6 Town & County Homes PUD CITYOF
7700 Market Boub,,ard
PO Bs:,: i47
· ,~ ........... 55317
Administration
Pr-,o'-~: 952227.1 iO0
Fa',:: 952.227.11!0
Building Inspections
Pn;:-,~: 952.227.1 IS0
:a',:: ~52.227 !1gO
Engineering
F~-cr:~: 952.227.i!60
Fa;: 952.227.ii70
Finance
?.?¢: 952.227.1140
9,~2.227.1i10
Park & Recreation
P': :"~: 952.2!7.i i20
Fax: 952.227.1110
~:?s:-, Center
ecu ter Bsule.,,ara
x'~-s",e: 952.227.1400
952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
?:::.':e: 952.227.1 !30
Fa:,:: ~,~,,.-.,.,..,'. ii0
c.~"~ qq- 1
Public Works
?hoze: 952.227.i300
Fa>:: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
v~,~n~. 952.227.1125
Fa:,:: 952.227.11i0
Web Site
',' ',.,; chanhassen mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director
October 28, 2002
SUB J:
Concept PUD of 88.5 acres of property for 540 residential units
Executive Summary
Town and Country Homes is requesting a conceptual PUD rezoning to allow for a
mix of residential development. The Planning Commission discussed this item
on two occasions; the first on August 6th and the second time on October 15th.
The Commission tabled any action on this item for additional information. The
staff held two work sessions between the meetings to inform the commission and
the council as to how the land uses in the 2005 MUSA area were selected and
then the commission took a field trip to visit to other large mixed use projects.
The majority of the discussion revolved around the issue of whether or not this
propmxy should be developed as industrial or residential. It is guided for either
one.
At their October 15th meeting the commission recommended the approval of the
concept PUD for medium density residential development. Some of the planning
commissioners felt that the concept PUD was not a complete application and
furthermore there was not enough information to give conceptual PUD. It is
staff's opinion that the requests that the planning commission had made (see
attachment) will be addressed in conditions of approval in either the AUAR
(environmental assessment document) or the development of the PUD standards.
The planning commission issues are relevant and will be addressed before the
next level of review.
The Planning Commission asked for a Fiscal Impact Study. This item was
addressed through a tax comparison of 10 acres of development developed as
single family, medium density residential or industrial. The medium density
residential and industrial taxes generated were comparable. Additionally, the
commission wanted a cost analysis. The City Manager and the Finance Director
have addressed this issue. There is not a model available to track this broad of a
question. Staff is seeking clarity of this request and possibly removing it as a
condition of approval.
The conditions have been modified to reflect the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
The
~ity o! Chanhassen ·/:. ¢rov, i~ community w¢th clean lakes. ¢qualfty schoo!s, a charmino., downtown, thrivine~ bu*~, nesses, v,'indine, trails, and beautiful parks. A c,~at~ .place :~,,,~ . i~.:~, u'~lrk,,~.~. ~;.u2-rifl Dlay.
Todd Gerhardt
October 28, 2002
Page 2
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the concept PUD with the following conditions'
o
The applicant shall contribute to the preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide
Review (AUAR) in lieu of an EAW for the 2005 MUSA area. The AUAR shall study the
following issues:
a. Public facilities-school, park, utilities, fire station
b. Environmental features-Bluff Creek Overlay District, Wetlands/bluffs, open
space and trees.
c. Transportation system-traffic/road plan and the ongoing considerations of the
existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of Hwy. 312 and
Powers Boulevard.
d. Utilities-Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer
e. In addition, the AUAR shall address the following issues:
i. Potential school sites, fire station, water tower, and creek crossing.
Collector road systems as well as traffic, infrastructure requirements:
sewer, water, storm sewer and natural resources including wetlands, trees
and slopes.
f. Fiscal tax study
.
A Medium Density PUD shall be created with the following items addressed:
landscaping (entrance, streetscape and buffering transitions, uses and density), possible
support commercial, neighborhood connections (trails and sidewalks), design standards
(materials, architectural details and variety), transit (slip off lanes), public access to park
areas, preservation of natural features (bluffs, wetland, trees), housing plan (range of
product and price).
3. The applicant shall petition the City for city services (sewer, water, etc.).
4. The applicant shall develop a housing diversity plan.
.
All wetlands on-site shall be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked by
City staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more
detailed plans for this site.
.
The applicant shall keep the goals for the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District in mind as a plan is developed for the site and work with staff to achieve these
goals for this property.
a. Preserve and manage the high-quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak
woodlands to extend the high-quality system of the Gorge Region;
b. Restore impaired ecosystems to their natural condition; and
c. Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek
Todd Gerhardt
October 28, 2002
Page 3
con-idor.
7. The applicant shall an'ange for the Bluff Creek primary and secondary zone boundaries to
be field-verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site.
8. The Building and Fire Marshal comments shall be incorporated into the next level of
review.
CITY OF
PC DATE: 10/15/02
CC DATE: 10/28/02
REVIEW DEADLINE:
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Conceptual PUD of 88.5 acres of property for 540 residential units.
Z
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
East side of Audubon Road, south of Lyman Boulevard and north of Pioneer
Trail (E 1/2 of the NE lA of Section 27, Twp 116, Rng 23 West)
Town & Country Homes
7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-253-0474
b.l
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LANI) USE PLAN:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
A2, Agricultural Estate
Office/Industrial, Residential Medium Density, and Parks
and Open Space
87.4 acres =m'oss 71.0 net acres
6.2 units/acre - gross; 7.6 units/acre - net
Requesting Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for
a multi-family housing project.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Town and Country Homes is requesting a rezoning to allow for a mix residential development.
This item was first at the August 6th Planning Commission meeting. The subject site is 88.5 acres
(gross) and is currently zoned A-2 (Agricultural Estates). The subject site, the "Bernardi" parcel,
is located in the 2005 MUSA area. The applicant is seeking conceptual PUD rezoning approval.
Staff recommended the PUD because this site is guided for medium density residential zoning as
well as being in the Bluff Creek Overlay district. The tool that the city has to cluster density out
of the primary district is the PUD. As per the PUD ordinance "approval of the concept statement
shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to
a planned unit development district." The purpose of the concept plan is to outline the issues that
the applicant will have to further develop in order to proceed with preliminary subdivision and
rezoning to PUD. The overall review process is anticipated to take a couple of years. Staff is
not proposing to advance the MUSA any sooner than 2005.
Staff is recommending that as a part of the PUD a variety of housing types (products not
currently in the city) and different price points. The city does participate in the Livable
Communities Act and has goals for housing diversity and affordability. As a part of this project
staff is anticipating that the developer works towards achieving these goals.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting staff has worked to inform the Planning
Commission on how the land use recommendations were selected in the 2005 MUSA area. In
addition the staff has been working to educate the commission on how a substantial PUD can be
developed and the importance of the Town and Country project to the greater 2005 MUSA area.
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the commission and council without
incurring a lot of expensive. There will be a greater level of detail required through the city code
and the conditions of approval in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual
PUD approval.
Sec. 20-517 General concept plan. Chanhassen City Code
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without
incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed
with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 3
obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a
planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all
supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal
property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500)
feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations fi'om the planning commission,
the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a
report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may
proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such
conditions, as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire
council.
Actio~s reqt~ired
E~,i;'o~7~e~tal Assess~e~t
This project will require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet "EAW" because it will
have more that 375 attached dwelling units. Another and more comprehensive alternative to
the EAW would be an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review Process (AUAR). The review
would include the entire the 2005 study area. The review would include:
A. A land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent
of use of land and water for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and other
public and private purposes.
B. A public facilities plan describing the character, location, timing, sequence, function,
use, and capacity of existing and future public facilities of the local governmental
unit. The public facilities plan must include at least the following parts:
1. A transportation plan describing, designating, and scheduling the location,
extent, function, and capacity of existing and proposed location of public
and private transportation facilities and services; and
2. A sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating and
scheduling the areas to be served by the public system, the existing and
planned capacities of the public system, and the standards and conditions
under which the installation of private sewage treatment system will be
permitted.
C. An implementation program describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other
actions to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan. The implementation
plan must include a description of official controls addressing the matters of zoning,
subdivision and private sewage systems, a schedule for the implementation of those
controls, and a capital improvements program for public facilities.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 4
Even though not all of the property is ready to develop at this time, staff is proposing to work
with this applicant and other property owners to pursue the AUAR environmental review
process.
2. Rezoning
Rezoning of this property to medium density or industrial would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. If the commission were to recommend the industrial land use rather than
the medium density findings would have to be prepared.
BACKGROUND
With the development of the comprehensive plan in 1999, this property was given the two land
use alternatives: residential or industrial, as well as parks and open space within the Bluff Creek
Corridor. The reason it was given both potential land uses was that the site has been and is
farmed and is relatively fiat. In calculating the city's 2020 land use designations this 80-acre site
was calculated at 50 percent industrial and 50 percent medium density residential. (The city's
2020 land use for industrial zoning was estimated at 1,269 acres or 8.6 percent of ultimate
commercial. If this site were to be developed as all residential, there would be 40 acres less of
industrial land or a reduction from 1,229 or a percentage reduction of .03 percent to 8.3 percent.)
Based on the developer's calculations of net developable (71 acres) with a maximum of 8 units
an acre, the maximum number of units could be 568. However all of the standards of the PUD
(impervious surface, parking, etc.) must be met before it can be certain how many units can fit on
the site. Again design of the housing units will be evaluated as a part of this project.
Architectural design standards will be developed as part of the PUD. Staff's direction to the
applicant is to provide a variety of housing types and prices within the development.
The subject site is anticipated to be in the Metropolitan Service Area in 2005. This does not
mean that the area is ready to develop. A plan must be developed as to how the urban services
will be installed. There is an existing lift station at Lyman Boulevard that will service this area.
A feasibility study will be required to determine where the sewer and water will be placed to
serve this area and the cost of assessments. In addition, a road system will have to be developed
to serve the rest of the parcels in this area. The AUAR environmental assessment will also help
to deten-nine development of the area to be studied and evaluated.
Once the AUAR has been developed and the issued scoped it will the input of the cit to work to
develop the PUD some guiding principles should be generated. These principles may include
key words such as: Sense of Place, Diversity and Balance,
Sustainability/Conservation/Preservation, Live work etc. Staff has recommended some specifics
issues as a part of the conditions of approval.
Bluff Creek Overlay District
A part of this site is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The tool used to preserve areas within
the primary district is density transfers. Again this is why the staff is recommending the PUD
zoning.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 5
ANALYSIS
Following are conceptual comments that the various city divisions have offered as further refines
that need to be made for the next level of review. The Alternative Urban Area wide Review
Process will address these issues in greater detail.
Engineering
An east/west collector street will be required to connect the developing area with Audubon
Road. The location of the collector will be determined in the future during the preliminary
plat design phase. The developer of this parcel will be responsible for building the street;
however, the City will pay for the additional expense of constructing the road from a
standard street to a collector. This collector street may require crossing Bluff Creek.
A trunk sanitary sewer main will be needed to service the development and sun'ounding area.
This main will be a gravity flow sewer that drains north to Lift Station #24 at the corner of
Audubon & Lyman Blvd. The City has planned for the construction of this trunk sewer main
in 2005 within the 5-year CIP (Capital Improvement Program).
Likewise, a trunk watermain will also be required to serve the development and surrounding
areas. The City has listed this trunk wate~Tnain as a 2005 project in the 5-year CIP.
Building Comments
a. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of
the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota
State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these
requirements.
b. The State of Minnesota is in the process of adopting the International Building Code and
revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection
systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It
is important that the developer meet with the Inspections Division prior to platting the
property to determine what ramifications the new codes will have on the project.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
d. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal Comments
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the above rezoning plan. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, he has the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available information submitted
at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items
will be addressed.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 6
A I O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
o
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection, is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniforrn Fire Code Section 901-3.
3. In the cul-de-sacs with the center island "no parking" signs will be required. Contact
Chanhassen City Fire Marshal for additional information.
4. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees or shrubs must be either
removed from site or chipped.
5. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
6. Submit cul-de-sac to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
Parks
The Park Commission has identified the 2005 MUSA area as "park deficient." A community
park may or may not end up in the Town and County site. As a part of the AUAR environmental
study the park location and size for this area will be evaluated.
Potential school site
Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of a school site in this area. If the school
district, as a part of their study, considers a school in this area it should be considered as a part of
the AUAR.
Environmental Issues
Existing Wetlands
There are several existing wetland basins on-site, including both ag/urban wetlands and natural
wetlands. All wetlands on-site should be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked
by City staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more
detailed plans for this site.
Wetland hnpact Avoidance, Minimization and Replacement
Wetland impact avoidance, minimization and replacement must occur in a manner consistent
with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant should submit a
wetland alteration permit application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall
obtain City approval of a wetland replacement plan.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 7
Bluff Creek Overlay__District
The site is partially within the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This region
of the overlay district is characterized by significant tracts of forest land, the highest quality
wetlands in the Bluff Creek co;widor and diverse wildlife habitat.
The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan
(BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to:
1. Preserve and manage the high-quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak
woodlands to extend the high-quality system of the Gorge Region;
2. Restore impaired ecosystems to their natural condition; and
3. Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek comdor.
The applicant should keep these goals in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work
with staff to achieve these goals for this property.
The mapped boundaries of the primary and secondary comdors of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District vary between those shown in the Plan and those included on City maps. The applicant
should arrange for the boundaries to be field-verified by staff prior to the development of a more
detailed plan for this site.
Storm Water Management, Easements, Bluffs and Erosion Control will all have to be reviewed as
a part of the AUAR. Surface Water Management fees will also be required as a part of any
development.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain pe~Tnits fi'om the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Pm'gatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Forest~3~
The proposed natural resources preservation shown in the concept development plan is excellent
because it protects all of the environmentally important areas. There are two sites protected
within the overlay district, one northern and one southern. The wooded areas in the northern
overlay district area are in good to excellent condition. Large, mature oaks, maples, lindens, and
hickories fill the overstory of the forest with a healthy mix of species in the understory. There is
a small amount of buckthorn in the southeast corner of the district, but it could be easily
managed and eradicated. The southern district is a mix of lindens, boxelders, maples, ash and
elm also with a variety of species in the understory. This area could be left as is or actively
managed to increase the number of long-lived species, such as maples and oaks.
Both districts should be permanently protected by conservation easements. The development
summary states that there are eight acres within the districts that are developable. These acres
should be used as a density transfer. No development is recommended for the northern district.
The southern district could support hiking trails or other low impact amenities, especially if it is
to be actively managed as a forest in transition.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 8
Landscaping for the townhome and condominium area should include native species for
overstory and foundation plantings as well as non-native, ornamental selections. Large
groupings of materials will help extend the natural areas into the developed sites and create
privacy for residents. A strong, boulevard tree planting element would also be an attractive
element.
Hotlsing
A part of the city comprehensive plan deals with housing goals and policies. The city does
participate in the Livable Communities Act and has goals for housing diversity and affordability.
As a part of this project, staff is anticipating that the developer work towards achieving these
housing goals specifically by preparing a housing plan. The city held a Housing Summit in May
of this year. The outcome of the Summit was the development of some common themes (see
attachment). One common theme was that the community have "lifestyle housing where one
could live, work and play." Housing should be provided with the community so that the city can
be a place to live work and play. In order to have the commercial development the city also
needs to develop a population base. This can be accomplished through housing diversity.
Following are the city housing goals'
Table 2-3 CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL
Affordability
Ownership 37% 60-69% 30%
Rental 44% 35-37% 35%
Life-Cycle
Type (non-single 34%
family detached) 19% 35-37% 1991 Comp
Plan
Owner/Renter Mix 85/15% 67-75 / 25-33% 80-90 / 20-10
Density
Single Family
Detached 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1.8
Multi-family 11/acre 10-14/acre 9-10
Overall Average 3.3
Zoning Options
One of the major issues for the Planning Commission is the appropriate land use. Attached is the
comprehensive plan land use percentages, a land use comparison of other communities and a tax
capacity analysis. If this area were to be industrial, the surrounding land use also needs to be
considered. A school in conjunction with housing as a possible density transfer ne~ds to be
considered in the overall mix. Density cannot be transferred with an industrial land use.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Pag~ 9
The advantage of industrial uses may appear to create more taxes with less service demands.
Industrial would reduce the number of children but with the multi-family
maximum of 568 units, the project number of school children is 1 t4 (a single family
development projection would be 100). The advantage of multi-family is that it creates a market
for additional commercial uses and housing for workers. It appears based on current tax policy
"2002", multi-family would pay more taxes (see tax comparison and additional new
comparisons).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the concept PUD with the following conditions:
.
The applicant shall contribute to the preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide
Review (AUAR) in lieu of an EAW for the 2005 MUSA area. The AUAR shall study the
following issues:
a. Public facilities-school, park, utilities, fire station
b. Environmental features-Bluff Creek Overlay District, Wetlands/bluffs, open
space and trees.
c. Transportation system-traffic/road plan and the ongoing considerations of the
existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of Hwy. 3111 and
Powers Boulevard.
d. Utilities-Sewer, Water, Sto~Tn Sewer
e. In addition, the AUAR shall address the following issues:
i. Potential school sites, fire station, water tower, and creek crossing.
Collector road systems as well as traffic, infrastructure requirements:
sewer, water, storm sewer and natural resources including wetlands, trees
and slopes.
f. Fiscal tax study
.
A Medium Density PUD shall be created with the following items addressed:
landscaping (entrance, streetscape and buffering transitions, uses and density), possible
support commercial, neighborhood connections (trials, sidewalks) design standards
(materials architectural details and variety) transit (slip off lanes) public access to park
areas, preservation of natural features (bluffs, wetland, trees) housing plan (range of
product and price).
3. The applicant shall petition the City for city services (sewer, water, etc)
4. The applicant shall develop a housing diversity plan.
5. All wetlands on-site shall be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked by
City staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more
detailed plans for this site.
6. The applicant shall keep the goals for the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District in mind as a plan is developed for the site and work with staff to achieve these
goals for this property.
Bernardi Concept PUD
October 15, 2002
Page 10
a. Preserve and manage the high-quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak
woodlands to extend the high-quality system of the Gorge Region;
b. Restore impaired ecosystems to their natural condition; and
c. Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek
corridor.
,
The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek primary and secondary zone boundaries to
be field-verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site.
8. The Building and Fire Marshal comments shall be incorporated into the next level of
review.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Submittal letter and application.
2. Public hearing notice and property owners list.
3. Summary of Housing Summit.
4. Land use comparisons.
5. Five tax comparisons.
6. Minutes for August 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting.
TOWN
Minnesota DMsion
HOMES
August 30, 2002
Ms. Kate Aanenson
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Bernardi Property
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
Thank you for meeting with us to review the Bernardi property issues. This letter
represents a'written request to extend the city review period of the Concept Plan to
the October 30, 2002.
Please contact me at 952-253-0448 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
· ,. 2. ,' / ~ (' '- "',,
:- :~'-'(~"':-'""-'- (-'"' -i ( r.!~ ,:-,..{....
Krista R. FJemming
Project Manager- Land Development
07/02/02 14:16 FAX 612 937 5739
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
002
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICAN'r:i~ ',V,,,'"~'~ t~.. ("~-'[,c-V(---t1'-i. ~-'' ' ~.~-~
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Day time) C'~'''? '";' : .....
.. '..-~
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned..., Unit De, velop..,rnent*. .
(..' ,, "~ . r f'--.--t, i "- ~" '
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
'",._._~_ Notification Sign
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUPISPRIVACtVARIVVAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~' t(.,',~
A list of ali property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~003
07/02/02 14:17 FAX 612 937 5739
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ACREAGE
YES ~ NO
WETLANDS PRESENT ---------
PRESENT ZONING ~
REQUESTED 'q' ~ ;
ZONING~
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
IGNATiON
REQUESTED LAND USE DES ,
REASON FOR THiS REQUEST /
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Ptannin!
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies Shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this apptication. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(.either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deaalines for submission of material and the progress of this application, t further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the appticant.
..... Date -----
Signature of Fee Owner
Fee Paid Receipt No.
Application Received on
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
ROPOSAL:
Conceptual Planned
Unit Development
APPLICANT: Town & Country Homes
LOCATION- Lyman Boulevard
OTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Town &
:ountry Homes, is requesting a conceptual PUD of 88.5 acres of property for 540 residential units on property
zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the east side of Audubon Road, south of Lyman
oulevard and north of Pioneer Trail. The concept review purpose is to give clear direction for the next
vel of review.
Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
,~quest and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
~e public hearing through the following steps:
Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
The applicant will present plans on the project.
Comments are received from the public.
Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
ease contact Kate at 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
otice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 2, 2002.
2005 MUSA
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
Mr. Dean Degler
Trustee of Trust
9111 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Gayle Degler
1630 Lyman Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dorsey & Dorsey
1551 Lyman Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Jeffrey A. Fox
Trustees of Trust Fund
5270 Howards Point Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Mr. George St. Martin
9231 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 5531'7
Aurora Investments, LLC
5215 Edina Industrial Blvd.,
Suite 100
Minneapolis, N,~N 55439
Mr. Sex'erin Peterson
15900 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Fox Properties, LP
27990 Smithtown Road
Excelsior, ~ 55331
Mr. Bruce Jeufissen
1500 Pioneer Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Gilbert Laurent
Trustees of Trust
24760 Cedar Point Road
New Prague, MN 55347
Ms. Char Jeurissen
*lark & Jennifer Johnson
9715 Audubon Road
Ct~.:Lnhasscn, MN 55317
Ms. Kara Stn~zanti
2901 Forest Ridge
Chaska. MN 55318
Mt'. John Klingelhutz
c/o Klingelhutz Construction Co.
350 Hwy. 212 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Tim Keane
Lakin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren
1500 NW Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55431
.",,'Is. Mary Jo Hansen
2890 Forest Ridge
Chaska. MN 5531
Mr. Charles \Vagner
94-01 Audubon Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Mitch Anderson
1853 Timberview Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Ms. Aline Stcwmt
2848 Timberview Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Ms. Susan Lundgren
2855 Timbervicw Trail
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Jeff Kerfeld
2702 Shadow Wood Coull
Chaska, MN 55318
Town & Country Concept Plan
Information requested of Staff by Planning Commission:
· Park and recreation input/sidewalks
· School district input
° Notification of Chaska residents
· Land use designation of Wagner property
· Chaska land uses and zoning of nearby parcels
· Product types/general layout of streets
° Intensity compared to other developments
· Nature of amenities
· Tax implications
· Delineation of transition areas
· ,---Additional-options:for.mixed. residential/industrial
· Impact on Degler property
° Reduction in density
Affordability of residential units
Location of conservation easements
.'~ ,:.,..' '>
HOUSING SUMMIT
CiO' of Cha~.hasse~
May 23, 2002
Common Tl~emes
To have life style housing available to live, work and play.
What do you want your community to be?
If you want/provide housing within the community so it can be a place to live, work and
play.
viable community where all people are invested.
Philosophy on-going and updating.
· Definition
Education/constant to new people moving in
Engaging larger community- faith/business/government/education/in housing planning
implementation.
Affirmation
Policies/zoning new
Long-term planning to make the best use of the land
Group 1
Re-evaluate the cun'ent land use and zoning.
- rezone to medium and high density
Review park dedication in cash fees versus land taking
- evaluate need in every neighborhood
- work with the park commission
- meet neighborhood life style needs
Property tax - concern with increase for seniors
Fewer land use restrictions
Engage key local businesses in affordable housing issues
Local official housing (champions) and support of government
- Work with community leaders and business organizations
- Inform and educate
Citizens/public of vision
Staff
Council
Group 2
Affi~Tn support
- constituent a dialogue
- contributions
Educate
Define life styles affordable
Define Chanhassen's needs
- who and phce
tellers
college graduates
pastors
age groups
one size does not fit all
Define options / product
Means to affordable
- recognize that $'s are needed
Dollar sources
- Faith-community
- Government
- Private
Other
- Density/zoning
- Fees/but for/zero loss big help to builder
Streets
- Allow for nmrower
Retention
- How long to we need it?
- Which parts -continue surveying
- How do we keep it?
Rental/long term assistance
For sale/land trust, corporate inc., 2nd mortgage
Property tax
Group 3
Ensure a range of housing types, ages, price ranges throughout the community
- Take the focus off of only new construction as only affordable
- Support first time owners in existing/older stock
--
Partner to provide classes to build renovation skills
- (Hardware stores, Community Ed, etc.)
City has an on-going educational process on housing
- Community conversations
What makes our community whole?
Who needs to live here?
- List of resources, options for seniors to stay in homes (e.g. reverse mortgage), option
for first time buyers
- What can community agencies, businesses, individuals contribute?
Habitat
Banks
Christmas in May
- Is HRA the vehicle? Shift to active outreach/education
City policies, practices, schedules, facilitate, ability of developers to produce affordable
housing. Also, think housing in price range to allow lateral move within community
(single family- townhome)
Explore/identify/implement methods to hold housing stock (by city and business) and
keep affordable for the next owner.
Promote long-term planning to repurpose buildings no longer needed as schools and
businesses. Locate schools in residential areas and build with the flexibility to convert.
g:\ptan\ka\housing\goals
City of Chanhassen Land Use Amendment Arboretum Village
Figure 4
Land Use
Commercial
Office/Industrial
Office
Parks & Open Space
Public/Semi-Public
Residential Large Lot
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Mixed Use
Undevelopable
TOTALS
2020 Land Use Plan
Existing .Proposed Change
212 212 0
1,291 1,269 -22
117 117 0
1,466 1,466 0
1,242 1,242 0
2,247 2,247 0
5,549 5,473 -76
531 629 98
398 398 0
134 134 0
1,573 1,573 0
14,760 14,760
g:\plan",bg\ land use amendment Arboretum Village.xls
City of Chanhassen
Land Use Amendment
Town Country Home
Figure 4
Land Use
Commercial
Office/I ndustrial
Office
Parks & Open Space
Public/Semi-Public
Residential Large Lot
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Mixed Use
Undevelopable
TOTALS
2020 Land Use Plan
Existing
212
1,269
117
1,466
1,242
2,247
5,473
629
398
134
1,573
Pr__~posed ChanLqe
212 0
1,229 -40
117 0
1,466 0
1,242 0
2,247 0
5,473 0
669 40
398 0
134 0
1,573 0
14,760 14,760
g:\plan\bg\ land use amendment Town Country Home.xls
Town and Country
Spreadsheet Assumptions:
Tax Capacity
HOUSING VALUATION
Single family detached (low density)
Townhomes (medium density)
$340,857
$179,550
average valuation June 2002
average valuation 1998 building permits
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VALUATION
Commercial
Office Industrial / Warehouse
Office
$100 per square foot
$ 50 per square foot
$120 per square foot
TAX CAPACITY
Ownership Housing
C o mmerci al/In du stri al/O ffi ce
1% of first $500,000 - 1.25% of balance
1.5% of first $150,000 - 2% of balance
Taxes - Taxes are calculated at 119.761% of tax capacity.
City's Share - 19% of taxes
Fiscal Disparities - 40% of commercial/industrial/office
Students
(Estimate based on 2001 District 112 Analysis)
Single family detached
Townhomes
0.70 students per dwelling unit
0.20 students per dwelling unit
Hig
n
Hill
F
iiilii
7 BLUEBONNE
8 CHICORY W
9 POPPY DR
10 BLUE SAGE
11 WATERLEAF
12 LADY SLIPP
13 BUTTER CU
14 BLUESAGE
15 WATERLEAF
16 SNAPD
arvest W
utumn Ri
ay
:lge Avenue
~Coult~r Blvd
mn Ridge Ct
mn Ridge Ln
mn Ridge Way
Harvest W
Autumn Ri
e
Coult~ r BI
be
Sum: 80029.60
Count: 15
Mean: 5335.31
Maximum: 6805.00
Minimum: 4031.00
Range: 2774.00
Variance: 602913.83
Standard Deviation: 776.48
Sum: 150958.10
Count: 30
Mean: 5031.94
Maximum: 6153.00
Minimum: 3813.00
Range: 2340.00
Variance: 437990.58
Standard Deviation: 661.81
Walnut Grove--
Sum: 227108.47
Count: 149
Mean: 1524.22
Maximum: 2159.00
Minimum: 0.00
Range: 2159.00
Variance: 170266.52
Standard Deviation: 412.63
Autumn Ridge--
Sum: 107194.00
Count: 66
Mean: 1624.15
Maximum: 3157.00
Minimum: 0.00
Range: 3157.00
Variance: 337734.47
Standard Deviation: 581.15
Reference #1
Sum: 561816 sq. ft.
Sum: 80029.60
Count: 15
Mean: 5335.31
Maximum: 6805.00
Minimum: 4031.00
Range: 2774.00
Variance: 602913.83
Standard Deviation: 776.48
Reference #2
Sum: 595518 sq. ft.
Sum: 150958.10
Count: 30
Mean: 5031.94
Maximum: 6153.00
Minimum: 3813.00
Range: 2340.00
Variance: 437990.58
Standard Deviation: 661.81
Reference #3
Walnut Grove--
Sum: 563455 sq. ft.
Sum: 227108.47
Count: 149
Mean: 1524.22
Maximum: 2159.00
Minimum: 0.00
Range: 2159.00
Variance: 170266.52
Standm'd Deviation: 412.63
Reference #4
Autumn Ridge--
Sum: 419137 sq. ft.
Sum: 107194.00
Count: 66
Mean: 1624.15
Maximum: 3157.00
Minimum: 0.00
Range: 3157.00
Variance: 337734.47
Standard Deviation: 581.15
Park
Coulter
· ew Court
1 Es
Lak~
October 8, 2002
SQ_FT
103,392.00
116,478.00
121,103.00
78,611.00
67,355.00
TAX_NET.
33,422.00
44,472.00
79,963.30
30,680.00
32,704.61
Administration
'-~ j" ': 23/ L-~
Y~.',:: 952.227.1ii0
Building Inspections
:: :'-4: 752.227.iiSi
:~, ~E2 227.1i~0
Engineering
F~, ~52.227.1i70
Finance
Park & Recreation
::: :' .-: g52.227.t400
F~.,:' {..~2 227.141:4
Planning &
Natural Resources
':z, [.52.227.i110
Public Works
F;.,. 952.227.:,3i0
Senior Center
~:;"5 952.227 112.5
~i,: 952.227/1!0
Web Site
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM'
DATE'
SUBJECT:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director/(~/~)
September 18, 2002
Cost of Service by Property Type
In discussions with you and Kate Aanenson, the subject of tracking expenses by
property type has surfaced. Our city accounting system has been designed for
purposes of tracking revenue and expenditures by city program. To that end we
have a coding system that uses a three digit fund number, a four digit
combination department and/or program number, and a four digit revenue and
expense number that we use to code expenses. We do not folloxv the State of
Minnesota recommended chart of accounts exactly, but come fairly close. This
system can easily track revenues against expenditures for a variety of programs.
We do not have any method of tracking expenditures by property type. We
don't currently have the capability to designate which portion of our services are
provided to business versus residential properties. As a Finance Director, I have
been exposed to a number of accounting systems and have not seen any other
city accounting system designed to track expenses in this manner. I can't
foresee how we would do that without making some arbitrary allocation that
would be no more or less valid than someone else's estimate. If we were to
somehow track this information on a rigorous basis, I believe that it would have
an effect that lowers worker productivity in the field and would require
additional data entry personnel in the office.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES FOR A
CONCEPTUAL PUD OF 88.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR 540 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD~ SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD~ AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. THE CONCEPT REVIEW
PURPOSE IS TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF REVIEW.
Public Present:
Name
Name
Connie & George St. Martin
Barbara & Richard Palmiter
Krista Flemming
Mark & Jen Johnson
Char Jeurissen
Jeffrey Fox
Jeff & Susan Lundgren
Jill & Mitch Anderson
Mark Johnson
9231 Audubon Road
4916 Kingsdale Drive, Bloomington
Town & Country Homes
9715 Audubon Road
9715 Audubon Road
5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior
2855 Timberview Trail, Chaska
2853 Timberview Trail, Chaska
2905 Butternut Drive, Chaska
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Any questions of staff?
Slagle: I can start. Let's see here. A couple of things Kate. Going back to your comment of the
time line. Now the last time we saw this, I'm going to say was in August?
Aanenson: August 6th.
Slagle: Okay. And at that point there was a tabling.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: And we then had how many days?
Aanenson: They gave us a letter for like an extra 30 days, and they gave us another letter.
Slagle: Okay. So we've had a total of 60 of an extension in essence?
Aanenson: Con'ect, yes.
Slagle: Okay. And the applicant was deemed complete by you, or your Staff on what date? I'm
just trying to understand where we are.
Aanenson: Well the application date that was signed was July. So the 120 days would have been
up closer to that first part, in August. So we're way past that. Again, they need to make some
decision. We need to make some decision if we're going to go down that path so.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Slagle: Now, just help me out here. The one thing that, in some sense it's almost if we had a
work session it's easier to ask these questions but we've done the tour. We've discussed amongst
ourselves the just education behind the PUD' s. Now on page 2 we talk about in Section 20-517
in the Code, what needs to be provided in order to approve the conceptual PUD. Am I correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. And so when I look at A and I go 1 tt'n'ough 6, I sort of have some and I don't
have some.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Slagle: Okay. And all I'm wondering as a commissioner who's really approaching their first
one, from your perspective is it okay to in essence approve a conceptual PUD when in essence the
things that we state, we don't have all of it?
Aanenson: ColTeCt. Now.
Slagle: And the answer might be yes, and I'd like to know why.
Aanenson: That' s a good question, and part of the, it' s onerous on part of the city's obligation to
provide some of the answers to the questions. We need to decide where we want the collector
street to go. And when you're looking at that, we need to step back and look at all the properties
and say where's the appropriate location to give them direction. Certainly when 2005 becomes
available, they'd like to be able to develop. We need to make some decisions to help them.
They' ve indicated they would like to be working with us so when 2005 comes and not magically
is going to happen at that time. We have to also put some other things in place. Right. So part of
it is back to us. What they need to show us is that really do you feel comfortable moving forward
with the medium density, and again it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you feel
strongly about the industrial when it goes to the City Council, and we'd have to put some findings
together at the City Council if they also chose to go with the industrial.
Slagle: Okay, and let me ask you this. This document that xve have here, and I apologize for not
keeping everything I had fi'om the first meeting in August. How much different is this than w'hat
W a s.
Aanenson: It's the exact same.
Slagle: That's what I thought. So what has the applicant done since we last got together? I mean
have they brought anything other?
Aanenson: No.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: No. They're waiting for direction from you, and from us and from the staff to tell
them, that's what the purpose of this is. As we move through this process, and we tell them, one
of the things that we need to brainstorm about, is talked about is you -know respecting the natural
features. Some of those transitions. Some of those trails. Again, we put those in the staff report
under the PUD. What our expectations were.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Slagle: Where I'm coming from on this question is, is on our tour in the Shakopee I believe it
was, there was discussion with one of the representatives about, at least I had a discussion just
about common areas and my beliefs and what not on that, and I guess I was just thinking that
them would be some movement, if you will, towards perhaps, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I
didn't think there was enough. Again you know.
Aanenson: It's a good question, and I guess what I'm saying is, it's very fluid. They can show
you a buffer but until we say definitively this is where, what we're trying to reconcile right now is
where this collector road should be. Until we know that, that's kind of the framework issue that
they go back and then respond to that design. So we need to give them criteria on what's to come
back with their design. If that makes sense. Kind of a chicken and an egg.
Slagle: Sure.
Aanenson: So, the guiding principle we stated already is that these two are certainly issues that
we've already stated that are very significant, and that's the slopes, the trees, the wetlands.
We've already said we want to transfer the density. At least that's what the staff's indicated. We
want to cluster the density based on using a PUD. That's a given. Some of the other things yet
we still have to flush out, is working with the park department. They may not want the regional
park here. They may want some access. We've agreed and we've talked about that, that we want
access to these features. That there's a community park, maybe it belongs not necessarily on this
piece, somewhere else. Maybe it ties into this piece, but there's some other decisions we need to
make so we can give them better specific direction. So kind of marching down this path, coming
back between the applicant, the bigger picture and working back with you over the next couple
years.
Slagle: Sure. One last question. There were, there had been some comments, or there was some
comments about the style of the product that we viewed. Has that been conveyed to the
applicant?
Aanenson: Yes. And also the condition was in here that they come back with, develop a specific
plan that meets your expectations and I think if you want to add some specific things that you
want to look at, that would be appropriate but that's one of the things that they need to come back
with.
Slagle: Sure. And is your view that the applicant tonight is at least prepared to talk about those
concerns?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay, great. Okay. That's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Steve, any questions? Of staff.
Lillehaug: Sure. What happened to all the conditions from the previous report?
Aanenson: Well I think they were way too specific for this level of detail, and I think that
confused everybody.
Lillehaug: Yep. Can you briefly explain and summarize the comparable text summary that you
provided in that? Not in depth. Maybe just the generalization of the outcome.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Aanenson: Yeah, and this was done by the City Manager actually, looking at kind of comparing
it. If you had approximate acreage size and there's a summary sheet on the last page of that
attachment. That looked at approximate acreage. I believe it was 10 acres. If you took 10 acres
of multi-family, 10 acres of industrial, 10 acres of single family, what would produce the most
tax. And the multi-family came out pretty equal to the industrial. Or slightly ahead. That was
the purpose of that, because that came out in the exercise. And the other thing we said we
couldn't equate back out was some of the service costs, and we had that discussion too, so. Just
to clarify, because you brought up that point Rich. I want to make sure you understand in
condition number 2, when we talked about, and this is on page 9. The medium density shall be
created with the following items being addressed, and this was kind of some of our brainstorming
that we talked about. That they include landscaping entrances, streetscape and buffering. They
would look at possible support commercial. These are your things from last time. Including
trails and sidewalks. They come up with design standards, specific material, architecture, details
and variety. That they include transit through there. Working with Southwest Metro. That they
provide public access to the parks, preservation of natural features and a housing plan. Again
those were the comrnents that kind of, I think kind of were the salient points that we wanted.
Again generic, but to give them some marching orders on what our expectations, what the next
level of review.
Slagle: And I think, if I may. I think the key is just the understanding of expectations.
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Slagle: Because we don't want the applicant to go further down the path if our expectations are
going to be such that, or your's as staff, that they can't meet it.
Aanenson: Can't meet it, agreed.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: Agreed. And that's the purpose of this concept level, absolutely.
Slagle: That's it,
Blackoxviak: No other questions? Okay. LuAnn?
Sidney: I guess question about rezoning to start. I guess on the staff report you discuss that in
the comprehensive plan this property was given two land use alternatives. Residential or
industrial. Now we're going to be losing a certain amount of industrial and I'm wondering how
that may or may not impact the city in the future in other parcels.
Aanenson: Right. Well that was the purpose of putting in that, the one we just talked about.
That exercise has come up, kind of give a tax comparison based on ~nd of equal acreage, so.
Whether multi-family would be producing the same amount of industrial. Tax base of say
industrial. And again that's based on today's dollars, today's tax rates.
Sidney: Okay. And let's see. I guess I'll wait with my other comments.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a bunch of questions. Rich, you had a good question about this list of
what is the 6 elements on the bottom of page 2. I actually was under the impression that those 6
things would be things that still would be worked on. But the way it reads indeed it seems like it
says these are the things that should be in place to give a general concept plan. So we have little
bit of a disconnect here, because we have a list of things that should be in place for the general
concept plan, but it would appear that a fair amount of these things can't really be put in place til
the AUAR is done.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Sacchet: So but for the AUAR, say that real fast 5 times. For that to be done we need to give the
concept plan, yes or no?
Aanenson: I guess I would compare it somewhat like we did with Lake Susan. Again, we had
someone that came forward that wants to do development, because if no one's going to do any
development, the city is going to.
Slagle: What's the cost of one of those?
Aanenson: There's a traffic component, sewer and water.
Slagle: I mean total. Ballpark.
Sacchet: How many hundred?
Aanenson: 250, half a million, depending on the amount of acres.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: But this is similar to what we did with Lake Susan. Again, because of the scale of
this, and they're not going to lock into the design, we said we want to see something different. I
think we've all agreed, and we've conununicated that. That our expectation is something a little
bit different than what's shown on there. As we move to defining those framework issues, we're
going to come back and articulate more about the design, and that's one of the conditions. And I
think that goes back to Rich's point. That they understand what, that we've got higher
expectations, and that they understand or are willing to go down that path.
Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Then to follow-up on LuAnn's comment about the industrial versus
the medium density. It says or. So either or is fine as far as that's concerned. However, in the
city plan we had it 50/50. So if we made this all residential, do we basically have that much less
industrial? I believe that's actually in the land use amendment as attached.
Aanenson: No. Let me just clarify that.
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: The 50/50 was just for calculating certain expectations for housing. So when we did
a population projection we made a certain assumption. It doesn't say anything to do with the...
We had to make certain assumptions to put together a capital improvement plan, which is part of
the comprehensive plan. So certain assumptions were made. So it could go either way, so we
took a 50/50 on all of them, and it kind of all came out in the wash.
Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002
Sacchet: Just hypothetical...
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: So we're not really losing in terms of our goal for the city? It doesn't really impact that
because that was a general estimate and if it tilts a little bit here, it tilts the other way and then
other place, and in the end it comes out, it's a wash. Is that what you're saying?
Aanenson: It could be, sure.
Sacchet: Ideally.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: Ideally. But now, the land use amendment is not related to that you just said.
Aanenson: Well again you had to make, we had to make certain assumptions on the land use
recommendations in order to accomplish the comprehensive plan. For example the, like I
explained before, up on 5 and 41, it was guided low industrial. Westwood Church took all 60
acres out and made it institutional. A school could go in here. A community park, so while we
make certain expectations, all kinds of things that could affect the density but we have to make
certain assumptions and we will, even with the area wide, you always want to shoot for the
outside, worst case scenario in looking at population numbers and densities so you can manage
your traffic and that sort of thing.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you Kate. Then there is the aspect, the possibility of a school site, that
we're kind of referring to the school board. How do they get tied into this? I mean how do they
know about it? Is there somebody who actually.
Aanenson: Yes, there's a dialogue.
Sacchet: ...there's a liaison?
Aanenson: Yes. There's developers willing to work with that, and there's a couple of different
approaches. In the comprehensive plan that was done in 1991, a site was identified as a potential
school site and that was the Bluff Creek Elementary site. As it turned out, the city bought that
through their TIF district. Now, other examples of worMng together is you could do density
transfer, other acquisitions. There's other things that are out there trying to land on some of this
property so, whether it's on this particular site that's coming in now, or we look at the whole 100
acres. That's again the reason why we want to look at the area wide. Where's the collector
streets? Where's the appropriate place to land it based on transportation. Based on the creek.
Some of the outdoor needs that the school would require, so another reason to look at that in a
holistic sort of thing, so I think this applicant or any other site, we have to kind of work as a team
to make that happen. And the school's aware of that.
Sacchet: They are aware of it? Okay. That answers the question. In terms of the density
transfer. One of the driving forces behind this PUD idea is that it allows us to have the density
transfer and therefore preserve the sensitive natural areas. Now according to the staff report there
are 64 units or 8.8 acres that could be developable in the area that is considered Bluff Creek,
primary or secondary. Now, do we have any idea at this point where that density will be
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
transferred to or be shifting? If we make the whole thing medium density, effectively it would
make certain parts of it possibly high density.
Aanenson: Correct, and that's the same situation...
Sacchet: Do we know anything yet more that would be done or is that premature?
Aanenson: Yeah, and that comes back to when they put together that specific plan. You know
where do you want to see those transitions? Do you want more density close to a collector road?
Further from a collector road? Adjacent to transit. How do you want to make those transitions
and that was some of the discussion that you all voiced before, and I think that's something that
we need to communicate. Where's the appropriate place to land those back on the site? And
that's a discussion we need to direct. First of all it all needs to be delineated. They haven't done
that yet, so we get a better idea where those features are. Is this an opportunity to, where we'll
put low density and maximize that or is it something that will give more people an opportunity to
put higher density? That's an exercise we're going to work on with the applicant, giving them
direction.
Sacchet: So basically that's not really a discussion point at this stage quite yet.
Aanenson: Right. And that's why I'm saying if you tell them this is exactly where it's going to
be, they haven't delineated the wetlands. We haven't decided where all that's going to land.
Sacchet: So that's something we'll address later when we have more information?
Aanenson: Right. We need to know exactly where the wetlands are and the steep slopes and how
they're going to accomplish that, correct.
Sacchet: Alright. Two more real quick questions. On page 8 of the staff report, you have that
table and I tried to get an answer to that last time, and I realized that afterwards that I really didn't
get the answer I wanted. You have two columns. One is city index. Actually three columns.
One is city index, one is benchmark and one is goal. I understand what the goal is, but I'm a
little unsure what index and benchmark stands for. Could you just clarify for me what are we
saying in the city index and what we're saying with benchmark. Not the numbers, what the term
means.
Slagle: Everybody understand that?
Aanenson: We're talking about these three definitions. The benchmark is the goal that the Met
Council wanted us to achieve. The city index is where we were to date when they inventoried
this data.
Sacchet: So benchmark is where we are?
Aanenson: Benchmark is where they want to see us, somewhere in that. And the index is where
we are to date.
.
Sacchet: The index is where we are, and Met Council goals is benchmark. Alright. Thank you.
Now I got it. And finally real quick question. This is going onto City Council?
Aanenson: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn, question?
Sidney: Well, I'm wondering. Kate, once we get over the hurdle of saying okay we agree with
rezoning, and then we are looking at the concept plan. We're still really 2 years out or more.
Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. The next step that we'll take as a staff, we'll meet with all the
property owners to talk about the area wide assessment. Then we'll come back and show you the
scoping document and see if you want to add anything else or less. We'll come back specifically
what we intend to inventory,. We've kind of laid some of that out to give us a little bit more time
to look at that.
Sidney: What mechanism would that be, a work session?
Aanenson: Probably.
Sidney: Okay, so when would the next check point be in terms of actually coming back to
Planning Commission? Would that be the.
Aanenson: Well you're going to have to approve the area wide review, but we're going to give it
to you in bite size pieces. So you can look at the wetlands. You can look at the transportation
system. You're going to look at that in chunks. Kind of the environmental features. You'll look
at that in pieces so, and then ultimately you will make a recommendation and then it goes onto to
City Council, the area wide.
Sidney: So you're saying a lot of ineetings?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: Okay.
Aanenson: You'll 'know this project very well. All these people.
Sidney: This will all be noticed?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes, and this item was re-noticed again too for some of the Chaska folks and all
the property owners and I know some had a conflict tonight to get here.
Sidney: Did you get any written comments?
Aanenson: I just spoke to the Degler's, and I left a message with Mr. Degler.
Sidney: Okay.
Blackowiak: Rich.
Slagle: I just have two quick questions. Kate, I want to understand exactly what you said earlier.
That with this PUD, again conceptual at this point, that there is either the possibility or the
likelihood that there could be high density within this development.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Aanenson: Well not really. If you only talk, there could be. It could go over the 8 units an acre
but the thing.
Slagle: I mean I'm with you. What I guess I'm sort of thinking though is, if you have an
applicant who is okaying a PUD, and we're approving a medium density PUD within a medium
density area, changing to a medium density area, that there could be the potential for high density
because they could say well you're asking us to really make this area low density, and where are
we going to transfer? Well maybe the answer is you don't have that many units.
Aanenson: Right, right. Well, that's a good question, and again this is the project area. The
approximate 80 acres.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: So what you take out of that, how we figure out density. There's gross and there's
net. You don't count your roads or your wetlands towards your 8, towards your net. So those are
taken out. So whatever's left, so while the density is compressed, you still get to count what's
upland towards that density. So it's compressed, so there will be areas that exceed that but the
PUD allows you to average it.
Slagle: I'm with you. I'm just trying to say that as we tour and visit some sites, you know in my
mind I'm thinking with the PUD that we're not going to see apartment buildings perhaps. Okay?
At least in my mind. Now I could be, you know I was going down a different path which
sometimes I' ve been known to do.
Aanenson: Well the ordinance, what the ordinance says is you get this many units an acre. How
it gets placed oil there is between you and the developer how it gets placed on there. They've
shown you some ideas that they have, based on some current products that they have, that we've
talked to them about. What are our expectations and they've agreed that their product may be
changing over the next couple years and they are changing today, and that's why I think we're
saying that we want to put our expectations for our community and what we see our needs, our
housing plan, some of the products that we don't have in this community, that we want to
communicate to them. But as a general rule, whatever those units are is what they get. Our goal
is to try and get a product that meets our needs.
Slagle: I guess I'm just trying to say at the onset, in the beginning stages of this, that I am hoping
that we are not seeing high density, even if we are asking the applicant for some real unique and
creative ways to address certain environmental areas and what not. I'm just throwing that out.
And then the last question I have, and then I'll be quiet for a while is, on this AUAR, can I ask
what is the anticipated contribution from this applicant to that?
Aanenson: That's a very good question. That's something that we're working out with the
attorney's office. They've obligated to give us an environmental assessment document, so at a
minimum they have to pay for that cost.
Slagle: Can I ask ballpark?
Aanenson: We don't have that estimate yet. They'll have to give us that. And then whatever
that is attributed to, will pay for this. And we're working with the rest of the property owners to
Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002
do that. There's a couple different ways to accomplish that. And then we'll be having that
meeting with the property owners.
Slagle: I would be interested, just as an individual, I don't know about the rest of the
commission, understanding more about those assessments.
Aanenson: When we get that estimate we'll be coming back to you with that.
Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the
record.
Krista Ftemming: Good evening. I'm back tonight. My name is Krista Flenm-fing. I'm with
Town and Country Homes. Tonight also with me is Richard Palmiter, Vice President of our Land
Development, and I guess in the last, since August, we' ve had the opportunity to work with staff
and I know that you' ve had the opportunity to have more discussions with staff on this entire
area. And we greatly appreciated that opportunity and all the efforts that have been put forth to
come out to some of our communities and meet with us and take a look at other areas that might
interest you and might influence you for this, for direction to this development in the future. I
guess what it comes down to is 6 months ago we began gathering all our resources for a great
voyage if you will. And that started out with an idea that had an ultimate destination. In other
words, we had a piece of land on a map that ultimately is going to become a part of your overall
community. And with all great voyages, there are many n~lestones that you have to work
towards, and some of these lead to some great advances. Some are checkdng points, and
sometimes they're setbacks. And tonight I feel that we're at a point where we've reached the first
milestone. We've got a lot of input from the staff, from your land use plan, from some of the site
itself, and we're at a point where we need to get some more direction to see if we're, if we can
con2nit to going fo~'ward and investing a lot of time and commitment into this project overall, and
to fids entire area. And' we feel that your guidance will advance us in that direction. And as we
advance on the ideas for this area, you're going to see us a lot. We're going to be here many
times with many different pieces of the puzzle looking at all the details that you see in the staff
report right now. At this point it's very broad. As we keep working with your guidance we'll
come back with more details and more details and get your opinions and your advice on what
you'd like to see or what you wouldn't like to see. And that's going to happen in the next 3 to 4
years. So I guess the bottom line is that we believe in the guidance that your staff has given us,
and your land use plan, and community and the guidance that you're going to provide us tonight
and along the way is going to help us be confident in committing our time and resources to this
co~rn*nunity and ma~ng the best neighborhood in this area that we can. So I guess therefore
tonight we concur with the staff report and the staff conditions and we'd like to get your approval
to continue working on this property for an overall medium density development. And if there's
any other questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions of the applicant?
Lillehaug: I have one quick one. What is Town and Country's attitude and willingness to work
with staff, to work with the Planning Commission and loo~ng at all the hopefully mostly gains
with small concessions with all the conditions that we have, that staff has set forth in the
recolnmendation tonight.
Krista Flemming: Well hopefully you can see that we' ve already kind of taken some of those
steps in working with the meetings that we've had with the staff, and with yourself in meeting
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
you on the sites and doing some things that we don't typically do with every development. This
development is more complicated than some that we have been involved with, and it takes a lot of
finessing to get an ultimate goal that you're satisfied with and that we can invest in and market
and have people want to live in. So we're very committed to doing that and this is the very first
step of that is coming forward with a concept plan and working with it both ways. We want to be
committed to you, but we also need to know if you're committed to where we need to head, and if
you are, then we have the same goal in mind. If not, then we have to make a decision as to if we
need to keep pursuing this or not.
Lillehaug: Okay. And one other one. It is in your mind and plan that you will absolutely not
include any industrial, or any industrial or commercial or office in this development?
Krista Flemming: That is our intention. As you can see with our concept plan, we want to
provide owner occupied housing for this entire area and that's what we plan to go forward with.
As Ms. Aanenson has stated with the AUAR, the overall area and our piece of the puzzle being
the initial portion, for this area we can take a look at the other parts to he 2005 MUSA expansion
area that might have, be more conducive to industrial and commercial uses to compliment the
residential area.
Lillehaug: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, go ahead.
Sidney: I guess I can kind of see where some of the issues might lie. And I'm thinking density is
going to be an issue down the line. Is Town and Country willing to reduce the density? Because
right now we're, what I would consider it the maybe upper reaches of where we may even
consider wanting to be. Would you remove units and reduce the density if we feel that it might
be necessary?
Krista Flemming: At this point, the way our concept plan is shown, it is based on what's guided
out there and it does present a more of a maximum within the zoning district. And as you can
see, we don't have all the details that go into the, that come from the zoning ordinance and issues
with wetlands and setbacks and lot sizes and different aspects that the park may want and those
types of things, and so we anticipate that this number, it's very possible that this density will
reduce based on putting those specifics into the plan. And we are committed to working with...
If we were to just take a look at what your general guide plan says, this is what it would allow.
That doesn't take into consideration all the details. That's what we'll come back with and get
more of a definite answer on, as far as densities are concerned.
Sidney: And I think that will be our major discussion down the line many, many times and then
also the type of products, aesthetics and I can think of a whole bunch of things. Alignment of the
buildings. Maybe as a heads-up, I think that's going to be another point of discussion.
Krista Flemming: That's exactly what we feel also, and that's why we want to get started earlier
than later so that we have this time to work towards that goal.
Sidney: How often do you anticipate meeting with the neighbors?
Krista Flemming: I guess at this point we need to continue to work with staff to get the direction
and they' re the liaison between yourselves and us as far as giving us the guidance on what issues
come up and how often we need to discuss that with the neighborhood or if they need to have
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
separate meetings. You know what the situation may be, but we'll continue to work with staff on
that.
Sidney: Okay.
Blackowiak: Thanks. Uli, any questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: ...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So anyone wishing to
speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the
record.
Mark Johnson: I generally don't try to speak at these kinds of meetings but I'm going to try
today so bear with me. I live right across the street in the development in Chaska. Realize that
I' m not a Chanhassen resident but I want to put input in because I'm one of the guys that's going
to be looking across the street at what's put in there.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I just, could we get your name and address.
Mark Johnson: 2905 Butternut Drive, which is the first entrance.
Blackowiak: Okay, and your name, just for the record.
Mark Johnson: Mark Johnson.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Mark Johnson: I have concern with density. You know I don't know what medium density is,
but it seems like 7.6 net seems like a lot of stuff on a fairly small area. And I've got to look at it
so I guess it's kind of personal fi'om that point of view. I have concerns about traffic. I have to
exit probably the same place where the residents in that section will exit. And I guess one of the
things that I was at the August 6th meeting, one of the things that came up there was that there
was going to be discussion between Chaska and Chanhassen because it's really a bordering area,
and I know there might have been some phone calls. I was curious on you know what the
discussions were. And also there's a whole sub-section that's just north of where I am that I'm
sure that Chaska has plans for that area as well, so I'm curious on how all that is going. And
quite frankly I guess I don't get all the details but it seems like there's not much different today in
the discussion than there was on August 6th and maybe I'm missing something because I don't get
the details but it just seems tike we haven't moved anywhere and a lot of the questions haven't
been answered so. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Kate, can you update us on any discussions that you've had with Chaska or
anything at alt.
Aanenson: Sure. You asked what was guided. We provided to you what was guided in the
Chaska area. Commercial, excuse me, industrial on the most northerly portion. This is guided
industrial. Where this gentleman just spoke, low density residential. To the north of that is also
low density residential. I'm running out of room on the map. There is some multi-family, and
then it goes into the industrial. There's a little bit of park and open space. The city's guided this
medium density or industrial. Those are the two zoning options.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Blackowiak: You mean Chanhassen.
Aanenson: Excuse me, Chanhassen. Those are the two zoning options that we're here to talk
about tonight. It does allow up to 8 units an acre. What we're trying to decide here tonight is
how we make that work and with the transitions and the buffering and that' s part of the
conditions that we had talked about, and while there hasn't been a lot of changing tonight, the
Planning Commission has spent probably 4 to 6 hours in work sessions kind of going back over
the comprehensive plan and how do you work through the complexities of doing a large scale
project. And just again tie into what Ms. Flemming was talking about. This project is different
than the ones that we toured. If you look at the one that we visited in Chaska Heights, the
framework was put in place. The City of Chaska worked through a lot of that. The project that
Town and Country was doing there. The larger framework issues were put in place. Also
Shakopee had guided that piece so they came in with the zoning in place and just worked through
the site plan, which is typically what you've seen. For a lot of you this is the first time you've
seen this scale project where you're actually designing the framework. I think that's where your
apprehension is, and that's where the staffs saying we've done this several times. Lake Susan,
when we started back in the 80's, we just did the last apartments. We're saying we can do this.
It' s an interesting challenge but we can work together and give them the direction of working
with the neighbors. Town and Country's been great. We had, Steve was at that meeting, the 2005
kick-off meeting where we had the neighbors there. The property owners are, they're involved in
the 2005. We kept that communication going with them and we continue to play on doing that,
and whether it's a meeting just between staff or the applicant or the Planning Commission, we'll
decide as a group who needs to be at those meetings. We certainly want to keep informed, and
we did notify over here of the process.
Blackowiak: Right, and have you checked with the City of Chaska at all about what their feelings
are or thoughts or do we just not.
Aanenson: They commented on our comprehensive plan so.
Blackowiak: Okay, but not this project in particular.
Aanenson: No, because it's already guided. Right. When the site plan comes in, if they have
specific comments but.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Mitch Anderson: Good evening. My name is Mitch Anderson, 2853 Timberview Trail. I spoke
at the last meeting. I'd just like to reiterate some of the same concerns that I spoke about the last
time. One, starting to sound pretty similar. The concerns about the density. I'm afraid that as we
start taking into account the density transfer, common areas, bike trails, that kind of things, we're
going to end up with something very, very close to maybe having high density. It will be right up
against 8 units per acre, and I've had plenty, that just feels high. When you take into account the
other neighbors surrounding that, which are mostly single family homes. Our's as well as the...
farm acre which is guided single family for Chaska Farms so that's I guess our primary concern.
Second thing is keep on including the neighbors in this process. I hope we can find a way to
include the Chaska neighbors as well as the Chanhassen neighbors. That's a bit maybe beyond
the scope of what you can do, but I hope the developer can continue to include us in the
neighborhood in terms of meetings... Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
13
Planning Comn-fission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Mark Johnson: Hello, I'm Mark Johnson. I live at 9715 Audubon Road. I guess the scenery
isn't as much of an issue to me. I worked on a townhome complex a couple years ago and I think
they can make them look pretty beautiful, but one of my main concerns is Audubon can be
atrocious at times. I mean you can sit and, well I can sit and try to get out of my driveway for
half hour sometimes you know. Cars packed in front of there, and I'm wondering if it's going to
come in conjunction with the Highway 312 thing where they could kind of vent it off that way or.
Aanenson: That's part of what the area wide assessment's going to look at. Area wide review's
going to look at the traffic. And not just this parcel, but while we can look at the bigger parcel.
Where those traffic control needs to be placed. Where's the best place for the collector street to
go out again looking at how's Audubon going to function. That's all part of the thing. That's
why it's going to take a 2 year process to get a lot of those questions, so it's an important issue,
absolutely.
Mark Johnson: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Come on up Debbie.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Kate, do we have a copy of the land
use plan?
Aanenson: This one that's on the.
Debbie Lloyd: Well that one's already ~nd of... Still kind of disjointed tonight. I've got a lot of
little things I wanted to point out, but.
Aanenson: You're upside down.
Debbie Lloyd: You've probably all looked at the comp plan, the land use plan. This upper part
here, this whole piece is designated office industrial. And there's a nice chunk here that was
designated parkland, and the rest is designated either, I'm sorry, medium density or office
industrial. I just wanted to point that out because I'm going to bring up a couple others here. h~
the comp plan we' ye, it says that 9 percent of our land should be used for office and industrial,
and 4 percent for medium density housing. Also in the comp plan it reads, the city will ultimately
have 1,291 acres or 9 percent of it's 2020 land use industrial office guided property. The
proposed area for office industrial expansion includes the areas south of Lyman Boulevard,
adjacent to the city of Chaska, and north of 169/212 in the southern portion of the city. Anyway
it identifies that specific piece of land. In the staff report, on page 4, under background it clearly
identifies 40 acres of this land after calculating, how they came up with the numbers for the 2020
land use. Anyway we're transferring 40 acres out of the industrial. However, that number in the
back under, well it's this chart. Figure 4. It's-showing a net change of 22 acres rather than the 40
acres. And I just think that should be rectified. I'm bringing this up because of the tax element of
changing zoning. I guess I'm a proponent of industrial developments in that area. Although the
staff report does talk about the tax benefits of the two different types of development, it doesn't
address the cost and I think that perhaps we need to do a fiscal impact analysis of the difference
between the tax income and the cost of a high density, which I'm afraid it will become a rather
high density development. I like the concept, PUD concept in preserving that area, but again I
see that as a highly sensitive area was designated as par'kland. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this issue? Okay, seeing no one I will
close the public hearing. Con-nnissioners, we need our comnnents.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Slagle: I have a couple more questions if it's okay with you Madam Chair, for staff.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Slagle: Is that alright Kate? The, simply put. If we did not do a PUD on this, and I'm not
switching gears but I just, hypothetical. I'm not doing that. Could they build, in your opinion,
those units in this land with it's contours and unique features?
Aanenson: Are you talking about the kind of the property to the north and to the south?
Slagle: Let's just call it the development. The parcel we're looking at. Everything. Could they
put in, and I'm not sure if it's 545 units or 568.
Aanenson: It depends on what we calculate as the net so, and that's depending on assuming that
we've taken out the roads and the wetlands and unbuildable slopes. Could there be some upland?
Yes. Okay. The other thing you have to remember with the PUD, it allows you to put together
the specific design standards.
S lagle: I'm with you, and I'm a proponent of the PUD. What I'm afraid of though is that the
PUD, while we're going to gain the green space and what not, and have some hopefully
constructive partnering leverage, I'm afraid that what we' re going to see is high density.
Aanenson: It's guided medium density, 8 units an acre. That's what they have a right to. As
Mrs. Flemming stated, they have to come in and show us that they can meet all that. They have
to meet all the impervious surface requirements. They have to meet parking standards, so all
those things come into play, and the design that's driving it is going to tell you how many units
they can get depending on the type of product. But they're allowed up to 8 units an acre, pending
they can meet all those other requirements. I think again, not just the transfer the density with the
PUD but the ability to put together specific uses on design features is also another advantage of
the PUD whereas if they come in with a straight subdivision. If they came in and did under the,
an R-8 zoning, we would lose that ability to kind of call out some specific and unique
architectural orientation or different colors and things that we've done on some of the other
projects.
Slagle: And then one more question, if I may Madam Chair. Is I noticed in here some wording
that density transfer was not allowed within an industrial area.
Aanenson: It' s just more difficult to do. Because if you transfer density, sometimes you can go
vertical. Sometimes you can compress it. But an industrial building it tends to be more
horizontal, it's harder to compress the density.
Slagle: And I guess my reason for stating that and asking the question is that one of the reasons
that industrial is not a component of this applicant's proposal?
Aanenson: They're housing builders. That's why they came forward. That's their nitch. They
don't do industrial. But let me just say something else about the industrial. In some
circumstances similar to what we did with the industrial park where the National Weather Service
is. That's a PUD for the entire industrial park. What it allows is where the Weather Service sits
it actually has a greater green space area that they need for their operations. It allows greater
impervious surface on some of the other ones, which means they can have more parking and less
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
green space because we average it over the entire industrial park. Having said that, what you can
again compress that, you'd have maybe if this one came in and it was 2 or 3 large office
warehouse types, then maybe the green space that they would need the impervious surface would
actually be those areas, so it could happen. It just gets a little bit more complex.
Slagle: Okay.
Lillehaug: Can I add onto Rich's question?
Blackowiak: Sure.
Lillehaug: in your opinion, I just, I'm trying to get my head straight here too. With density
transfers, if you're driving by this development, will it have the flavor, although it's guided as
medium density, will it have the flavor of a high density development2
Aanenson: I can't speak for what your idea of high density is. I mean that's going to be, that's
you know.
Slagle: Well let me ask this if I can. You go further north on Audubon, just before Maximum
Graphic. You see those multi-family. Do you know what that is? Is that medium density?
Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Slagle: I would think so.
Aanenson: Yes, in Chaska, correct.
Slagle: Okay. So that would be the, that would be, well actually we don't know. Is that 8?
Aanenson: I guess, the staff's goal is to get at high quality produce that meets the community's
desires. That's our goal.
Slagle: And I don't think any conm-fissioner here would doubt that. Our concern, I'll speak for
myself. Our concern is, is that you've, we vote on this, send it to the council. 'The applicant does
their thing by finalizing the acquisition of the land or whatever. I don't M~ow if you've done that
yet or not. but you probably will. And it just starts the process where.
Aanenson: We have to have faith in each other. I think you' ve heard from them they're willing
to work. They've heard our comments. When we went out and looked at some of their products,
I think they' ve said a willingness. I think we've communicated the expectations. They've looked
at our other products in town. We've given them some other products to look at that we're
interested in. And from what I heard from them is they're willing to introduce some other
products and look at some of the things that we're interested in, and they can CO~TeCt me if I'm
wrong. But that's my understanding and that we want to get to that point. And we're going to
develop the PUD to get what we believe is our needs.
Blackowiak: Do you have any questions? Any more questions?
Sacchet: Yes.
Blackowiak: Well hang on. Let's just finish up on this side. Wait your turn.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Lillehaug: I'm done.
Blackowiak: Rich, you're?
Slagle: All done.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, go ahead then.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'd just like to briefly.
Blackowiak: Oh I'm sorry, you're right. We're at comments.
Sacchet: No, I'm still questions.
Blackowiak: Oh you still have a question? Okay.
Sacchet: And my question is the comment of Debbie Lloyd. About these percentages. If I
remember correctly she said that industrial, we're targeted something like 8 percent medium
density, 4 percent or something, or even 9.
Slagle: 9.
Sacchet: The park designation on the south versus the north, which is actually in the Bluff Creek
district as office industrial, could you just briefly put some context around those comments from
Debbie Lloyd please.
Aanenson: The 22 doesn't reflect the 40 acres. Page 4 is correct. If we change this, based on the
assumption we use the half 40 acres of the 80, it'd be less than a .03 percent reduction in the
industrial. There is a piece right adjacent to this that's also guided industrial which we need to
give some thought to.
Sacchet: So we are potentially reducing it by .3 percent industrial, which could be made up in
another place. Do we have other places that are guided or, we put something or industrial?
Aanenson: Correct. The comprehensive plan does show green space through that. In order to
get that green space we either have to buy it or acquire it through the density transfer, and that
was our goal and that's the other tools through the Bluff Creek. The other goal that we're trying
to achieve through this is to preserve this feature right here. All this open space right through
here. That's the objective.
Sacchet: And really the part that is not...according to Debbie Lloyd that is industrial is in the
Bluff Creek area, isn't it?
Aanenson: Part of this does show up as green, but we'd have to acquire it. Either pay for it or
give a density transfer so we can acquire it through some compensation. We can't just take it. So
that's the tool that we, remember we talked about this last on the tour that we have is to do the
density transfer to acquire, or we could take park and trail fees or pay for it and let them not do
the density transfer. That's another option.
Blackowiak: Okay so Kate then, I guess the question is what is the actual zoning of that portion?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Aanenson: It's guided.
Blackowiak: Okay it's guided. What is the actual, what is it guided? I mean is it?
Aanenson: The piece that we're talking about tonight, Town and Country's piece?
Blackowiak: Yes.
Aanenson: Industrial or medium density.
Blackowiak: So that entire piece has both those designations?
.A_anei1son: Correct.
Blackowiak: There's no delineation between.
Aanenson: It shows some green, if you took on the map that's fight behind Uli, it shows some
green but this underlying underneath it, either one of those districts. We can't use, unless we own
it. That's representing what we want to preserve, correct.
Sacchet: ...and then the finger reaching up here into the industrial, that's the Bluff Creek piece.
That's pretty much it right?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Ah'ight so.
Aanenson: But we don't own that yet. We have to compensate in order to get it.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: So I guess we're still on with questions, LuAnn do you have questions at all, or
would you like to start comments or should I start elsewhere?
Sidney: I guess maybe I'll pass right now oil, and no questions so let's hear some cormnents.
Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, why don't you start.
Lillehaug: I strongly support a PUD for this area. I'm comfortable moving forward in support of
the concept PUD as medium density. With the understanding that an AUAR has to be done. We
will need a traffic study. We need to analyze the utilities for that area, and I'm sure you guys are
certainly aware of that. This area, it does fall with the present guided land use so it's hard for us
to say no to go ahead with the concept PUD. I think a PUD is one of the best tools for this area,
to preserve the existing wetlands, the wooded areas, and I think it will opportune the city to get a
high degree of a good development in that area. And I guess I would also like to extend, when
we go to moving a motion forward here, I would like to make it clear that part of that AUAR that
we have to ensure that we're taking into account any design or concept changes with 312 or 212
and tile design of that. To end my conmaents, I look forward to working with the applicant to get
the best development possible for the city, as well as for Town and Country. Thank you.
18
Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, are you ready to make comments?
Slagle: I am, sure. I'm not going to add a lot new other than to reiterate that I do think that the
conceptual PUD is the way to go, so I'm okay with that. I think it's been clear by my comments
that we have to really be on the same page because as the representative of the applicant stated,
that there are milestone. There are points in the road that move forward, stay the same, move
back. I hope we don't run into the ones that move back. But that is there as a safeguard for the
city at those points. I've seen some of the development by the applicant, and I appreciate you
guys taking the time to let us see those. We've also just for the benefit of the audience, we have
also forwarded to staff things that we have seen in the area that we believe to be attractive and so
forth, so that is in their hands if you haven't seen it in the report. I guess in the end, I'm willing
to approve this, but I guess I just wanted this to be on the record that in case we 2 years from now
come back and go, you know what were they thinking, which I don't think is going to be the case.
If we can see that they were thinking so.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a couple of comments. First of all, this is the first project this size that I'm
dealing with on the Planning Commission side so I have some, what do you call it, trepidation
based on the fact that we have this list of 6 items. We're asking that the following should be in
place. Overall gross and net density. I think that's somewhat in place. The identification of each
lot size is not really there, or lot width. Location of major streets and pedestrian ways. There's
only very high level concept in place. Location and extent of public and common open spaces.
That's even more high level. Location and type of land use and intensity of development is
totally open still at this point. Staging time and schedule. Well, we know it's going to be in 2 to
3 years. Having those lined up here and they're not really all that much in place, I feel some
trepidation but I hear you say Kate that we have to base this on trust and I think you from having
experience with these larger projects than some of us here of sitting, a couple I think have been
here long enough to have dealt with some of those. I'm willing to go the trust route, and I don't
have any reason to distrust. On the other hand in terms of the commitment level, there is also a
statement in here in the report that says approval of the concept statement will not obligate the
city to really go that route. I mean it's a trust both ways. I mean it's based on trust. We're not
really making any firm commitments. We're expressing intent. We're expressing direction.
We're expressing the willingness and the commitment to want to work together, but that's
basically where it's at. We're not committing to do anything specific at this point. I think it's
important to be very clear about this. And through the process that's going to happen over the
next year or two, the details will start being worked out. That's my understanding. Now having
said that, I very strongly feel that this needs to be a PUD for the reason that we can preserve the
natural features. I do think medium density is acceptable. It's what it's guided for, and so that
decision has been made quite a while back. I do believe that the AUAR is extremely important,
and I like to emphasize some additional points in the AUAR in the context of the environmental
features we specify Bluff Creek Overlay District, wetlands and bluffs. I would like to add in
them open space and trees. And then also as part of the AUAR, I wanted to ask whether it would
make sense to have a fiscal tax element in there? Does that fit in there Kate?
Aanenson: Yes because there will be some infrastructure improvements and some obligation on
the city for over sizing roads and the like so I think that would certainly be a component.
Sacchet: So that would be okay to put in, okay. Because I think that's an important component
to look at in this context. Then I, like everybody, I have a concern about the density, but I think
it's too early to really address that. I mean it's guided as medium density, that allows up to 8
19
Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002
units per acre. And yes, with the PUD there is that aspect that we talked about, there is a density
transfer for a certain amount of units that could potentially be considered. Would have to be
negotiated, discussed. I mean there has to be a balance found but we're way premature to really
be specific about that at this point. Of course I want high quality and low price. I mean who
doesn't. But I would say the balance is, in terms of the units we've seen in Shakopee, I really
wasn't that overwhehned with the apartment size types. The real iow ends. However on the
other hand I would like to see some affordable components in there so we'll have to find a
balance with that. I think the conservation easement aspect of this project is exceptional in that
basically all sensitive areas with the concept that's in front of us will be preserved, so I think
that's an extremely good thing. The aspect of transitions. Is that mentioned as part of the
AUAR?
Aanenson: Which?
Sacchet: Transitions.
Aanenson: I made that condition number 2. That's part of the PUD. Try to separate AUAR and
then the PUD.
Sacchet: So transition, oh yeah. Specifically say transitions. I don't see the word in there. If
you could add transitions, because I think that's a very valid concern from the neighbors across
the street. The aspect of traffic I think is included in the AUAR, and I just want to emphasize that
again that this is definitely very important. On the other hand, personally I believe that with the
312 coming in, and Powers going to go through, and Powers actually being the access point onto
312, that Powers will off load a lot of the traffic, through traffic that's currently on Audubon so
that there should be a considerable improvement when that happens. And then finally, when we
discussed the Bluff Creek Overlay District aspect in condition number 6. I would like to
specifically add the 3 aspects that are listed on the page 7 of the staff report that preserve and
manage the high quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak woodlands to extend the high
quality systems of the Gorge Region. 2. Restore impaired ecosystems and their natural
conditions. And 3. Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek
con-idor. I think those should be specified because they're important goals and they should be
guiding elements in terms of the environmental preservation that we' re striving for there. That's
my con-unents, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Go ahead.
Sidney: I guess it's my turn. I guess I've been on the Planning Commission, what is it close to 6
years. Is it coming up on 6 years2
Blackowiak: I think so.
Sidney: It's been a long time, and I guess in this case, well I've seen a few concept plans and in
this case I guess I feel the least comfortable of the various, with this concept plan compared to the
other ones that I' ve seen in my tenure. I guess it barely, in my book, meets requirements and Uli
touched on some of the things that are really things that should be included in the concept plan
that may be included in the next stage of discussions. I think the developer is aware that we have
many, many, many questions, and I hope that they understand that we have certain expectations
for this potential development. And obviously we have expectations that are quite high. I hope
we have given you some guidance in that respect, and again I think density is going to be a major
issue and the developer, potential developer may wish to evaluate what is the least dense that
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
would be financially acceptable to them and decide if that is doable or not because that issue will
come up. We had a number of questions from our last meeting, and I chaired that meeting and I
wish to kind of just touch on these briefly and then have that included in the next staff report or
actually it should be included in what's going to City Council. The reason being is that again we
had lots of questions, which may not be appropriaie for a concept plan but things that I'd like on
the record to be addressed at some point. First off, really the Park a,nd Rec input from Todd
Hoffman and his group, to be included and a discussion about sidewalks. School district input
from the School District directly. Notification of Chaska residents. Kate did a good job on that,
and certainly we need to continue that in the future. Discussion about land use designation of the
Wagner property. I believe we addressed that, and the adjacent Chaska land uses so we're aware
of that. Product types and general layouts of streets. If we can catch that one early, that would be
good in discussions. And really I think again the density is going to be a big issue and how that
compares to other areas within Chanhassen. Nature of amenities, tax implications, delineation of
transition areas, additional options for a mixed residential industrial I guess is off the table
actually and not being considered. Impact on Degler property, and that may be addressed in the
area wide review. Again, reduction in density, affordability of residential units, location of
conservation easements and cost of services, and I have this in a list Kate I can give you so. I'm
willing to go forward with this. Certainly you know it's going to take a lot of work and probably
many, many meetings with Planning Commission, but I can see that you know if Town and
Country's willing to work with us, we could really do a good job on this PUD so I'm willing to
move this forward.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have a few comments. I too have struggled, and I know
Kate and I said this last meeting, with the idea of what constitutes a complete application. And
we've got the 6 points. This is what you have to include and I remember when we had our
meeting and City Attorney Mr. Knutson was there, and I asked him specifically if an, what
constitutes a complete application. In other words, did we have to have all components. He said
yes. I don't think we have it. And I just, I just want to state that for the record. I am willing to
go forward tonight on this concept but I'm not comfortable and I think the City Council should
really look closely because we do not have a lot of the requirements that are set forth in the
Chanhassen City Code, and nowhere in the City Code can we as a commission, or planning staff,
no one can waive any of these requirements according to my reading and according to what the
city attorney said the night we met with him. So I'd just like to state that one for the record. I
think an AUAR should be done first. I think that we're putting the cart before the horse in this
case, and we're talking about major roads, common, public and common open space. Things like
that that really I think should be put in place before we start looking at specific developments,
even in the concept. I mean is the idea good? Yes. I think a PUD is definitely what we need for
this property. Should we be starting to make promises that before we even do an AUAR? I don't
think so. I think we need to make sure that we get, that's the building block and that's the main
tool that we have to look at this entire area. Over 800 acres. This is 1/10 of that area. So we've
got a very small piece of the pie here before us this evening, and I think we need to look at the big
picture before we start getting too specific on any little picture. I' m kind of disappointed in the
lack of additional information. I was glad that LuAnn had her list again tonight. We had asked
for a lot more information. We didn't see.
Aanenson: I'm confident all those are either in the area wide review, or the PUD standards so
I' ve addressed every one of them except for the mixed use development and I think they were all
addressed. Either as a condition of the area wide review or the two work sessions. I believe they
were all addressed.
21
Planning Co~mnission Meeting- October 15, 2002
Blackowiak: Well there were certain information that we requested, specifically input from Park
and Rec department, which we did not get tonight.
Aanenson: Park and Rec report was in there. They've identified a regional park in the area that
is not in this application and it's part of the area wide review and Todd's commented on it in a
staff report.
Blackowiak: That's fine, thank you Kate. District 112. We asked for input from them. We did
not get that. Information on 312 connection. How can we possibly fit this in? And again, this
may all need to be addressed in the AUAR. I agree with that, but I'd like to see that first.
Tonight I wanted to hear more from Town and Country. I wanted to be sold a little bit more.
You know what have you changed? What is going to make this application more complete
because last time we tabled it because we felt that it wasn't complete. We have the same maps. I
really didn't hear much more new and that' s kind of disappointing to me. That being said, that' s
kind of my frustration with this. But my feeling is that we work in effect, Rich do you want to
say something?
Slagle: I do want to say something, if I may ask. Kate can you address the Chair's comment
regarding the City Attorney and the 6. I don't remember that but.
Blackowiak: That was at our meeting with City Council.
Aanenson: I have a different opinion but I'm not going to.
Stagle: Okay, but I mean are you, was his comment that yes you needed to have these 6?
Aanenson: I didn't hear that. I asked Roger about this so.
Stagle: Okay. Because I mean it's an important question that if the City Attorney has told us
that we need 6.
Blackowiak: Well I asked him specifically that night what constituted a complete application,
and he said you had to have all components. And it's unfortunate we didn't have that recorded
that night but I wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly because this such an
important piece. And such an irnportant project.
Aanenson: I believe the question was asked, when is the 60 day comment started, when you have
a completed application. The staff did, who determines a completed application? The staff
determines it's a completed application. Again, some of the things on here are not, we can put a
sidewalk on there. The staff told them that it didn't make sense to draw a sidewalk on there when
we kmow that it's going to change. Until we know exactly where the road's going to go, what's
the point of drawing sidewalks? It's kind of esoteric and again the point is here, at what level
we're going to have the discussion? This is the first scale project we've done where we don't
have the roads in place. When we looked at 7 and 41, the city, with the State of Minnesota up-
fronted that money. The other large PUD we did, which was Villages on the Ponds, the road
system was in place. This is the first project of this scale that we're doing in this, and the
developer is up-fronting some of that money to start the process so just again, the two need to
work together, but we need a project to go forward to start the study so, if you're not ready to go
forward and think it's premature, then we stay until someone else comes forward and is ready to
say, I'm ready to go forward. Let's start the process because that's how it works. A project
comes forward, then we start the process. Unless the council authorizes to expend those kind of
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
dollars or if you have them allocated so. School District 112 is aware. They're looking at this
site. We've talked to them. They have not made a decision. Council is aware of the discussions
between the two parties.
Blackowiak: And I understand Kate. What I'm trying to say though is we had asked for a lot of
information and I don't feel that we got anything, or very little new tonight. So that's kind of my
real frustration is that we asked. We didn't get it, so you know what are we here for? I mean
what are we looking at? I get the feeling that we need to move this forward tonight and I will
certainly, I will actually vote to move this forward, but with very serious reservations and,
especially what Uli and LuAnn stated. I think some of those concerns are extremely valid and
need to be flushed out before we even see it again. So with that I'd like a motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD for the Town and Country on the Bernardi property as outlined in
the staff report of October 15~, '02 with the following conditions 1 through 8 with the following
changes, l(b) will include also open space and trees. Adding a l(f). Talking about the fiscal tax
study. Number 2. I guess it falls under, where does the transition fit? Neighborhood connections
maybe or where would you put that Kate?
Aanenson: I had buffering but if you want to add buffering and backslash transitions.
Sacchet: Okay, buffering and transitions. Now, the understanding is transitions is not necessarily
just in the sense of landscaping. I mean it can also be transitions of densities for instance.
Aanenson: Different uses. Different.
Sacchet: Uses, yes. I mean it's transitions also in that context, just be clear about it. And I
would put in a bunch more commas actually in that condition number 2. I think it's 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5
comma deficient. Then condition number 6. I'd like to specifically spell out the 3 Bluff Creek
Watershed natural resource management plan goals. I won't repeat them. I think I've stated
them before. And that's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: I second with a friendly amendment.
Sacchet: Please.
Lillehaug: To l(c). I would like to add onto that to include the ongoing considerations of the
existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of 312 and Powers Boulevard.
Sacchet: That's acceptable.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second.
Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Conceptual PUD for Town and Country Homes on 88.5 acres of property located on the
east side of Audubon Road, south of Lyman Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail, subject
to the following conditions:
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
.
,
o
The applicant st'tall contribute to the preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide
Review (AUAR) in lieu of an EAW for the 2005 MUSA area. The AUAR shall study the
following issues:
a.
d.
Public facilities-schools, parks, utilities, fire station.
Environmental features-Bluff Creek Overlay District, wetlands/bluff, open spaces
and trees.
Transportation system-traffic/road plan and the ongoing considerations of the
existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of 312 and
Powers Boulevard.
Utilities-sewer, water, storin sewer.
In addition, the AUAR shall address the following issues:
i. Potential school sites, fire station, water tower, and creek crossing.
Collector road systems as well as traffic, infrastructure requirements:
sewer, water, storm sewer and natural resources, including wetlands, trees
and slopes.
Fiscal tax study.
A medium density PUD shall be created with the following items addressed: landscaping,
(entrance, streetscape, buffering and transitions), possible support commercial,
neighborhood connections, (trails, sidewalks), design standards, ( materials, architectural
details and variety), transit (slip off lanes), public access to park areas, preservation of
natural features, (bluffs, wetland, trees), housing plans (range of product and price).
The applicant shall petition the City for city smwices (sewer, water, etc.).
The applicant shall develop a housing diversity plan.
All wetlands on site shall be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked by city
staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more detailed
plans for this site.
The applicant shall keep the following goals for the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District in mind as a plan is developed for the site and work with staff to achieve
these goals for this property:
a,
Preserve and manage the high quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and
oak woodlands to extend the high quality system of the Gorge Region;
Restore ilnpaired ecosystems to their natural condition; and
Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff
Creek corridor.
.
The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek primary and secondary zone boundaries to
be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site.
The Building and Fire Marshal comments shall be incorporated into the next level of
review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 15, 2002
Krista Flemming: I just want to thank you for your time and consideration and we hear all your
comments and your concerns and we are definitely going to come back the next time with more
information in the AUAR study, so I believe more of these questions will be...
25