Loading...
1978 12 13 e Prior to the meeting, Planni.ng Commissi.on members inte;rviewed persons interested in the Planning Commission. Art Partridge, LuAnn Wallentine, Clark Horn, Gordon Freeburg, and Jim Bohn were interviewed. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1978 Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 9:15 p.m. with the following members present: Tim Stone, Dick Matthews, Pat Swenson, Walter Thompson, and Jerry Neher. Bill Brezinsky was present. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY DETERMINATION SOUTH AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #2 . The Chairman called the hearing t050rder with Ted deLancey and Clark Horn present. The Assistant City Planner has not received any written comments on the proposal. Ted deLancey - I have had the opportunity of reading the correspondence that was issued in the last two days and for the information of the people here, let me just state where I am and who I am. we own the property that is partly encompassing the adjoining area of thepproposal for this variance. The question was raised in our particular situation of the property that we own down there, what are we going to do and I can't say exactly what we are going to do because no definite decision has been made. I think that what I do have to say, which is obvious to you people, is that we happen to'be having a rather large parcel of property within what is now become a fairly well developed metropolitan area. We are going to have to do something. We are going to have to develop it. We are going to have to sell it off. We can't continue to maintain that large afpiece of property with the type of pressures and by that I mean the type of assessments and taxes that are coming. This is pushing us about six to twelve months, ahead of schedule as far as my thinking is concerned. In view of'the request for the variance, what I would like to state to you is I think it does behoove all of us, myself as well as ,other people who are directly affected, that we do try and look at the total picture and say, what is the best situation over the long run. What can we do so that we don't put a ho~se in the middle of a floodplain or something of that nature which has been done. Which af course if the reason you people sit here. From my particular vested interest on the property that we have, yes we have to do something in the very very near future and I personally would like to approach that as intelligently as we possibly can rather than j~st a patchwork basis. Roman Roos - I think, Ted, an important thing what we were looking for with that public hearing, Mr. Sorenson came in with a request to subdivide his land and this' was just a kicker to kick the thing off. We held the public hearing to determine if we should promote a feasibility ,study on the overall area not only just the Sorenson property but your property. That was the primary purpose of that feasibility study. If you have read the comments from the adjoining neighbors, Rojina, Hedtke, Hagman, Horn, most of the comment e Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1978 -2- was quite negative to the feasibility study. M;rs. Hedtke was represented by Paul Rojina and was concerned about the .. cul-de-sac. That in essence was the feeling for that .. public hearing that we held. Bill Brezinsky - One point that I think that should be made that if this project was to go ahead Mr. deLancey would be paying somewhere between 70% and 90% of the cost of the road depending on how far it was extended. You should realize that. Ted deLancey - I guess if I may and I have probably been one of the most, over the years, have attended more and have contributed more in negative imput'to the Council, my reaction is I never come up here unfortunately until it's a vested interest situation or until there is a negative, ! guess I have to agree with the city when they"say that they think they are going to have this type of request in the future. I think it is inevitable. What I am trying to point out about our property or anybody elses property is, it is getting so you can't hold large blocks of property indefinite~y so somebody is going to come in and it's going to keep coming in. I may not like it. I am not saying that I like it. I am saying we have to face it and approach it the most intelligent way that we can. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 9:25 p.m. PRELIMINARY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY - SOUTH AUDITOR' S e SUBDIVISION 112: The City Engineer stated that the feasibility study would cost approximately $500. Roman Roos - The feasibility study could bring out several things. It could be a total project complete or it could be a phased project. I don't think we can consider the Sorenson issue in this. We were concerned with the deLancey property to the north. A possible subdivision of the Hagman property and the Hedtke property and the Hjermstad property. Those three pieces of property were the three viable candidates for subdivision over and above the Sorenson property. Bill brought out the idea of a partial cul-de-sac. That possibility exists. Dick Matthews - What we are saying is, do we want to authorize it now or later~ Are there deferred assessments on these parcels? Bill Brezinsky - There are none. When the sewer went through this area only the existing homes were assessed. Dick Matthews - Then there really isn't any incentive for them to subdivide the land. Bill Brezinsky - There is pressure on Mr. deLancey because of other street improvements, etc. Other than sewer and water you have quite a few assessments. Ted deLancey - I think I have as many as possible but I am exhausted by your ingenuity sometimes. Bill Brezinsky - There are no deferred assessments. The assessments are e on Mr. deLancey's property right now. Tim Stone - I am still trying to focus on why the residents had objected to the idea of having a feasibility study done. I feel comfortable with the knowledge that somewhere down the line e . e Planning Commission Meeting December l3, 1978 -3- that parcel is going to be developed and I am comfortable with the notion that it's going to develop fairly soon. If that's a given then it seems to me the study is in order. If the neighborhood is objecting to the cost,it appears from from what Bill has said the cost doesn't exist unless the project goes ahead. The neighborhood still has the possibility of having input once the feasibility study is done at the Council level to determine'whether they'wish to have the project proceed or not. I am not trying to usurp the individual rights but I am trying to understand is where the objections tr~ly were. If the objection was to the inevitable,it's not a reasonable objection in my mind. If the objection was to cost, I could understand that. If the objection was to the development pattern I could under- stand it but we haven't predicted a development pattern. Roman'Roos - If you read Clark Horn's comments 'in the minutes you will probably get the general sentiment of the people in that area. Just to paraphrase;nWe bought that lot for the size and the location. If you put a street through there eventually it's going to mean smaller lots and it's going to mean a different lifestyle'/ and I am sure that's . generally what Hagman was talking about and the same for Hedtke and for Clark Horn also because he has a sizable piece of land also. Tim Stone - I guess you are asking me to respond to Clark's comment and I guess it would be my feeling that if there is something desirable about those parcels in their undeveloped state, desirable to the extent that they felt that they should be preserved, then a vehicle has to be developed that would prevent the development of that land and I am not sure that that vehicle exists either at the public level nor have I heard anything from the private sector to indicate that there is an interest. I am not sure that it is the city's responsibility to set aside that preservatmon. Jerry Neher - I would like to express my opinion on this. Lots of times we have to think about what is planning. What is good planning. What is bad planning. If we are going to do a good job of planning I think there is only one way we can plan that thing and that's order a feasibility study because I think that's what planning is all about. Roman Roos - I guess I feel and I think I speak for the others that we should go ahead with the feasibility study at least to see some of the alternatives. That's not to say this thing will ever be a reality but I think we have to go that far. Tim Stone moved to recommend to the Council that they authorize Schoell and Madson to conduct a feasibility study on Erie Avenue/Frontier Trail, Planning Case P-60l and that the Council note the comments in the Planning Commission minutes of November 29, 1978, and this evening. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved. Clark Horn - I would like to recommend that the different alternatives also explore the possibility of not completing the road through from Frontier Trail to Erie Avenue. That would be disrupting an existing cul-de-sac. e e e Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1978 -4- TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT EXPANSION PROPOSAL: Walter Thompson chaired this portion of the meeting. The City Manager summarized what a tax increment district is and explained the history of the district in Chanhassen. Dick Matthews - We are considering the expansion of that original district and would somebody point out exactly what that amounts to. Bob Waibel - It includes Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, the Martin Ward property, and Victor Schmieg property. Dick Matthews - Why are we considering expanding the tax increment district at this time when we are wrestling with our first tax increment case? Don Ashworth - There are some other factors in here that become very over-riding in my own mind or at least in discussions with the HRA. Right now we have not been able to implement development in that area. We have been unable to get the Lake Ann Interceptor extended. We are looking for significant public costs. It would be assessed. I guess the guarantee portion is what concerns me associated with that overall park and again just looking at the number of years that it has been tried (that we have tried to set the framework for development). All of the comments that we made in regards to the tax increment district and potential incentives and potential ability to make it a reality, etc. - all apply. The question of why now really comes into play with other state laws and specifically fiscal disparities. The Fiscal Disparities Law says that 40% of the valuation (basically 40% of the taxes of any new commercial industrial properties) will go into a metropolitan pool and that those taxes then will be shared on a tax effort basis. For the most part, what it is saying is that the suburban area will contribute to the downtown area. Under a tax increment district it is no longer subject to fiscal disparities. To be able to create the tax increment district you need to make certain findings. You need to make a finding that we have been unable to get this thing going. That we have attempted to do it, etc. We are at that point in time right now. Dick Matthews - In orther words what you are saying is if we don't increase or expand the tax increment district to include that area then 40% of the tax revenue that's generated on that land will go into a pool. If we expand that to include that in the tax increment district all the tax revenue generated on that piece of property will stay within the community. Is that correct? Don Ashworth - That's correct. Dick Matthews - within the district which means it will stay here. Don Ashworth -, To date, 'Chanhassen has not contributed into the pool. However, we have some statistics as far as what's happening in other places and as I see it we are not that much unlike Eden Prairie, Chaska, Plymouth, Edina, Maplewood or other outlying areas. The impact of fiscal disparities on these communities has been significant. Eden prairie during the past two years has worked diligently to sell bonds for school expansion, their fire department, and city hall, e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER l3, 1978 -5- which may total one milli.on dollars or let's use two million dollars in cons'truction costs placing thi,s over a 20-year period, they are talking about s'omething like $lOO,OOO per year for these facilities. At the same point in time that they are trying to get the support of the people they are also paying one million dollars per year into the pool. Chaska is $250,000 per year. Tim Stone - How do we justify expanding that area and only that area as opposed to other portions of the commun:tty or as opposed to the adjoining parcel? Don AShworth - we could be challenged. Who knows we may end up losing but if we would 16se it is not as thoug'h we have lost any dollars. They would simply make a finding that we can't have the district. The justification that I consider and really that has been supported through Russ: Larson's office is that the area we are talking about is that area which has been planned for commercial/industrial since 1970. It is an area that the Planning Commission has' set out many years ago as a planned commercial dis,trict. It is' an area that starting with our comprehensive sewer plan that we attempted to get sanitary sewer to and that we have been unable to do for an eight-year period. It is an area that has been planned for development, but which has not occurred. It is an area making solely private development impossible due to the multiple ownerships and because of the expense of public improvements. Your finding of blight (which is required to be made by the Council} relates to the underutilization of the land. Not that we are going out and knocking down large buildings and allowing for redevelopment but that definition of o.li.ght includes the underutilization of land. In my own mind I can justify and say that the land has been underutilized for the last ten years and that without this' too,l, development will not occur. Let's assume we determine that we made a mistake. Two years from now we say we made a mi.stake. At any point in time you can abandon whatever portion of the district in the same fashion that you are considering, approving it - by resolution. Tim Stone - I feel very unconfortable from a planning point of view and the indirect impact that it has. I am nervous what the by- product is going to be. I see the potential for broken up parcels. I s'ee the potential for emphasis or at least an indirect encouragement for the expenditure of funds in the tax increment di.strict in areas other than in the downtown district. I see that potential. Don Ashworth - There could be some benefits though that would parallel that type of thing. Assume that there were a type of business within the downtown area that through redevelopment in that area that you wanted to relocate into a more proper setting (into the business park type of a setting). You then would have more flexibility as far as moving a business. Another area that you may want to consider is that the business park will have a high amenity value, but so will the price of the land. We could receive request from certain types of businesses that you really didn't want in the park. Whereas there may be other businesses that you feel as though would be very well suited for that type of location. We would really be in a position of e e e PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1975 -6- providing incentives for developments to occur in those areas where they would best be suited from a planning perspective. We could be acting on development proposals instead of reacting after basic land decisions had been made. Time Stone - Would the request to expand the tax increment district have an adverse impact on the existing tax increment district? Don Ashworth - I don't think there is any way that any type of a finding could in any way negate previous finds for the downtown area. I think we are on very solid ground. Dick Matthews - Could I just summarize two points? One is that by increasing the tax increment district we keep the tax revenue generated from that district within the district. The second advantage is that we would now have a larger district in which we can as planners, plan and place businesses with more flexibility than we presently have. Don Ashworth - You can't tell people where to develop but you can provide financial incentives for proposals meeting your development standards. Dick Matthews - That would be two very positive reasons to expand the district. You haven't told me a negative reason. In your opinion, is there a negative reason? Don Ashworth - As with anything else there will be some risk factors involved and it wouldn't lessen the number of headaches you have. In fact it would probably increase the headaches significantly in establishing development criteria, forms of incentive, assurances to protect public investments, etc. The major negative factor associated with this would be that although you are assured of losing 40% of the value you would be gaining 60% of the value that would be spread community wide, not within the district, for schools, county and city functions. In the district proposal what it says is that 100% of those taxes stay locally but when we say locally we say within the district. They are not used or available to the school, the county or the city as far as overall tax structure. There are means to overcome this negative portion, however. For example, whether you are in favor of a new public works facility, a new library, or an expansion to the city hall, one or some of these things are going to occur in the next five years. As a resident you are going to end up paying a portion of these costs. However, if they are built within the district and the district is successful, then the 60% portion could reasonably be allocated to pay costs that normally would have been shared by the entire community and to allow the HRA literally the 40% to do their incentive thing. Tim Stone - It is reasonable to assume that city facilities such as, a school, fire station, new city hall, belong within the tax increment district? It is reasonable for us to assume that we can accept satellite growth. We have spent a lot of time talking about tax dollars but the Planning Commission's issues I think focus on physical planning. The issues pertinent to dollars, taxes, revenue sources are more Council concerns than they are Planning Commission concerns. I would like to get back to deal with physical planning. e e e , , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER l3, 1978 -7- Dick Matthews - I think you are definitely concerned w'ith, taxes because that's what gr'Owtn is pr'Ometing. Jerry Neher - I think if we expand the district we can leok for these facilities in that area. Tim Stone - It gets dewn te the question 'Of priori,ties. You nave already indicated tnat the tax increment di,strict can be expanded and contracted at will, if that's the case i~t aeems to me that it is apprepriate to say fine, when and if the time arises that there is a need for facilities sucn as that and cannet be hous'ed within the existing tax increment district that's tne time to cons'ider the pessibility of expanding the district. Jerry Neher - That might be toe late because 'Of the fact that it might be a proven fact that it is' net a blighted area anymere. Dick Matthews - Whe is it that will decide the ameunt 'Of incentive to meve this to here 'Or that to there? Don Ashwerth - The HRA, acting as a recommending bedy te the Ceunci,l. Dick r1atthews - Certainly the advantages at leaS't from what r can digest, from a tax, planning, cenunun.ity, whateve.r point 'Of view, outweigh the negativeS'. In that l.ight, I would have te say T think we would be crazy i.f we d.idn't go along with it. I can't see how it can't help us as planne,rs. r can't see hew it can't help us in keeping our tax dollars here where they belong. I can't see hcw it can't help in the cemmunity, growth" jobs. Roman Roes' - We made a cemmi,tment here. Th.is i,S' where we wanted the industrial park whether it's tax increment 'Or not. We made that commitment a year ago. We wanted s'Ome place where we could put industrial type development. Dick Matthews meved te recommend the Ceuncil expand the, tax increment district to include the tracts 'Of land commenly' Knewn as' the5cfunieg Farm, the Martin ward homestead, and phases T, IT, and III of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 'Owned by the Lake. SUsan Hills' Partnersll.ip, all of which tracts of land are located within the S'outhwest quadrant 'Of the intersectien of State Highways 5 & lOl. Metion s'ecended by Jerry Ne.her and unanimeusly apPreved. Tim Stone - I think my cencerns rlll be expressed in the Planning C'Ommi.ssien minutes and r feel comf'Ortable with, the respenses that I received from staff. Dick Matthews - I am in favor 'Of it fer the following reascns: l. It gives us a better planning tocl. 2. It keeps the tax dollars within the tax increment district. 3. I feel it overall will add more suppert to the community. What I am concerned with is, we are gcing tc be faced with the same thing that Eden Prairie is, building fire stations, community facilities and what have ycu t'O support this cemmunity and we have get te have a place where we can put them and build them and take the tax dollars from that area to pay fer it and not take it cut 'Of the individual resident'~ pocket in the way of increased taxes and I see this as an ideal way 'Of doing it. Pat Swenson - I concur with what Dick said and alsc believe that this is the preper time te de it insemuch as that delay might cause the inability tc implement the additicn and it might be lest to us as far as a tax measure. PLANNING COMr-1ISSION MEETING DECEMBER l3, 1978 -8- e Roman Roos - From a physical planning point of view, I think that we have already determined that it will be an industrial park. From the numerous reasons mentioned this evening in terms of the tax dollars staying in the community, I think it's pretty much a cut and dried decision to go this route. Jerry Neher - I am for the motion because I think it is good for the city financial and planning, as well as employment perspectives. Walter Thompson - I feel this confirms our previous action in formulating the industrial district south of Highway 5. As presented to us tonight, the economics of the situation and the preservation of the planning process of the Planning Commission is maintained. ROME PROPERTIES - ACQUISITION AND SALE, HRA: Tim Stone moved that the resolution as submitted by the HRA in minutes dated November 14, 1978, and as amended to delete references to the size of the tract and include a reference to the tract described as Rome properties is approved by the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews. The following voted in favor: Dick Matthews, Tim stone, Walter Thompson, Jerry Neher, and Pat Swenson. Roman Roos abstained. Motion carried. e STREET VACATION - ARBORETUM DRIVE: Roman Roos chaired the remainder of the meeting. The University of Minnesota, Office of Physical Planning, is requesting to have Arboretum Drive vacated. Since a small portion of the road is in Victoria, the City Planner had contacted Larry Bodahl of the City of victoria and he saw no grounds of objection. The County Surveyor's office has informed the Assistant City Planner that David Boorsma owns land abutting Arboretum Drive at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway Sand Arboretum Drive at the western most intersection in Victoria. Jerry Neher moved to recommend the Council vacate Arboretum Drive contingent upon the city Attorney's approval. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. MINUTES: Walter Thompson moved to approve the November 29, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Dick Matthews and unanimously approved. Dick f1atthews moved to note the November 27, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Dick Matthews moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Pat Swenson and unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at l2:1S a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager e