Loading...
PC Minutes 7-19-05 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 83. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 84. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Kevin Clark: Chair and commission, thank you very much. Appreciate your confidence in us and we're looking forward to continuing to contribute to this kind of feedback we get nationally and locally and we're glad to be part of it in Chanhassen so thank you very much. Appreciate it. McDonald: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL. PETERSON BLUFF. APPLICANT..T. EDWIN CHADWICK. LLC. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-20. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, who wants to start? Anyone have any questions? Keefe: Kate, I've got a question. In regards to the land use, 2020 Land Use Plan. With this change we're going to see a reduction in the planned office industrial and an increase in the residential, low density residential. Can you tell us sort of over a period of time what happens in regards to if we get a little bit out of whack. What is the potential down side to it? And then it's kind of early in the process where we'd have a fair amount of time to make up the variances but what happens if we don't get it? Aanenson: Well one of the things that we're working on right now, which we have guided that we believe will probably go more in the industrial, will be the old 212 corridor. We're looking at that. We're doing the corridor study as 212 becomes 312 and the old 212 is turning over to the County, the engineering department and planning staff is looking at an access corridor and how we provide good access for that because that we see also as a office industrial corridor. As we update the comprehensive plan we'll be looking at those pieces. We just found out today we did get funding from the State to study the 101. One of the major problems we have in the city is going north to south. Bob's...tomorrow with the 41 river crossing. That's a heated issue. You know whether that's actually going to go to provide access again getting people over the river, so we're looking at that and how that provides access for some of that southern area to provide additional industrial. So that's something we'll be looking at. We'll be updating the comp plan. It has to be done in 2008. We'll be starting on that process next year. Kind of looking at taking a tally of where we are to date. Are some of our assumptions valid? Invalid and a lot of it has to do hopefully when you look at the tax, how the state's, and that's fluid right now. Industrial's softer than multifamily. Multifamily takes a little bit more so that's always a moving target too so we'll be looking at that and giving.. .as we move forward. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Keefe: What's the down side for not hitting your target? You know I mean what happens? Is it a revenue issue or what is it in terms of, say we end up with more residential than... Aanenson: Well, sometimes it's the people perceive. There's a different service demand in different product types so really what it comes down to is do you need more schools or do you need more.. . for police and fire. Some of those sort of things that actually comes with industrial you have lots of demand on service. You may have more demand on a lot of services that the city sells so you know it's those sort of issues. You'd have to provide schooling, and you know we've got the school district numbers. The Chaska district does a very thorough study, we just recently updated their's, looking at product type and single family does produce the most number of children as opposed to other products, attached or otherwise apartments. Single family in general is the highest number of children located, so the... part of it's demand. Those sort of things so it's just the service call out, those sort of things. Keefe: So the guts of this change, you're looking at point, was it .4 percent increase or something along those lines in regards to the plan. Aanenson: Yeah, right. And again looking at this, when we put the numbers together and updated the comprehensive plan we compared ourselves to other similar situated cities size in scale. Whether that be Chaska, Savage, kind of what percentage they have industrial. You know ultimately it's the model that this city wants to be and where that, how that plays out. But again trying to be responsible to the overall economic stability of the community. Providing enough commercial to meet those needs. Some industrial and different housing styles. Keefe: Thank you. Papke: Just kind of following up on that. Question on page 6. The table for the AUAR. Is this the total net developable acres, is this before or after Town and Country and Peterson Bluffs? Aanenson: That's before. Papke: This is before. Aanenson: So what we did is we maximized that so what we said, total residential units in that area can be 1,500. Papke: Okay. So if I understand this correctly, the total net developable acres initially drops industrial with 70 acres and between Town and Country and Peterson Bluffs we've lost 60, so we're left with 1O? Aanenson: No, it's actually 30. There's still some on the Degler piece, which is. Papke: Okay. Because you know, according to the staff report we lose 20 with Peterson Bluffs. We lose 40 with Town and Country. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Aanenson: Yeah, I go by page 5. This is the other, the other piece right there. Papke: Okay. Related to that, on page 11 under the conditions. The first condition here, I'm a little confused by what it really means. Any land use changes to residential land use shall be based on another property requesting an industrial land use within the 2005 AUAR. What does that really mean to the developer? Aanenson: They had that same concern. I think the goal there was to see if we could try to replace that. That's always something the City Council wants us to look at, and that goes back to the same question that Commissioner Keefe asked. You know what are we doing to make sure that we're maintaining that and that was my answer, that we noticed another piece in the area. Not necessarily even in this 2005, although we do have a request. Some of that's looking whether or not that deal comes about, we mayor may not. Papke: So just to make sure I understand what the intent of this is, I mean the developer has no control over this. So this is really kind of a warning if you will or a caveat to the developer that approval of their application might be contingent on compensating. Aanenson: Right. The council may direct the staff to say you know if you can pick it up somewhere else, then we feel better about losing it. Putting them on notice. Papke: Okay. Then I understand. Thank you. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Larson: I don't have any. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just one more on the industrial. As these are coming in now and we're going residential and again the city's looking for industrial, I think some of the concerns with the people aren't ready to develop their land right now. When it gets to them and say the residence, the city wants industrial land, is that going to be forced on them? Aanenson: Right, well that's always been an issue and because we do have other pieces that sit out there for a while because sometimes you're waiting for the larger, for example Lifetime Fitness. The owner of that development asked several times for the city to split the piece. The city chose not to because we were waiting for that large tenant, and luckily we didn't or we wouldn't have Lifetime. So sometimes we just have to hold for the right tenant and that's, the pressure isn't there to change zonings. We've had that request with the school district about the property for that one to come in and change to multifamily and the council chose not to do that at that time and that's the piece just as I mentioned that's just north of this, kitty comer that the school district just bought. So there's always economic forces to bear. But again we looked at, because we know the road is a blending of those two pieces and the topography, that lent a lot to the decision making that the staff went through. Again going back to how we got to Town and Country's piece, the residents on the Chaska side. You know we looked at both those pieces. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Preserving the trees. The road issue and made the decision to go on that kind of lot fit in. What we've heard from a lot of people, and I know Mr. Fox is here, you know that we've heard a lot of people say they'd rather be on the other side with this, of the corridor had they known that. At the time we put the comp plan together, we weren't even sure 212 was still going to be funded. So we looked at those across the street. How Degler got their piece industrial because all 3 of those comers were then industrial so that kind of was the rationale for some of that. Keefe: One more question. Just tying into, and there's no proposal attached to this in regards to. Aanenson: That's correct. Keefe: It's just merely a zoning change. Why, why do we have just a zoning change without any sort of proposal? Aanenson: That's a good question. Because if you go to the next level, as you saw the plans for Town and Country, there's just thousand of dollars spent in engineering costs so this is really just to get an early read from you. To say does this make some sense and are we going to get no consideration, some consideration. So this is really what it is, kind of put together some ideas and get some direction and that's what that list has all the building comments of staff, engineering, planning that put together in order to say does this make some sense. Is there a rationale basis to even go to the next level? McDonald: Okay. Well I've got a couple of questions for you. Need you to educate me a little bit. We're being asked to approve a zoning for this to be a preliminary planned unit development. We're given some details. But as I understand it, all this does is create a framework for development. What happens here is that the developer is kind of given the dimensions of his box and what he will do is fill it in. If you agree with it, that's what we'll bring to the commission. If not, you all will negotiate and work within to then come up with the inside. Am I? Aanenson: That's correct. McDonald: Am I correct in all that? Aanenson: Yeah, again similar to the Town and Country process, they make, now they know where the road is, might say this is where we want, they may change some of the product type on that and then as a transition and that we probably put that on a work session for you and then kind of get it tighter and then build the plans from there. McDonald: Okay. And then, to kind of go where everyone else's concerns are, if we go with this PUD, are we locked into looking at residential or if the builder comes back and says, no. I want to go industrial, does he have that kind of freedom of by approving this are we locking into a certain type? Aanenson: As stated in our city code, conceptual PUD has no legal standing. Even if you told them, I mean obviously the goal is to give some good faith direction but if the council could 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 2005 obviously say something completely different, or they could come back and say you know we really changed our mind. We'd like to see something else. That's, you're allowed to do that too. McDonald: Okay, well I thank you for the education. I have no further questions. Does anyone else? And at that point is there anyone here from Mr. Peterson or representing his side of all this? John Chadwick: My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle. Chair, Planning Commission, staff. Thank you for the chance to visit with you this evening. Pretty exciting to be working here in a, what do I say, highly listed community. Really glad to do that one. I continue to support that. I was pretty excited when I saw that. I was going to be brief and then I remember my brother's a pastor so brief is really kind of a relative thing. But Mr. Peterson is here tonight. He's owned the property for 4 decades or been involved in it for even longer than that. Worked on it as a kid when they used to thrash, so if there's any kind of questions you have on the history of it, I think he can provide that to you. There's a great desire to make it a very nice project and to support the notion of a signature project and signature area for the community. And to that end the support of residential, we're asking for that now that there's residential on the west you just approved. There's a beautiful park in the Bluff Creek Overlay District as well as a brand new city park to the north, and it was pointed out residents, residents use parks so rather than put an industrial building that nobody's going to use the park, gee wouldn't it be nice to have people that are right there to use that park that you're going to build or have. And then if you look to the east, it looks like there might be some more residential coming in so to put a little sliver of something other than residential between all of that might not be the very best design to have Peterbuilt mixing with Tonka Toys. We'd like to support a very nice, kind of a little bit higher, high end development if you will overlooking that bluff and a little bit on the creek area, and there's a lot of nice trees down in the valley. So we're looking to preserve all of that rather than not preserve it and want to utilize those beautiful views that are there. And speaking of utilizing, in support of the AUAR, there's definitely a plan to build that east/west. I think Bluff Creek Boulevard. Thank you. In support of that and this would allow utilization of that and of course repayment of the assessment right away, which is, we're trying to support community goals and so we'd be able to do that. And in support of all of that we'd ask your kind consideration and that this can be given where it's located and given the beautiful natural topography that it would be a nice addition to the community and we'd ask your consideration of it. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, any questions from the commission? Keefe: Yeah, I've got one question for you. If you were to receive approval on this, what is the general timeframe that you're looking at for development. John Chadwick: If we were to get approval, we'd like to go as fast as we can. We have an engineer standing by and if they say, so that would really be great and it would really be nice to dove tail with all the efforts of engineering and planning on the AUAR. And that combined with, as I said in other meetings, kind of an army of yellow equipment coming over the ridge with the building of 212/312. Wouldn't it be nice to tie that in and get some real good utilization 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 and you know let's put our heads together and let those guys all work at once instead of leave and then have to come back. I mean that would be ideal. Keefe: So you're looking more short term than maybe 10 years out? John Chadwick: Oh lord yes. McDonald: Any other questions? I have no questions at this time either. With that, this is a public meeting so I will throw this open to the floor. Anyone who wishes to address this issue is invited to come up for the lectern and all we ask is that you state your name and address your comments to the commission. Okay. Seeing no one coming up, at this point I will close the public meeting and I will entertain motions from the commission. Oh I'm sorry, I guess I am putting the cart in front of the horse. Okay, yes. Discussion for the commission and we will start with Kurt. Papke: I must say I was pleasantly surprised when I received my packet here to prepare for tonight's meeting. I was very impressed with the quality of the development. The low density. The layout. I've already expressed, and you probably already heard my opinions on the round-a- bouts so I'm hopefully you'll work in that direction. Being a homeowner just about a half mile east of this development and running by this area every Saturday and Sunday morning on my morning job, one area of concern I have is, and Mr. Peterson is probably aware of this having lived in this area, is that Pioneer Trail here makes sort of a natural valley and makes a natural sound reflector, okay. And the sound coming up just from Pioneer Trail today is pretty substantial and of course 212 will certainly add to that. And so one of the things, you know I was a bit surprised to see the single family along the south, southeast comer of the development. It's up on a, the sight lines will be spectacular of course, but with any high place, development will also come a certain amount of susceptibility to sound, so I would hope the developer would be very sensitive to those sorts of issues, be it berms, trees, whatever you wish. I'm certain MnDot will do their utmost with 212, but for Pioneer Trail there'd be no protection from road noise whatsoever, and it's one of the things, unless you live in this area you don't appreciate, it's a very quiet area because of the lack of development right now. I mean you can hear for about a mile in the morning a car coming down Pioneer Trail and so I think sound abatement will be one of the issues that will really contribute to the quality of the development in here, since you're going to be quite close to both of the highways. Other than that I think it's a great development and I look forward to seeing your future plans. McDonald: Thank you. Deborah. Zorn: I agree with Kurt. I think it's a very nice plan and it's a transition from the west and I would support this moving forward. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: No comments. McDonald: No comments? Debbie. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 Larson: Well I'm thrilled to finally see some low density going in because everything I've seen since I became part of the commission has been high density. Not that they're not lovely projects. They are, but I'm thrilled to see it and good luck with it all. McDonald: Okay, Mark. Undestad: I agree. I mean it's time to get it going with the rest of the package out there makes sense. McDonald: Okay. And I guess the only comment I will add is that I look forward to seeing details as you fill in what's going to actually take place there and it should be exciting. We look forward to it. Okay, now with that I will entertain a motion from the commission. Zorn: I motion to, that the commission recommends approving Concept PUD with the following conditions, 1 through 26. McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. McDonald: I have a second. Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept PUD with the following conditions: 1. Any land use changes to Residential land use shall be based on another property requesting an Industrial land use with in the 2005 AUAR area. 2. Implementation of the AUAR recommendations. 3. The preliminary plat plans must incorporate the updated alignment of the east-west collector street and the proposed roundabout. 4. Turn lane requirements and the typical street section shown in preliminary plans must be consistent with the "2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report" recommendations. 5. A preliminary utility plan must be submitted with the preliminary plans and must comply with the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain design shown in the "2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report". 6. A pressure reducing valve is required within the development and must be shown on the preliminary utility plan. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 7. The preliminary utility plan must include lateral storm sewer to service the proposed development. 8. The developer's engineer must work with Town & Country's engineer to minimize the amount and/or height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 9. The attached single-family townhome buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 10. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 11. Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. 12. Complete proposed site, grading and utility plans must be submitted to determine more detailed requirements. 13. The City will be seeking park fees in lieu of land dedication on the Peterson parcel. 14. A report documenting the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual must be submitted to the City. 15. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around all AglUrban wetlands. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around all Natural wetlands. 16. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 17. All structures must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 18. Any areas on the property that meet the City's criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) must be shown on the plans and preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 19. The primary corridor boundary and the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary corridor and the setback. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19,2005 20. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 21. Based on the existing canopy coverage for the site, the developer will need to meet minimum planting requirements. 22. Bufferyard planting will be required along the south and west property lines. 23. Landscaping for the attached housing area should include native species for overstory and foundation plantings as well as non-native, ornamental selections. 24. Large groupings of materials will help extend the natural areas into the developed sites and create privacy for residents. 25. A strong, boulevard tree planting element is recommended within the development and required along any collector roads. 26. The development should establish view sheds to be preserved as part of the development." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL EST A TE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. AND WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-23. Public Present: Name Address Tom Witek Jim Leonard JoEllen Radermacher LuAnn Sidney Rick Buan Mimi & Nate Espe Cathy & Kevin DiLorenzo Ron Blum Christine & Mark Fischer Peggy Emerson 2318 Stone Circle Drive 2360 Stone Circle Drive 2479 Bridle Creek Trail 2431 Bridle Creek Trail 2569 Stone Creek Lane West 2300 Stone Creek Lane West 2382 Stone Creek Lane West 2081 Stone Creek Drive 2407 Bridle Creek Trail 8409 Stone Creek Court 40