn’t do anything about the character and what’s, what they might come back with on the site plan. Excuse me, go ahead. Councilman Peterson: To that point, I don’t know if it’s incumbent upon the developer to find industrial land. Hence this may be in and of itself inappropriate condition. That if they present to us a distinctively unique opportunity for a new housing stock that fits into there, that’s our obligation to find it, not their’s. So I guess maybe I agree with their point. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur as well. Mayor Furlong: To? 76 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Peterson: To remain in it’s current state. It’s still going to be incumbent upon them. You know I’m not saying that I’m not granting the ability to move it away from industrial. I’m saying it’s not, they shouldn’t be obligated to replace it. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Councilman Lundquist: I think if you were to change, Mr. Mayor if you were to change, to remove that 2005 AUAR and just say property requesting an industrial land use within the city, I still wouldn’t be in support because of what Mr. Peterson said. I mean not necessarily, not only is it I don’t think incumbent upon that, us to hold that developer hostage per se until we can find something like that but you know, again it’s, I’m not sure it’s the appropriate condition at all so I would favor removing it but wouldn’t favor supporting the recommendation right now until we’ve got some other information about what our options are for other industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. What obligation do we place on ourselves or future councils if any with regard to the concept plan? Kate Aanenson: Concept plans have no legal standing. What the goal is to give them clear direction and I guess what the staff was looking at, what I heard is that you wanted them to come back just as you did on the other one, to come back with something compelling. Even if it’s the lower density, something compelling need and that’s our obligation to show you where those other sites were. So if you gave them conceptual approval with those marching orders before they came back. Again part of the goal of this, of doing this development, we’re working together. As they’re working through the design we’re working with these road designs to get these out that work…somewhat similar tracks so certainly I think we can accomplish both those goals and we heard some direction from the mayor regarding those transition areas. Looking at the single family type product, what that should be to accomplish that and it’s my job to show you where those other industrial or office uses of the land to make up that difference. Mayor Furlong: And I would I guess comment, agree with Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson in that there’s got to be a compelling reason there and understanding of how, from a tax base standpoint we don’t get in a situation where we’re always, we’re always reducing this area of our land use. At the same time I can’t help but say that, I can’t, I wouldn’t be opposed to this type of development under the condition that that land use is changed out of residential someplace else. So to the extent that that’s a condition or an understanding of the concept plan, I think it’d be nice to put that in there. Maybe not as a condition but as an understanding somehow that the concept is agreeable but that there are uncontrollable factors that we’re looking at elsewhere in the city for replacement land. And it is uncontrollable. On the developer’s part. Certainly we can affect that as we look for it but from a concept standpoint I can, you know it certainly seems to work with what’s around it as well so, I can see going forward here as long as that understanding is there that, some uniqueness as Councilman Peterson mentioned. Compelling reasons to reduce the commercial industrial but to Councilman Lundquist’s request, clearly identifying the exchanged land use somewhere else within the city and in so doing, taking out with that understanding, taking, take out item number one. 77 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear on top of page 3…top of page 3 (b) it says, approval of the concept plan shall not obligate the city to approve any final plans thereof or rezone so…to give them direction to come back. Todd Gerhardt: My only confusion in this is how much of a commitment do you need on these other parcels? I mean we don’t have, I mean we’ve talked to people but we don’t have applications in and you know some of them are kind of long term. Councilman Lundquist: I feel a little bit not really comfortable going forward right now. I think it’s just, I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving this developer the direction that yeah, we like this and go ahead. Invest the time and resources. Spend your money. Do something that we could be 2 years down the road and who knows what’s going to happen and we continue to hold them hostage in essence for something that I think I’m not, I can’t lay that out there because I’m not comfortable. There’s a lot of things that need to happen for me to say yeah, I think this is the way to go here so I feel obligated to not say yes and you know, not encourage further resources and other expenditures and effort by the developer to only to come back and be rejected or something like that so I’m not against what’s shown on the paper right now. I just think there’s too many other unknowns and I can’t say yes to the concept right now without some other things falling into place. Councilman Peterson: I think one of which is that this council really hasn’t sat down and spent any time reviewing and diagnosing the impact of taking out industrial. I think that may be something Todd that put on the agenda and when we talk about the implications of that, I might be able to make a more informed decision after we spend some time talking about it. Mayor Furlong: And to your point Councilman Peterson, I know that was a discussion but time moves fast. It was probably a couple years ago or more when we were working with the Key Financial Strategies talking about tax capacity and balancing from where we were, where we are now. I don’t know how much additional development has occurred since we last did that but again I’m just going off memory. It’s probably been, it was probably 2003. I don’t know that it was last year that we did that. We finalized the Key Financial Strategies in ’03 so that was probably the last time we sat down so it might be worthwhile. Todd Gerhardt: We can do that. Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire at this point to take action on this concept plan with that discussion in mind? Thoughts? Let me ask this question. Councilman Labatt: Then the applicant would. Mayor Furlong: Let me ask you a question. What’s the timing in terms of the, if this concept plan were approved tonight, what’s your expected time in terms of coming back with a site plan? John Chadwick: Just as soon as possible sir. And appreciate the…we’re really trying to dovetail with everything that’s going on so we’ve been going like fury to get here and we want to continue that pace… And honestly there’s already 28 industrial parks sandwiched in here. I 78 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 totally understand and respect the need for industrial land but being this interchange didn’t go there, maybe it belongs some place where there’s better access for semi trucks not mixing in with Tonka Toys. So there is…challenge for the city out there to find the area to put it and based on, I’m not totally convinced with all the beautiful views and where it’s situated now, with the way this all has been developed, that this would be… Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Peterson: Well we don’t have consensus I don’t think and I’m comfortable having them move ahead if they feel as though they can present something that is extraordinary then my need to replace it is less. So I think that if we sat down and talked about it some more I may change my mind but probably not. Councilman Labatt: So you’re okay with re-wording number 1 or eliminating it? Councilman Peterson: Yeah they already know that it needs to be rezoned and they’ve already heard tonight what it’s going to take to be rezoned, which from my perspective when the previous offer came, wasn’t there yet. Councilman Labatt: Well no, no. The extraordinary, but in order about replacing the. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I’m just looking, all I want them to, a very descriptive adjective to give them a higher standard so. Mayor Furlong: It went beyond compelling. Councilman Peterson: Exactly. I’m tired of using that word now. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess my thought there would be, clearly the information’s there. It’s on the record. Making an approval here conditioned upon some other property owner I think is not appropriate. I think taking out number 1 is appropriate. And we’ll take out number 1 even though the sense of the council should be very clear at this point and with that, if there’s a desire to go ahead with a motion, certainly entertain that at this time. Councilman Labatt: I’ll move that we approve for the concept PUD with the following conditions, 2 through. Councilman Peterson: 26. Councilman Labatt: 26. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 79 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the Concept PUD with the following conditions: 1.Implementation of the AUAR recommendations. 2.The preliminary plat plans must incorporate the updated alignment of the east-west collector street and the proposed roundabout. 3.Turn lane requirements and the typical street section shown in preliminary plans must be consistent with the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report” recommendations. 4.A preliminary utility plan must be submitted with the preliminary plans and must comply with the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain design shown in the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report”. 5.A pressure reducing valve is required within the development and must be shown on the preliminary utility plan. 6.The preliminary utility plan must include lateral storm sewer to service the proposed development. 7.The developer’s engineer must work with Town & Country’s engineer to minimize the amount and/or height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 8.The attached single-family townhome buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 9.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 10.Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. 11.Complete proposed site, grading and utility plans must be submitted to determine more detailed requirements. 12.The City will be seeking park fees in lieu of land dedication on the Peterson parcel. 13.A report documenting the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual must be submitted to the City. 80 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 14.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around all Natural wetlands. 15.Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 16.All structures must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 17.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) must be shown on the plans and preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 18.The primary corridor boundary and the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary corridor and the setback. 19.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 20.Based on the existing canopy coverage for the site, the developer will need to meet minimum planting requirements. 21.Bufferyard planting will be required along the south and west property lines. 22.Landscaping for the attached housing area should include native species for overstory and foundation plantings as well as non-native, ornamental selections. 23.Large groupings of materials will help extend the natural areas into the developed sites and create privacy for residents. 24.A strong, boulevard tree planting element is recommended within the development and required along any collector roads. 25.The development should establish viewsheds to be preserved as part of the development.” All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 81