The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1998 02 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, and Kevin Joyce. Ladd Conrad arrived during item 3, after the public hearings. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 24,638 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO WAYTEI~ INC., LOCATED SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES RAILROAD AND WEST OF DELL ROAD, 7660 QUATTRO DRIVE, SWEDENBORG-SHAW CONSTRUCTION, INC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Sidney: Now you gave us a sheet with additional conditions. A1-Jaffi Yes, and I read those conditions oflk Sidney: Okay. Peterson: A couple questions Sharmin. As it relates to the traffic proposal, it seems as though we get these a lot with trash enclosures kind of coming in as an after thought and anytime we are given the detail about color and the tone and feel of the building and yet we're not seeing what can really be a negative to the building. How come the trash is always kind of secondary and in many cases we're not even seeing it because it's going through with the condition of approval anyway? A1-Jaffi In this case we did speak to the applicant. The trash enclosure is going to be inside the building. Typically if it's a site plan, let's say it's in a central business district or a visible area, we do require the applicant to show where that's going. Peterson: More importantly I think Kate, as a future reference. I've seen, well we see a lot of them without it and it's I think having a pre-requisite. Important as they seemingly are, and we're making big issues of a lot of other things. That can be a truly a sight sore that... Aanenson: That's point noted. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Peterson: Going to condition number 13. Talk about the light fixtures and we don't really talk about whether or not they're going to be the same as the existing or not. We should obviously make an effort to make them as close to the same as possible. Just a matter of, that can be rather unsightly also. Other questions of staff'? With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address. Jack Shaw: Jack Shaw. I'm with Swendenborg-Shaw Construction. We're excited about the project and I'm here this evening with Bob Lamaroo, a principle of Waytek and open to any questions you may have. Peterson: A quick one for you. On the side towards the railroad tracks, and towards the houses in Eden Prairie. Quite often we may forget that those are residents that look at that, basically from the back of their house, on a regular basis. We didn't seem to put much, pay much attention to dealing in the tone of the back.., all of that Fabcon stuff I would. Is there anything that we can do to maybe mitigate the coldness of that so that when you wake up in the morning you go... Jack Shaw: I worked with staff on that and we have discussed that. The grade is rather high in the back of the lot there so the wall's about 20 feet tall. Approximately, and we have a grade differential of about 8 feet. So a lot of that is taken up in the grade itself. It's also heavily, heavily screened with some very mature oaks and maples in the back of the building there. Peterson: I really couldn't get a sense in driving by how far back are the trees from the building? A1-Jafl5 There is a 20 foot easement and that is currently occupied by... and then you have the railroad tracks. And on the residential side there's another probably 10 feet of mature trees and then you have the houses. Joyce: It's... seeing the homes now without vegetation, you know. Certainly six months a year there's no... Peterson: Other questions... ? Thanks. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion.., to open the public hearing. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward please. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any comments Matt, on this project? Burton: Not really. It seems to have met all the criteria that are laid out in the staff report and it seems to make sense. So I don't have any problems with this project. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: My only question today, I talked to Sharmin about the drive aisle width and that's been addressed so I have no other comments. Brooks: I have no comments. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I have no problems with the development as proposed. I guess I did have some concerns about the mature trees, where that would be affected by a proposed driveway. However, I guess looking at the site I can't really see any other choice and I guess I would encourage the applicant to really try their damedest to preserve the trees on the north side, because I think those are significant trees. So I'd vote... Joyce: No problems. Peterson: I concur with, the only additional things would be the comments I said earlier. With that may I have a motion please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Request #88-2 for a 24,683 square foot addition as shown on plans dated received January 16, 1998 and subject to conditions 1 through 21. Adding to that condition 13, to make an attempt to have similar lighting as the existing development. Condition 20 to read, all parking lot drive aisles shall meet City Code Section 20-1101. And condition 21, depending on storm sewer calculation, additional catch basins may be required in the easterly parking lot to intercept runoff prior to draining onto Quattro Drive. Peterson: Second please. Burton: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Site Plan #88-2 for a 24,683 square foot addition (~Vaytek, Inc.) as shown on the plans dated received January 16, 1998, subject to the following conditions: The existing catch basin on Quattro Drive shall be protected with rock filter dikes until all disturbed areas on the site have been restored. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The haul routes for exporting material from the site shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The grading plans shall be revised to include an erosion control fence detail, revised Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate for an industrial driveway (No. 5207) and rock construction entrance detail No. 5301. In addition, erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to Quattro Drive once the existing driveway is abandoned. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges shall be applied to the building permit. The charges shall be based upon the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The applicant shall obtain the necessary construction access easement to perform grading on the adjacent property prior to any issuance of a building permit. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for adjusting the existing water service proposed in the easterly driveway access. The contractor and/or developer shall contact the City's Engineering Department for inspection of the driveway apron and curb/street restoration prior to pouring the concrete. A 24 hour notice is required to schedule an inspection. Plans for trash enclosure and rooftop screening shall be submitted to staff for approval. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City at the time of building permit application. The applicant must install tree protection fencing prior to construction. Fencing must be inspected by city staff before work is allowed to begin. The applicant shall add 7 trees to the landscape plan. Four shall be planted on the east side of the new parking lot and three shall be planted at the southeast comer of the property. The trees shall be a mix of oak and sugar maple. The light fixtures may not exceed 0.5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property and attempt to have similar lighting to the remaining existing development. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing around all preserved trees (within construction limits) before site grading can commence. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the conservation easement located on the northerly 20 feet of the property. No trees will be allowed to be removed within the easement. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 16. Fire Marshal recommendations: a. Regarding the new access off of Quattro Drive, submit grade dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(f). b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06- 1991. c. Submit utility plans to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. 17. Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. 18. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon consolidation of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Park One 3~'a Addition (provide proof of single Parcel Identification Number). 19. Building Official recommendations: a. The developers and/or designers should meet with a representative of the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. Principals should be aware of many of these requirements before the project is bid. 20. The parking lot drive aisles shah meet City Code Section 20-1101. 21. Depending on storm sewer calculations, an additional catch basin may be required in the easterly parking lot to intercept runoff prior to draining onto Quattro Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT ON LOT 2~ BLOCK 4~ HIGHOVER ADDITION~ FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A WELL SITE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF LONGACRES DRIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 (HAZELTINE BLVD.)~ WEST OF HIGHOVER DRIVE AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Blackowiak: I have one question. Regarding access. Could either Sharmin or Dave clarify the frequency of trips to the well house proposed, either you know in and out or on a daily or weekly basis? Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. The City's utility department visits the site once a day, approximately. Sometimes twice. But for sure every morning. Peterson: Questions? Burton: What will the actual physical structure of the well house look like? Is that... ? Hempel: I don't believe the drawings have been completed yet but it's going to be similar to the well house that's located on Lake Lucy Road, in the Brenden Ponds subdivision. It's actually about 3 blocks away from this location. It's a brick structure with a, what roof would I call that? Pitched roof, thank you. Yes. It's actually a very attractive building. Joyce: Is that normally, I was going to say the one on Lyman and Audubon, is that a well house? Hempel: That is a lift station. It's similar to that style but much smaller. Joyce: But much smaller, okay. Hempel: It's about 20 x 35 or 30 feet in size. One story. Peterson: Do we normally not see that prior to being built, as far as the plans? A1-Jafl2 Typically we've brought them before you simultaneously. Peterson: So what you're saying is that we will see the plan prior to it being built then, or not? Aanenson: Sure, we can submit them to you. The reason that this got done is it was on a fast track to acquire the property. And so we wanted to approve the subdivision. If the subdivision wasn't approved, they weren't going to take it the next step but we'll certainly bring you back the plans. But it's our intention to build it just exactly like the one on Brenden Pond and that's the brick. Peterson: If we don't do as I say, not as I do. Aanenson: Correct. Absolutely. Peterson: This is a, can I have a motion for a public hearing and a motion and a second please. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Kevin? Sidney: So problem. Burton: You move fast. Peterson: We're on the fast track up here. Okay, I agree. May I have a motion and a second please? Sidney: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #98-2 for Highover 2nd Addition for one lot and one outlot as shown on the plans received January 29, 1998 subject to the following conditions and that's 1 through 6. Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sidney moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of nd the preliminary plat for Subdivision #98-2 for Highover 2 Addition for one lot and one outlot as shown on the plans received January 29, 1998, subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with side slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. Lot 2 is still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Highover 1st Addition. The well site if subject to the new landscape plan which will provide year round screening. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain files as directed by the City Engineer. The grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Lot 1 shall be platted as an outlot, and Lot 2 shall be changed to Lot 1, Block 1, Highover 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Aanenson: Mr. Hoffman isn't here yet so if it'd be all right with you, maybe we can do some of the other housekeeping items, because item number 4 will take some time. Instead of breaking the continuity of that, it might work, if that's okay, to go down. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: LuAnn had asked that I review the work session that we had last week, so I'm just going to briefly bring you up to date. The Old Town, we visited that site. Tried to get up to speed on some of the issues out there. Sharmin and Cindy have been diligently working on that project. There will be a meeting February 24th at 6:00 at the Senior Center. Any of you that can attend, it would be great. I know Kevin attended last time. I think someone else, Craig did too so that's great. So there's a tentative, additional issues were addressed and they're on to the next level of that plan so again, that would be the 24th. And you sent that out to everybody that was there last time too. These just went out today so. So that's what's happening on that. We also talked about the LM treatment on Lake Susan. Trying to get rid of the, bring back the quality of that lake. Today they did do the carp harvest. 20,000 pounds of carp were removed from the lake. They were expecting 10,000 but they got 20,000 pounds of carp from the lake. And there was only like 7 game fish in the lake so, so they had to get out there quickly. I think they were mobilized a little bit sooner based on the weather conditions and they had to do it under the frozen ice conditions so. The next stage with them would actually be treating the lake and then hopefully restocking and then having a better quality lake. So we talked about that too. Then Phil also described the two water quality projects that we're trying to work on. The wetlands, the one south of Lyman, between Autumn Ridge and the industrial property adjacent to Galpin. And the other one would be north on Galpin between TH 41 and Galpin into like a 5. Increasing the water in those wetlands and increasing the habitat and natural features of that so we think those are good projects. Again, working with the state and getting some wetland banking credits so we kind of described those two projects. And also I handed you copies of the goals and we just talked about those too so again the main focus is finishing up the comp plan. So that's what I had for ongoing. I can maybe just mention at the next Planning Commission, we'll be having three industrial site plans. Industrial continues to be very active. That's what we'll be seeing mostly this summer. And then we've got a minor code amendment. So that will be for our next meeting. That's all I had. Peterson: I've already read this. If you didn't, a couple interesting articles about planning commission goals... The other one is making planning commissions more effective. A couple good succinct articles. Just things.., food for thought. Aanenson: And I did also pass out the list of assignments for council meetings so I hope everybody got that. If you can't make it, if you want to switch with somebody or let me know or 8 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 see.., but just let me know if you can't attend. It's helpful to have somebody else act as a liaison to follow things through so it's good. Peterson: Any... as far as potential... Aanenson: Pardon me? Peterson: Have you seen more on Villages... ? Aanenson: Additional restaurant. Looking at, to go with the Americana Inn. Americana Inn's almost complete. That's about it. Burton: What items do we know are going in there for sure so far? Aanenson: An office building. Famous Dave's. A retail building that would be adjacent to Great Plains, on that side. Burton: And in terms of tenants, I heard there was an Old Navy. Aanenson: Those are some of the things they're looking at, correct. In the retail portion. To our knowledge. I mean they haven't come in as, for that site plan. Those would be the core buildings on the Main Street and Lake Drive. Peterson: A sing along or something to fill the time. Did we get much more feedback from the residents on the trail changes that we've kind of put, are recommending tonight? Aanenson: Yes, and Todd's been spearheading that as far as the comments so I think I'll let him to kind of go through it and summarize those. Peterson: I'm trying to get filler here Kate and you're not helping. Aanenson: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm just.., yeah, we will be seeing some additional final plats that are going to the council as far as the Woods and the Meadows. Again, I don't think we're going to see a substantial resubdivision this year. What we'll be seeing is the continuation of final plats and. 1997 TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECTS-REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. Hoffman: I apologize for being a little bit late. What I'd like to review with the commission this evening is the.., the 1998 trail project which were tabled the last time we were here. Namely the Galpin Boulevard trail and Powers Boulevard trail. As you recall, the issues outstanding at that time included the potential deletion of the trail segment on Galpin north of Lake Lucy Road, which has since been added back into the project, and then issues on Powers Boulevard, the proximity to existing dwellings, namely south of Kerber Boulevard at the townhome location. These, I've got a copy for the audience... Galpin back here with the green.., here's Powers... And 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 at the time I don't think there was a great deal of confusion on the south half of Galpin. It starts just north of Highway 5 on the east side of the road at the existing terminus. You can zoom right in. There we go. It starts at the existing terminus. There's a little stub trail put in the Galpin redevelopment and the stop light installation at that location, and it comes up on the east side again past the new Walnut Grove development and continues north to a point of crossing, on the second sheet, at Brinker Street. As commissioners may recall, originally we had talked about a crossing at Majestic Way. There was concern about sight lines at that location. The sight lines were indeed adequate at Majestic Way but they are better at Brinker Street and so we have moved that crossing down to Brinker Street. And when it crosses it, it immediately joins city property at this location at about a 5 acre neighborhood park which as yet unnamed. Currently referred to as the Forest Meadow parkland, or Galpin Boulevard parkland, and that neighborhood park will also be developed as a part of the 1997 park referendum. So there's little, other than this crossing, there's little change in the southern portion of the trail. It continues north on the west side past the Longacres development. The Woods at Longacres on this side. These intersections were designed with the help of the developer and our engineering staff at the time of these developments, to allow for the trails so it works very well through this location. It continues north to the second entrance, into the Longacres development and they have planned, or they had planned for that trail. They kept their landscaping outside of the area for the trail bench and planned their fencing and other amenities accordingly. It continues north past the Song residence and then the Jerome Carlson property. It does swing up in this location due to some wetlands... It continues north again staying on the west side and it will stay on the west side all the way through the termination of the trail. To the intersection of Lake Lucy, which was the potential terminus back some 3 weeks ago as we were looking at budget restrictions. How could we save costs? Obviously terminating or shortening the trail project was the best way to decrease the budget. What has occurred is that neighborhood came in and worked very hard with the Park Commission to see that what could be done to include those trail segments back into the project. The Park and Recreation Commission had a $300,000.00 reserve available to them in their park and trail acquisition and development fund, which they have recommended to the City Council be used to complete this project in it's entirety as it was presented in the referendum brochure. So these last few pages of Galpin depict what would be called that trail segment that was deleted and now brought back. What you'll notice about this segment, it looks, it might be difficult to see but it is different in that it comes up right behind the.., that curb, 2 foot asphalt shoulder and then the asphalt would be... Joyce: So it'd be similar to what was on Lake Lucy right now? If you go on Lake Lucy road, it's. Hoffman: Similar but with the addition of a curb. So it'd be like Lake Lucy but if you moved those curb lines out and elevated that. Joyce: Oh, oh, okay. All right, I see. Hoffman; So then a travel lane and a curb which creates that barrier, that safety zone. Cars recognize that as a barrier for pedestrians.., much more safe. Just for a little bit of history, the Lake Lucy trail was an on again, off again debate. Should it go on street without a curb? Should 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 it go off street as a separate trail? And as it ended up, on street with a white line has not been very well received by the public and so it was a decision of the Park Commission, they would not propose to develop... The trail continues north at Whitetail Ridge. On the east 65th Street on the left. And then starts down the hill and around the curve. It travels down that hill and around the curve. The Commission looked at, the Park Commission looked at two terminuses. Right here at Pheasant Hill. Or Pheasant Run. Or down, all the way down to Mayflower. The problem being that the city corporate limits end about a third of the way to Mayflower and we did not feel very strongly about continuing on with that trail all the way to Mayflower with the corporate boundaries.., so their recommendation to terminate at the base of this hill. At Pheasant Run. And what that allows is this neighborhood to then access the trail. There was a lot, I should note there was quite a bit of testimony from this neighborhood that they actually go to Excelsior to access activities and.., responsibility to provide that travel route. With that, we'll take questions on Galpin and perhaps public testimony as well if you desire... Peterson: It's safe to say that we're not foregoing quality or substantially any character of the trail because of the $300,000.00 surplus, or a portion I should say? Or are we giving up something on the width or the character of the trail going north of Lake Lucy? Hoffman: The character will change going from more in the ditch line to up against the back of curb. But as far as the, how you would, how the pedestrians will sense the value of the trail is about the same. Peterson: Any questions? I think it's great we got it worked out. Hoffman: The last issue which was resolved on Galpin was the east side/west side north of Lake Lucy. That was the evening you were out on your site tour. The Park Commission was out on Galpin Boulevard and then met for approximately an hour that evening to decide, unanimously to recommend that it be constructed on the west side. Issues surrounding the Powers Boulevard trail.., centered on separation. Issues of privacy just south of Kerber. So to page through the sheets, we start at the first entrance into Saddlebrook and go to Saddlebrook Curve here on Powers Boulevard. Coming from downtown. Heading north. There's a section of trail in- between the two entrances off of Powers and Saddlebrook which was installed by the developers, kind of at their own will. Saddlebrook was developed and it's substandard. It's in the base of the ditch. That's a perfect example of how we do not want to build the trail right in the bottom of the ditch where you're susceptible to... difficult to maintain. So that's coming out and starting out as the first segment of the trail. We continue north. Following past Saddlebrook to View Court and entering really the area of the most discussion and you'll see the trail immediately goes outside of the large row of pines. That was the first area of compromise. And again when I say compromise it's compromise on the proposed plan. It still has to be approved by the County... And then as you continue north, at this point originally the trail really dips back in and enters the private lot in-between the north half of the trees and Kerber Boulevard. What the commission chose to do in this area, to mitigate some of these concerns was to move that outside of the fence line so generally where you see that split rail fence on Powers Boulevard, the trail will be outside of that fence when it's complete. During construction there will be times when the fence will have to come down. Grading will occur and then the fence will be reinstalled for the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 most part to allow accurate communication.., we have indicated that we will stay outside of that fence as it exists today. With that we'll land on the second page at Kerber where you see the trail is now outside of these private properly lines. There are issues north of Kerber Boulevard as well. They're more individual in nature and they have to do with really personal choices from the properly owners. Where they have large trees within the right-of-way, we're allowing them to make that decision. Whether they'd like to cut those trees down and allow the trail to be constructed in the right-of-way, or bring the trail in, into their yards, inside of those trees and allow... There are some areas, 3 or 4 lots north of Kerber that have that particular situation. And then for the most part it remains unchanged north of Kerber you'll see where it does flow out towards the road areas in this... We had talked about can you cross Lake Lucy but then terminate at Pleasant View Road, and that was about 3 weeks ago. With the addition of the north piece on Galpin, it was only fair that we added that... Powers north of Pleasant View so the trail is being proposed.., north of Pleasant View to Holly Lane. Close to the corporate boundaries of Chanhassen... There are, there were questions about the terminus at Holly Lane versus Pleasant View and how many residents did in fact... With that, again I'll be happy to answer questions. The Park and Recreation Commission is since pleased with the changes. They worked very hard with the residents. At your meeting there was a good showing of residents here to talk about... That has also occurred at the Park and Recreation Commission meetings and the project team has worked very hard to attempt to... Peterson: Questions, comments? Joyce: The only comment I'll say is I think it really shows the process working. I think they did a heck of a job getting communication out. Listening to what the people had to say. I assume everybody's happy because there's nobody here so. But when we had problems, you guys resolved the problems and I think kudos to the whole operation. I think it's really well done. Peterson: Thank you. Hoffman: Could I ask for a motion to approve those two segments from the Planning Commission please. Joyce: What do we actually. Hoffman: Approving the alignment on the Galpin, the alignment and the extent of the trail. Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Galpin Boulevard trail alignment on the east side from Highway 5 north to Brinker Street, then crossing to the west side and continuing north to Pheasant Drive. Furthermore, that the Powers Boulevard trail alignment be approved on the east side from Saddlebrook Curve north to Holly Lane. Peterson: Second please. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, before we do that. Should we ask for comments? I mean there are some people here. Would they like to comment before we go ahead with this or? I don't want to 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 shut anybody out. Okay, good. Well I just wanted to clarify that before we went ahead with that. Audience: I had a question... Hoffman: Powers? Audience: ... temporary easement. I don't know if... Hoffman: Have you noticed the stakes in your yard? Yeah... green stake there. The orange is the center line of the trail proposed. Audience... Hoffman: Correct, yourself and Kerber yeah. So yeah, it is going to change in that location. I can take a closer look at where that temporary will indeed. What I can do tomorrow is call the surveyor, Frank Gris. Have him take a look at your particular lot and let us know by feet how far to the west those temporary and permanent, well now it's only going to be a temporary. How far that would need to... Audience... Hoffman: In some areas it was and other areas it was not. Audience... Hoffman: No. Audience... Hoffman: Okay. The new part is on the south of you and... Audience... Hoffman: I'll call you Marion, yeah. Oh, okay. Or I can give you a call. Peterson: We have a motion on the table and without a second. May I have a second please? Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the Galpin Boulevard trail aligmnent on the east side from Highway 5 north to Brinker Street, then crossing to the west side and continuing north to Pheasant Drive. Furthennore, that 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 the Powers Boulevard trail alignment be approved on the east side from Saddlebrook Curve north to Holly Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW - HOUSING AND LAND USE. Aanenson: Thank you. Bob and I will be kind of playing off each other a little bit here because the housing section does weed into land use. Obviously it's a significant part of the city. While we've tried to separate them as far as sections in the code, we'll be talking about them collectively tonight. What we're asking from you tonight is to review the policies, the data we've put forward. We're not requesting any action but we want to get some philosophical points of view discussed and maybe get, have you give us some direction back. If there's other issues that you need us to look at. So I'd like to begin, if we could, by just looking at the land use map we recently completed. We did the Highway 5 corridor study based on the fact that we had a 1995 study area and then we, with the Bluff Creek we did guide the rest of the city. So we do have the entire city guided, which is one of the requirements we have to have. In 1991 we left, like I said, the two 1995 study areas we called them, and then we also had a lot of property that was just vacant. We didn't guide it and vacant isn't an acceptable land use so we accomplished that with the '95 study area. We got a lot of input. What this data allowed us to do is to actually put it on the GIS and very carefully calculate our different land uses so it's been very helpful to us to understand exactly the acreages we have and do some future planning. The only complication is, as kind of a caveat, is we did give some alternate land uses on some properties. There may be 1 to 3 different land use alternatives so what we had to do is kind of make some assumptions and what we did is we divide those equally among the possible alternatives. For example, on the comer of Galpin and TH 5 we said institutional instead of commercial so we tried to split those in thirds. The different land uses and give those equally. Otherwise there's just no way to come up with three of them, it got too convoluted. So having said that and completing this, the land use designation that really made the rest ofour work alotmore straightforward. So to begin with we have to see how the City of Chanhassen fits into the regional growth strategy and I included those maps in your land use section. Talking about the 2040 year growth strategy and the assumptions that were made with that. The framework of this policy is that how the region is going to grow and what percentage of the region is going to develop in what area. So this is a regional forecast, and again our assumptions are based on the regional assumptions that so many jobs, household and employment is going to take place within the metropolitan region. And the growth strategy says that there's a line where that's going to occur. By the year 2020, which the strategy addresses, the assumption is that the entire city of Chanhassen will be in urban service area. So looking at that, what does that mean as far as household and employment to the City of Chanhassen? In looking at that, number of households, 13,500 and the population of 34,500. Now if you look back at the 1991 comprehensive plan, there was estimates that the city could be actually 60,000 people. That was the high curve and examining that, and looking at the land use, Bob and I scratched our heads trying to think where in the heck all these people could go because it just doesn't work. The threshold isn't there. Even if we went high density throughout this, it couldn't happen. So we believe that the numbers that we have placed based on the current land uses make a lot of sense based on sustainability and a good mix and we'll go through that for you tonight explaining why we think that mix is important. We have kind of explained the development influences. The other thing is. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Generous: Just one thing. As far as the forecasts go, the city of Chanhassen and the Met Council have slightly different views on the rate of growth. We both came together in 2020. However we, our projections are a little higher than theirs.., since this information and actual concept. We're actually exceeding their numbers and we are, the city of Chanhassen is really next in line for a lot of new development, as you'll see for office and industrial development. Aanenson: That's a good point and thanks for bringing that up. We do concur at the 2020 where we'll be but we are, our projections are happening a lot faster and as we go through this you'll understand the rationale behind that but even the employment, it's currently under and we spent a lot of time this summer calculating all that. But ultimate employment is still a little low. Supply and demand. The vacant land. Estimated land. Land needed in the MUSA, 1,400 is way too low. Based on forecasts of what we're absorbing it's, we believe that we have to take in a lot more land and I'll go through the exact numbers here in a second. I'll let Bob talk about how he came up with the housing. A lot of what the vacant land is based on housing. That's our predominant land use so we didn't calculate by industrial but we'll give you a percentage that we're increasing, but I'll let Bob go through and explain how we calculated, how much land we need to bring into the MUSA based on our absorption rates. Generous: Again the basic numbers that we went with were the land uses that were put in place as part of the Highway 5 and the Bluff Creek. However, we needed to provide as part of our analysis we did two scenarios. The scenario B is what would happen if growth patterns continued the way we've experienced in the past, which is approximately 1.8 dwelling units per acre. In calculating the number of dwelling units, first we had to get to net so we started with a gross number based on land use and for simplicity sake we assumed 15% of the land would be for right-of-way. If you look at historical numbers, it's about between 14 and 18... and 30% of the land.., wetlands and park space and those numbers have been bom out on our development statistics tables. And so that gave us a net acreage. And then the next number he uses is how many units you'd have per acre. The range we used is 1.8 units per acre at the low end and 2.42 units an acre at the high end, and that comes to about 18,000 square foot so... inconsistent with the development we have but it would be a slightly higher density than we've been experiencing in the community. For multi-family there's not as much land available but we did, the assumption was that there'd be less right-of-way required for that but there'd still be the same amount of open space and parkland required. And so we use 6 units per acre for our estimate on medium density. 10 units per acre on the high density. For medium density the comp plan permits up to 8 units per acre and the high density permits.., so giving that, every way that we did these analysis, the land use information we had approximately 14,000 dwelling units.., fairly accurate. Aanenson: Okay, now that you've got that data let's go back to what the Met Council's saying. You know as he's demonstrated, consistent with current development patterns, and what we believe the absorption rate is with current trends, and again this is market forces, based on the data that Bob just explained to you, the Met Council's saying that in the year between 1995 and the year 2020, that we would need to bring in 1,400 acres if residential and what we're saying is we believe that number is way too low and it should be something more like 3,500 acres, which is 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 ultimately for the residential, and again that's based on our absorption rate. So we think that number's too low. Generous: So there is one note that I forgot to put on this housing analysis table which is Figure 8 and we've excluded the large lot development from the calculations. Primarily most of those are already developed. Approximately between 400 and.., we don't see any more development on those lands so they've been excluded. Brooks: What happens when you and the Met Council don't agree? Aanenson: Well we need to demonstrate to them why we think our numbers are correct, and we think that we've got some pretty concrete evidence of why their numbers are wrong. And that goes to the next slide, the housing mix and residential assumptions. The current trend and those assumptions. We agree that the overall we're going to be at 3.3 and that's some of the things that we said under Livable Communities Act, that we'll be closer averaging, taking off high or low, and the problem that we have, as Bob indicated, we have some existing large lots. We're already heavily weighted with low density area. That 3.3 is doable. But these are the assumptions that they're using for absorption and I think for the most part they seem pretty realistic. It's just the rate that we think is off2 If you want to follow along on this, I'm on page 6. So I think it's easier, instead of looking at this chart, to go through some of the land uses. But I want to back up and maybe just talk about community assets and why Chanhassen's in the situation that it is. Obviously the natural resources we have. The wooded areas. The wetlands. The lakes. The trails. The recreation. The fact that we've got a lot of large parks dispersed throughout the community. The Landscape Arboretum. The Minnewashta Regional Park. We've got an identifiable downtown. These are all assets to the community that are causing some of the growth patterns. Some of the liabilities that are going to affect the rate of growth in the future that we've tried to take into consideration would be traffic and that's something we'll be discussing at a future date but that congestion, especially at peak times. The ability to move goods and services and people are obviously going to be a factor in affecting some of the projections that we're making here today. And then some of the other factors that we need to take into consideration in absorption as we have some significant property holders that have the wherewithal to hold large tracks of land. And because of that we need to go outside the existing MUSA and to bring property in because one of the concerns that we have is that land cost continue to be an impediment to the city. Not only residential but by having a restricted MUSA line, a restriction that it artificially inflates that so these are other reasons that we want to make sure that we're not bringing in too much but we're also not artificially elevating land prices which affect our ability to attract industrial, or even do affordable housing. And that's a liability that we need to keep in mind. Just for your edification, if you're curious at all how many acres of land on page 5. 14,760 acres of land in the city and that makes us 23,000 and almost 24, excuse me, 24 square miles. Of that lakes and rivers constitute about 11%. On this next slide, just kind of giving you comparison of the first comprehensive plan of 1980, which is showing up as yellow, and then 1991 which is the last comprehensive plan, and then ultimate, the ultimate build of the city, 2020. What would be the different land uses. You can see the highest one there is low density residential and that will always predominantly be our most significant land use. If you look back you can see some of the different age cohorts don't have a specific land use such as mixed use. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Back in 1980 we didn't have a mixed use designation. Also vacant. You can see 1980 vacant was very high. At that time a lot of the city was not designated a specific land use and when you get to the year 2020, vacant disappears and obviously that's because we've assigned it a land use. The vacant. Another way to see this is to look at it by years, the different land uses. The colors represent colors that planners use. Residential is generally done in a, low density is done in a yellow so you can see in the year 2020 again we'll be predominantly low density residential. It's kind of interesting to note some of the fluctuations. We're looking at this as far as like parks and open space. How that's changed. If you look between '91, it looks like it's gone down. A lot of that had to do with when we did the 2020, or we did the Bluff Creek study. We gave some alternative land uses to some of the properties that had (a), if we didn't acquire them. Even like Bluff Creek, we gave them an alternate land use for public, semi-public. If that was to go away, what other use would we want there so that causes some fluctuation. I know there's been a concern if you look at commercial, but that still seems pretty low but I think you have to go beyond that and look at now we have a mixed use that does allow some commercial. We've also allowed commercial in some of our PUD and mixed use projects that we've done such as the industrial park at Arboretum. We allowed some support commercial in there. So even though it's staying low, it's also kind of disclosed in some other land uses where we've allowed those mixed use of those PUDs. Peterson: And we didn't use, we didn't have any commercial and mixed use before? Aanenson: Before, we did in 1991. It still hasn't been developed. That piece right now that we've got mixed use is on TH 101 and, where there is in Mission Hills but hasn't been developed. But then also Mr. Curry has some on TH 101 and Lyman Boulevard. That's a mixed use there tOO. Peterson: I still need some help understanding, we're dropping, we're going down from 2% to 1% commercial. We're going down from 17% in park and open space to 12%. Large lot we talk about that we are, there will be less of those being developed but yet we're going up from 11% to 15%. Aanenson: Yeah, what you have to take into consideration is that's since 1991. What was guided. We've had, such as the Halla plat came in. That added additional acreage so we had additional ones come in. We're not recommending those in the future. We haven't approved any since the Halla one but that does take into account what's happened since 1991... out building but you're right, we're not recommending. These are good questions. Actually the commercial's probably just under 1.5. It rounded down for the land use and I know that's been a concern. That's why we're recommending, and I'll go through that for the commercial, that we do allow some mixed use projects such as what we've done on Villages on the Ponds... use so it's not showing up as a pure commercial zone. So that's why it's cloaked in some other land uses. Peterson: Kate, as much as we talk about taxes, you know you've got your commercial and industrial office. I mean those are the areas that we... intent on getting more of that tax base covered with that. And those zones don't seem to be a lot. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Aanenson: Sure, and that's a good question and let me explain that as we go through the commercial section. I'll move to. Peterson: One more question on residential high density. Since we're going down on that. Doesn't that fly in the face of the affordable housing goals that Met Council's asking us to do? Aanenson: No. I think it's, from the 1.5 to the 202 acres, again it's, what we're putting in the comp plan is that under those, the acreage hasn't, has slightly decreased but what we're recommending is that we push towards the higher end within that development. So even though you've got less acreage than in the past, you know we've kind of beat people up to drop their units per acre. What our recommendation in this land use is going to be that when it comes in and it's guided for 12 units an acre, that we try to get a project at the 12 units an acre so we'll actually end up with more units. If that makes sense. Joyce: So you compare the percentages against housing versus land use really is what we've agreed with with the Met Council as the actual housing percentage versus how much land is actually. Aanenson: Right, right. And that's why when Bob went through those numbers he was looking at what's been our trend and then trying to look at the acreages based on some of those trends, and then we use the average in the high density. The 10 units an acre and that's what we're saying, we need to push those up in getting to the minimum. In the past we've dropped those way down. Similarly on North Bay, that was a 12 unit an acre project and that came in at 7 units an acre, so we lost those 7 units. It's hard to go back and put them somewhere else because they're not palatable. We've lost that opportunity so we need to kind of examine that as we're going through and that's one of our recommendations that we have in our policy issues that we want to discuss with them. Generous: However that was, the North Bay project was also like a pilot project where it allows us to see a different housing style come into the community, at a smaller net scale so people wouldn't be threatened and I think that helped us to get a project like Walnut Grove where we got the mix of housing units and I think that will continue as we... Conrad: How did we lose 91 acres in commercial? I don't understand that. I don't know what move we made to... that many acres. Generous: Well some of it came out ofthe Villages. Aanenson: Right. It got mixed into that PUD because it had a commercial zone and then we put it into a PUD so it's cloaked in another one. Actually if you were to look at. Generous: And 212. Aanenson: Yeah, and 212, but if you look at what's commercial that's not guided commercial, like in Arboretum Business Park. We gave some commercial in that. And then we were also, 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 what we're recommending as far as commercial for some of these other projects that we do a mixed use or PUD, that we do also some support commercial in there. What we're saying under the commercial section is that we don't want to have another large tract somewhere, 50 acres that would deter from downtown but we see it as a support to some of these mixed use projects that we're doing. That would be our recommendation. Conrad: Based on what Craig said, I think real valid. Some of these numbers just really jump out at you. This is the only page that I just said, whoa. What are we doing? Because when you explain them, they make some sense Kate but the problem is, when you look at the 1991. You know I don't know who uses this and some of it is just to pacify the Met Council to show we're going in the right direction but these numbers don't look like we're going in the right direction. Aanenson: One of the areas that we took commercial away from too was at the southern end of the city. Down at the 212. The BF district. We've eliminated that. We've given that the industrial so where we've lost it in commercial, we've picked it up in industrial. Conrad: But I'm also talking about the large lot. You know we went from 1624 to 2247 and that's not what's happening. So ifyou explainit as the fact that really, it's probably 2244 today, you know that makes sense so. This is a bad. Aanenson: Yeah, look at number of units. Conrad: Number of units? Well, I'm looking at acreage and it just seems. Generous: They were hidden in the vacant though, a lot of it. The study areas. Aanenson: All that was vacant. If you look at the graph I have up right here. A lot of that was vacant and actually some large tract residential which we had to assign somewhere. So some of that was actually some, down in the southern end of the city, was actually some smaller, individual, such as Homestead Lane. That was a vacant. Where actually it's a large lot subdivision that's what it needs to be applied. So while we haven't created any more of them, some of these got, instead of in the vacant category, we had to give them the correct land use designation as they're being used today. So when that got divided, that's what occurred. But we have not been approving, except for the Halla subdivision, we have not been approving large lot subdivisions. Conrad: It's just this graph gives a real strange signal, and you know, I'm going back to commercial. It just, I think I agree with where we're going but it looks real strange. You know from a community that's going to double in size and we are now going to decrease our commercial because we just don't want those services out here. You know that's, on the surface that's what's happening. We're going to double the population. We're going to decrease our commercial. I understand it but again, I don't think the graph does, you've got to do a lot of explaining on this graph to make it make some sense. Aanenson: That's what I'm attempting to do. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Burton: One more question. Aanenson: Sure. Burton: How can the undevelopable portion of the graph fluctuate? Aanenson: You know if you look at 1980, it's closer to 2020 but the GIS system that we have now and they're actually able to plot and calculate that. We believe that that number is very accurate. How it got so low in 1991, I cannot give a reason for that. Maybe it was included land that they thought was sloped or wetlands, and they didn't include the river or the lakes. There's no qualification for that number in the comp plan so I'm not really sure. Again, those are all factors that affect the ultimate. I guess one, the main points we wanted to, I think there was a fear that we were going away from the lower density and as we said in the past, under the housing goals, we're so heavily weighted low density and we always will be, but even with that low density there's housing options that we need to be looking and pushing the small portions that we do have the higher density, to make sure that we're pushing those... Conrad: When you explain it to me but ifI were somebody at Met Council and I looked at this I'd say boy, they're going the wrong direction. Really flat out, 5 or 6 categories you've got to explain to them and I hate giving anybody stuff like that Kate. I really do. I wouldn't want to explain it. You know ifI were doing this graph, I'd have a today column and so 1991 comprehensive plan. IfI put a fourth column in there, I could say this is where we are today and then these numbers are justified. These numbers, you know the new acreage will make some sense. Again, I'm not sure what. The only number that really bothers me is the commercial and. Aanenson: Can you wait until I get to that section. I think I can address your question there. The residential again, I just want to reiterate what Bob had said. How we calculated the units per acre. At the time that the large lots went in, a lot of those had a 2 1/2 acre minimum. Hesse Farm, a lot of those are maybe 5 or larger, based on the fact of the slopes. We don't believe a lot of those will be subdivided in the future. If they can, they can only go down to 2 1/2. If they want to have sewer and water, they would have to petition because we're exempting those. Right now if you're outside urban services you can only develop at 1 unit per 10 acre so again that's heavily weighted for the density requirement. So the low density we use the 2.42 units per acre for projecting ultimate development. Medium density, 6 units an acre and I've got a typo on here. We didn't use 100 units an acre on the high density. We used 10 units an acre. Again, the point that we're trying to make is when, because of the amount of residential in those medium and high density, that there's an opportunity to make sure that we push them towards the higher end and we also believe under the low density, we've talked to you about the PUD amendment that we see you doing some other opportunities and maybe some mixing of some projects where we, such as we did with Walnut Grove. Maybe do some density transfers. There's an opportunity to maybe be a little more creative. And then also with the Bluff Creek overlay zone, where we're going to do some more sustainable development, we see maybe some different types of clustering. We're not going to see a lot of the traditional rip and tear subdivisions of the past. We're going to see a little bit more clustering type so we feel pretty good about where we're at with those numbers. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 The industrial development. We believe, we did a comprehensive study this summer. This is 8,000 jobs in this city. The Metropolitan Council estimated in 1995 6,500. We think that's low. Just for your information the city documented 470 businesses that are in the community that constitute these jobs. Of those 470 businesses, 185 of those are home based. So that's kind of a hidden number and we had to make some assumptions on that. When it's a home based one, we just assumed one person but there are some home based that have more than one person and those are hard to account for. And there are some home bases that may not be licensed for whatever reason that they're doing maybe the piano teacher. Maybe it's something else that may not even be licensed so it's hard to get an accurate number but we believe that number's going to continue to grow. Again the city will ultimately have 9% of it's land use in the year 2020. When we're saying 2020, that's current. I mean that's what this land use reflects right now but with the buildout there will be 1,291 acres of industrial land. Again we had to make some assumptions on that, and that's that last little paragraph on page 9 where we took, based on right-of-way and the floor area ratio, we tried to come up with ultimately how much we could get on a piece of property. For commercial, again the city's maintained the policy of directing the majority of the commercial to the downtown business district. This plan still supports that but there are three areas of commercial I wanted to talk about. The non-sewered. Again, this was the area down on 212/169 and those are all grandfathered uses. It's the stafl~s opinion, if you look at those uses, they really are industrial type uses. They're not commercial retail and in the comprehensive plan we had recommended that those be guided industrial in the future... The downtown commercial. That's the core which really represents that 1%. That's the downtown commercial. The neighborhood commercial are those nodes that are going to support existing businesses such as the Mission Hills. Again that shows up in the mixed use. The piece that's on Galpin and TH 5, the piece that's up on neighborhood business that's adjacent to Lake Drive. There's also a small node on Highway 7. These are all some of the neighborhood commercials. We did put in here, following through what was in the previous comprehensive plan, some criteria. What we want to make sure is that these neighborhood commercial districts reflect the character of the surrounding neighbors. That they be residential in character and we put some criteria in there. Again, the way we see the commercial being developed in the future is that it be a part of a mixed PUD and on page 10, in that first paragraph, towards the end of it. What we say is that there will be additional commercial development in the next 20 years. We certainly have identified another project that we think could be another mixed use somewhere too, Villages on the Pond. But we believe that commercial, when it comes in, will be part of a PUD or mixed use development. Similarly a large industrial park which we have guided some large pieces. Or if it's part of a mixed residential, commercial piece so we do acknowledge that there will be additional commercial, but it won't be a straight commercial zoning. We will give it, if it makes sense, when a PUD comes in and then the Planning Commission and the Council feels like this is the right thing to do, and it supports what's happening in that neighborhood. We're not going to go ahead and just give somebody commercial but what we see is, does it make sense what's happening with this development, just like we did with the Arboretum Business Park. Based on the number of employees going there, it seemed to make some sense to put some support commercial so that's what we're acknowledging. That there will be more than the 1% but it needs to be couched and making sense with the projects that are happening. Whether it be residential or industrial so, that was kind of our response to that 1%. Public, semi-public. Again we said that that, that one is pretty much remaining consistent. That includes the Arboretum. That includes the wildlife refuge 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 on the southern end of the city. The City Hall. Camp Tanadoona. The golf course. The regional park, as I mentioned. Again, those will continue to stay there we believe in the long tenn. It comprises 8% of the city. And in the land use section on the policies, what we said as we bring in MUSA, that we would exempt the Carver Regional Park, Minnewashta Regional Park. We would exempt Arboretum because they've got existing sewer and at this time, what they're using that property for, and the agricultural.., there's really no reason to provide municipal service to them at this time so we would just exempt them from the MUSA calculations. Again, that's something we would demonstrate to the Met Council because of their use, that they don't need to be included. This is an issue that you've discussed before too on page 12. Agriculture. Again, consistent with the Metro 2040 policy framework that says that Chanhassen will be urbanized. We recognize that and we support the preservation of farms in the greater Carver County. If you look at what's happening in the city, a lot of the fanning that's taking place right now is leased. There is an active family farm in the community under the proposed MUSA expansion. It is proposed for the year 2005, and that's something that we'll talk about later. Some options if we wanted to preserve the area and bring it in later. We'll be talking about that. Brooks: ... Aanenson: Sure. There's provisions if they wanted to that we could move past them and bring some other property in, yeah. Office institutional. The city worked with the District 112 to put the elementary school in place and to add onto that facility. In working with the school district they do not anticipate any additional schools being built in the city. Victoria will probably be the next site for an elementary and so we don't see that number changing significantly. We don't have a lot of pure office. It's gone into other districts. But certainly that is an option. It can go in a commercial district. It can go into an industrial district. So it has been a small percentage of the land uses in the city but that doesn't mean we couldn't give somebody else a strict office use. Again the mix use. On the 101, I'm sorry. Peterson: Back to the library. We talked about the expansion. I assume that that hasn't changed since any of the discussions we've had previously? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Anything substantial other than 200 square feet? Aanenson: Well, the city also needs to do a new public works building. We see a library coming down the line. What that ultimate buildout, either of those facilities. I put a note in there that those are uses that we will have to be looking at. As far as the institutional. Peterson: Along with that, if you read through the rest of this. To coin a phrase, we don't really focus on gathering places other than the parks. Whatever else there might be but I think that's something, at least in my mind, to focus and to think about it consciously about gathering places for the city. The residents talk about it a lot and it seems to be in the forefront of their minds and.., in ours. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Aanenson: Okay. Mixed use. Again that's about 1% or 134 acres. I explained before where those are, Mission Hills and then the 101/212 interchange. We won't be applying this zone anymore. What it says is mixed use or commercial. We'll be making recommendations to update a comprehensive plan, that it come in a percentage. Because right now it could come in all commercial on 134 acres. I don't think that it... quite that high based on the 212 interchange. We wouldn't certainly support it all commercial but we want to make it clear what our expectations are on that. Parks and open space. 1,700 acres of parks is what we'll ultimately have or 12% of the city's future land use will be in parks. Just for your edification, in looking at the city and comparing it to other communities. We looked at these numbers and they seemed pretty consistent with a lot of suburban communities our size. Again, taking the premise that we don't have a regional draw. Our guiding principle may be commercial that meets the daily needs of the residents. Some of those other larger regional purchases made less frequently would be somewhere outside the community. That doesn't mean in the future that it may not be considered but being consistent with some of the guiding principles that have been held to date, this plan... that principle again. The commercial would be added where it made sense based on the development that were to go in. So with that, we had listed some policy issues that we wanted just for your consideration. We kept the buffer yard concept. That was put in in 1991. Buffering between uses that were different land uses. We came back a couple years ago with a landscape transition buffer zone that was kind of an evolution of this. But this we continue to stay in there between industrial and residential is really the main premise of that. Impact on MUSA and existing large lots. Here's where we said that people that live in existing large lot subdivisions, it's not our intent to change the character of that neighborhood. If they bought into a large lot residential neighborhood, that's what they should remain. Unless a majority of the property owners, or 50% of the households came in and said you know, we no longer want to be rural. We'd like to be urban and we'd like to have sewer and water brought into our neighborhood. At that point the City Council would consider it. But this plan takes into consideration that we do have a variety of housing types and that's one of the housing types that this city off'ers is some large lot estates and it's not our intent to change that. Comprehensive plan inconsistency. This is just really a clarification based on what the State law says is that your zoning map has to be consistent with your comprehensive plan and we're saying because we're doing a staging, why would we want to go ahead and change what, right now the southern end of the city is zoned agricultural. We're not going to go back and rezone it consistent with the comprehensive plan because it's been our policy when a development comes in, that we apply. And based on the fact that there's no services, it doesn't make any sense so that would be another policy. Until urban services are provided, we would not change the zoning map. Again, MUSA exemption, I talked about this earlier. It's our intent to leave out the regional park, Camp Tanadoona and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Again, the nature of what they do, we don't see that urban services need to be provided there. Also it'd be very costly if they're not using a lot of residential units or that's how they equate the cost of bringing services out there. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a small amount of hook-up.., fiscally responsible. Here's another one I talked about earlier. Policy on page 14. Maximum density. Based on the city's housing goals and the participation of the Livable Communities Act, the city would have the right to deny a project that doesn't meet the maximum density. And again that would be a criteria for the Planning Commission and the Council to decide. If someone's under cutting that and we're trying to make some goals with some different choices, that we can say no. We've got this guided for high 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 density for a specific reason and this project doesn't help us meet our goals. Again if you look at where we've got the high density, we need to take this into consideration. If based on this land use we can meet our goals, and that goes back to your question Ladd. Based on these land use acreages, we will meet our goals under the Livable Communities. But if we don't provide the density requirements, then we'll have a problem. Conrad: How can we do that Kate? On that point. The maximum use. Aanenson: That was a recommendation of the City Attorney. It had to be in the comprehensive plan. Correct. It's new. Conrad: But on a subdivision, not on a. For sure you could do it on a PUD, but he says we could do it on a subdivision. Generous: As long as you have it in your plan. Aanenson: As long as in your comprehensive plan, correct. Joyce: Now you're saying that, you're talking about no going. If you're at a high density, you couldn't go to a medium density. Aanenson: Unless you had chose to let them do that, right. Again, this goes back to the question we had, if we take it from somewhere. Where do we replace that? We had this discussion with industrial. If we take industrial out of the stock and let it go residential, where do we replace the industrial? This land use makes assumptions that we're going to meet these housing goals if we take some of that away. Joyce: But you're not force, if they keep it high density, you're not saying it has to be 16 units. It can be 12 units. Aanenson: Our assumption though is, yeah 10. Joyce: You said 10, right. Okay. Generous: So we try to push them up above 10 but we wanted to make it compatible with development and compatible with the design criteria that we have in the community. Joyce: So in the comprehensive plan it just says you can't go between densities, is what you're saying. Generous: No, it says we can turn down the subdivision if they're not providing high enough. So if they're at 8 units per acre, we can say you don't comply with the comprehensive plan so we don't have to approve the development. Joyce: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Aanenson: Something new. It's something to think about. Right, and this is a way for us to make sure we, yeah. Exactly. Conrad: Well we need guidelines on that. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: IfI were a developer, a builder, that'd be an awful target to shoot for. Blackowiak: Oh exactly. I think the city will get sued, I mean. Conrad: But there's some validity in what she's talking about so we. Aanenson: Well it's the same thing as saying you can't exceed a certain density. It's the reverse. If we provided opportunities for those, and we have certain expectations. Conrad: Minimum densities that are absolute. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: We should not even have ranges then. Conrad: Yeah, right. Blackowiak: I mean you should have a specific target density. Your density will be 10. Period. Because if you're going to provide a range, I think that by trying to. Aanenson: But you have to look at the sustainability of each property. In some projects it may work. I think you're tying your hands too tightly to do that. That's the same thing we do now. We look at a project. A PUD may work on this piece but not on another. I think you have to judge each one on it's merits based on topography. A lot of other issues. I think to do that on carte blanche would be very difficult. Blackowiak: Oh I agree totally but I'm just saying that as a developer, if I came into this city and wanted to do a high density project and what is it currently. 8 to 12 for high density. Joyce: 8 to 16. It's wide open. Blackowiak: 8 to 16, okay. Let's say that I decided that based on market forces, etc., I was going to come in at 10, which is what your target density is. If you denied me because I wasn't at 16, I'd probably turn around and sue you. I mean seriously. As a developer who felt. Aanenson: Right, and we're saying that we've checked with the attorney and we believe that that's something that we can. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Blackowiak: That just scares me. I mean that was one of my big notes in here. When it says a policy and ordinance, I mean. I think that we're just really opening ourselves up to, I mean I can understand saying a policy of trying to strive for meeting maximum goals but, so why do you even need to say this? Aanenson: This doesn't have any. Blackowiak: Well. Aanenson: I think another approach should be then that we should take some of the low density, if we want to make sure that we're meeting the housing goals, and cut down the amount of low density and get some of that more medium or high. Blackowiak: Well I'm just saying, why do we even need to say this? If we have a policy of trying to attain a certain. Aanenson: ... policies, it's not enforceable. The only way it's enforceable is if you had it in your comprehensive plan. Blackowiak: But can't you make a policy statement in your comp plan? Aanenson: That's what this is. Generous: Yes you could. Blackowiak: Well yeah all I'm saying, couldn't it be that you want to try to push people towards the high end of low, medium and high densities? Generous: In the housing element we do use that language. Aanenson: Right. Generous: However that's not defensible. It's vague. From a legal standpoint. If you encourage them and they don't do it, how can you stop them? Blackowiak: But can't we stop them without this? Aanenson: No. Generous: No. Aanenson: No. We haven't in the past. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Generous: As long as they're in that 8 to 16 range, they can go forward. And still be consistent. This gives the City the right to deny. Aanenson: Yeah. I think you raise some good questions. These are things that we need to talk about. We had talked about before with the housing goals, what we need to do to make sure we're meeting our goals and we talked about this before but it's a good discussion to have for the next couple months while we work through this. PUD allowance. Here again we said the PUD district may allow a 25% ancillary uses if deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council. Again that.., other things that seemed to make sense with that development. Whether it's residential or commercial or industrial. Something else that, maybe it's a commercial piece that comes in that has some residential mix with it. Or vice versa. The next thing I want to talk about is, before Bob talks more specifically about housing is talk about our staging because that's really the next big issue, but before I get to that. Do you want to talk about this with yours or do you want to do it now? Generous: We can do it... Aanenson: Talk about building permits. Generous: This is just a historical trend for building permit activity in the community. As you can see we are trending up. There was a slight dip in '90-91 but again we're.., will continue. If you take 1980 to the present, we average about 275 residential building permits a year. As a part of our analysis of future development we're saying we'll be around 300. Aanenson: Again that's taking into consideration current trends, interest rates and the light. The anomalies you see in '95, that was a year where we had actually a lot of multi-family stock... We actually did more multi-family permits than we did single family detached. The next year we moved so fast on those we actually didn't have anything else in stock. There wasn't any other project. Right now again what's moving very quickly is attached type units. The non-traditional, the 15,000. Those are what.., but there is a big demand again. As we show you on that chart, we are heavily weighted but we need the diversity of housing stock. That's what causing a lot of the demand. The different types of housing product. We just talk about, if you want to. Generous: Again, this reinforces that the City of Chanhassen will be predominantly single family detached housing. The 25 to 44 year age group. The ones that are primarily child bearing years and want big houses. It will slide forward slowly with the aging of the baby boomers but.., that group, that age group... Aanenson: And the numbers again that you're looking at here are 1990 and we know we're going to have, when we get the new census, that we will have a more aged population. Especially since we have the senior housing and we're looking at doing other projects and some of the other services that we're providing, we know that people that live here that maybe want to bring their parents here, that we will have an increasing amount of the 60 plus. So that's another area that we need to look at. And that's all I had on that. I just want to take a couple minutes before Bob does the housing and maybe just talk about the MUSA staging... For comparison sake, where we've 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 been. We talked earlier about during the 1980 MUSA and that's this line right here .... update in 1991, we brought in all this area with the new expansion. As I told you previously, there are some property owners in that area that have the ability to hold large tracts of land and will not need to be brought in based on our.., we believe there's a sequentially logical.., bring in land incrementally for 5 years to the ultimate development of the city... This would be the area that we would recommend come in in the year 2000. The population and breakdown that we used to come up with this... Right now the city sewer is to this point right here, the Walnut Grove area. This area here is adjacent to Highway 5 and Highway 41. You've got the Arboretum and you've Arboretum on this side. You've got the regional park, Camp Tanadoona and Ches Mar Farms. So the significant portion that you're going to bring in is residentially guided. Right here. Then we've got the mix of low density with the Highway 5 frontage road... We believe this area.., area brought in. But that goes back to the work farm issue. How does that affect... And this area would be the year 2015. What we did is we jumped over the Bluff Creek in this large lot area here because we don't believe in the near future that's going to change. That would be the last area to... property down here where you've got Moon Valley... the industrial park's down here.., urban service to those areas because this area here really has limited, unless they want to change the character of the neighborhood, the golf course wants to change, there really... For your information we have received comments from.., we have the Degler working farm and some of this... Again when we come back to you and talk about transportation, that's going to be a significant factor in MUSA expansion. Our ability or inability to expand... One of the other concerned property owners is Mr. Fox and he has concern... Generous: A lot of the analysis in the housing element we went over before. Figure 9 took those MUSA expansion areas and tried to provide the number of dwelling units we would anticipate in each of those. The existing comp plan had some very good criteria. We would, on page 1 and 2 we would recommend that that stay in there and be a guiding principle for us when we review code developments. The existing housing information is basically a checklist that the Met Council requires so we went through and provided them with all the data. Some of it is interesting but as the community grows it should change. Age of housing stock. Our housing is relatively new. The majority of it has been built since 1970. Again the figures that were included in this are from the past. Primarily from the past present. Future document, it just shows how the community's growing. The increase in valuation for housing. Changes in age distribution. Figure 4 doesn't show up in the expanded but 1995 our estimated person per household actually increased from the 1990 from... 2.92 to 2.93. While that might not seem like a large jump, it is significant because in most places the number's actually going down so that is showing that the city is still, has a lot of families moving in and that will impact our need for school facilities. Figure 8 is just on housing. Housing data. It did show that we don't have very many substandard housing units. Figure 6 is actually mistitled. That's our 1998 homestead valuation. It's for the taxes payable this year were based on. Figure 7 is that historical data that we've been using to evaluate what we can reasonably expect to happen in the future. It shows what has been taking place. The net densities of our low density residential development and of our multi-family development. We do this annually with any new developments. The average numbers at the bottom have been increasing. You don't see that in this but it was 2.5... last year and now it's.., using our targets for Livable Communities. The housing demand on page 6 is a table that we put together to show that communities around us are filling up and we're next in line. We did Figure 8. That's just our 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 analysis on what our projected total housing units will be in the community. In Figure 10 is really our analysis where we did the Livable Communities Act. We did revise our projections. We reduced the amount of the distribution between ownership and rental housing.., felt significant public subsidies that we would not meet the previous rental targets and so we put down something that's more reasonable. Currently we're at 89%... 11% rental housing. We're trying to hold that number will be difficult. We do believe we will meet our next goal, single family detached housing and other types of housing.., approximately 2/3 to 1/3. And that's been bom out in all our..., as long as the city does go forward with it's policies of trying to encourage the higher density limits. We will be able to meet those targets. The good thing about this, as part of the Livable Communities Act, we get to review it in 5 years. We're required to review it in 5 years so we can see whether or not we are in fact meeting the target. Figure 11 just, we put that in to show how the distribution of housing types has changed over time and as we project in the future, we'll be going back to meeting our target. Our housing type targets. The real.., review and comment on are, we did have some proposed additional policies in this and this is on page 16. The first one, you know within the PUD we talk about providing a density bonus for affordable housing but there is no mechanism to do this. This would be one that.., allow people to provide affordable housing. For low density residential, that would permit up to 5 units per acre. Medium density, up to 10 units per acre. High density, it would be up to 20 units. They could provide affordable housing. It's a number that we came up, it didn't seem too great in increase in density but it would potentially be something that would encourage developers to provide it. Down at the bottom of the page we're looking at where there's the density range. We would encourage the PUD at the upper end of the density range. It's not as strong as a language in the land use element but it conveys the same idea. Again we'd like to promote mixing of housing densities within the development so we can have transitions from established neighborhoods. The next one is that the city will continue to implement or participate in the implementation of the Livable Communities Act. We didn't want to put as a policy the actual numbers here because that can and will change and so we just say we'll work towards that. Then finally, we just want to say that we're not going to create any ghettos in the community. We don't want an over concentration of subsidized or low, or affordable housing to create any stigmatized areas and so we think it should be dispersed throughout the community. So that in a nutshell is what we're looking for in the housing portion. Peterson: Bob you talk, in page 11... ordinances and it talks about the following actions or possible actions the city should undertake to pursue life cycle affordable housing. DO we need to be more specific about that before it gets into the comprehensive plan or are you saying it should be done via the comprehensive plan but it should be done... ? Aanenson: Maybe I can explain it. This attachment right here Bob put as a reference. That's part of what I wrote to our implementation strategy. It's actually the entire thing's an attachment but your point is well taken. These are the things that we said we would do so it should be in an ordinance format. Or if some of them may refer to, pursuing the upper limits of the density range. That one had to be in the comp plan in speaking to the City Attorney. So these are action items that we said that we would try to be working on so some of them actually go on both. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Joyce: Can we look at an item on page 16, the first item. First underlined item I should say. Did you say that's only for PUD? Aanenson: The density bonus? Joyce: Yeah. Generous: It'd probably be only applicable to the PUD because all the other ones have lot size limitations. Joyce: Right. Okay, so it'd have to be a PUD? Aanenson: It would have to be something that the city is getting something. That you would give a bonus to. Was it too high of quality design, preservation. Again, we're not going to put off one whole project as an affordable project and say we've done it and give them the extra density bonus. That there's an opportunity that gives maybe some more units if we're getting, the City's gaining something. Joyce: How are you going to handle, if we did this bonus situation? Let's take, I looked at some of your average development that's done when you have let's say, oh I took, if you look at Figure 7. You have Oaks at Minnewashta. Okay. So that's a 16 acre, a net acreage is 16. You've got 45 units. Correct? So you're adding about 10 units, that 10 units to that development. Aanenson: It's pretty difficult to do it in a low density residential. You don't generally get an affordable unit on a 15,000 square foot lot or 10. Joyce: That's what my question. But that's what you brought that up, that you go from 4 units to 5 units. Aanenson: Unless they came in and did like a twin home project on some of those. Maybe there's some lots that there's an area that they may want to do some twin homes or something like that. That would be an opportunity. Joyce: I guess what I'm leading up to is, it seemed to me you'd have to have a fairly large development to really put, to make sense out of this. The way that we want to do it. Is that something that we'd look at as, maybe we don't need to do it, I don't know. I'm just saying that the development size is an issue here I think. Aanenson: I think there is a correlation but then there might be a unique piece that maybe has, if you look at when Stone Creek originally came in, those lots that were in the trees. We requested, stafl~s opinion was that we should do those larger lots and cluster those smaller, so there may be an opportunity to... an area that you could do some of those. Blending, like we talked about with Walnut Grove. I think, you know the density bonus is in place right now. We haven't applied it. We've never applied it. It's in the current ordinance. I don't think we've seen a project that, or somebody has asked to it. Again that goes back to the question, are we, I think in the past we've 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 fell unless we've knocked a few units off a project, there was a perception that we hadn't done our job... They're going for the maximum knowing they're going to lose a few and then we feel. What we're saying now is, let's evaluate it and making sense on design. How it works on the property and some other criteria that may be affordable... Joyce: I've always, I think you know this, I'm very uncomfortable with the term affordability. Or the what I feel is like a ceiling on how high a price can go and a good example is when we were out at Walnut Grove last week. You know those weren't affordable houses, those bungalows. They were life cycle houses. And to talk to those people and say, you know they're saying well we went in there looking at $130-150,000.00 bungalows. And now they're selling for $240. Aanenson: ... market so what happens is supply and demand, yeah. Joyce: Yeah, but I mean there's also value there and they're much nicer, it's a nicer project for it. Aanenson: I don't think we're arguing that. I think we never expected those to be in that price range but... Joyce: Oh I agree. Aanenson: ... make sure that one or two of them were, they may not have had all the extra features. Joyce: That's the point I'm trying to make because I'm afraid that you go into a project and to assure affordability and then find out you can actually make the project nicer but then the affordability. Aanenson: We struggle with it. Joyce: I hate putting that kind of stuflk What happens if it goes out of the affordability but it's a better project? Aanenson: Well I think that we can be creative in looking at these projects. There's an opportunity on a few of the lots, if we had said, you know... Joyce: I just get tom because I know you have to plan. You have a job to plan but I hate going into a market and taking on the market aspects of things, particularly if you're going to have a better project for it and taking a price and say okay, what is it? $115,000.00 or something like that. Aanenson: But that's what we do with land use. By giving it a land use designation, you've affected the value. Joyce: Yeah, but I mean we're making a policy here. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Generous: Yeah, and it's in the ordinance but there's no mechanism in the comprehensive plan to permit it to go forward. This is one area that we could, it's optional for the city and maybe if that 1 unit per acre, on the low density is what it needs to average the cost of the development, then is that worth it? Sure. If 1 out of 5 houses, to be affordable. Joyce: Once again, if you go into a big area and we're talking about 50 acre situation where we're mixing it up like we did with Walnut Grove, great. Okay? Generous: Sure. Aanenson: Right. I agree. Joyce: I'd argue that point. But I'm saying you take a 10 acre thing and I don't know what developers are going to do. I mean if they come in and try, I just can't, I'm trying to visualize this. Is there any kind of loophole that they can come in and really screw up a project where we'd be forced, and maybe there isn't? I don't know, maybe I'm just. Aanenson: ... authority whether to. Joyce: Right, if it's a PUD we have the authority so that's no problem there. Aanenson: Right, and it has to make sense for the land use. Can the land sustain that type of development? Does it make sense? Just like we do with any other development. Whether or not it can meet all the parking and they can put a lot of building on the parking and impervious surface. Then there's a threshold there. Joyce: Okay, thankyou. Aanenson: I didn't mention the land use goals but there was a section. Those were revised. What we did in the, when you saw those originally we kind of did an issue on which ones are no longer valid so those were modified. The land use if you wanted... Again, it summarizes more succinctly some of the major policy issues that we talked about. Peterson: A lot of information Kate. Aanenson: These are the two meatiest ones. The next ones we'll be talking about is the capital improvement plan. Sewer and water. Generous: Transportation. nd Aanenson: Transportation. And then I think I indicated to you on April 22 we'll be having a town meeting. The Planning Commission and the Council and the staff again will be providing an opportunity for comments from the residents. For you a chance to hear some of the citizens at large and we'd like to kind of break that down into areas so people have an opportunity. If 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 they're just concerned about transportation. Try to break those down and make an open house so they can visit those areas and whether it's housing, whatever their issue is, and then provide a forum to give a lot of education then. For them. Sidney: I guess one last comment and something I mentioned when I spoke to you today about, I guess promoting or seeing if we can't say more about senior housing. Aanenson: Yeah that was a good point and I did make note of that. Sidney: Yeah, you mentioned that as a possible goal and you know was putting it in terms like, trying to attract and retain seniors and I guess I was so struck by the demographics of Chanhassen. We're just not balanced. Aanenson: Right, I think we should put in parenthesis, senior housing and life cycle.., clarify that a little bit more. Sidney: Yeah. And then also I guess is looking on page 16 about if demand becomes apparent, is the demand apparent at this point? Shouldn't we be proactive in our land use? Aanenson: Probably. That's probably better language, yes. Peterson: Other comments, questions? Conrad: Just a couple Mr. Chairman. Kate, what was confusing to me, as I read all of this is, I'm not sure what year we're aiming for. Sometimes it's the year 2000 and sometimes 2020, 2040. There's a lot of numbers here so I'm not sure what we're talking about. Just a general comment. There are typos in here throughout. I'm not even going to, you'll catch them but... There's columns that read Chaska and I don't know why that would be but there's a Chaska column in there. Bob, I can show you that afterwards. Hang on a second here while I go through. Because as we talked about on page 6, that's the confusing part to me as a citizen. It doesn't look like we're going in the right direction. When you explained it Kate I think it's explainable but. I'll just underscore, you know when we sort of bless this thing, it's like that, that's Chanhassen. We've cast it. It's build out. But I think I'm biased towards commercial but I just want you all to think that as soon as you say this is it, commercial, that's it. And the one thing that they tell you on commercial. As soon as you stop building, you're dead. It loses it's life so that bothers me. I like what we're doing. I like the clustering. That's just really, I like the core city but you know, we've limited it. Peterson: ... talking about page 6, and I'll interrupt for a second as you're paging through. My comment, I'll go right back to it also. When we talk about commercial and office industrial and office, I'm concerned and greater minds than I have certainly looked at the percentages but we're putting a lot of onus on, is 1% the right number? Is 9%? And I'm just very concerned that we're putting so much dependence upon other communities saying that is the right percentage. Is it the right percentage for what we want to accomplish in Chanhassen having more employment here. Not being a bedroom community. Should we break from the pack and say, commercial, office, 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 industrial should be a total of 15% versus 11%? So that we are assured that that, that those percentages will fund the tax base. We don't know what it's going to look like 10 years from now. I mean the whole tax system is going to change...but I'd like to be real cautious that we think about what kind of town do we want to live in. Do we want to have a lot more in... years and those numbers may not be adequate. Like Ladd said, we won't get one more chance at this. I'd almost be more biased towards addressing the concerns of the citizens now by saying we'll up it and, it's a lot easier to up it now and lower it, than it is to increase it you know. Aanenson: Pretty hard to take it away from somebody and that goes back to my point with Ladd and I completely concur with what you're saying Ladd and I guess that's why we said, we think that the commercial should be...where it makes sense. If you give somebody commercial now, and it's a broad base commercial, it's very difficult to take away and then the door's open. What we're saying is that you know, we recognize there's some nodes, that there's some pretty exciting things can happen and we're going to recognize that and say you know if you come in with a great project, that we're going to give you some support commercial and I think we've been pretty good about it. The other thing you have to factor in, if you look at the southern area of the city, that map, the land use map that you have, the transportation issue gets very tough. You've got some existing large lot neighborhoods and to try to put some industrial in there, and I concur. This is an issue the Council's struggling with too. If you look at the beginning of the, as some of you may have been involved in the community assets and liabilities.., together and discuss that. Looking at being fiscally responsible. Do we have enough industrial? These are very legitimate questions. How do you balance that with maybe the infrastructure that's not in place to handle that transportation and when you bring those jobs in, and what it does to our road system. Those are very tough questions and I think that you're right. We need to think about that. Just because we've used this in the past, does that mean it's the right model and when we come back with the transportation in one month, I think a few more questions. Our biggest fear is that we will be built out before 212 is built and wow. That is a scary thought and what does that mean if we've got that many more employees so those are very good questions that we need to be thinking about and hopefully we'll have some more information for you and the transportation study being done. Brooks: On the transportation study, and I talked to Mayor Nancy Mancino about this. I am really concerned that all of our focus is going to be highways and that we really, really need to be aware that there is a commuter rail study going on and that we need to be a part of it. Right now the legislature does not have us as part of their commuter rail study and I believe there is a push... so I think that should be part of the transportation plan. I don't think rail should disappear out of it. Because 212 is not happening. I mean you know, 2020 maybe. And it's still a maybe. It's so far out it's not even reasonable. Aanenson: So I guess what we're saying is some of those more local streets are going to be having more traffic and what does that do when you start putting trucks on, in some of that sort so that's an issue that we need. We took, I wouldn't want to say a more conservative approach but we took what we heard during the Bluff Creek study and what made sense for existing large lot developments. What seemed to make some sense being fiscally responsible. Does that mean we can't increase it? Well I think there's places that you're right Craig, that maybe we should examine that a little closer. But we want to make sure we've got a handle on, do we have the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 infrastructure in place and I think once we have that we can examine a few other areas. And we did give some choices. If you look at the numbers, they're low. We said this could be medium density or it could be industrial. A lot of that was predicated on the infrastructure being in place so they may swing, and a couple of those areas where we had two or three land uses, again like I said, we split them into thirds but they could go all one way which is. Peterson: Ladd, I'm sorry to interrupt so. Conrad: Good conversation. I'll just challenge the folks up here. This is where we've got to be visionary a little bit in what we're talking about. Seriously. This is the end of the deal for Chan. It's always been easy to say well, we can always change it later on but this is sort of, and so you've got to be visionary and that's why I keep pushing commercial. And saying, well am I happy with how, what we're going to have. Is this it? Excelsior's dying. It's dead because there's no place to expand. It's dead. Dead. They're dying there so again, I'd go back, I don't want to bury that one. I don't have a real solution. Aanenson: Excelsior's dead, they got rid of the grocery store. Conrad: That's right. That's right. Two other points under the land use area. Under goals, I think they're all really good. I think they're fine. A challenge. The one under large lot, just to make sure we feel that it's really appropriate that when 50% say that's it, what are we saying? What are we saying when 50% want to subdivide. Does that, I'm not sure what you've just told me there. Does that mean each individual can, are we changing the zoning? I don't know what your point is here so you've got to make that real clear. Under how, you know then we talk about preservation and adaptive reuse of structures historical. Is this, is that a land use deal or is that a housing deal? It doesn't seem like land use to me but I just throw that out that that's, I think it's important. I'm not sure it's in the right category. Under housing, what does the word cohort mean? C-o-h-o-r-t. Aanenson: An age group. Conrad: No kidding. I'm even in that business and I don't know it, okay. I guess again it goes back to the policy page. Kate or Bob, under that 25% bonus. Could you throw that out to three good developers, builders and have them tell you what that means to them? Aanenson: Sure. Conrad: Good ones. I want, obviously the good ones but let's get some feedback on what that means. I'd be interested. You brought it up and I'll just underscore it but again, I tell you, it's terribly unfair to tell a builder that we've got a range here for density but boy, we're not going to tell you where we want you to be in that range. So I don't mind trying to push a density level. I think that may be appropriate but I need some guidelines on how to push it but I also need to communicate, one thing you need to do to a builder/developer is to tell them the rules. The only thing they hate is when they don't know what the rules are. So that one seems and I've said it so I just want to underscore that. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Peterson: Other questions or comments? Blackowiak: I have some comments. I don't know, do you have anything you want to say? I'm just going to run through land use quickly, as Ladd did. A few things that kind of jumped out at me. Under community liabilities. Talking about large land owners. Having the ability to retain their tracts. Convince me that's a liability. Aanenson: Well what it does is it's forcing you to develop land that's outside the MUSA to bring additional property in where we've already made a capital investment for the lift station and we have to bypass them. So what it does is it forces you to put other infrastructure, the roads may be in place, which they are in this circumstance, and sewer and water's gone by the property. So what we have to do is expend dollars somewhere else to bring in another property. It may not be if we chose not to grow at a certain rate but what it does is it, you know adding having property open space is fine but. Blackowiak: Well to me it's an asset actually. Aanenson: It could be. Blackowiak: I mean you're talking about diversity of housing types and wanting to have a community that is, you know made up of difl'erent types of houses and open space, etc. And to have areas of open space, not a bad thing. And I understand from a financial aspect that it would be nice to have everybody hooked up at exactly the same time but unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen. Aanenson: No, what we're talking is people that are holding 100 acres. Blackowiak: Right, right. Prince or whatever, specifically. I know a couple of them that you're referring to so I certainly understand what you're saying but I really wouldn't say that's a liability. I would say it's like a concern or even it goes into the next paragraph or the next section.., land use. I really, it's not a liability, I don't... To the maximum allowable density. I made a comment about that. Ladd you talked about it a little bit. It scares me to say you're going to have to go with the high end or else we're going to deny you. If the attorney's comfortable with it, fine. But if you're going to have a range, then I think that that's what people should be able to do. And to force them or to say that we're going to not approve them because they're not at the high end of density, I don't think is really fair. And again, you kept on saying tonight that we have to look at things and to decide if they make sense and I think that's really going to have to be the overriding principle. Does it make sense? You know, it would be ideal if it could be at the highest, but if like you say, North Bay you want it at 10. You got it at 7. You like the project. You know it made sense. Aanenson: Well we wouldn't do that again. I mean the only reason you did that because we've never, ever done a detached and you cannot do a detached in a low density district. We couldn't do that project in a low density. So what we're saying is if we want to participate in the Livable 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Communities Act, and we're not going to have this policy in place, we are going to have to go back and redistribute some of our low density to other land uses. So that's, otherwise we can't meet our goals. Blackowiak: Yeah, I understand that. I'm just saying it just scares me when you shut that out there. Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Blackowiak: MUSA. MUSA line. It scares me to have dates, and I've said it before. Not tonight but. Aanenson: Dates for expansion? Blackowiak: Yes. Aanenson: Okay. Blackowiak: I would like to have no earlier than or something to that effect. I don't like the idea of saying 2005, because if I picked up this map and I was a speculator and I wanted to buy property, and if this did not come in in 2005, I'd have a gripe with the city and I think that I'd be justified in having it. Generous: Well it could be in the MUSA like but if we can't do the capital programming, that's their. They can do it. We'd allow them to extend it. Aanenson: It's the same thing we have today. We have people that are inside the MUSA that we cannot provide service to and they're still lwo years waiting for it. Blackowiak: Yeah and that's fine but it just scares me. Aanenson: I understand your concern. The other thing is we have to provide.., it's one of the requirements for the Met Council but I understand your concern and we can certainly Alison, maybe qualify what we mean by that. Blackowiak: Maybe that's what I mean. Aanenson: I think that's a good point. Blackowiak: I mean I'd be a little more comfortable if you just, I just don't like those dates. I mean to me that's like concrete and it's going to happen then and we all well know that it just might not. And finally, preservation and adaptive... Has there been anything designated significant at this point? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Aanenson: Well we have some farmsteads. For example on the Rod Gram piece, when that came in. The homestead was saved. I think that's some of the apertures. We worked it into the plat. Those are the kind of opportunities that we're talking about. If we can work some of those. Actually we worked the round house into the park. Those are the kind of things we're looking at. Blackowiak: Okay. And housing, I'll go quickly. I guess the only thing was the 25% bonus. I was confused. Aanenson: Good point. Blackowiak: I think Ladd's suggestion of getting some other opinions is a good idea because it just didn't make a lot of sense to me so. That's it. Peterson: Other comments from fellow commissioners. Brooks: I just want to say really quickly that I was talking about they're not comfortable with maybe a, they're more comfortable with a range instead of forcing the maximum number of units in a high density area. But that might, but if we do the range, that might take away from some of the low density. I want to make sure that we keep some of the low density down there.., because otherwise I guess where I'm going is that I like the idea of pushing the high density areas to keep the low density. Otherwise Chanhassen's just not, it's not going to be a pretty place to live. Conrad: Maybe you want more medium density then. That's a decision .... about what Kate's saying. Then find an area to put some, then that definitely communicates to a builder/developer, hey. They want some medium density and that's. Brooks: We want to follow the, we want to provide the affordable housing.., we really need to keep in mind the visual aspects of Chanhassen. What this place is going to look like. Conrad: I don't think the residents really want to provide affordable. I think if you were to, you know, so it's a real sensitive issue. Aanenson: Yeah, I agree with what Ladd's saying. I think it's not always the affordability. It's what we're trying to also encourage is the diversity of housing types. We want to make sure that we're meeting the first time home buyer. We're meeting somebody elderly that wants a single level and.., what we're trying to ensure is that we have the life cycle housing so we can meet the needs of those future people that we want to stay here or move here. Conrad: Good objective. Peterson: Get enough direction Kate? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. Great comments. Thank you. I know it was a lot to read and it was a lot to listen to. But I hope that we were able to give you some good information. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 18, 1998 Peterson: With that, do I hear a motion and a second to adjourn? Sidney moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39