The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment. The Highlands CITY O F ::: 1/15/97 4 \ , 2110;97 2124/97 CASE #: 96 -4 PUD, 96 -2 LUP and 96-14 SPR • y. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential - Low Density to • Residential - Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel; PUD rezoning for approximately 50 acres of property from A -2, Agricultural Estate to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development Residential conceptual and preliminary request for Z mixed density residential development; site plan review for 67 cottage homes and Q 192 villa homes; preliminary subdivision request of 295 lots, 2 outlots and V associated right -of -way, The Highlands. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5 Q� APPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc. Q 15 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 934 -6238 IRESENT ZONING. A2, ..1 E t .t., D:ot_:et ACREAGE: 50 acres+/ - DENSITY: 5.86 units /acre (gross) 6.8 units /acres (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Windmill Run subdivision S - OI, Bluff Creek Elementary, A2, vacant, Highway 5 E - RR, single family home W - A2, single family home, vacant, bluff creek rcic WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHI'SICAL CHARACTER: The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low point 11.J of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor I... which is located in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A10 -14(1) on the City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the proposed north Highway 5 collector road. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: North 33 acres - Residential Low Density, South 17 acres - Residential Medium Density Exhibit A ey „ LOCATION MAP - .. , P �_ \V ' L AKE - • , n'. �� ei N�cRR / ` LAKE LUCY B L •-"*.x.- /0 b 1 A - '—'1 cAll it gr cu r' J J 0 // )\-‘iSi cl / j . I \ ` LAKE ANN �• cN 11114111111111111110 : . i I111111111k■ -- vr W il11111111 .. L . ':.....'... :. : : ■ LOCATION l AK . x : . 1 ANN . ii. °s :. . s . 7:P'?..."' tf :;; - AR:• - 8•. • 80ULEVARt ' likTillgi O) • :_ . XCMcGLYHN R c /141V111 ERW DOD _ 0 1°111W 111100°1.A It 10 ***V ri1/4„ ill, W ., urimpe gii - r--1-.... POvO ...: 1iu It • ~.._. L2) di ar NI7 11111 tir g$ V 4 tp Q 5-1"r..... The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a mixed density residential development on approximately 50 acres. Within the development are standard single family detached houses (34) on slightly narrower than normal lots, cottage homes (67), similar to those proposed in the North Bay development north of Lake Riley, and eight and twelve unit townhouses (192). In staff's initial discussions with the developer, staff informed the developer that we would support a mixed density development of the site provided that the number of units proposed would remain within those that could be developed based on the existing land uses for the property. Staff has calculated the total number of units at 268, which was determined by multiplying 33 acres of low density by 4 units per acre and 17 acres of medium density by 8 units per acre. Within this framework, staff felt that we could support a mix of housing types within the development layout. Additionally, staff suggest that the applicant incorporate lower density adjacent to the existing residential developments to the north (Windmill Run and Royal Oaks Estates). Staff also required that the developer connect to Windmill Drive to provide linkages between the neighborhoods. This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC -2 District. While single family detached residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the district, the project must still comply with the highway corridor district intent which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that the concept of the plan is generally good. However, there are several issues and revisions to the plan that need to be addressed prior to granting preliminary approval. Following is a list of issues that need to be resolved prior to moving the development forward: 1. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor. • 3. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a I - - • - - . - - • • single family development to the south. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 3 4. The total number of units must bc reduced to a . 6. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelter/bus cut -out. 7. The developer shall expand the gathering space /public space within the development. The proposed tot lot is too small and poorly located for the balance of the townhouse units. 8. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter of the project. 9. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the natural features on the site. 10. The developer should revise the building orientation of the townhouse units to providc 11. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior materials must be made. 12. Access and utility stubs shall be provided to the Hennessy parcel to the west. 13. The intersection spacing from Galpin Boulevard to the access for the cottage units-Heeds-to bc incr used. The applicant's original proposal contained 293 dwelling units: 34 single family, 67 cottages, and 192 villas. This represented an overall gross density of 5.86 units per acre and a net density of 6.6 units per acre. Within the northerly 33 acres there were 165 units proposed (34 single family, 47 cottages, and 84 villas). This represents a gross density of 5 units per acre and a net density of 5.5 units per acre. In the southerly 17 acres, 20 cottages and 108 villas (128 total units) were proposed. This represented a gross density of 7.53 units per acre and a net density of 8.9 units per acre. In response to the Planning Commission hearing and staff comments, the applicant has prepared a revised concept plan for the development. This plan contains a total of 268 dwelling units: 32 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 4 single family, 48 cottages, 32 single loaded townhouses, and 156 villas. This represents an overall gross density of 5.36 units per acre and a net density of 6.02 units per acre. The northerly 33 acres contains 144 units (32 single family, 48 cottages, 16 single loaded townhouses, and 48 villas). This represents a gross density of 4.36 and a net density of 4.83 units per acre. The southerly 17 acres contains 124 dwellings (16 single loaded townhouses and 108 villas). This represents a gross density of 7.29 units per acre and a net density of 8.4 units per acre. The net density of the surrounding development are as follows: Royal Oaks Estates - 2.13 units per acre, Windmill Run - 2.41 units per acre, the proposed Lake Ann Highlands - 3.56 units per acre. Typical subdivisions average 10 percent dedication for right -of -way. If we were to apply this percentage to the Highlands site, staff estimates, based on maximizing the density of the existing land uses, a net of 241 dwelling units within the project (119 units in the northerly 33 acres and 122 in the southerly 17 acres). Additional units may also be provided for the provision of low and moderate cost housing. Staff believes the applicant is moving in the right direction in their revisions to the concept plan. The applicant, through the reorientation of the cottage units, has provided additional transitioning of density within the development. We believe that a gathering place /open space should be located in the cent ~ , the vili un Additional vistas between structures should be provided to the Bluff Creek corridor. While the applicant appears to have developed a reasonable alternative to the Bluff Creek setback, a resolution of the Bluff Creek corridor preservation area needs to be finalized. The idea between a concept PUD review is to determine if there is a basic consensus on a proposed development. The city provides the developer with direction in bringing the project forward for preliminary development review. 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. A four -fifths vote of the entire council is required for concept approval. Staff is recommending that only the concept be approved to allow the applicant to undertake the modifications to the plan and address the issues outlined in this report. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE City Council reviewed the proposed development at their February 10, 1997 hearing. The Council tabled the item to permit the developer to prepare additional revisions to the plan consistent with issues addressed by Council as part of their discussion of the project. In the interim, staff requested that the applicant verify the areas of the proposed development. Based on the analysis, the area designated as low density residential is 30.14 acres and the area The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 5 designated for medium density residential is 19.66 acres. Since staff originally calculated land use areas using a Land Use Map with a scale of one inch equals 1,000 feet and the applicant's calculation is based on survey information, staff accepts this number. The applicant has also provided a breakdown for right -of -way and wetland areas within the project. Based on these numbers, the applicant has calculated a maximum net density of 254 dwelling units. The applicant has prepared a revised plan (stamped received Feb 19, 1997) that incorporates the reduction in the total number of units from 268 to 254. The plan eliminates six of the cottage units north of the Hennessy property and replaces them with four "traditional home" lots, reduces the number of structures from six to five north of the Bluff Creek conservation area (creating a view corridor down the private street), accesses the Hennessy property from the east, and eliminates one of the 12 unit villa buildings, creating additional open space in the center of the development. This represents an overall gross density of 5.1 units per acre and a net density of 5.63; a net density in the northerly 30.14 acres of 4.89 units per acre and a net density of 6.71 units per acre in the southerly 19.66 acres. The applicant has scheduled meetings with the neighbors on Thursday, February 20th and Saturday, February 22 to review the proposed revisions to the plans. BACKGROUND In March 1995, the city approved a preliminary plat (94 -14) for 92 twin homes on the northern portion of the parcel and the first reading of the rezoning of the property from A2 to R4. On April 8, 1996, the city granted a one year extension until March 13, 1997 for this development. As of December 1996, housing types are distributed as follows: detached single- family homes, 4,924 units (78 %); twin homes, 218 units (3 %); townhouses, 593 units (9 %), and multi - family, 594 units (9 %). The proposed development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city and provides housing alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing Availability Policy No. 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The development of alternate types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. Chanhassen is committed to providing housing alternatives. The future land use plan is evidence of this commitment. Land designated for future single family units (1990 - 2000) will accommodate approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate approximately 1,500 units. As future development occurs, it is anticipated that alternative forms of housing will increase as a component of Chanhassen's total housing stock." SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low point of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor which is located The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 6 in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A10 -14(1) on the City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 50 acres from A2 to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - Residential. There are three components to the PUD: single family detached housing, detached townhouse type units, and townhouses. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. With modifications, the development will preserve portions of the Bluff Creek corridor located in the southwest corner of the site. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The proposed development, through the mixing of residential densities within and individual project, efficiently and effectively uses the land. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 7 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The proposed development is compatible with surrounded uses. Through the incorporation of the recommendations contained in this report, staff believes that the project will reflect higher quality design. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Findin . The development has attempted to transition development from low density to medium density entirely with the project. The development provides lifecycle and affordable housing opportunities. The applicant has proposed a development that is unique to the community and fills a niche in the housing needs for current and future residents of the city. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to approval of the land use amendment for the northerly 33 acres for low to medium density residential. This amendment is necessary to permit the internal transfer of density, to permit reduced lot widths for the single family detached housing, and to permit the zero lot line cottage homes. Staff is recommending that the development be revised to maintain the maximum density that would have been permitted under the existing land uses for the property. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The applicant is preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. A sidewalk is proposed for the north -south road to permit residents of this development and the subdivisions to the north to access the trail on the future Arboretum Boulevard. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The proposed development will provide a diversity of housing types affordable to a wide range of income groups. Housing prices, as proposed, will range from $80,000 to $250,000. Most, if not all, of the villa units will be within the range of housing affordability as defined by the Metropolitan Council ($120,000 for ownership housing). The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 8 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The proposed mix of housing types provides energy conservation through the efficiencies related to site development. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. All appropriate traffic management techniques will be incorporated in the development. The applicant is providing internal street linkages between this neighborhood and the neighborhoods to the north. City comprehensive land use policies require that "Development should be planned to provide adequate street linkages." City comprehensive transportation policies provide that "The city will promote the provision of street connections to maximize safety and ease of access." In addition, rather than provide a straight connection of Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard, the applicant has created a street intersection, causing traffic to turn and discouraging through traffic. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: • Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan • Diversity of housing types • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees, topographical features) • Sensitive development in transitional areas • More efficient use of land GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The applicant is proposing a mixed density residential development on approximately 50 acres. Within the development are standard single family detached houses (34) on slightly narrower than normal lots, cottage homes (67), similar to those proposed in the North Bay development north of Lake Riley, and eight and twelve unit townhouses (192). Traditional single family lots abut the northern property line. The 34 homes are planned to be marketed from $180,000 to $250,000. The lots immediately adjacent to the Windmill Run The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 9 development are proposed with a minimum width of 70 feet. Single family lots south of the proposed Windmill Curve are proposed with a minimum width of 65 feet. Proposed setbacks of 30 feet front, 25 feet rear, and 5 feet for garage side and 10 feet side for the living area. Proposed lot sizes range from 9,130 square feet to 30,289 square feet. The cottage homes are proposed to be built by Rottlund Homes. The product is a single family home with a two car garage, typically 30 feet wide by 70 feet deep with a separation between units of 12 to 15 feet. Cottage lots are typically 3,200 square feet, 40 feet wide by 80 feet deep. The price range planned for the cottage homes are $130,000 to $200,000. Cottage homes are proposed single -level units that range in floor area from 1,376 to 1,608 square feet typically, with potential increases in square footage for walkout units. Buildings are proposed to be 20 feet behind the curb. The villa homes are townhome units in three 8 -unit and 14 12 -unit structures. These structures are two story, two bedroom units with one and two car garages. Floor plans range from 1,128 to 1,300 square feet. Exterior will be brick with maintenance free trim and siding. Unit prices are proposed to range from $80,000 to $110,000. Buildings are proposed to be 22 feet behind the curb. SUBDIVISION REVIEW DRAINAGE The site falls into two watershed districts (Figure 1). Approximately half of the site drains naturally to the east branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west branch of Bluff Creek. It appears that the propose grading and drainage plans intend to maintain a similar drainage pattern. Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the streets created hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. Phase I The stormwater runoff for this phase of the development is proposed to drain to the east branch of Bluff Creek through a proposed wetland and stormwater pond located behind single family homes. It is important that this project must maintain pre - developed stormwater runoff rates for The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 10 discharges to the east of this site and to the northwest. There is also a proposed storm pond on the east property line of this site. Staff recommends that this pond be used as a temporary sediment basin for this area until a regional stormwater pond on the adjoining property to the east is constructed. This action would be consistent with the City's goals of regional ponds as described in the SWMP. The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch basins. All temporary and permanent storm water ponds must be in place before infrastructure construction can proceed. Phase II The runoff from this phase will be directed to the west branch of the Bluff Creek. This stormwater is proposed to be routed to a stormwater pond on the southern edge of the property. Staff recommends that this pond be sized to treat runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to managing runoff from this development. The pond should be sized to meet Walker standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This can be accomplished by over- sizing the proposed pond at the low point of the site or constructing a two -cell pond on the east and west sides of the proposed intersecting road. This ponding basin must be in place or constructed as a part of the overall improvements of phase II. According to SWMP, a water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this development to treat stormwater runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek. It is anticipated that this basin will be needed for future improvements to TH. 5 and to take the runofffrom the lots along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this water quality basin is to be used and modified to pre -treat the runofffrom TH 5, as well as the adjoining watershed before entering the west branch of Bluff Creek. The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch basins. Wetlands The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 11 There is one agricultural /urban wetland on -site that will be impacted by the proposed frontage road alignment. The applicant should avoid impacts, and if they cannot, they will have to complete the necessary delineation, sequencing and replacement plans and apply for a Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP). Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetland located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Bluff Creek The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of the Bluff Creek. The Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek are also DNR protected waters. The City of Chanhassen has recently completed the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan (figure 2). In this plan, recommendations for this upper area of the Bluff Creek include a 300 foot setback buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor. This area has been identified for shallow marsh restoration and big woods re- vegetation projects (figure 3). Staff recommendation for this project will be maintaining the natural vegetation and landscape below the existing 966 ft contour. This setback is based on the existing topography and watershed of the creek in this area and maintains all of the primary Bluff Creek corridor and a transition area within the secondary corridor. This recommended setback varies from a minimum of 125 feet to 300 feet along this area. Staff feels this is necessary to maintain the integrity of the creek's natural features and to buffer from the intense development of streets and homes through this site. The most intense impact will occur at the point in which the underpass trails connect from Arboretum Blvd. and TH. 5. This area will also be the site of the needed storm water ponds for this area. Because of these factors, staff is investigating the feasibility of a big woods restoration project be established in conjunction with this project. The applicant may have an opportunity to reduce some city administration fees for participation in this project. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 12 plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post - developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre- development and post - development conditions for 10 -year and 100 -year 24 -hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post - developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 21/2-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been established at $1,530 /acre for multi- family residential developments, $871 /acre for medium density duplex developments and $800 /acre for single family residential development. This proposed development of 49.9 acres would be charged a water quality fee based on the final acreage of each of these developments. Estimated costs for this plan are based on assessments of 22.1 acres at $1,530 for multi - family, 11.4 acres at $871 for medium density, and 9.6 acres at $800 for single family residential, resulting in a total water quality fee of $51,422. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Low density developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre and medium density residential units have a connection fee of $2,975 per acre. Estimated water quantity fees for this plan are based on assessments of 9.6 acres at $1,980 and 33.5 acres at $2,975 for a water quantity fee of $118,670. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 13 SWMP Credits The applicant will be credited water quality fees where they provide NURP basins to treat runoff from this site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. The applicant will not be assessed areas that are dedicated outlots such as any wetland mitigation or areas preserved along the Bluff Creek corridor. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The applicant will be charged SWMP fees for lots that are presented for final platting. Future phases of the development will be assessed charges when they are submitted for final platting. GRADING A majority of the site is employed in agricultural use. The entire site, with the exception of the Bluff Creek Corridor, is proposed to develop ponds, streets, driveways, and dwelling sites. Given the size of this project, it is unclear whether or not the entire site will be graded with the initial phase. The applicant should provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork calculations and a schedule of grading events. As part of the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade, a frontage road (Arboretum Boulevard) will be constructed adjacent to the site. This development will connect to the proposed Arboretum Boulevard in the future. The site grades should be compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The preliminary design for Arboretum Boulevard has recently been given to the applicant to be incorporated into their plans. Therefore, some minor adjustment of the grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard may be necessary. In addition, the exact location of Arboretum Boulevard where it crosses Bluff Creek may be shifted slightly. The grading plans propose earth berms adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Landscape plantings along the frontage road should be maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards. No berming will be permitted within the city boulevard areas. Given the rolling terrain of this parcel, the site will be graded to create walkout, lookout, and rambler -type dwellings. Staff is suggesting that the applicant's engineer look at creating additional walkout -type units since they are the most preferred type dwelling unit by homeowners. In an effort to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, the plans propose a 100 -foot wide corridor adjacent to the southwest property line. Staff recommends that the setback be maintained from The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 14 the 964 contour line to preserve the natural amenities. Eventually, a trunk sanitary line and trail system will be constructed within this corridor. This area should be preserved by either a utility and conservation easement or outlot which would be dedicated to the City. UTILITIES Utility service is available to the entire development. Sanitary sewer and water service is available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has limited serviceability to only the northerly portion of the development. In conjunction with the City's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer improvement project, sanitary sewer has been extended underneath Trunk Highway 5 to serve the remaining portion of the development. Plans propose on extending a lateral sanitary sewer service from the City's trunk sewer to service the entire development. The utility improvements within this development will be constructed in accordance with the City's standards. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. Utility and drainage easements will be required over the public utilities that fall outside of the right -of -way. The easement width will be determined upon the depth of the utility. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The applicant is proposing to extend the 12 -inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive south to the future frontage road consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The applicant will be given credit for installation of this 12 -inch trunk waterline by a reduction in their hookup fees. Typically, in a development of this size, the applicant would only need to install an 8 -inch waterline, therefore, the applicant will be given credit for the cost difference between an 8 -inch and a 12 -inch waterline. Along the westerly portion of this development immediately adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an existing homestead abuts this development (Hennessy parcel). The applicant, in conjunction with the overall development improvements, should intend on providing sanitary sewer and water service lines to serve the parcel. This requirement is typical for new developments to ensure continuation of the public utility system. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required in conjunction with final platting. Construction drawings will need to be submitted at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration. Construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval. STREETS The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 15 Overall, the street system is fairly well designed to accommodate the development's traffic and provide continuity between the neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing both a public and private street system. The north/south public street will provide residents to the north (Windmill Run) access to Arboretum Boulevard without having to travel on Galpin Boulevard. This north/south street will also have a sidewalk system that will connect to the existing sidewalk in Windmill Drive to bring pedestrian traffic south to the trail system which is to be constructed in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. MnDOT will be providing an underground pedestrian crossing at Arboretum Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5 (Attachment No. 1). This will provide an excellent pedestrian route for all the neighborhoods to access the school south of Trunk Highway 5. Staff and the applicant have reviewed the previous staff report on Lake Ann Highlands with regards to Windmill Run's neighborhood concern of traffic using their neighborhood as a shortcut to and from Arboretum Boulevard to get to Galpin Boulevard. Staff strongly believes that it would be poor planning from a transportation and public safety standpoint not to connect to Windmill Drive. Staff does not believe the proposed street alignment will provide a shorter route for traffic to /from Galpin Boulevard. The development contract for Windmill Run contains a condition of approval that acknowledges that Windmill Run will be extended in the future. With Phase I of the development, the proposed east/west public street will connect Windmill Drive to Galpin Boulevard. When Phase II is completed, it will provide an alternative route to proposed Arboretum Boulevard for residents north of this development. All of the public streets proposed in the development will be constructed in accordance with the City's urban street standards (31 -foot wide, back -to -back with curb and gutter) within a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The applicant is also dedicating right -of -way for future Arboretum Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. The proposed right -of -way for Galpin Boulevard, however, will need to be increased to 50 -feet wide to accommodate future upgrading. Galpin Boulevard is proposed to be upgraded to four lanes similar to the section of Galpin Boulevard south of Trunk Highway 5. Prior to this upgrade, this development will be required to construct with auxiliary turn lanes along Galpin Boulevard similar to the Windmill Run development to the north. Since Galpin Boulevard is currently under Carver County Highway Department jurisdiction, an access permit will be required for all work within the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. The development is proposed to be constructed in at least two phases. The exact phasing limit is in question due to the traffic impacts on Galpin Boulevard. The southerly access via Arboretum Boulevard is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5. This segment of Trunk Highway 5 is not scheduled to be constructed until some time in 1999. Staff has requested the applicant perform a traffic study to determine the limits of development before the level of service at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard exceed capacity. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 16 The applicant is proposing private streets to serve the villas and cottage homes. The proposed private streets range from 20 -feet to 28 -feet wide, similar to the Mission Hills development adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 south of Trunk Highway 5. Staff has received comments and concerns from the Public Safety Department and residents in Mission Hills with regards to the streets being too narrow in some cases. City code requires a 24 -foot wide minimum private street unless the street serves less then four dwellings at which time the street may be 20 -feet wide. The private streets will need to be constructed to meet 7 -ton per axle weight design criteria. Cross access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the benefited parcels. Staff has pointed out a couple of design changes for the applicant. One change involves providing access to the Hennessy parcel directly west of the development. The other change is the intersection spacing on the first street east of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant will be redesigning the street system in these areas to account for the changes. Construction access to the site shall be limited to Galpin Boulevard. Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be required prior to final plat consideration. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7 -ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20- 1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." EROSION CONTROL Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Rock construction entrances shall be provided and maintained at all construction access points. MISCELLANEOUS The parcel has both deferred and pending assessments for trunk sewer and water improvements. The pending trunk sewer and water assessments are estimated at over $440,000.00. This is based on 180 units (sewer at $1,050 and water at $1,375). In addition, there are 18 deferred (green acre) sewer assessments in the range of $12,000.00. The number of trunk sewer and water units pending and/or assessed to date are 198 and 180, respectively. Once the final plat configuration is determined, the actual number of lots will be subtracted from the number of units already assessed. The difference in units will be subject to sewer and water hookup fees when the building permits are issued. Currently, the hookup fees are $1,190 per unit for sanitary sewer and The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 17 $1,555 per unit for water. These fees are annually adjusted to reflect construction cost changes to the local Minneapolis region according to the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost Index. The applicant will be receiving credits against these hookup fees for the oversizing cost of the 12 -inch trunk watermain on the north/south street. Staff will calculate these credits upon completion of the utility construction and apply the credit accordingly. PARKS AND RECREATION On January 28, 1997, the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed "Highlands" development. Following a staff report, applicant presentation, public comment, and discussion, the commission made the following recommendation: That the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council apply the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails for The Highlands. 1. The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from Highlands Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail within this easement. The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in constructing the trail from the city's trail fund. 2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 3. The development of a "commons" within the plat. Commissioners Roeser, Manders, Scott and Howe voted in favor. Lash and Berg voted against. The motion carried by a 4 -2 vote. Commissioners Lash and Berg voted against due to the failure to specify that a children's playground must be a component of the commons. As the motion stands, the specific contents of the commons area are at the discretion of the applicant. LANDSCAPING The former farm fields have limited vegetation existing along the Bluff Creek corridor and Highway 5. Some tree removal along the creek will take place as a part of construction. Applicant has provided calculations for reforestation and found that 400 trees are required. According to the plant species schedule included in the development plans dated 12- 13 -96, a total of 672 trees will be planted. A breakdown of the total includes 231 evergreens, 202 ornamentals and 239 overstory trees. Species selection of the overstory trees is consistent with the landscaping guidelines for the upland area in the Bluff Creek Management Plan with the exception of the 27 Norway maples. This tree is not native to the area nor has it proven to be a success as boulevard plantings. Staff recommends the applicant include a species of oak rather than the Norway maple in order to promote a `Big Woods' community. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 18 Of greatest concern with the proposed Highlands development is the location of Bluff Creek running through the southwestern corner of the property. In the Bluff Creek management plan, development in this area of the watershed was recommended not to encroach within 300 feet of Bluff Creek. The applicant has afforded only a 100 foot buffer strip from the property line along the creek and is proposing `cottages' to be built within 15 feet of the buffer strip. Construction of a home requires at least a 20' radius around the home for access of equipment and materials. Not only will the homes be closer to the Creek than is advised, but the buffer will be encroached upon by construction. Staff is recommending that a buffer from the creek be provided within the development using the 966 contour. This condition will require a redesign of the cottage units in this area, shifting units to the north. This setback is based on the existing topography and watershed of the creek in this area and maintains all of the primary Bluff Creek corridor and a transition area within the secondary corridor. Within this area, the city would want to see the revegetation of the disturbed area with native vegetative links as outlined in the Bluff Creek Study. Since this is the first development to take the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Management Plan into consideration, it is extremely important to keep in mind the precedent this development will be setting. The proposed Highlands development is an intense use of the land in a sensitive area near the headwaters of the Bluff Creek watershed. When determining the appropriate buffer width along Bluff Creek, the city must look at maintaining as much of the natural features and vegetation as feasible. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 1997 to review the proposed plan. Based on the concurrence of the applicant, the review of the project was done on a conceptual basis only due to many of the changes to be made to the plan. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to "note" PUD 1496 -4, The Highlands, and recommends that staff and the developer work to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council to incorporate the recommendations that they heard by the Planning Commission and eliminate or work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the staff report. Staff would like to note that 29 of the 51 conditions contained in the staff report are boiler plate conditions found in conceptual /preliminary reviews (conditions 3, 4, 6 -20, 22, 25, 29, and 30- 38). The balance of the conditions are more substantive in nature and will significantly change the design of the project. In addition, the applicant has complied with conditions 26, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 51, eliminating several of the substantive conditions. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 19 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council grants conceptual approval of PUD #96 -4 with the following conditions: 1. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species listed in Bluff Creek Management Plan. 2. Prepare a vegetation restoration plan for slope leading down from road to the wetland in southwest corner and adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor. 3. Revised grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 4. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over the private streets within the development. 6. Upon completion of the public improvements, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and streets improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7 -ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20 -1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 20 10. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 15. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate right -of -way for Arboretum Boulevard. 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 18. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 21 19. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility, drainage and conservation easement up to the 964 contour line adjacent to Bluff Creek. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot. 22. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12 -inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8 -inch and a 12 -inch water line. 23. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard. 24. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and a schedule of construction events. 25. The applicant shall dedicate a 50 -foot wide strip of land for Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. 26. The applicant shall perform a traffic study to determine the limits of development. The City at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the cast /west street. 27. The require building setback from the Bluff Creek should be at the existing 966 contour. 28. Phase II stormwater pond shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given for oversizing this pond. 29. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based on a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 30. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 22 31. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, 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. 32. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 33. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 regarding premise identification (copy enclosed). 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 06 -1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking fire lane signs. 35. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire 1 protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. 36. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(d). Exception, when buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. 37. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(b). 38. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 39. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.403. 40. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 23 11. Perimeter building setbacks within a PUD are 50 fcct. 42. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a better transition form the existing single family development to the south. 43. The total number of units must be reduced to a maximum of 268. 44. The applicant shall investigate the use of a forth housing type. A single loaded townhouse 45. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelter/bus cut -out. 46. The developer shall expand the gathering -space /public space within the development. The all and poorly located for the balance of the townhouse units. 47. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter of r the project. 48. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the natural features on the site. 19. The dcvcloper should revise the building orientation of the townhouse units to provide 50. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior materials must be made. 51. The intersection spacing from Galpin Boulevard to the access for the cottage units needs to be incr ased." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo dated 10/15/96 and Resolution from District 112 3. Letter from mark G. Pryor to Ladd Conrad dated 1/7/97 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 24 4. Letter from David & Cinda Jensen to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/8/97 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 12/30/96 6. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 1/8/97 7. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 8. Fax from Jim Knutson to Robert Generous dated 1/9/97 9. Letter from John & Dani Hennessy to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/12/97 10. Sketch Plan for Hennessy Parcel 11. Letter from Henry A. Wanserski to Planning Committee dated 1/1/5/97 12. Letter from Todd Hoffman to Rick Murray dated 1/31/97 13. Figure 1, Watershed District Map 14. Figure 2, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, pp. 51 -53 15. Figure 3, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, Project Map 16. Memo from Rick Nau and Aaron Heumann to Miles Lindberg dated 1/22/97 17. Planning Commission Minutes for 1/17/97 18. The Highlands Area Calculations 19. City Council Minutes of 2/10/97 g plan `bghlghpuddoc I blc -7J( -Dra rage 2 12/18/96 10:32 :46 612 - 937 - 5739 - > 612 941 3438 CITY OF CHANHABSEN firm,- -”"i „. ' 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 65317 p E f 1 : 1:195 (612) 937.1900 j 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLMCATION C 1 Y' 'APPLICANT; Residential Development, Inc. OWNER Lars T. Conway ADDRESS: 15 Choctaw Circle ADDRESS: 4415 Freemont Avenue South Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Minneapolis. MN 55409 TaEPHONE j(Day tlrnl0) 934 -6238 1 i' LEF -13NE: _ ---_ rt. 'Y , Cdiripl Plan Amendment 11. Vaoatbn of ROW /Easements fz.. cdndlibnal use Permit 12. Variance ,I B.1 far1d14 ovation Permit 13. L Wetland Alteration Permit ft.,..., irltlirini Usit Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 15.1__Y__ 014nned U}+h Development ' 16. toning Ordinance Amendment i . I El. h Rsi.konlr>6 7, __ SO Pprtnits — S.. Skin Purl kievlew Not floation Signs O.', ."/ SO PI Fevlew __2i,. Esorow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost” 5130 CUP /BPRNACNARilWAP $4)0 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds F / T OTAL E 6 .,1 ■ k �. , �v„ C�'�;�cal�y� � A list pf a property owners Within 500 feet of the boundarlee of the property must inolul id �rl h,the application. i Twenty -sIx full else folded ooples of the plans must be eubniltted. 8W' X 11" Reduced Dopy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate tee hail be drat ,ad to each application. - escrow will be required for other applications through the development o3ntra0t _ i i 612- 937 -5739 Page 3 '/10/96 10:33:15 612- 937 - 5739 -> 612 941 3438 � OJECT NM , E The Highlands `C ATION =dpAL DESCRIPTION See Attached ................... • AE8ENT ZONING - i , � 1GUESTED ZONING t ' Ib' r/ 2- h f�` " ",�'^ � IriQ D U6d D ESIGNATION l lea 1 ,) s S -' I. ' ' 'i�BENT LAN , Ra UESTED LAND 1�8E DESIGNATION ^ i _ Q j Ri ■SON FOR THIS BEQUEST V.--e-S k-hm. ( ' 4 • ThI$ applioatio must be completed In fu I and be typewritten or clearly pA ed and must be a000mpanled by all Information F you t your confer with. and plans re 'red bt4, appllcarbr�Che a � ordinance and procedural rethis requirements application, You should ould coMer wUh the Fleming Dep9Am�n1 to determine Pe o b p qu responsible for Complying Th10 Is to cart that I am making applioation for the described action by he City and that I am p° WK * all City It 4 n � r� I ' , is with regard t° his request. This applications Id be processed In my name and I am party vwt a the CN e� �u d, of Owners Duplicate CeAlficate of Title, AbstraCt Title orlpurchaseaagrreement), or I proof m the ersh (eh 'tor owner has also a ned this application. °� � application and the fee owns i 0 authoAzed Pe onto make this app I w I keep . ' elf 1 o� ed of the deadlines for submission of mat ea bi yt l g progress ess of h i estimate prior further any uhtherotand t a dl i fees may be Charged for oonaullinp fees, eutho dzatbn . prOobed with the study, The documents and information have submitted are true r rid cirr is Ih■ t'^st y 421 rhy knowle e. • Mt ., fter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded I al9° roval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's e06t1 � =t the tit • he • ropeAy for which the app Off e ; , ,, he•or . a • ocument returned to City Hail Records. Cr■ „ l / 1 r Date • ' 6 !', ature of 1 . pi • ant I /- - /4 <-2., // ,---,-,- Date B ",ature of .pe �' c-1/C' .2)! `J Receipt No.,: Fee Paid ,gppyloatbn Re6elved on 1 Z � �' i • The applloen` •tf�fJlqq contact staff fOr s copy of the stall report witloh will be available on Friday prior to the me0tfng. If nbt cbntelcted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. . i Office of the Superintendent David L. Clough, Ph.D. 110600 Village Road Chaska, Minnesota 55318 612/368 -3601 School District October 15, 1996 To: City and County Planners and Planning Commission Members City Council Members and Administrators Carver County Board Members and Administrators From: Dr. David L. Clough, SuperintendentX — District 112 + Re: Attached School Board Resolution Attached is a resolution that the District 112 School Board unanimously approved at their meeting on September 26, 1996, asking cities and counties to consider the implications for school bus transportation in the planning of residential developments. School Board members asked me to convey their appreciation to all officials involved in planning in Carver County for the good job you are doing even though faced with the dynamics of rapidly growing communities. Board members understand these pressures as they themselves struggle to accommodate student growth in District 112 — the metropolitan area's second - fastest - growing school district. Thank you for your continued collaborative efforts with District 112. Please call me at 368 -3601 if you have questions or suggestions. RECEIVED OCT 1 6 199E CITY OF CHANH4SSE . Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education. EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 112, CHASKA, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof; a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District No. 112, Chaska, Minnesota, was held on the 26th day of September, 1996, at 7:33 p.m. The following Board members were present: Businaro, Johnson, Lawler, Olson, Von De Bur, Welch, and Whitney; and the following were absent: None. Board member Von De Bur introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO ENCOURAGE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Minnesota school districts must provide safe, timely, and cost - effective student transportation services, even with decreased funding; and WHEREAS, an efficient transportation system requires short (distance and time), expedient routes with students required to walk reasonable distances to the bus stop as permitted by Minnesota Statute; and WHEREAS, dead -end roads and cul de sacs require buses to traverse a distance without picking up or dropping off riders (consumes bus time without producing riders); and WHEREAS, use of dead -end roads and cul de sacs often requires a bus to back up in order to reverse direction (for safety reasons, a practice not allowed by policy unless no alternative exists). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all city, township, and county planning officials and elected officials are urged to consider the safety impact of having students walk out of dead -end roads and cul de sacs and the inefficient high state and local government costs when transportation is required in such subdivisions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the municipalities involved be urged to place a moratorium on neighborhood platting that does not provide interconnecting roadways and/or safe and adequate areas for bus turnaround. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the municipalities involved be urged to provide bus shelters for students and safe sidewalks and/or cleared trails for students walking to school or bus. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of providing government services such as school bus transportation be considered along with snowplowing, police and fire protection in all future neighborhood plats and planning. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member Lawler and upon vote being taken thereon, the motion was passed unanimously. Al 1FST: ar■ / / 17 Kelly 1-L on De Bur, Clerk ww u.. BRowN Sc Hoi.m iN, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8085 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5 5426 -1 35 1 (612) 591 -9950 DOUGLAS J. BROWN FAX (612) 591 PAUL W. GODFREY • DAVID C. HOLMAN MARK G. PRYOR JEFFREY G. CARLSON PENNY F. HELGREN PAULA LARSON- RICHARD KIM D. AMUNDSON DOUGLAS J. McINTYRE BETH GIEREL MANDEL •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN January 7, 1997 Mr. Ladd Conrad Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 My wife Sharon and I reside at 7541 Windmill Drive in Chanhassen. We would like to express our concern regarding the proposed Highland Planned Unit Development which is to be discussed at the January 15, 1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Our lot is on the southwest corner of the Windmill Run development, which borders the north side of the proposed Highland Planned Unit Development. Thus, our lot sits directly adjacent to the northeast corner of the proposed development. Thus, the development of the parcel will have a direct impact on our home. We have concerns about the proposed development, which include both the housing density of the proposed development and a lack of a gradual transition between housing of varying densities. After living in south Minneapolis for a number of years, we decided to build a home in Chanhassen. While going through the decision - making process, we looked at a number of different communities and visited a number of different lot sites in each community. Because a nwnber of the communities we looked at were not fully developed, a number of the Lots we looked at were surrounded by undeveloped land. In those cases, we made it a practice to contact either the adjacent landowner or the community itself in order to make some determination as to what type of adjacent development we might expect in the future. In particular, we were looking for an area which would be less crowded than the area we were leaving. As with the other lots we looked at, prior to selecting the lot at 7541 Windmill Drive, we contacted the City of Chanhassen and inquired into potential development in the areas surrounding Windmill Run. We were referred to the Chanhassen "staff' and subsequently were told that we could review Chanhassen's long -term land use plan. We reviewed the long- term land use plan which showed that the area surrounding the Windmill Run development was designated as "R -4". We asked the "staff' what "R -4" meant, and were told that it meant that future development would be detached single family homes, similar in Mr. Ladd Conrad January 7, 1997 Page 2 nature to the homes to be built in our development. With that information in mind, we choose our lot. In the spring of 1994, we were informed that a development of twin homes was being proposed for the parcel of land where the Highlands development is currently being proposed. We voiced our opposition to the twin home development on the grounds that the City had lead us to believe that the property would be developed as detached single family homes. We were only then informed by the "staff' that the "R -4" designation did not mean single family detached homes, but rather, it meant 1 - 4 housing units per acre, regardless of the housing configuration. (We were also disturbed to find out that the twin home development had been proposed prior to the development of Windmill Run, but had been delay due to the failure of the City to make a decision as to where the frontage road, Arboretum Boulevard, was to run. For some reason the "staff" failed to inform us of that proposed project when we inquired as to possible development adjacent to Windmill Run). Ultimately, the zoning change to R -4 for the twin home project was approved by the City Counsel in March of 1994. However, apparently due to financial considerations, the twin home project did not go forward. We are now faced with a request by Residential Development, Inc. to change the zoning of the parcel to Residential Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel and PUD rezoning from A -2 to PUD -R for mixed density residential, including 67 cottage homes, 192 villa homes and 36 lots to be developed for single family homes. This represents an even more dense development than the previously proposed twin home development. We are very disturbed that the proposed development is not consistent with the housing density outlined in the long -term land use plan. We relied on the plan making the decision where to build our home and were assured by City representatives that we could do so. The proposed development is a significant departure from the housing density provided for in the land use plan. The proposed development calls for 297 housing units on approximately 50 acres. This represents a much more dense development than could be possible under the provisions of the land use plan. One of the reasons that we chose the lot at 7541 Windmill Drive was because it was surrounded by land designated to be developed as low- density housing. After living in the City of Minneapolis, we were hoping to move to an area with less dense housing, which would result in "fewer people per acre," less traffic, less noise, and a somewhat more "private" lifestyle. Had we known that a development of this type could be built immediately adjacent to our property, in spite of the provisions of the land -use plan, we would not have chosen either the lot or the development that we did. We recognized that the parcel adjacent to our property would eventually be developed, but in making our decision, we relied on the land use plan and the assurances of the City representatives as to what it meant. Mr. Ladd Conrad January 7, 1997 Page 3 In addition to providing for a housing density that is much greater than provided for in the land use plan, the proposed development does not provide for a gradual change in housing densities that is the hallmark of a well - planned community. Our observations are that a well - planned community contains several different densities of housing, with gradual transitions between the different densities. The Windmill Run development has approximately 58 single family homes on 30 acres, with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed development provides for only one row of lots for single family homes, on lots of approximately 11,000 square feet, and a second row of 14 lots of approximately 9,000 square feet between the Windmill Run development and several rows of cottage homes on the west side of the development and an extremely large and dense area of villa homes on the east side of the development. This represents a drastic change in housing density, with a minimal transition area. The proposed development simply does not provide for a gradual transition between housing types. A better alternative would be at Least two rows of lots for single family homes of a similar size to the lots in Windmill Run immediately adjacent to Windmill Run. Then, two more rows of smaller lots, such as those already provided for in the proposed plan, would provide a gradual transition from the single family homes in Windmill Run to the more dense cottage homes and ultimately the very dense villa homes. In addition, four rows of single family homes, in gradually decreasing lot size would also be much closer to the housing density provided for in the land use plan. In closing, we would like to reiterate our opposition to the proposed development. It is not consistent with the provisions of the long -term land use plan on which we (as well as may of our neighbors) relied on in making our decision to build our home. If the land use plan is not going to be followed it is of little use to anyone. Also, there must be a much more gradual transition between housing densities than is provided for in the proposed development in order to ensure the development of a well - planned community. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Very truly yours, 7 79 G Mark G. Pryor MGP /jaf David Cinda Jensen 2173 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 8, 1997 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen City Hall Dear Planning Commission I\ 'embers: Our family moved from Saint Louis Park to Chanhassen over two } ago. We made this move after three years of saving and looking for just the right community. Our intent was to fi a honkie in a community wlhcre we would vivant our children to grow up. We did not focus on one specific area to find what we teere looking ti>r - we considered the communities of Stillwater, \fi Qtt. Delano, Orono, St. M ieaaeh, and Anoka lust to name a few. Simply put. we were looking for a community with a small -town tee1. Ii; our -arch, we visited churches and we talked with educators. city planners. local business owners and local residents. In the spring of 1993, after taking our children to the Chaska Community ('enter, we visited the Rotilund Home d\ )pment at Windmill Run in Chanhassen. We alread y 1new we liked Chanhassen, and we liked what w saw at Windmill Run. our first i nter,:st in thc Windmill Run neighborhood. I contacted Bob Generous at City flail and discussed planned dev cluk1UL Uts surrounding Windmill Run and Royal lJ2ik Estates. Mr. Generous informed me that the land directly south of the Windmill Run development was plai:hted to be devclupcd as low density single tinnily r s, lenti al. I l isit..t1 City. Hail again, just prior to making our final decision about Windmill Run_ and talked with John Rask `. ii. flask showed ire the Can pl.h.n-itie l n,d use plan for Chanhassen. • 1 . R asb: pointed out that the area south of Windmill Run er as planned to he /oiled the Sari.' as Windmill Run and, th:Ieicke, shill _ homes and lot Hz.: s. This information was k:er important 10 us in making our decision to build our home at 2173 ntin1 :ur Street. Recency, w°e were informed about a proposed development called trc -highlands- t tat would occupy approximately 50 acres directly south of Windmill Run. The proposed plan is a PLD asking for the entire area to be rezoned as mixed medium density. The developer's plan includes building high density housing on approximately a third of the land (192 units on 15.7 acres). We are strongly opposed to this proposal. This proposal is rot in keeping with the comprehensive plan nor is it in keeping with the information url4�tr 1 o\:•. : us by City 11311 prior to the pit%liase of our l:ome. t h : d ition, this pronosai is not in keeping with the decision City Council made on March 13. i 995, for to mixed low density. When tiI made our decision to raise our famiis in Chanhassen and to make a substantial investment in building our home. we did so with information about this growing community front the cite plasters at Chanhassen City Hall. We visualized and looked forward to a growing, losv density single family neighborhood to our south. We do not believe that the proposed - Highlands - ands° development is in support of C'hanhassen's comprehensive land use plan and we believe the proposed plan will unduly increase density, traffic and safety in our neighborhood. We know you have not yet made a decision on this matter. As you are called upon to make a planning decision for the city of Chanhassen. we sincerely hope you will follow Chanhassen's comprehensive land use plan and reject the medium density PUD proposal. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and listening to our concerns. Sincerely, - David Jensen Cindy Jensen Chanhassen Residents CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Chanhassen Fire Marshal DATE: December 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Request for a land use plan amendment from residential -low density to residential- medium density for the northern half of the parcel; PUD rezoning for approximately 50 acres of property from A -2, Agricultural estate to PUD -R, planned unit development residential conceptual on preliminary request for mixed density residential development; site plan review for 67 cottage homes and 192 villa homes; preliminary subdivision request of 295 lots, 2 outlots and associated right of way located at the northeast corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5, The Highlands, Residential Development, Inc. Planning Case: 96 -4 PUD, 96 -2 LUP and 96 -14 SPR I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy requirements. The site plan 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. 1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. 2. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 regarding premise identification (copy enclosed). 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 06 -1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking fire lane signs. Generous December 30, 1996 Page 2 5. 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 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. 6. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(d). Exception, when buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. 7. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(b). 8. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 9. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.403. ML:be G: \safety \ml \highlands • CITYOF i4 " CHANHASSEN y Or 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (6i2) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1, Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional'numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. R 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement *3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Cormnerdal Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12 ". 2. Strip Mails a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shall be on the male entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 i . / Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public SaWy Director Page 1 of 1 .4i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT j Carver County Government Center Administration Administration Building Parks 6 00 East Fourth Street Engineering CARVER highway Maintenance. COUNTY Chaska, Minnesota 55318 -2192 surveying s Mapping Phone (612) 361 -1010 Fax (612) 361 -1025 January 8, 1997 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner JAN 0 9 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ;" ? IT ' t SUBJ: Planned Use Development The Highlands, Residential Development, loc. (96 -4 FUD,96 -2 LUF and 96 -14 SPR) Following are comments regarding the land use plan amendment for The Highlands transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated December 16, 1996. 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the recommended needs for a 2 -lane urban roadway. Other plats along this corridor have provided for a 50 foot from centerline road dedication. This road may eventually become under the jurisdiction of the City. The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right -of -way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on /Ob Post - Consumer Recycled Paper 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right - of -way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. 6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed within the road right of way. 7. A permit for access from Carver County will be required for the proposed access on to CR 117. Requirements for that access may include construction of right turn lanes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. belowor. I rlokA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 0 _O, C►t . - "c PLANNING COMMISSION 77 :37,2 �,�'�or,...g Wednesday, January 15, 1997 � e p �r �� at 7:00 p.m. �, �► �r �m111111� City Hall Council Chambers � �� _ Il e 690 Coulter Drive �``. _____ IIIII r Rti J SUBJECT: The Highlands Planned;`'`, P Unit Development II APPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc. Vlint Erk '4 LOCATION: NE Corner of Galpin Blvd. *Zit - _ and Hwy. 5 PIIIWOM l k�. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Residential Development, Inc., is requesting a land use plan amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel; PUD rezoning for approximately 50 -acres of property from A -2 to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - Residential conceptual and preliminary request for mixed density residential development; site plan review for 67 cottages homes and 192 villa homes; preliminary subdivision request of 295 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of -way located at the northeast corner of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 937 -1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 2, 1999 �t3 Allan R. & Mary J. Olson Jeffrey & Nancy Steinke Marke Feyereisen & Wren Schafer - 7461 Windmill Dr. 7481 Windmill Dr. Feyereisen Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7501 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Henry & Cynthia Wanserski Mark & Sharon Pryor Richard & Margaret Manning 7521 Windmill Dr. 7541 Windmill Dr. 7460 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Judith Selinger James & Jeanette Fiedler Jon & Naomi Noelder 7480 Windmill Dr. 7500 Windmill Dr. 7511 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joel & Susan Reimers Patricia Lynch & Amy O'Shea Stephen Tornio & Virignia Bell 7495 Crocus Ct. 7475 Crocus Ct. 7476 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Charles Peterson & Bonnie Botten Kevin & Cheryl Kohler Richard & Pamela Schwartz /496 Crocus Ct. 7510 Crocus Ct. 7509 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William Thompson & Mary Floto- Michael Ronningen & Dawn Cook- David & Cynthia Sebold Thompson Ronningen 7470 Tulip Ct. /491 Tulip Ct. 7471 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy & Joy Bott Edward & Kathy Loveridge Ron & Diahann Potter 7490 Tulip Ct. 7508 Tulip Ct. 2180 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy & Bonita Mihalko Jean Kingsrud Kevin & Joan Joyce ) 198 Brinker St. 2027 Brinker St. 2043 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cathleen Haldeman Robert & Carol Oberaigner Brian Erdman & Dawn Harris )059 Brinker St. 2075 Brinker St. 2091 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey Stone & Wendy Loushin -Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Colin & Desiree Brown )103 Brinker St. 2117 Brinker St. 2131 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Julie Wojtanowski Brian & Jennifer Monteith David & Cinda Jensen 2145 Brinker St. 2159 Brinker St. 2173 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sideny Scorse III & Rebecca Scorse Steven & Nadia Janson John Hennessy & D. Rengers 2187 Brinker St. 2199 Brinker St. 7305 Galpin Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E. 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P. Links Inc. Michael Gorra 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bluff Creek Partners 123 N. 3r St., Suite 307 Minneapolis, MN 55401 01/09/97 18:16 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTON- ASCHMAN el 001 /003 DAATON.ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES; INC. 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 332-0421 Fax: (612) 332 -6180 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: /— Time: /Z °DA.M. I P.M. To: e weirs Firms �" Fax # ��? S 7.' Agency: .; ' Pl Subject: e- , , - S - , . Sender: 175 Job # YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ( 3 (induding cover sheet)] PAGE(S). IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 332.0421. '.re /c at c s o+o' y rule u� 0 7 � / 4 / et,a cen90 Ae,,br 1 sxail -1 HARD COPY: ❑ WILL cc : 0 WILL NOT FOLLOW IN THE MAIL (check one) 01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTON- ASCHMAN (1002 /003 Comments to Planning Case: 96 -4 PUD, 96 -2 LUP, 95 -14 SPR Development at northeast quadrant of TH 5- Arboretum Boulevard with Galpin. 1. Access point (if allowed) to Arboretum Blvd. is about 10 feet to high. Profile grade for Arboretum Blvd is approximately the same as TH 5 in this area. 2. Berm and alleyway parallel to Arboretum Blvd and TH 5 is about 10 feet too high for the same reason as in 1. 3. Proposed pond is in area of proposed beebo for trail underpass and creek crossing of Arboretum Blvd. Depending on pond outlet to creek, perhaps developer can give easement for trail between pond and creek and access around the pond and back to Arboretum Blvd along the proposed street connection. Trail is about 12 feet wide. 4. Probably need easement along Arboretum Blvd for grading during construction. Developer should avoid placing landscaping in this area untill Arboretum Blvd is completed. 5. Utility connections and elevations are unknown at this time. Comments are the result of a quick preliminary review and comparison to approximate locations and elevations which were developed in a planning study for Arboretum Blvd. The comments are not based on accurate design details and do not address issues which may arise during final design studies for TH5 and Arboretum Blvd. 01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTON- ASCHMAN Z003/003 • a. .r? • \MIA 11. ISM � 1 Li r�'irit u4.4. minim k It NMI g e s or Dia til... • - - . laitialrill 1.15.1411.11t \ ‘ 4 : ‘4Z. i. NI IL ,::g.; ..1 , ` urn IMP V • r. 1:111 MI 1 IN 2? lia MO . . II I % \ i iiL : 't, lei I 2 a i MB 0°\ Vk 4 .' ii, � w �,1a & a rw ~ v, '� k `y.. , 4 i , 11 � ;�� c.� r► / _ ._ 1 n am ..14 \ + ,.. .., , • ,. q4 Nei" 'V .. 4 , ----/ i ' . . / I fir I i d S ■I, - ' / 0 . 6 l'n iiiii e0). / :1, 1 . a •".... / +L ,� / : k0 v~ I 9 te r , -e/ ....------ �. / ....--- i / From: John & Dani Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 To: Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re; Public Hearing The Highlands PUD Jan. 12, 1997 Dear Commission Members, We have lived in Chanhassen in the same location for almost fifteen years. We bought our home in May of 1982 and have really enjoyed the rural life which is sadly, for us, coming to an end in our area. We know that change is coming and would like our property to fit into that change as best it can. We like our home and where we are, and both of us are disappointed that the developer seems to have absolutely no sensitivity to fitting us into their proposed development with similar housing types. In their plan they have isolated our single family home away from any other low density single family housing that they propose to build next to the existing homes in the recently built Rottland neighborhood. Instead, they have surrounded us with a very different style and density of housing product that is not zoned in the Comprehensive Plan for this land. Our home needs to be incorporated with other single family detached homes on the minimum 1/3 acre lot size so that we can be a part of this neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan was designed with this in mind. Our home, although quite a bit older, is basically in the same styling as the homes in the Rottland neighborhood and would blend in nicely with them. Many developers and builders, including Hans Hagen and Lundgren Brothers, build new single family neighborhoods around older existing homes very effectively. The Comprehensive Plan calls for low density single family zoning for the northern half of this property. We ask that you adhere to this plan as it really is the best plan for the community. Our Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan was developed with a great deal of hard work and involvement of many people over several years, and the altering of the approved zoning in the plan should not take place without the same community involvement and support. Should you rezone this property to higher density, at bare minimum, we would ask that you require the developer to extend the single family traditional homes around the front of Galpin Boulevard to blend with ours. If the Cottage Home products are allowed to surround us completely, as proposed, our property value would be lowered and would create a hardship for us in the future should we decide to sell. We do not have anything against the Cottage Home product where the land is zoned for medium density, however, it is unfair to our neighbors and to us to allow this when we have all understood that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was for low density single family detached housing on minimum 1/3 acre lots. There are other options available in the southern half of the property for the developer to put higher density housing. We also ask the Commission to require any Cottage Home product built in the medium density area to be arranged in a more creative fashion other than the proposed "Air Force Base" style cookie cutter barracks squeezed into tight parallel formation. This is a beautiful rolling piece of property that can and should be developed in harmony with the surrounding areas. The developer has a great deal of experience and should use this opportunity to showcase his talent and creativity. The present proposal is mundane at best. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John & Dani Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 1 i 1 I I I I i 1 I' II __ 1/ / 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I it I 1/ / 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 '1 I / I 1 1 1 i 1 l J I 1 ill if 1 II . * * . 78114467 / a 1.- 0 1 pi - - /,' , I I i r � SP= may I V ' i 1 1 / ' _- -� �� . : r j L / rr . Immlim ' f; I, /tie ' . 1 * ��III' 11 N W ii ♦ e.• +i • 101 - J o �� 4 447 I 4 Imo♦ 444, • �.P `1 1. / row's .,ar l ♦ a�� i -� � 1 / v i r ri ! rr ! t. ..1 \ - 4% * • ' / 111 ■i ■+ • 4.. i • �I 1 rYrYJ ■ NTS 17 MIL si• el au. • aa• ■ v . oil si .viir. is \ , � 111/•/11/ 11 ■.: .1�1aeJLs L fir.■ ■ ■,..UI tAi'a iii• i _ \ M'!!Ir - f - �R �RB () R e - \ \ \ \ \ Oaks : ■ Imo ■■� * ■�■ \ ` B \ \ 11 111 ■■ 1. . IYVii�iii1111 �k� - • \ \ \ IrYVYV� l�rgNA�� \ \ \ \ 1 ■ 11111 lima ■r■ '1•' 11 rh' \ ■0/•1111' 411 irYiiYJi AplI N \ ■i■igllau N \ - --- THE HIGHLANDS . N �"' N war SIN(iI.I! I'AMII.V (111TAI MAIL'S VILLA INIIS TO'IAL P11.1 33 I8 54 115 P11.2 0 33 120 153 TOTAL 33 61 114 268 • SKETCH PLAN FOR HENNESSEY PARCEL • Lalm • • • f F.__ /5 / ''7 c a T ‘ -(-4- i__ i d u - f 5531? - �urJZ. c o,�vm ivt h1 s _ f / 5 l4,9 r rtG!�t% / - -r2— W we 4e `u--;/u f c wt /j -e� ' ? / W 4/1 el .fir I Vs2_ 5' 531 CITYOF 01. ..4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 January 31, 1997 Mr. Rick Murray Residential Development, Inc. 15 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Park and Trail Dedication Fees for The Highlands Dear Mr. Murray: Per your request, the following breakdown of park and trail dedication fees for the proposed Highlands development has been calculated. This calculation is based on the concept plan showing 32 traditional home lots, 48 cottage home lots, and 188 villa home lots. Park Dedication Fees: 80 units @ $1,200 = S 96,000 188 units @ $1,000 = S188,000 Total $284,000 Trail Dedication Fees: 80 units @ $400 = S 32,000 188 units @ $333 = $ 62,604 Total $ 94,604 Total Park and Trail Dedication Fees: * $378,604 *Based on today's rates. Subject to change annually. Per city code, one -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the city's approval of the subdivision. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at 937 -1900 ext. 121. Sincerely, H7: . -----1 Todd Hoffman Park & Recreation Director c: P senior P ann� er Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer L ei R r. 04 Rri'�`l a+ s � y �1 , s :� � MC c �•+�r9? �9='� • zaVa!a a Iq°G)L31 t&�faac -x •443.0 a u&iroa5 3t rasz:� r c m4;4 q, c gx�8 i te�� 4 M- -4: rc -ra.r i3 C1Z.2 -aa a � s� .1 . t e'2 r - {I (s 4!-L4C3.4 1 2 3 ,.i l ct.,5 uC4.J MC4.6S. 24 �o l'000.o 1000-0/ w.s r u 4.8 = y� c4na 3�yryy 5 fl. .4C3.2_ y.. �. •/ 24 S ~ --• - �r.f r ^ 141.6 " ZI' 121 1 , CL-a. 3(1 7.C1 7. MC_A3 F NC4.1 � fe9.e . � xr .s MC3.t I D-fl.r �� CL -Al cc - C I , r.-4.,.. . toos. toosx v� 24 �� 100 ' _ 34.4-V0-1.0 4� /� l.11-P.f N1.4 1JI -fl.l f99. 13 , 4 ^ to •" � Y 955.5 95e1 3 t0i40 ' ! j.U 1 LU, LU,.' I 1r 1 i � L 2 5 a N1. , ,, . I- 041138 J LU I . 8 \ - .�. CL-1 I 1 / / / el 99x.5 C0P.a 1 1. \ 1.11- P4.2 / 24. LU1 , M 72.0 4. CL 1 21 .pea.0 /ttt>e L IF-fl 4•LU I ? }.:. R 7 Y lm.t 2 4 • ®� Fsi•'- f96.0 71 {� C ono 10x63' 1Y �: � .�� 16 1S 2911 r b.e� • 2 24'ALU5.1 t. t ID- P15 I c / r---,01-:, 14 75.7 \_ _ JQ' �" 9m� .e m - r tr 993.7 o K rii =s.r IJJ1.8u ""'- r!I -P.! Q " _ LI-KI S c. ,901.-73W-33.7 .. y. ' 3u�5 9 94 0 � LU1.11 W -P - a " � ` 9at 962 ry ! ! 4.901.0149 L LN1.70.30' � '`,16. 4 2 5 4 D P 9ae 1 r�_ .� ' , 1� ,,tt °' , 18'i� ' � L41.7C 2 - rs. m -1s. 30" Y: s.: V t % tY .._ , i 1U3.3 J t � - LL 6 6' 24 . a' 1U1 +"1 ,'0 ` ••� s u I T .....S Lu . I s F $ . m "'. sp .2 IX- ` rt •: rarr+l " ti. 33 � ., I Q .. vi ` s../.... ': •� 317136" no.a nz ' ■ u7-1e. t 21 , 1 1 44 . l .i - `C ' '! Lu3 , " i i z6 , �1 . N 0 ILO 0, 4 /995.1 1 >.. - °t v -mat -'F g - U3 -� .7 , 2 -4 !L-A. 70.0/9710 % 4° -' LUS. \24'� - • _ 12TH L A K E .L UCY : TRIC 9;� e „ o `8 : . "' �. LU5.9 � � LU A6 , `' " m 1 1 Y a z ° A LAKE -1•111:613 tt lag ee -fl.r 9353/9se.e . - LU3 4 4 •. LLt 0.10 10160 1021 _ Q 1 - . aC1 / ; LU • A5 O t " - - ` ` / 1ou0 ` -. WJ:4J, .�9 _. w 16 Ylo-xss i4.-p, . r A '‘in-4-1 `C 1. D< -P5 ( yg2A 991e f1YRl _ . 1 990.0 991.5 Z 1 W-1S9 3 - LA EA A1 9R0 x • 24 Q 9e2o.e b LU 6 - ' t 5 ',: 4, \ � 9 u .14 : 5 LAKE P .r 2 2 1 as aC -P. ; 12 �,.. �, -� .,, ' ANN ' 9621/ •s BC, � -- - . - - ' � ` .�: - ` .�: De- P.. • Y7 -P6A z ,:3rd 9»3/ 3 • 2Y ,./ 1 e J • S BC1.1 I. _��,,, J// ,• o '° L ' -E . ANN -DISTRIC _ 1. _ ,ll o. 3� rit "�BCt.7 V1 gC 1.1 "` '� Ti- 10.1 ` i U BC1.2Q;r(� 4- : ' ! Aa - �� 1 4 --. ! 1 ' f I . $3.4 9 53.1 � z 4• w . »9 • 9;3.3S� T 3 3.2 LA1.4• LAt. 4. i' LS3.18 a r t ; \ � o -- • • - . RCP 1 ;9427 IS - 1nf - t 3. 9 ».7 aw ' . . , i . ar � • BC3.4 \ BC3•5 f 1 L53 12 Y '_ _ 9C1.23, - N' 1 � } 4 I LS3.1 � ` 2a 4 J24 `• ~ 803.5 \' u - Y - 1 2t�153.2 24•� x{„5.7 2 i .7D9 - BC,.19 eC -./ e.. SC -29 2 14-04"%9. z 9xT z4 1f5-- 573 ' 3 3.3 L53.9 13 I-5314 0 3 , _ L - 2 4 l' -pz BCt-2 ' � - 9 ' �" ' - V \ L53. tT'a7" 10 a Y 34` 41 L < 916-0 9.9. BC -Al x -n.n \ m to -w.r r L53 2 934. : - . - •[ s, 4370/940. _ _ _n5. .24- �2.3 - ` 7 - -L 1 -- o 21 yay A •-N_- LS3.3LC 5'x4' � I 53.35 . __LS3.34 • 2 53.32 \ BC2., 6 • - - O: 901.2 1 $ c3. - t 7�w 3.1 tJ n.la _ ,° ? 4-17-,--PL" 5 - 3 L ,p / J0/995 1 n n s 6090 9t2A 4 Jyt -I ; 2.17 S. / S J/ 241 - do n � , . - `_ � - a 9ro5 �y._v • 802.1 10,, ^t x;3.19 - B C3. 1 0 LS,8 L4 v n i .7 r --r ��_' ! 4 - -. 92i0, 1 t„. G BCJ,15 � - ow� L.;. � " 8Ct2 ,. BC1.28 1 0 t _4• // 2 O BCI.32 C ) - 3 (Y . • ? l ej rz a u3-7;/.1-3.7o/ L5147• z 9 t 12' 4• °s u- `l ,0"..` 48 - -1e.m - BC 1.29 C A 7r u4 11. - - _„ s 19 0 12 �. \ .. -�; s ,F 3 BC3.21 9P .t12:43..15 4 . 53.7. . r a + Lake Ann Highlands - "3 - 1-- 1 �, 24 • 91tp 9t 7.t /2Y 3Cr 44. 8 25 r . I ma so FIGURE 1 - -- ,01 O T ' ` 803.2 3( t BC3.1: 9 4 7 . 7 ` ( .a. : • 60' 8C 1 .19 24• Y B c2.2q • - t l 29 Sff� ii - :C1. 351 - H&c) E a` V, RecowlvvlevidaticMls This section recommends a series of projects and practices necessary to achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Committee. VA Natural Resources A,1 Uplavids Recommendations in this segment focus on restoring wetland communities and re- establishing big woods forest species on upland areas. This segment of the Bluff' Creek Corridor and the sites addressed below are shown in Figure 9. The corridor boundaries are defined by existing wetlands and recommended 300 foot buffer strips along either side of the • Bluff Creek. The following plan of action is recommended: • Site I a - Shallow Marsh Restoration This site is within an existing wetland located between Hazeltine Boulevard and Gaipin Avenue. The plant community is dominated by reed canary grass with small amounts of nettle, willows, jewelweed, elm and boxelder present. Wetland restoration of this basin will involve the reestablishment of a mixed emergent marsh wetland community. Mixed emergent marsh are typically dominated by a variety of emergents. Different types of bulrush commonly occur in the deeper portion of the wetland and • are dominants. This community changes into a fringe of wet meadow grasses including prairie cord grass, spike rushes and a variety of sedges. The hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which exists in the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage has altered the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows best in seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie which out competes native species following disturbances from agricultural use, drainage, filling, siltation and others. Its aggressiveness allows the formation of persistent monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are • reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents provide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent marsh prior to the drainage. Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Maviagevnevit Page 51 Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary r' grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a prescribed burn (when possible). This, combined with increased water levels, should remove reed canary grass. It may not be practical to treat the entire site with herbicide or to do a prescribed burn. The areas that will have sustained water levels of 12 inches should not need to be treated with herbicide or burned because of reed canary grass's intolerance to sustained water levels. Areas with less then 12 inches of sustained water levels will need to have some type of treatment to remove the reed canary grass. Restoration of the hydrology could be accomplished with construction of a control structure at the wetlands outlet. The following considerations need to be addressed before the control structure is constructed: I . Flows — Special considerations need to made to insure the control structure discharge capacity will be sufficient to handle the existing flows. 2. The control structure should not allow bypassing. 3. Consider potential conflicts with adjacent lands 4. Create an appropriate hydrologic regime for the restored wetland If feasible, a control structure with potential for water level regulation is preferred. It allows maintenance on the outlet and control structure when needed and will help control plant succession — a benefit to waterfowl. Revegetation of the site may occur naturally over time. If quicker and more dependable results are wanted then the area should be planted and seeded root stock can accelerate the process. An economical solution is to allow the deeper areas to revegetate naturally and seed the saturated soil areas. It is important to establish plants quickly in the saturated soil zone to reduce the chances of reed canary grass coming back to these sites. • Site I b - Restoration of Big Woods Vegetation Buffer strips of 50 to 1 00 feet should be established along Bluff Creek and along ail wetlands within the corridor. A mixture of tree and . Bluff Creek watershed Natural Resources Maiogevievit P!avr -- n `p' Page 52 shrub species native to the Big Woods forest should be established within this buffer with lowland hardwood species on wetter sites and maple - basswood or oak forest species planted on upland sites. Please see a partial listing of tree and shrub species for Big Woods forest communities in Appendix A. These plantings should be linked to existing wood lots wherever possible to create a continuous travel corridor for wildlife. For - maximum benefits to wildlife, interior portions of the corridor should not be visible from outside the corridor. • Site I c,- Highway 5 Wildlife Underpass One of the biggest impediments to wildlife movement within the Bluff Creek Corridor are highway crossings. Highways fragment wildlife habitat and disrupt animal movements. Where highways cross migration routes or travel corridors of large mammals such as white -tail deer, mortality can be high and damage to vehicles and injury to humans frequent. The proposed recreational trail underpass near the new high school can be designed to encourage safe wildlife movement under Highway 5. To make the underpass attractive for wildlife, a bridge or a large culvert should be used that is directly linked to vegetation within the corridor. Ideally, dense, brushy vegetation such as conifers and shrubs should extend from within the corridor to the entrance of the underpass. Fencing should be placed along either side to funnel wildlife into the underpass. Fencing near the ground should be of fine mesh and partly buried for smaller mammals reptiles and amphibians. Ideally, the creek channel itself should extend through this underpass. • Site I d - Altemate Highway 5 Wildlife Underpass And Corridor Link A wildlife underpass and strip of oak forest should be created at this location if a suitable corridor link cannot be created east of the future school site. The wildlife underpass should be designed in accordance with specifications given for Site I c. , S ![ ro yy G 4 • ...� t`v". ti k 1 ;_... --•• . �. • L d Y - - • _ -. • FYI S - • > '��•4. > .. - `l I L - t aL 4 i • Galpin BIv a - ' ri .. ' f - �1 1 .�.. • el m 1 . fr: _ i .� .. UI I x • t ` 1 FEB -04 -1997 12:06 BRW 612 370 1378 P.02/06 Memorandum DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: Miles Lindberg 8 R w INC. FROM: Rick Nau, AICP Aaron Hellmann, EIT Planning RE: Lake Anne Highlands Development Traffic Analysis Tranaporrm.m Engineering l;rban Design As you requested, this memo addresses two questions about the Lake Anne Highlands Development located east of Galpin Road and north of Trunk Thres `'r � � " °" Highway (TH) 5 in Chanhassen, MN. The first question is, how much of the 700 Hurd Street w. proposed development can be accommodated by the one access to the project area off of Galpin Road? The second question is, how much of the traffic NN 55419 612i37041700 generated by the proposed development is expected to use the roadway system axe ;izi; o -i }�n through the residential development immediately to the north of the project? Denver Directional traffic counts were collected by I3RW, Inc. along Galpin Road filwaukee approximately '/ mile north of TH 5 on January 21 and 22, 1997. The hourly Miinixaoot > counts are provided in the attached Table 1. The counts indicated a split of Orlando approximately 67 %/33% southbound to northbound in the AM peak hour and rJ'oe,ua 33 %/67% southbound to northbound in the PM peak hour. The major and Portland minor directions were found to be slightly less than 100 and 50 for the peak an Diego hours, respectively. In order to generate a conservative analysis, the major Seattle direction was rounded up to 100 vehicles in the peak hours and the minor direction was rounded up to 50 vehicles in the peak hours. The trip generation of the proposed land uses are based on national average trip generation rates from the Trill Generation Manual, Fifth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1991. The number of daily, AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by each of the proposed land uses are shown on Table 2. The table includes the amount of development proposed for each land use for each year of development up through the Year 2000 when the project is proposed to be fully developed. Traffic generated by the proposed development was assumed to be oriented equally to /from the north and south along Galpin Road. In addition, the background traffic counted on Gaipin Road was assumed to have a growth rate of 2 percent per year. FEB -04 -1997 12:07 BRW 612 370 1378 P.03/05 Miles Lindberg January 22, 1997 Page 2 Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis was performed at the intersection of the project access road with Galpin Road using the procedures documented in "Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the 1994 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The analysis reports the level of service (LOS) for the minor street movements and the major street left-turn movement onto the project access road_ The results indicate that for the Year 2000 (full development of the project) the intersection movements are expected to operate at a LOS B or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. LOS B operations indicate little delay and no significant vehicle queuing. The analysis sheets for the Year 2000 AM and PM peak hours are attached to this memo. In conclusion, we found that the one intersection from the project area to Galpin Road is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by full development of the project. Furthermore, with no queues expected to form at the intersection, few if any vehicles are expected to gain access to the development by way of the roadway system through the residential development immediately to the north. ASH/attachments cc: File #4305A00 FEE -04 -1997 12 07 BRW 612 370 1378 P.04/05 TABLE 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS GALPIN ROAD NORTH OF TH 5 /ARBORETUM BLVD. TIME VOLUMES _ _� OF HOURLY HOURLY DAY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL PERCENTAGE RANK 12:00 AM 11 0 11 0.7% 19 01:00 AM 1 1 2 0.1% 23 02:00 AM 0 0 0 0.0% 24 03:00 AM 1 3 4 0.3% 22 04:00 AM 0 5 5 0.3% � 21 05:00 AM 3 19 j 22 1.4% 1 17 06:00 AM 13 48 61 4.0% 14 07:00 AM 38 93 131 8.6% 1 08:00 AM 54 66 120 7.9% 4 09:00 AM 42 52 94 6.2% ; 7 10:00 AM 29 45 74 4.9% I 11 11:00 AM 66 40 106 7.0% 5 12:00 PM 45 49 94 6.2% 7 01:00 PM 33 I 41 74 4.9% 11 02:00 PM 53 46 99 6.5% 1 6 03:00 PM 49 41 90 5.9% ! 9 04:00 PM 82 43 125 8.2% I 3 05:00 PM 88 40 128 8.4% 2 06:00 PM 64 24 88 5.8% 1 10 07:00 PM 36 35 71 4.7% 13 08:00 PM 26 19 45 3.0% 16 09:00 PM 32 i 18 50 3.3% 15 10:00 PM 12 7 19 1.2% 18 11:00 PM 5 4 9 0.6% 1 20 Totals 783 739 1,522 100.0% 01/22/97 Source: BRW, Inc. counts from January 21 -22, 1997. U:\LAKEANNE(2).WK4 FE2-04 -1997 12:08 BRW 612 370 1378 P. /0 5 2 ▪ o 0 0 o p o o p o o p O e s a 5, n. R r N I N Y ..- M P r M sr ^ S _ 0 11 a m b m m to m ce M O mo m co N G T N W 5 N N N N M Y J( � x OI m . r 0 N ® N N M r m N N 01 2 S 7 are 0 Y w ! r tG g .•P• g g g .P• .1P g O O w o F $ S g i 8 S 8 S - p 8 o 0 O FqF .. W o O 0 0 o 0 0 a o o P p p A q (J O N I° N 10 N M m 10 b _ _ 0 N N (0 A - o 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 p M N N 10 N N N 0 N N .0 0 N s F t N m m m N ; : m ,- h m 0. 0 a O. R ° g - ° a m M a w $ n c v °° PR 1 W Z 1.- ' W O n N n r o .- E b r n r r n VI o. Z� r N O N m N N N N N m ry N M N N V •• N N m _ 2 p r Y N :II' � b A A O O O C m 0 O O e C t W Q ,II d d O ^ ^ - s - - ^ 4. p — ri 4 W 0g N O .1. N O ! N a < N K T N C1 M M M M M M OI M M M M M M CC r a El N IL ID N m m ® N N m N m m < , m IQ m N N m m m m N m m M r h N m I` N m m 0 o 6 O. � c o 6 G C t- O C O e G ry IJ F N 10 0 N 0 0 ; ; F ; en M m m r ;;; r In N N .p m 7 w O.. O — N N C N 0 ® d N e z' N O N M z } . . . Y' 2, G O V O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U - W 10 O m m ti m m n m W 0 1 T w 1 1 I' 113.:1 az r m A r - - m r 0. (0 r N N ci r r N - CJ N 5 te 0 M N. 1` m CO 9 m m M CO N N N . _ j u - m c G G e C 7 e 6 m ° m 0 � n W .n F. v I u �0 ' y- N 1 a .4+ gg c C C t! L 3 7 0 0 7 c 0 7 = A 9 a 0) .2 'a m 0 m .2 8 n a e a 4 - W ll E G Y c .c E L C . -2:-a' L b O 2- O p 4 O 2 ¢ _ } _ m c 9 �r r m M 10 b NI N (0 a0 N -a , _ N "ai m m E n '? r 3 t o N 3 N J N b A 0 ? N C :J j i Q I ❑ En a cc "g o 3 a 3 y ' _' a z = 3 . W IX z - • 11 1 • q lL -7 r r IL C H - ; u. J 7 _ 71 Z N v 0 0 9 y 41 J W '.I G 9 _ 0 N 0 15 1 1 J ,M N 1 j CL c r, m o _ _ N I 1 _ >- n Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: We have a motion to open it to a public hearing. Anyone who would like to make a presentation. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd. Conrad: No, nothing. Looks fine. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: No comments. Peterson: With that, I have none either. Is there a motion? Conrad: I make the motion Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3` Addition subject to the conditions in the staff report. Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the following condition: 1. Access for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a joint driveway off West 78th Street." All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A -2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD -R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS, 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5, THE HIGHLANDS. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Public Present: Name Address Bill Scose 2187 Brinker Street Brian Erdman 2091 Brinker Street Brian & Jennifer S. Monteith 2159 Brinker Street Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Julie Wojfanowski 2145 Brinker Street D. Cook - Ronningen 7471 Tulip Court William Thompson 7491 Tulip Court Steve Janson 2199 Brinker Street Tom Campbell 2065 Majestic Way John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Mark S. & Wren Feyereisen 7501 Windmill Drive Cindy & Henry Wanserski 7521 Windmill Drive David & Cinda Jensen 2173 Brinker Street Joan Joyce 2043 Brinker Street Bonita Mihalko 2198 Brinker Street Naomi Noddner 7511 Crocus Court Allan Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Virginia Bell 7476 Crocus Court Amy O'Shea 7475 Crocus Court Rick & Margaret Manning 7460 Windmill Drive Steve Monson 8850 Audubon Road Pam Schwarz 7509 Tulip Court Rick Murray 15 Choctaw Circle Lee Glover 15 Choctaw Circle Tim Whitten The Rottlund Company Bob Payette Sathre - Berquist, Wayzata, MN Joe & Jean Bray 2126 Majestic Way Dean Gregory 2101 Majestic Way Andrea & Mike Salvador 2086 Majestic Way Wendy Stone 2103 Brinker Street Richard Neff 2150 Majestic Way Terri & Hani Gidani 2117 Majestic Way Joan & Ken Weis 2101 Majestic Way Jon Noeldner 7511 Crocus Court Charles Peterson 7496 Crocus Court Susan Reimers 7495 Crocus Court Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Technical question first. Due to the fact this is now a conceptual approval, will that require a motion this evening or not? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Aanenson: Yes. It does go to the City Council. Although technically the conceptual approval has no legal standing. If it came back under the preliminary. If you were to give it conceptual approval and even added to conditions and made any modifications, when it went to the City Council they would also review those and make any modifications they would have. If the application came back under preliminary, and you felt it didn't meet what you gave it conceptually, it doesn't have a legal standing. If they haven't reviewed responded to what our issues were, we're not going to give you preliminary approval. So whatever direction you give them tonight, if you've missed something, you still have another opportunity under the preliminary process to add additional. Joyce: So nothing's binding as far as what we do tonight? Aanenson: That's correct. Peterson: Questions of staff? Joyce: I have a couple quick questions here Bob. Number one, a couple times in our packet it said 8 and 10 unit townhouses. It says it on page 1. It says it on page 7. I just wanted to clarify. They're 8 and 12 units aren't they? There aren't any 10 unit houses at all. Generous: That's correct. Joyce: All right. I just wanted the Commissioners to be aware of that. This might be a premature question but I was just curious to ask, because of the comparison to the North Bay cottages. Is the City considering targeting those cottages for the kind of financing that was used in there? The TIF financing or anything like that that you're aware of? Generous: Not at this time. Aanenson: It's never been discussed. Joyce: Never been discussed. One other item. On the project there was a pond on the eastern side of that project. I understand that's temporary. Dave, maybe I can ask you that. I understand it's kind of a temporary pond right there. Hempel: That's our request. We do with our regional stormwater management plan show a regional pond just to the east. There's a low lying area that's very conducive to stormwater ponding. This easterly pond that you see would be a temporary sedimentation pond and also rate control to meet the pre - developed runoff rates so we would not be flooding the properties downstream. Joyce: Once it went from temporary to another status, would it connect to another pond or would it? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Hempel: It would remain there until the downstream regional pond was constructed on the property to the east. Once that was constructed the pond could be removed. Joyce: What would be slotted to be in there? Hempel: It could be slotted for open green space. It could be placed on a buildable lot. That's been done in the past in some developments. Joyce: So there could be an option to build on that? Hempel: If the plat is designed that way, yes. If the intent is in the future, yes. Aanenson: To take that further Kevin. If you're concerned about something like that, 1 think that's certainly something you can certainly address in the PUD contract. That's the purpose of the PUD. If that's something that you wanted to address. Skubic: A little bit more clarification of the proposal. Would we be voting on the rezoning, the land use amendment tonight? Generous: No. Skubic: That is not part of the. Aanenson: That's never done until we're ready to record the plat because we wouldn't want to rezone it unless the project's for certain and ready to go and be recorded. Skubic: But wouldn't we be implicitly approving it if we approve the concept? I mean because that would be required for concept approval wouldn't it? Generous: Concept has no standing. It provides direction for the applicant. It's almost like, the way it's advertised tells people if they want to do this project, these are all the things that have to be done. Joyce: If we deny this, will this still go to City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Just a couple things, and they're probably not questions but I think as we, at our public hearings some issues that I'm real interested in and maybe staff, Kate or Bob you can talk about it right now but maybe we'll flow into it. I'm real interested from the neighbors talking about the transition from their property, from the Windmill Run subdivision into this. I'm curious about specifics and the transition. From staff's standpoint I'm curious about the Hennessy property incorporation or lack of incorporation. Also interested in how Bluff Creek fits in here visually, 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 which we probably haven't seen, and maybe that will be a later on issue but it's the most significant asset in the property and it's not visualized for me so those are issues that I sure hope we talk about in the upcoming minutes. Peterson: Bob, do you want to address any of those prior to the applicant making a presentation? Generous: They might be able to address it. They've already been working on some revisions. We haven't had the plan sets to look at. We are requiring that access be provided for the Hennessy's. There is the PUD requires a larger setback between the properties so we are getting some separation from that. They did try to, they contacted Mr. Hennessy to see if they could purchase the property. Aanenson: As far as the Bluff Creek, if I could just to that. That's one of the issues that we think needs to be further articulated and again under the concept, we're just trying to flush the issues out but that's something certainly we think that needs to be further developed. Peterson: A couple of the conditions that I hadn't seen before that I was more interested in. Item number 15 where it says that it shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. I haven't seen that before. Is that...to this property or? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, actually that has been incorporated over the last few years. A lot of times we've just brought that forward to the applicant before even doing the report. Be aware that this is going to be a requirement and make it a requirement as a part of the construction process. This was taken out of the previous staff report from back in 1994 -'95 when it was first coming out that we did have a problem with sump pump discharge. Streets creating ice problems this time of the year or the algae slim build -up in the summer so it's been working very well for us and the last few years we've incorporated that in the recent construction projects. Peterson: Thank you. Talk about, staff you made a recommendation that the lots shall be, a certain amount wider in the single residential area and you didn't really specify how wide. You kind of left it open. Was there a specific reason why you didn't give a recommendation as to the width? Slightly. Generous: Well no, it was to get input from Planning Commission, residents. Peterson: Probably my questions also. With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? State your name and address please. Rick Murray: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Murray with Residential Development and with Bob's help, since there's a number of our neighbors in the audience behind us, it's probably easier to view it on the screen than it is the boards. Commissioners, good evening. Thank you for allowing us to have this presentation and thank you for the opportunity to get input from both yourselves and the neighborhood. We have had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood and with Mr. Joyce. We had them at the Rec Center last Saturday and some of the input that we received was very helpful. The staff, the ongoing conversations with staff over this past month and a half has also been very helpful. The plan that's up there and the plan that's in your booklet 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 was not the plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday. The plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday, and the plans that you received on Saturday, most of you, were revised to reflect meetings that we had with staff about density and the distribution of units. A couple of road locations. The parts of your staff report that talk about the separation from property lines that are permissible in a PUD. There was some information that we simply didn't have in the original drawing. Bob, if you could put up. This plan still incorporates our basic concept, and the concept is literally having us absorb the transition between the single family housing to the north, within our own plat, and transitioning that down to the high intensity use that we, well is exhibited along Highway 5 and that we feel will be exhibited along Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The north end of the site, the loop road that connects Galpin to the existing neighborhood is designed as a residential loop. The T intersection was at the direction of staff and the intent there was to slow traffic down and discourage a short cut or cut thru through our site down to Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The low density transition through the site comes about 2/3 of the way through Mr. Hennessy's property. It's the north 33 acres. I don't happen to have that on an overhead. If you walk through our densities on this particular site, we tried to stay within the low density features of your ordinance. The top tier, Bob if you could put the next overhead up, just a moment. And the reason I'm jumping into densities is that's what the neighbors and we discussed for the most part of Friday, or I mean on Saturday. And I'm sure that we'll listen, that we'll hear that again this evening and hopefully be able to address some of the specific questions. The low density that transitions through the site is about 2/3 through Mr. Hennessy's property, which is just north of the access road. I'm just south of the access road. In that first tier of, just south Bob. Right there. Just to that tier and it goes across to where the pond is on the eastern property line. North of that is approximately 33 acres and that's what the comp plan designates as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Now the north side of our site, that north 13 acres has got 33 units on it and that's at 2 %z units per acre. The area that's contained in the cottage homes is approximately 15 acres. There's, well it's actually slightly more than 15 acres because the density that's calculated in the cottage homes is 3.9 units per acre. The density that's calculated in the villas is 10.7 units per acre, and of course the south end of the property where the Bluff Creek corridor is 5 acres and obviously there's no density in either that or the right -of -way. The density that would have been on that Bluff Creek area and the right -of -way area, both areas which will be owned or restricted and benefit to the community, has been transferred and is transferred to the medium density area of the site. Transitioning on this site was actually much easier to do prior to the movement of the Arboretum Boulevard to the south as a frontage road along Highway 5. When Arboretum Boulevard actually came through the middle of this site, approximately where the access road to Mr. Hennessy's site is. Bob you might point that out because that's, and that's exactly where when we did our first calculations we were under the impression that north of that line or where the old, or the existing preliminary plat is, was the low density area and south of that line, the line's just a little bit higher than that I think Bob. Anyway, the initial calculations that my engineering firm had received was 26 acres north and 24 acres to the south. We thought we were dealing with 300 units. That's why the previous plan had 292 units on it. We were in error. The information that we picked up was inaccurate. When it was pointed out to the staff, we revised that plan and this is the plan that's been revised to address the 268 units. The density is transferred off of, the area has been put over into the medium density area, which is shifted from literally the south part of the property to the south and eastern part of the property. It's shifted there because we were looking for reasonable 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 transition between our own product lines. The transition between the single family to the north and the cottage homes, or the detached townhomes in the central area, takes place across the back yards and the ponding area. The transition between the cottage homes, which are 3 %z - 3.9 - 4 units per acre, to the villa homes, is more intense and we tried to do that through the public road, which is a pretty standard transitioning tool. When the road was on an east /west axis, that transition more or less took care of itself within the aspects of your comp plan. Because it had low density, low density housing to the north and medium density housing south of Arboretum Boulevard itself. When we revised this particular plan, the 5 acres that's on the Bluff Creek corridor was revised to be 100 feet from the creek bottom and the line that goes across there is a surveyed line. That is not in compliance with your staff recommendations at this time. The staff recommendations would move that line about 125 -150 feet up into the soybean field. The surveyed line is the edge of the vegetation and we were proposing a 20 foot setback from the edge of that vegetation with our buildings. Staff has indicated that the Bluff Creek corridor, the City's spent a lot of time, energy and effort on looking at that and they wanted to see a greater buffer area. Greater protection area. We haven't had time to address that yet. That would be the impact, or roughly the impact on this particular plan. If that is incorporated and it ends up being 5 %z or 5.2 acres. The issue gets back to where would we get to this 10.7 units per acre on a medium density because it exceeds your medium density. And the answer is, we got it from the donation, so to speak, of the right-of-way to the south. The excess right -of -way to the south and the Bluff Creek corridor to the City. There literally are somewhere around 40 or 45 units that need to be displaced. To the north where we kept the single family in lieu of 4 units per acre, there's 13 acres and we displaced another 1 %z units. Or 20 units to the north so the redistribution of units on this site was approximately 60 units and that's where, although the densities stay within the low density requirements for the 13 acres to the north and for the 15 acres to the west, the grouping of the density within the villa areas hit 2.7. Adjacent to the villa areas, which is transitioned to the west by the public right -of -way, adjacent to it to the east is the area that Dave referred to as this stormwater management plans. Regional ponding area and it's to the south of that is medium density guiding property. So it would be a similar usage with a regional or community ponding area incorporated around it. The pond that we show there, to answer Kevin's question, will be much reduced from as it's shown here. When we drew this it was, we were under the impression that staff had wanted a permanent pond that would be kind of a tier to the regional pond. Since talking with Dave again and after we had finished this particular plan, that pond would be a temporary pond. It would probably end up being about a third or a half of the size that it is represented there. Most of the area in that back yard, or all of it will eventually be green space. About 50% of it at this point in time would end up being green space and be incorporated into our plan. Single family. Each of these units, and I'm going to introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes in a few moments and he's going to go through the particulars of both the cottage homes and the villas. I'll speak to them very briefly before I introduce Tim. The single family area, the lots that we're proposing there range from 65 feet, in the southeastern tier, to 80 feet along the northern tier. They all face the public right -of -way. They would all be served by a public road. There's a large percentage of them which will end up being walkouts. Especially those in the southern tier of lots. Where the opportunity exists in the northern tier of lots we're encouraging our engineers to incorporate those as walkouts as well. They're just better received in the marketplace. The cottage home, these single family of course transition across back yards and the ponding area to the cottage homes. The cottage homes reflected 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 stepping down through the site, using the terrain of the site. We have a slope that runs from the north to the south down to Highway 5. The cottage homes on, and this is being a little bit broad brush but the cottage homes on the north side of the private roads will predominantly be slab on grades. The cottage homes to the south side of the private roads will predominantly be walkouts. So we step our way down the site. The cottage homes are all served by private road which are association maintained and association owned. As far as a burden on the public works department, that's a burden on the homeowners association and not the public works department. The cottage homes are bordered on the west by the new public road running north and south. On the south by the Bluff Creek corridor and on the west by Mr. Hennessy's property. Mr. Hennessy's property is about 50% guided for low density and about 50% guided for medium density. The units in the space that we have abutting his property, actually abutting his property in that very northeastern, northwestern section is 3.4 units per acre. It's slightly less dense than the rest of the cottage homes as a whole. Staff recommended that we supply an access to Mr. Hennessy's property. We supplied an access approximately where it would best use or might best fit the area of his property that would logically be developed. There would be an association covenant that would allow him access through and across, ingress and egress through and across our private roads incorporated in our association documents. Transition into the villa units is through the public road and they abut the properties, the abutting properties to the east, as I mentioned, we medium density and the regional park area. Staff report spoke to a contour line, and that's the contour line in dark blue. That's along Bluff Creek. We haven't addressed that yet. We are looking at several options to see how that will best fit. We're here today, or this evening to solicit your comments and your suggestions. We're also here to listen to our neighbors and encourage them to make their comments and hopefully come out of this evening's meeting with some suggestions that we can go onto the City Council with incorporating them into a plan that works well for the community, the neighbors, and our property. With that I'll introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes. He's going to speak to the particular types of homes. Tim Whitten: Thank you Rick. Good evening. I'm Tim Whitten. I'm Vice President of the Rottlund Company and I'll try to cover the things that Rick didn't cover. I'm going to use some boards...the best position for the easel I guess. I guess I jump back and forth a little bit. First I'll speak about the cottages. There 61 cottages proposed on the site that Rick had mentioned, and the cottages are detached townhomes. They're targeted towards the empty nester market and the retiree market. As mentioned before we have this product going in the North Bay project, just north of Lake Riley. We also have introduced this product in a project in Plymouth, Minnesota, and so we have a little bit of history and our buyers are kind of halfway between empty nesters and retired buyers. And it's designed specifically for that product for most of the product on this site and what we proposed in the past, it fit on one level and that's what our buyers are looking for. And what's a little bit different on this site is that because of the terrain we're introducing a new version which is the walkout version. So you still have the same living space on the main floor, but included is a walkout expansion space. The units vary in two types basically. There's a two bedroom unit on the main floor, and three bedroom unit, and they vary in square footage from 1,350 square feet to about 1,600 square feet. And we have designed it in the site plan orientation purposely to angle along the street at about a 30 degree angle. And that is to create more variety in the site plan and to create private spaces. So along this streetscape as opposed to 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 the lining up all the units straight onto the streets and having all the garage fronts face the street. You turn it at an angle so you get a broader view of the units and to get a view of the front door. Now on half the units we're really promoting the front porch and the other half of units will have side entrances. It also creates private spaces so that this becomes a private entrance space, front yard, this unit as well as this one, this unit. The same with the rear yards. Creates more private spaces. As opposed to being zero lot line where you really have one side that has no windows of the adjacent unit, we're actually mixing it up a little bit where this portion has no windows... landscape screening and this becomes private space for this unit. It also allows for the units to have exposure on all four sides of the units. It also lessens the amount of units that we have within the narrowest portion of... These are platted as townhomes so our plats are, they actually have the property line with a box around the units. To equate it to a lot, it'd be approximately a 47 foot wide lot by about 120 feet deep. Rather than platting it as individual lots, we're platting it as townhomes. That is mostly for the reason of the association and the maintenance of the property. That's one of the things that these buyers are looking for. No maintenance advantage. These are going to be priced, and we have history in Plymouth of this product, between $140,000.00 to about $200,000.00. Right now we're going up to about $180,000.00 but with the walkout version, of which we have quite a few, that will move the price up a little bit higher. On the plans themselves we have a number of different exteriors, just a couple of example exteriors that we have. To give you a little bit of an idea of the two different types. One is the...which promotes the front porch. It also allows for side entry garages. It's shown in the plan that we can create some variety down the street by having some of the garages load in the side. Then we have the three bedroom version, which is a side entry to that. But in effect with the four different plans, basic plans that we have and each plan having two to three different elevations, just kind of the sampling of the number different elevations that we can create, that we would have, like I said, two elevations for each plan. Vary from two to three elevations per plan. They vary from hip roofs to hip and gable combinations. The gable roofs. And then with the four different plans that we have and then with the four to five different color palettes that we would incorporate, in fact those units can be flipped from one side to the other and side loads. We could virtually have a different unit on every site. Every 61 of the units on this site. To talk about the villas a little bit, and if you're familiar with the villas in Mission Hills. It's something along those lines where we have the, as mentioned before, we have the 8 unit buildings and the 12 unit buildings. With the new site plan that Rick presented, we're incorporating some, what we call row type villas where they're actually more traditional townhomes where they can have walkouts and the reason staff request was to because of some of the grading situations that if we can incorporate a product that would not only give the diversity but also adapt to the grades a little bit more. So we are also including that into the mix. Here, this is a focus on an 8 unit building. So we have the back to back type units, which this is, and we also have the more traditional row. As another, also on the cottages we incorporated the walkouts type to adapt to the topography. We kind of come from a history of grading sites to adapt to the product and here we're trying to actually create the product to adapt to this particular site. We have two types of units in this building where we have the end unit, which have two car garages and the interior units which have single car garages. The difference between this building and the Mission Hills, like I said, we've actually enlarged the interior units slightly. We added 2 feet. That allows us to get a little bit bigger unit on the inside but it also allows to add that space to the single car garage so we oversized the single car garage. It's a little bit compared to what we have done. The row townhomes are similar to this where 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 they're arranged in 2 car garages on the outside and single car garages on the inside. They're slightly larger and they have the walkout expansion option. This particular product, our smallest unit approaches 1,200 square feet and our larger units are about...square feet on the ends. When we get into townhomes, we're approximately 1,250 square feet for the interior ones and about 1,450 square feet, not including the lower level of the walkouts. That type of product. The architectural style is really we're focusing on a colonial townhome type of look. Where we're adding some shutters and lap siding and that's the kind of look that we're probably...work with staff as far as the, and the Commission and the Council regarding the color palettes and so forth, and how much variety deemed appropriate. All the products that we're showing are, would be vinyl siding with asphalt roofing and brick accents and to promote the maintenance free aspect. Price range in these go from, it shows $80,000.00 in the packages. It's probably going to approach a little bit more of a $90,000.00. The lowest price range for this type and probably moves up to about $110,000.00 to $115,000.00 price range. Here, as in our townhome version, we go from about $100,000.00 to about $150,000.00, depending on the location of the site. Some of the points I just want to highlight on this particular product, or both products, is that it's all owner occupied. One of the things that historically that we have found is that both these markets have very few children. In the villa products we have about .2 per unit. And in the cottages, .1 is actually a little high than what our history so there's very few kids. In one development we had, in 40 units there are 2 children in the cottage type. As mentioned, it is all private streets and that we have associations that will maintain the exterior and the landscaping with sprinkler irrigation systems. And they have regulations to, and covenants of which to guide them. And the empty nesters and the townhomes, we get this information from our traffic consultant, is that to factor in just an understanding of the traffic because I'm sure that's going to be one of the issues that are brought up. Is that the amount of trips per day in the empty nester product is about 4 trips per day. In our villa is about 6 trips a day and that compares to single family which is about 10 trips per day. One of the things that we're kind of focusing on and we're doing this in other projects is the product diversity. We're finding that in established communities like Chanhassen where the people that have lived in Chanhassen for 30 years are looking for an alternative. Don't really have that alternative so the cottages are an answer to that. Also to the children of the families of Chanhassen, to have a place where they can actually buy a home in a moderate price range or below $120,000.00 is something that isn't as available to them as we might like and so it's really addressing those two markets and giving some diversity in this housing type, that I think this development does offer. And I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the housing type at this time or at any point. Thank you. Peterson: When you talk about the townhome villa...what percentage of those units are there from the total? Approximately how many units are there going to be from the townhouse down? Do you have any idea yet? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Peterson: How many of the townhome villa style, the number of what those would be. Tim Whitten: The villa style, we have a total of 174 and how much would be row townhome and how many would be the back to back? We have three buildings of the row type to make up for 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 the grading. The grade issue along that pond and I think there's 18 of those units. So it would be subtract 18 from 174. Joyce: Are those sixplexes? Tim Whitten: Yeah. Peterson: Will there be two associations within this development then? Tim Whitten: Correct. Peterson: The villas would have one and then the townhomes will have the other? Tim Whitten: Yep. They have some different interests and concerns and so we found it best to have it separate. We've also, if there's common elements, we have developed master associations that can be an umbrella so you can tie the two together. So if that's of interest, that's something we can certainly look at. Peterson: One of the points that staff recommended was more play area perhaps or, and part of your rationale for not putting it in there was some of the...earlier? Tim Whitten: Yeah, that's something that we come across with both these products on occasion is that, is putting in the totlots. We're open to putting in an amenity. We're not always sure that a totlot's the appropriate one. And so in some cases we actually make recommendations to the City and we could even put aside the same amount of money and the same amount of land and put it in escrow and have the association kind of decide what's appropriate. Or if the City could determine what it is. We're not against the land space or totlots or anything. It's just really what is appropriate for that type of user is the only issue. Rick Murray: ...that area that will become green space...it might be more appropriate that that gets incorporated into some sort of gathering spot. In discussing with the staff...maybe it's a better gathering spot...so that's been, we're investigating that too. Peterson: Thank you. Conrad: Different designs you mentioned of the cottage type. How many would there be? Tim Whitten: Well we really have four plans. We'd have two types of the sod line grade. We have two types of the walkouts. And we are actually looking at generating another type of plan. So somewhere between 4 to 5 different plans of which each of those would have different elevations so as you would go down, I guess if you multiplied it by at least 2, and in some cases we have 3 elevations for some of the plans, there'd be somewhere between I suppose a dozen to 16 different elevations available. Then what we do is for the colors, we're trying to be that balance between better alternative townhomes but not as diverse necessarily as single family so you get some threads and consistencies of architectural elements and colors and materials. So as 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 opposed to having five different bricks, maybe we'd have two. Having five different colors, but we'll mix them up. We typically have about a five color palette so then you take that 12 to 16 elevations and multiply it times the 5 different color palettes and that's what we, plus like 1 say, this could be reversed. There could be a side loaded garage or it could be a front loaded garage. And with that we can create a lot of diversity. Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain, is that correct? We don't have different sizes or profiles of these units? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain. Tim Whitten: These elevations? No, it's actually just the designs as I'm speaking about the elevations. Along with that there will be a variation due to the fact that some of these will be walkouts and that's added to this. Peterson: How many meetings have you had thus far with the neighbors? One? Rick Murray: We had the one open house on Saturday and then 4 or 6 neighbors that met with us on Thursday. Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Thank you. I'd like to have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: With that in mind, obviously we have a lot of people in the audience this evening. We want to hear your respective thoughts and opinions, and also realize that time is, we don't want to have you or us be here until 3:00 in the morning so if you would please limit your comments to those that you feel are relevant and that may not have been said before. As the meeting goes on, 1 will apologize in advance if I interrupt. With that, would anybody like to make a presentation to the commission? Cinda Jensen: I'm not bringing up water because I'm going to talk long but just because I have a little sore throat here so. My name is Cinda Jensen and I live at 2173 Brinker Street and my husband David Jensen is going to help me out with a couple of transparencies here too so. Now I think we're going to work from transparencies that show this second site plan, as opposed to the first site plan since, even though we're talking conceptually, if we do get into a few details, we're going to work with the developer's second site plan which shows a total of 268 units. Okay. And Chair, I think I was at one of the last meetings with the twin home development that ran until 1:00 in the morning so I will try to keep my comments concise and non - repetitive, but at the same time I do have several points to make so I'd like to refer to my notes if you don't mind. Okay. First of all I need to point out that several of my neighbors in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood, which is just north of the proposal that we're talking about tonight, have 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 asked me to speak on their behalf, so I am representing more individuals. We'd like to voice a very strong opposition to the proposed Highlands development plan. And we're opposed to this plan for a number of reasons but bottom line, we feel that this plan is not in keeping with the City's comprehensive land use plan. We think that it is not also in keeping with the City's preliminary recommendation for low density for the majority of this area that was made back in March of 1995. We also think it's not in keeping at all with information that several of us received directly from City Planners before we purchased our homes in this area. And we also feel that this represents dramatic increases in density, not only to our neighborhood but also to the comprehensive land use plan. We do not feel that the City should amend it's comprehensive land use plan and we don't feel that the density should be increased in this area. I want to point out here that we certainly recognize the field that's behind us is going to be developed someday and we are not opposed to development. We're also not opposed to Rick Murray and his development staff. It's his current plan that we're opposed to. With that said however 1 just want to reiterate that we do not want to see the City amend it's comprehensive plan and increase the density in this area and instead we would rather see the City endorse development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan which still can achieve some of the objectives that the City would like to see. I think we can be creative here. This particular property can be developed in other ways besides amending the comprehensive plan, and we feel that it can still be developed that will show natural and gradual transitions of density and still incorporate different housing types. In just a little bit one of my other neighbors will speak and part of what she would like to share is a rough proposal of an idea of how we think this land could perhaps be developed that would recognize diversity in terms of housing styles but would still stay within both the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan and would not move away from what the comprehensive land use plan is showing right now. At this point though I would like to discuss two items, and the first item I think is very important. It's a reminder for those of you who were on the Planning Commission 2 years ago. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Farmakes and regarding the situation with the twin home development proposal that was in front of us at that time and the concerns that our neighborhood had with that twin home proposal. For those of you who are new to the commission since then, hopefully you've had a chance to find out some of the history on this particular twin home development proposal that was in front of the commission 2 years ago. Either by reviewing the Minutes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council Minutes surrounding that particular proposal. But at any rate I believe it's important to recall, and I should qualify that. I think we believe it's very important to recall the fact that many of us in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood specifically received information from the City Hall that informed us that this particular 33 acres of this land was to be developed as single family homes detached, SFH. Another reason that we were opposed to the previous development is that we did not see a gradual and natural transition of density types with the way that the plan was laid out, and if you review the notes you'll see that. I'm sure many of us in this room have selected to live in Chanhassen for a number of reasons, many of which we probably share. Maybe it's because of the less crowding, parks, the open space, great churches, great schools, neighborhoods, and businesses and so forth. But whatever we all chose reasons to live in this community. I want to say in the case of my family, we looked and saved for just the right community for over 3 years and approximately 2 years ago we moved our family from St. Louis Park to Chanhassen. And when we were looking for a place to live, I can remember at the very top of our list we had, we were looking for a community with a small town feel and we looked at 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 a number of communities. I can remember dragging all of our kids along in the car and checking out Afton and Stillwater and Delano and St. Michael and Anoka and Chaska and a whole lot of them but we felt that Chanhassen offered what we were looking for and we felt that it really did have that small town feel. From our first interest, and this is I think real key here. From our very first interest in Windmill Run we visited City Hall on two occasions and we specifically talked with city planners and we asked them exactly what was to be developed around the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood. We were shown the comprehensive land use plan and we were told that this land, approximately 30 acres south of us, was to be zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And I want to underscore zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And it was upon that information that we made our decision to build our home at 2173 Brinker Street. The fact is that several families in our neighborhood, and if you look at the Minutes from the meeting from November 2 of 1994 or December 7` or if you review letters that this neighborhood sent to both the Planning Commission and City Council members, you're going to find that a number of people did the same thing that we did and they took the steps to contact City Hall to get information of how this land was going to be developed. Many of the individuals in our area were told that this area was going to be developed as single family detached homes. Similar to our neighborhood. And I've got to just tell you that I had a picture and my picture was, we have about 30 acres in our development with 58 homes and they weren't all developed at the time that we moved in. But I had a picture that about, approximately that same amount of area to our south was going to be developed very similarly with similar homes and similar lot sizes, and that was my vision. I mean that's what 1 picture this, a continuity of our neighborhood to the south, and 1 know that I'm not alone on that and a number of neighbors feel the same based upon the information they received from the City. But here we are today with another developer, a different developer who's proposing to even further increase the density on the same 33 acres of land than we were told would be developed as single family homes. We don't think it's right and we also don't really enjoy bringing up this issue of misrepresentation but the fact is it happened. And we think it's important to the development plan that's in front of you today. The second item I would like to discuss is with regards to density, which is obviously a very big issue and Rick brought that up earlier. We'd like to point out, actually I'm going to take one step further back and I'm going to come back here. I do want to show one transparency at this time that also speaks to the fact that we were, received misinformation from the city. This is a map, most of you have seen this because this has been sent to your house by one of our neighbors, Dawn Ronningen, who lives in Windmill Run. This was a map that she was given when she visited City Hall before she purchased her home and one of the city planners used this map to outline what was going to be developed to the south of Windmill Run. And you can see up there where the HC /2 letter is. You can see SF, single family showing for about 33 acres right south of us and then there's an indication of mixed medium density below that. At that time when this was shown to her she was told that SF would be developed with similar homes and similar lot sizes. She also looked at several other communities before they moved here and Eden Prairie and Chaska were two of the communities that they looked at, and in their guidance SF stands for single family detached. So I think it just is another point showing that, how obvious it was to us that this was is exactly how we thought this land was going to be developed and we were going to see an extension of our community. Thanks for letting me go back. Now David do you want to just put the next transparency up? 66 %, 66% or 33 of the 50 acres that this 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 developer wants to develop is currently designated for low density development, and obviously this would be an enormous benefit for the developer if they could have all of this land reguided as medium density. We do not think that this makes sense for our neighborhood or for the City to increase the density here. The developer's currently showing a site plan that places 268 units on approximately 50 acres. This represents 180% increase in density as compared to our Windmill Run/Royal Oak neighborhood where we have 58 homes on 30 acres. Now granted the developer is showing single family homes up on the upper tier, but many of those homes are on smaller lots sizes than what would even be called for under R -4, low density zoning. I want to point that out. Plus if you look at the definition for low density, it says predominantly single family detached, so once again our expectation from our neighborhood, all the way down to the line. David, do you want to point the line across. That is, we've overlayed two transparencies. The one that has the line on it with the slash marks. That's showing, that's picked up exactly from the comp plan that shows where the land designation is. R -4 to the top, low density and R- 8 medium density on the south. Another big density issue for us is that this developer is introducing high density, I repeat high density housing into an area that is not guided by the comprehensive plan to show high density housing. We are showing right now 15 acres. Dave, do you want to point that out? 15 acres of property, or one - third, approximately one - third, just short of one -third of this entire area is showing high density housing right now. And that is you know clearly not on the comprehensive plan. In addition you can see how far it climbs into the low density housing designation. I understand in talking with Kate Aanenson that 6 acres of the 50 acres is required for, a full 50 acres is required for public roads and a small wetland. And I also understand that these 6 acres are calculated into the net density for the land, which according to the site plan we would have looked at would have been 6.8 as a net density. I also understand though in talking with the City and the developers that several other acres are, of this land, are seen as land that should not be developed. For example the Bluff Creek easement. The City has informed me that although these items are necessary for the development, they need to be there, they do not count toward the density calculation and instead the density is transferred or compressed back into the developable land. In addition I think the developer does benefit with all of these private roads. The private roads through the cottages, the private roads through the villas, because these roads also do not need to be included into the density calculation. So I ask, with a sizable chunk of land that's already seen as land that should not be developed, which already compresses the density into a smaller area of land, it does beg to question why would the City even want to consider amending it's comp plan and even further increasing the density on this property. Particularly in an area which contains the headwaters for both the east and west branches of Bluff Creek. Recently I asked Kate Aanenson if all of the land in Chanhassen were to be developed as designated in the comprehensive land use plan, would we have sufficient land for medium and high density and she said yes, according to the calculations based on our growth numbers. She also showed me the progress that has been made with the 1995 land use effort, which I understand has allowed us to be able to increase medium density to the overall comprehensive land use plan. So with all of that, I ask again why would we want to take the comp plan and amend it and further increase density in this area when we have a very sensitive area and we're already compressing density back into this land? I want to point out one other thing in terms of density. That on November 2 " of 1994 when the previous twinhome development was being proposed, Kate, you made a clarification to the commission stating that the City was not recommending medium density for this area. And I'm certainly not trying to put 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 • you on the spot but I do want to recognize that the staff has supported staying within the comprehensive land use plan previously for this area. The last thing I'd like to say on density is just, I find it odd that the community has to come out to defend the comprehensive land use plan and that if the City put that much effort into developing a land use plan, and then when it comes down to actually needing to use it, which is today. I mean this is the time, and we don't use it, what good is the plan? What's the effort, you know all the effort that goes into it. It seems like lost effort. If diversity of housing types is an objective of our city, we believe that this still can be done without amending the comp plan. In closing we'd like to simply ask that you, commission members, reject or deny the developer's current proposal to amend the comprehensive land use plan and to increase the density on this area. We do not believe amending the plan is in the best interest of our neighborhood or our city. Instead we ask you to look for thoughtful development of this land which stays within the comprehensive land use plan, benefits the neighborhood and the city, and incorporates the ingredients of a well planned community. And in just a minute one of our other neighbors, Joan Joyce will speak and one of the things that she plans on sharing is again a rough outline of a possible way of looking at developing this land that would still stay within the current land use make -up as well as introducing diversity of housing types and keeping natural and gradual transitions with regards to density levels. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I reside at 2043 Brinker Street, and I'm one of the many property owners in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development that was told by, told that the majority of the land south of my neighborhood was going to be single family homes on lots similar in size to the lots on Windmill Run. A majority of our decision to build our home, to build where our house is, was based on the concept communicated to us from the planning staff at the City Hall. A continuation of our neighborhood would be in fact single family homes, detached, on lot sizes, on lots that are equal in size to ours. We were not at the time told single family housing included twin homes or any other diversity of housing other than single family detached. It is very unfortunate to feel as though we must continue to compromise our expectations of what the City had in mind for this property as compared to what is now being proposed. It is also unfortunate to see that there isn't more of an attempt to create a more definitive neighborhood that allows for safe streets, less traffic, and a sense of community for the neighborhoods in this area. I've become very familiar with the term diversity of housing over the past 2 V2 years, and although I think every community needs some diversity of housing, I strongly believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. I'd like to show you an overview of this area that we're considering with regard to this proposal. I thought it necessary to take a look at this with regard to how this whole thing connects with the existing property to the north, Windmill Run/ Royal Oak development, and as you can see the lot sizes in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development are about 3 homes per acre. This gives you a comparison of exactly the density difference between the two areas. Personally I think it's ridiculous. There's very little green space to the south. I can only imagine the view of any one of a number of homes from the northern tiers looking up to the top of the knoll that a lot of this development is going to be placed on. To me it's almost going to be as close to looking at some sort of a skyscraper when you see row after row after row of homes looking down upon this single family 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 neighborhood of detached homes to the north. To me it's a hodge podge of overly dense, poorly planned, cookie cutter houses with little or no green space and no personality whatsoever. This is diversity at it's worst in my opinion. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I don't see any transition between the housing types. The high density in the cottage homes, the high density villas and the cottage homes are to me thrown together. There isn't any natural break between the two. I think the developer's claiming that division to be a road, which to me is not a transition. It makes no sense to me at all. We do have another overlay here that I would like to put up. And I'd like to say that I'm certainly not a developer. Therefore I don't claim to know specifications needed to reflect setbacks, easements, drainage, or anything like that so this is more of a conceptual plan. I think it reflects a better match with what the comprehensive plan really is. I've also drawn in the line noting the difference between the low density on the comprehensive plan and the medium density. Dave, can you point that out please? Right there. That I believe is where the line is reflected, upon referring to the comprehensive plan. I think this makes a lot more sense. It also incorporates the Hennessy property, which we all know pretty much where that is. That is a single family detached house on that property. 1 think it's important to be sensitive to the idea that this ought to be incorporated into a neighborhood and not just left unconsidered and stacked up against a bunch of cottage homes on very small lots. I firmly believe that these proposals definitely need to be turned down. I don't think it's even a matter of approving a conceptual plan. It just, I think there's so much to be done to better accommodate what ought to be put in this area that I think the whole thing ought to be just turned down. And I'd like to give you a copy of the overview of the two comparisons between the two so you have these for your files. I'd like to thank you for your time and I'd like to ask if you have any questions at this time. Peterson: Commissioners, any questions? Joan Joyce: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission? Virginia Bell: I'm a little shorter so I'll move this down. My name is Virginia Bell and I live at 7476 Crocus Court which is part of the Windmill Run development as well. I'm also opposed to the concept and to the idea of amending the comprehensive plan here and I wanted to talk for just a few minutes about the comprehensive plan. When this proposal came out I went to the library, or actually I asked one of my neighbors to go to the library and get a copy of the comprehensive plan and I read through it. And I might admit at the time that we moved in we did not move, I did not read through the comprehensive plan. But in reading through it I was struck by the fact that the vision that is encompassed in the black and white here in the comprehensive plan is the vision of Chanhassen that I had when I moved in and when we chose to move here. Looking at one of the sections called housing, I read that Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. That's the vision of Chanhassen that was included in the comprehensive plan that was approved by the City Council, approved by the Met Council and it's frankly the vision that I had of Chanhassen when I moved here. It's the vision that was communicated to me by the planning 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 staff, by the people at the schools and the other people that I talked to. I too, like my predecessors, visited the Chanhassen planning staff before we moved in and spoke with them. What is being proposed here is obviously not low density and it's obviously not predominantly single family homes. As you've heard from the speakers who preceded me, most of the property that is being discussed here is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density. And low density is defined in the comprehensive plan as from 1 to 4 units. It is also defined as predominantly single family housing. What is being proposed here would transform the neighborhood that I live in, the Windmill Run neighborhood, and the Royal Oaks neighborhood, into a neighborhood that is not predominantly single family but instead is predominantly multi- family housing. If you look at the numbers, I've heard the fellow from Rottlund Homes tonight talk about his product. He's talking about entirely a townhome product. Everything that is going in there, the cottage homes and the villas are a townhome product. So what we have left is a neighborhood, including ours, an extension of our neighborhood going down, that becomes predominantly multi - family. That was not the expectation that I had or that my neighbors had and that's not what it is guided for and is represented in the comprehensive plan. I think the issue before you tonight is whether or not you want to approve an amendment to the comprehensive plan that is such a fundamental and basic amendment to the plan that results in the transformation of an area that's been guided for low density into an area that will become high density and medium density. That is a profound change to the comprehensive plan, particularly in a community which has stated that it has a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. As many of you probably know, the State legislature has recently enacted a statute which gives even more weight to our comprehensive plans, which says that we can't put in a zoning ordinance that is contrary to the comprehensive plan. Obviously the legislature believes that there is a lot to a comprehensive plan and as Cinda said, why put in our effort into this comprehensive plan if we're simply going to amend it every time a developer wants to make a change. I think reading through the comprehensive plan I was struck with the way it all sort of fits together. It's a web. In guiding the various areas for low density or medium density and high density, the other services in the community are tied to those densities. And by amending the plan and upping the densities, you're obviously making changes. Impacts to the schools, transportation and other things. Another reason not to amend the comprehensive plan. In conclusion I, on a personal note, I think I live in a wonderful community and a wonderful neighborhood and the kind of neighborhood that I think we ought to be trying to emulate. There are 50 or more kids under the age of 10. There's a lot of diversity. We have a lot of people. We have single parents. We have people from other places, other countries. It's an absolutely wonderful neighborhood. And I'm really, I'm happy and proud to live there. I think by doing what we see in this plan tonight and transforming this neighborhood from a single family neighborhood into a multi - family neighborhood, predominantly multi - family, there's a possibility to destroy that wonderful sense of community that we have here in Chanhassen and I hope you don't vote for that, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Ken Weis: I'm a little taller. My name is Ken Weis. I live at 2101 Majestic Way. I'd like to talk a little bit about services. The gentleman from Rottlund discussed services in the fact that the community would be serviced by their own system, but the road is not specifically the 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 problem. Today we have service problems with the growth of Chanhassen, specifically on the mail side. The delivery of mail is getting later and later in the evenings. Density of housing. As he suggested in his plan, we have multiple families in the area with a higher density in his proposal which creates a larger avenue of cars and activity, which just puts additional strain on Galpin, on the service roads and on Highway 5. We currently have, as you well know in the last couple days, several incidences of traffic accidents on TH 5 with the density. If you add another 150 homes over the normal allotted density, it creates that much more traffic. So Galpin will have to be expanded. Highway 5 will have to be addressed, so on and so forth. Thank you for your time. Any questions? Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Jon Noeldner: I'm a little taller yet. My name is Jon Noeldner. I live at 7511 Crocus Court and all of you probably received a letter my wife and I authored dated January 6` That was mailed to you. I just want to reiterate a couple points that my neighbors have made, and those being we're new neighbors to the neighborhood. We just moved in the end of October. Like the previous people who built there before us, we bought an existing home. I, myself went to the City Hall. Looked to check where the frontage road is going to be going. Looked to check how the land uses south of us was going to be, and at that time which was about 6 months ago I'd say, I was told this is zoned as this under the comprehensive land use plan, that's how it's going to be built up. Single family homes and I wasn't told anything else and that played a big important factor in us purchasing our home. I just wanted to reiterate that fact and hope that you vote not to approve this development. Thanks. Brian Monteith: I guess I'm short. My name is Brian Monteith and I moved in about 2 years ago February and I also authored a letter to you all and sent it to your homes, I hope you don't mind, dated January 6` and I just wanted to say a couple things. I moved here from Washington D.C. area, the suburbs of Maryland where it's very, very highly dense population with a lot of development that went on, that's very similar to what's being proposed here. And just what I'd like to say is that the overall quality of life that we enjoy today in Chanhassen is going to be severely compromised if we're able to allow this to continue. And I state this because I know it because I've lived it and you really don't want to go through anything like that. It really detracts from the overall things that we take for granted today as being overall the part of life in Minnesota that we've come to enjoy since moving here. The other thing that I'd like to say is that the figures that were proposed earlier by the gentleman from Rottlund, .1 kids per house in the Mission Hills development over there must be very, very highly questioned because once again coming from an environment where I came from, there were absolutely more than 2 kids per house in those types of homes and I just find it very hard to believe. The reason I bring that up is that the impact to the schools, Bluff Creek in particular, who if you've been there and if you have children that go there, you will know that they really can't even afford to have one more kid attend that school because it's over crowded as we speak. I haven't heard any plan, or I haven't seen anything that says that we're going to add additional schools in the time frame that would be consistent with the building of this development and I would urge you to take that into consideration. The last point that I'd like to make, which hasn't been brought up yet, is the overall impact to traffic in our neighborhood in Windmill Run. Today, in a typical summer, my 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 children will be out with the other children in the neighborhood riding their bikes in the street. I think by extending the road of Windmill Drive into this new development, it will severely impact the overall affect of traffic increase in our neighborhood. What I think that does is a bigger issue than what we're talking about here, which is density. It puts my children and other children in danger and I am very much against that as a part of this overall development, so I would urge you to take my comments under consideration and hopefully voting this down. We moved to Chanhassen, very happy to live in Chanhassen but we didn't think we would be impacted by something like this and I believe us all to be reasonable people here. I'm not here for any other reason than to do what's right and hopefully you will be as well. So thanks. Peterson: Before we get too much farther, I guess I'd like to pause just for a second before anybody that would be in support of this, loses their fortitude to come forward. So if there is anybody in support of this project, I'd ask that they come forward now. I had to ask. Anyone else that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Thank you all for your comments. Commissioners. Ladd, do you want to take a stab at this one? Conrad: Sure. Someday we'll get this land developed and we won't have to keep meeting like this. I appreciate, I think the last time you were in I said this and I'll say it again. I appreciate the work and effort you've done. It's always a pleasure when people present as well as you have and makes some good points. Again we're hit, and it's hard to tell you what we know and maybe we don't know much up here but it's hard to get into issues and get us out by 1:00. It becomes a balance. Obviously what we've got to do is figure this out. A few things, as I've always said, I really support neighbors and their neighborhoods and try to meet expectations. On the flip side of the coin, before I say too many positive things that way, Chanhassen really does have some problems. The housing diversity is, we don't have it. We're not providing the homes that we need to have so this plan, and I'll state up front in terms of PUD, is not bad. It's looking, if you can do PUD's, which we never get to do. We do cookie cutter things basically. That's what we do. That's how Chanhassen develops. Here's a chance on the positive side for Chanhassen to do something that's a little bit different. And again I heard you say a lot of valid points. It's just hard to not appreciate what you said. Yet, and it's easy to discount diversity but we don't get it. We don't get developers coming in here with diversity. Period. And when you do, you've got to take a look at it so, that may tell you, I'm not real popular today but I'm willing to look at this. From the standpoint. There are 50 some points of staff concerns. I guess what I'm saying tonight, I would entertain looking at this again. I'd sure be interested how City Council reacts to that because I think, as we talked about before, there were expectations and communications made and that always bothers me what people bought versus what we're thinking of doing if we make a change. Specifically on the plan, the concerns, I think we've talked about them but I'm just going to relate to my concerns that I saw here. Besides maybe the 50 some points that have to be addressed and some of them are template things in the staff report. The issues that I really have, when you get into mass, bigger projects like this is visual diversity and I tell you, that's a 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 tough one to deal with. I really don't want, if we ever get into housing diversity in Chanhassen, that doesn't mean it's stamped out. It means that we have some variety here. I just don't want to put up quonset huts when we start building more of the lower income or townhome. The products that are selling, we don't have products in Chanhassen that are selling right now so that's why Rottlund's considering this. To put up things that are selling. That doesn't mean we have to take it. It's got to fit but on the other hand, we need the design alternatives and that's why I was asking some of those questions on design alternatives. I've got to be positive we're not putting in blocks here. There has, and I just have to be positive about that. Every time we preach bringing in denser things and every time you see it on paper it looks awful. I tell you, it scares you when you see it all of a sudden, you see them all and you say well is that creative and is that whatever and it makes me nervous. Yet on the other hand, there's some nice things to what I saw. The overall, if we were to go forward with this, the overall density or the overall quantity of housing has to be under what it was originally guided for in terms of density, and I think the developer's coming back and saying those things so that's maybe not appeasing to the neighbors but it has to fit into what it originally was guided for, overall. The Hennessy property has to be incorporated. I think I heard some things that it is, but it, I wish it was part of this overall property. It looks like it's going to be a chunk out there that's not incorporated but that incorporation is important. The totlot was an issue with me. I really like, again you want places for people to recreate and gather and do those things. Whether it's the totlot or a gathering place, again every time you see a footprint of stuff like this, you say well where are people going to go? Well that leads me to the Bluff Creek aspect and Bluff Creek is the biggest asset this project has and I didn't see how it fit. There are a lot of words here that said we've got to do things but I just didn't see how Bluff Creek fit into the overall plan of this and that's got to come back. We have to see how it's integrated. We have to see how it becomes an amenity to Chanhassen and to this development and to everybody in the area. I need to see the Park and Rec recommendations on this also, and 1 don't think they've met yet. That's just, again that always bothers me when we don't get to see what they are talking about and incorporating it into what we see. We have to turn the ponds in this property into an asset. The holding ponds rather than just being there so I'd like to see how those can be turned into an asset. Those are my comments Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff regarding the 92 twin homes. Is that still a possibility if this does not go forward? Generous: Sure, they can come in and final plat that. Skubic: Thank you. Aanenson: It does expire in. Generous: In March. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Skubic: March 13 it says. I concur with what Ladd has said. That we certainly need some diversity in the city, but at the same time on this particular development we certainly are concerned about the neighbors and preserving their investments and I think their investments are both financial and emotional. I'm sure you're not pleased with what you see when you look out your back yard. It certainly has a price of some sort associated with it. I think that both the applicant and the residents have to make a better case. There is an economic sacrifice if this does go through as proposed here. I know it's talked about on both sides but I'm not convinced that this development will decrease the value of the homes in Windmill Run. Perhaps that can be quantified somehow. And I also agree that the Hennessy area, the homes around it should be single family or residential homes as opposed to what's there right now. I think I could support something, some sort of a PUD here. Not nearly as extensive as what we have here. One of my concerns is, when I look out from Windmill Run and I look at the knoll area and I imagine all these symmetrical homes on a hill there that's not going to look like what you expected out there. It's not going to look like a single family development. So that's one thing that I would hope could be alleviated in some way so that the visual view on that knoll is more pleasing. I'm not sure what that means, probably single family homes. There's also questions about the contour required around Bluff Creek. I think there was a contour line of 966 feet and...from the creek to that contour varies significantly and I understand part of it goes onto what was previously a cultivated field and I don't understand what benefit it would be to preserve the creek to have the preservation area extended to that area beyond the tree line. Regarding, more regarding the density, I suspect that with this development so close to the elementary school, that we probably would see a greater population of children in this area...what the applicant has suggested. This is a different geographical location than what it was compared to I suspect. I don't, I doubt that the other ones were across from an elementary school. That's all I have to say. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I'm a little more, a bit more familiar with this property than the other commissioners I think but I will try to be as objective as I can about my comments. First off, looking at this, maybe you fellows have more insight than I do but I'm totally confused. I've seen three plans so far tonight and I don't know which ones to follow. I mean we got a plan Thursday. I know I met with the developer and looked at another plan and then there was a plan presented tonight that took into consideration the Bluff Creek easement and I guess this is a conceptual plan but I look at it as kind of a conceptual, conceptual plan. I'm really kind of uncomfortable about it because I just, I think having 50 conditions like this, that the developer really is just kind of throwing something up and seeing if well bite is my feeling. I would have liked to have seen a lot more preparation. I think a couple phone calls could have reduced a lot of these conditions. Given us a better view of what they're trying to present to us. It's very difficult for me to take the three plans and incorporate them into something that, see what they're trying to do here. I know that Rick Murray tried to explain it verbally but well it's an important project I think. 50 acres with a PUD and I would have liked to have seen something a little more organized and I didn't see that tonight. So that was just I guess a consideration of the process itself. Specific points I'd like to address is that you have the 33 acres that are guided for low density and 17 acres are guided for medium density. We've already heard, obviously there were expectations from the neighborhood about what those 33 acres were to consist of. They thought, 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 were led to believe, whatever that the lots were 15,000 square foot lots with 3 per acre. In actuality the City's guided the 33 acres at a maximum of 4 units per acre or lots of at least 11,000 square feet. I guess I'll revert back to the first plan. I looked at the single family portion of the first plan that had 34 single family homes on it and of those homes you had 5 of the 34 exceeded 15,000 square feet. 17 of the 35 were between 15,000 and 11,000. Then we had 12 of the, excuse me, 34. 12 of the 34 were below 11,000 square feet. So even in the single family portion of this development, over a third are below what we consider R -4 square footage. The plan also suggests putting, not only high density in the 17 acres that it's guided for medium density but it's actually putting 12 plexes, high density in something that's guided low density. I think that's a stretch. I have a very hard time considering a proposal which is just 8 plexes and 12 plexes on R- 4 guided land. You know you're in essence doubling and tripling the guided density. I think that really should be considered in any sort of conceptual plan. The developer's using a PUD to distribute the density inside this project area to get it to medium density. My opinions of, or ideas of what the intent of a PUD is, there are various that we get in our packet. Preservation, desirable site characteristics, sensitivity development in transitional areas, create a unified internal order. Gives us some flexibility for higher quality than a standard zoning district. It certainly allows for diversity of housing types that the City certainly does need. I think the PUD essence is really to enhance a property. That would be more than what normal zoning would allow for. And I think there should be a compelling reason to have a PUD. I think that's part of the idea of a PUD. That we're doing this for a certain purpose. The way 1 look at this project however, I don't see any green space. I don't see any gathering areas. To me it's really not that imaginative. It's certainly not that unique. And I see that the developer's using the PUD process to kind of use some mathematical gymnastics to put as many units as he can on this property to make it available for as many possible units as he can under the guise of a PUD. So I've got a problem with that. One aspect of this development that is addressed through the PUD is certainly the intent of the diversity of housing. Or I'll use that, how many letter word. More than four letter word. affordable housing that we hear so much about. I believe that's really the catalyst for this project. We all know the City is under a lot of pressure because of the mandate of the Livable Communities Act. I know that the planning staff, Kate and Bob, are under a lot of pressure by the goals that were set by the Metropolitan Council. I also know developers are eager to build these 8 plexes and 12 plexes because they're profitable and they're easy to sell. But if this is the only criteria we're using to develop these things and change comprehensive plans for the sake of diversity or affordable housing, I kind of see it as the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around. I just, if that's the purpose for all our planning, what's left. There's property due east of this development that is guided medium density and high density, but once again going back to the PUD, I don't see the compelling issue why we have to change to an R -4 density up to medium density with pockets of high density in this area. I also don't think the citizens of Chanhassen that happen to live near or adjacent to an open field would have to worry about 12 plexes being rather close to their homes because, regardless of land use, because of this issue of affordable housing. I think the City has a comprehensive plan that should be followed. I think my neighbors made a huge decision, certainly the biggest investment of their life, and they use the comprehensive plan as a guide post and I think the City should live up to it's agreement with the people who bought in this neighborhood that the comprehensive plan will be followed. But I'm very uncomfortable moving this even past the conceptual stage and I would vote against it. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and did not pick up his comments. Peterson: ...direction you could give the developer. Farmakes: I would like to see these...to put with, in other words not be cut off...the point was made to the development to the east. That's an important point... We don't want to see a wall of high density corridor for 4 miles running down Highway 5. The point is that's probably what we're going to see based on what proposals are coming forward... Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not that dissimilar to my fellow commissioners. I think that I am actually not opposed certainly to having a PUD on this property, or on these properties. I think that there is strong potential of having that. What I have seen tonight I don't feel as though presents me with a compelling reason to rezone, particularly we talk, Jeff mentioned the Highway 5 corridor. I think that we are having this development in the Highway 5 corridor even puts a higher standard on what we put on that property. That means that it needs to have a higher standard of a uniqueness that a feel is there within the design. I think that the single family homes were kind of left out of the conversation tonight. I do like the, I think the townhouses have... architectural lines. From my perspective they still may be a bit dense but I like the styles and the way they've integrated them into the contours of the land and they seem to have...at least a certain amount of variety and I got some sense of that tonight. Again it's conceptual but I certainly want to see more definition to that before 1 move ahead. That was one part of the presentation tonight that I did find interesting. I too agree that the open space is an issue. The Hennessy property is an issue. Bluff Creek integration, or the lack of integration needs to be worked on. ...density of the villas...closest and most visual to Highway 5 doesn't fit in there as densely as it is presented. I too, I think we need to do some more work before we move it onto Council. I don't think that I'm comfortable at least with...something that is still at this stage of progress. With that, do I hear a motion? Joyce: I'd just like to throw this motion out. I don't know how far it will get but I'd like to throw the motion out that the Planning Commission deny this conceptual plan. Skubic: ..discussion? Peterson: I think we're going to need to. Comments to that. Skubic: That would mean it would be passed onto City Council is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Skubic: If we table it it would come back before us and... Conrad: My preference is to get it to City Council. I think the neighborhood is here. They've expressed their concerns. Their concerns will stay the same. I'm interested in where the City Council would be in terms of their commitment to certain of the issues that this brings forward. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 And I don't want to, personally I don't want to screw around with it. If we don't see a commitment on their part to even consider this. So my recommendation would be to so note this case and to have staff. I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm telling you if Kevin's doesn't pass. I would so note this without a recommendation pro or con but to have the developer and staff incorporate our comments and prepare better material for the City Council to review. And to get their feedback. We are in the concept plan right now and I think, I'm really interested in how much more time we want to use if the City Council's not interested in exploring a PUD. If they're not, I really don't want to, I don't want to fine tune this because we're going to be wrong. And these folks are going to be back and I guess my perspective is they should hear what the City Council has to say. Joyce: Kate, this is not binding then? If this goes to City Council and they approve it, we can really come back to square one again, is that correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. Conrad: Yeah, we're not committing to anything Kevin. Joyce: Well that's my motion. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Is there another motion? Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission notes this planning case, whatever it is staff, and recommends that the staff and developer works to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard tonight by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or to work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. Peterson: Is there a second to that motion? Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission notes PUD #96 -4, The Highlands, and recommends that the staff and developer work to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. All voted in favor, except Joyce and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Peterson: Kevin, would you share with us your opposition. Joyce: I think Ladd made a good point. I think, in my opposition I have to ask you a question. Are you saying that you're denying this? Conrad: I said I've noted it. No, I have not denied it. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: So how's this going to City Council? Conrad: The way you see it. The staff will work on it. They'll probably, I would assume the developer will have one firm plan presented. I would assume the developer and the staff will incorporate many, well I hope they'd incorporate some of the things that we've been talking about. You know I've got some issues on Bluff Creek and issues on gathering spots and what have you and Kevin you've got issues on, you've got a lot of issues. They probably can't incorporate those but views and vistas and design. You know my assumption would be that there's going to be some work done by the developer and staff to make the presentation a little bit more solid to the City Council. My hope would be that the City Council expresses some kind of opinion about whether a PUD is appropriate here, and the densities. That's my, because there's no use in us screwing around with it if the City Council is not prone to doing this. And a lot goes back to communication that's had in the past and expectations and see how sensitive they are. They are the elected body and I guess I, normally I'd want to send up something a little bit better and I'd want to see what it is but right now I think there's some overriding issues that no matter what we do in terms of sending them a prettier piece of paper, the overriding issues may be more important than the specific detail that we have. Joyce: I agreed with your position on not tabling it. I think bringing people back in every Wednesday night to try and figure this thing out is not right. I feel that what you're saying though is a neutral stance and I can't vote for that so I have to take a negative stance to that. That's my reason. Peterson: My primary reason for voting nay is simply I would rather send a cleaner plan to, and ensure that the clean plan is going to Council prior to that and I can empathize with your position. I'm almost on the fence but I'm more biased towards sending Council a cleaner plans for them to review prior to. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate the comments. PUBLIC HEARING: SBA, INC. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 1455 PARK ROAD. Public Present: Name Address Gary Goll 1455 Park Road Jason Funk 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan Terrie Thurmer 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina Doug Cowan 1701 East 79 Street, Bloomington Michelle Johnson, APT 1701 East 79 Street, Bloomington 27 THE HIGHLANDS DEVELOPER: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INC. DATE: 2 -11 -97 GROSS SITE AREA: 49.80 ACRES - TOTAL 30.14 ACRES - LOW DENSITY AREA 19.66 ACRES - MEDIUM DENSITY AREA GALPIN LAKE ROAD ROW (30'): 0.38 ACRE LOW DENSITY AREA WINDMILL CURVE ROW (60'): 2.02 ACRES LOW DENSITY AREA HIGHLANDS BOULEVARD ROW (60'): 1.16 ACRES LOW DENSITY AREA 1.08 ACRES MEDIUM DENSITY AREA WETLAND: 0.11 ACRE MEDIUM DENSITY NET SITE AREA = GROSS AREA - ROW - WETLAND LOW DENSITY AREA: 30.14 ACRES GROSS (0.38) GALPIN LAKE RD. (2.02) WINDMILL DRIVE (1.16) HIGHLANDS BLVD. 26.58 ACRES NET MEDIUM DENSITY AREA: 19.66 ACRES GROSS (1.08) HIGHLANDS BLVD. (0.11) WETLAND 18.47 ACRES NET MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE UNITS = NET AREA X UNITS /ACRE LOW DENSITY AREA: 26.58 X 4 = 106.32 UNITS MEDIUM DENSITY AREA: 18.47 X 8 = 147.76 UNITS TOTAL UNITS: 254.08 UNITS . . , . ._ _ ....E. , .-, :'-_-..-.....,..- ..... ............- ....,,,,,,,,, ....:-.. . - - -• : .;.. , _.',. .,.-, - . -. ' -. ,,,-. .-:.,..... .. .. ,.... _:: : .:;,_ ..:-....:::.;_-_-.4.144.' ,. r ' ''-• . - -, t - -; 4 :.::!' -.' '.;_rt"' A ''...; . ....{ "-- .{. 1 .113.. - 1: - .. - -,-'.. f.h''' . -.r...' . - • ' ' • ' ' - 'f ' • - ... e . . " '' - '`i. r.- t - ; : i .. kt 4' • - • 1 . 7- ..■:.'.4 ' • '''' ...., .i ' ; _ . . ..: . . . ., , - . : ' ' ' - , ". . . , . , , r ' . - - • ' ,.. • ;....,. 2 z .Y.1.7 ....L. 1...'..4r - '24 ).:::..%-.,: _.{:-...; 17 . . . . . ..... . , - _ . . . ..-. • . - 1 :!-:- ". j. __'. 7,:',1: rritTI4704,74 .,1 ti ..--,- :■■F ..f..,V4:r..,. • ;_.. .:— .1.1 .-ers , --,-, ..-t-. ,•- _ . • ._ . ,. .,...g _ . a r • • On -:::::-;:.::- i , ..-: .-.:: ; .4 ... -:. . . . . . .. . . . . . - - — . ., ..._ , : _. .., • . . . - . , . - _ • , . ' _ . _ . ... . . , jp-1. ••••.. • . . • . „ ( _____ _ . _. _ _ 4 • • - -: . -. — r iirip4, - . . . ._ ..._ . 4, - - - - , „..,, . —.----.-.. - -: - .---_----.;-- l' / ' '-*:i.-7,40-S5-:-1,•;-.47,STI--..t,A-,1-4.,.%---.--;*":v".4,....7" i i • „"---....„ ./_; _...„ ... . _ . . _ r- - - F.1.7t4;4 . !':::::tii,:...-'7 , ;.-4.4--'.+-fAtkie 4 ■ \ l 1..--- ... ,..,......• - •c . ..r..; ir■f■ ''' ri ...'-■.' / . 1 6 i i i ; !•\. ; - - - „ , t-,..-4..*., 4 ,, k.c.r.....3..ik -, ,, - -* • Ip■ ap. \ \ ./4_,-E-21; rs-i ....4,-, & • ••••••—•-•. ■ " , .,,,,.. ,-, ,.. ,.... ,,...., \\ , , -.I/ . ! • ',./. - It, ,,,,, il ... N.L.:'-.1.V.Aracs• A te • . ,*.,...-e---cti,,:r., ,A,„,...f. \ \\:\..\. - , , • • . , , ,, J ./. :;:.:-"--?1----7 . . ';',.e.S7,:-.'.:7:46tlift.ri- ' • ■ • .--■ , 111 L / L : . , - - • *-.‘ I \ 1----"-----7 7- 4r , I . ___ j, . + r....-- • . •••••-_,/, I 1 . L , •-, ' ' • i ■ • ' ;...\ 1 - *,... :, / 1 i FIT-- I ' ' 1 ; I 1 \ r * • . - V i Fr i-Lr N4 3 4-7-----1— ' -i i 1 i • \ -4. l I r".. - . 1 - t , 1 . , - , „‚ \ i 1 ■ I . i1 , , , . , , . 1 ,. , I i ; —.--".."------ 4, 1:', 41./..3 . ppipir r / • •i' $.' , ' • - - I i . /7 / , - . t - - - - -- 4 Ol ib : . • , - . . ....,,...,.. __, afr lip :1 I 4 0;;0 '” riO• ;4311 . . . -.. :-• 7r10 4 ;'-' 1.! C001005 d I 14 r .....1.......140:74 di r..41•,..1 at risat n..;;;;;;; " - - ::- ' - --... 4 40 0 It* 4 1.''.- 4 a A . • ,....-,_ • - - ' , ...-- h ' - mom or.11.01 a•ve•tt toss .4. ...... • ^ .... _ 111. ............................. IF -- 1 . . 1°... , 1. i A I 1111111 . ' ' '. 1 ( 4 1 II -■ . ... If e• .:..." ;Ill!' , . " . . ..... .... 4. it it Ilkil • ' ' - - ,... 7 1 - ` , y -1- i . - P ; • - lei • 4.1' 1 i rm 1 1 : . ■ ii. A: 1 I .. . — • A* A. s 400\ Illitt l a . , • 1 , : .':. -- ,- • ., .1 - .. - . IL* ...V ,4111 ,:. :-:.!. -,:.;.. ....•::: -: '.••• :-. - : - . • - akk. i■V%I.‘ \ 4 . - 6.,. ,' ,. : -. / .;.* i ., • ' ,‘ mi llitiat :, , - : '-. , 1 , . , (--i-,, / • W N \N.- 10. - • 40 )... 111p1111 lbr 6 ,/ /•;■ ,,i1 IN 0 / i i 11.■11 / 11■111k. NbAbi,":-.., - ,..... . 1 .; 1...._______,.„, -1., xvk . ..,,,,.. .. _ - 7,1. ;..,,,,... ______1_,.2_, ■■■ - •0 _ g : ...l.. ,-------. 1. ....,______/ . • ; I : i - I - • 1**- : -Ai . -.......- / , Y • e :-- 2 • :-, , r \ / *ft.w. / v ft p. / / f. / • . . . ., . _ ...., ■ ;4. :::', / / ; $ i \ \ l r I ' I / / .,--____...., , / 1 4,„__,.. ( ,,,‹ / / — -- " ------- 1 i / .,^,-: •: ' ,., -- --1._..-/ \ \ , 4 1 1--- - '."."-- : - .:: — t • ■ ......____1 • ;If ,,- .- ... .. r--- 7 , .... / I ■:, . - I- - i ------- , 1 X 7 - ' - 1 , 7---- I 1 - 7 / / i: • i , J .,/ ' ' k \ \ . / [ / : • 4, , 4 1 / - :c, • ±,--'-',.. - - • - / ‘,)....\?›,,, .4 , ;.: ..... 'N./ i 4 : , v., / -4-.4_ ---• c ,„,, )....„____„...---1 • 4 % , / \ e /' 1 ; ; r • / ` \\..... - •• - 1 ZN i //•'. )------,:_ 2N. i 7 • ' f : -......... f ' ' Ir ., / , , 1 1 1 j " --- -.---■--? ' • )-- _ s "--, r 7 . ____? \ 1 \ t 1... ... "--f , - r --- 7--r-- r --,,_ / ■,...._ , t " `. . . ,-, 1)..!; ) , _ r , i \ i .') ; :::)‘I--"' i ; i i i I { 1 1 i ; ,------ ' i---- L-- I '147 ■—...---•—' i i I i ' 1. 4 I s \ . ■ ■ r ! ' ■ i I 1 1 L - 4, L -- --, ----. ■ -I 4 ,_____.• 1 , 1 4 - .. s.N-..\\ lii' / 711 t r-I • 1 f ! / t . • / L. • L,.... 1 ."`"'"• i 1 , • : .. .._ • 1 • , ....... • ',10 . /41000:., ro p,,,,,001, 0 0, 00 , Aeoseddo_ Ar Allir 4 II 1p Au 11.01 d imp alw ' - . VI Air Air . 0 . , „ 40 7pligsra .,:, • A pp. .... /gar ... . . , , • Adiir . ... . .. ,. .. ill , I O O it WINDMILL DRIVE r 3 ro GROSS AREA 0 30.14 ACRES ' 620 1 4440 T of In / LOW DENSITY AREA MEDIUM DENSITY AREA co 0 c D .1 1 ACRES 0 0.1 GROSS AREA 19.66 ACRES SCALE 1" =200' THE HIGHLANDS ARBORETUM BLVD. I I o r s O _ o.. U " 004 ,'. CURVE - _ - - 4,fit*. O �/ 1iiiiIi / r g II 4 / , � �� PRIV ROAD - •,.. • `_ • �' �' �, ` ��• '. ' ir .010, � Nib `�� " " • • cam- \ L�Aw!1J all° / r.1 4. r� 1'i1JJ p, ' iv 4 , , PRIVATE ROAD y PRIVATE ROA: - C rw . U! . I a I �,. ladikanr *frwa I l IF , 1 AA �wewIU oasrnvena EASEMENT ./ 1 ' ' 11 ` 11 ��1 � � / ,.e Lw �! I l j j I \ \ \ ppVAf a % \ • \ NIA iii;1 illftillA RIR HOME TYPE HOMES ACRES "� 'TRADITIONAL' HOME LOTS: 32 12.6 2.54 \ \ \ \,, \ I _ _ _ COTTAGE' HOMES: 48 12.3 3.90 - 1 _ — _ — _ VILLA' HOMES: 25.0 7.52 : g nEV .. FOUR HOMES / BUILDING: 20 A M g SIX HOMES / BUILDING: 12 EIGHT HOMES / BUILDING: 24 TWELVE HOMES / BUILDING 132 - TOTAL: 268 50 5.36 ,. 1 + -. -- 97E PLAN P0. II ! MI THE HIGHLANDS e ' �! s�rmr7s- BdlfiQTJISI, arc. wwws wwiA>.�7/,ga<d•wO wtiw City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 U.S. POSTAL CARRIER ANNEX, VERBAL UPDATE. Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. There's a letter in your packet from the Post Office explaining the progress that's been made and that Mr. Braslau has finished collecting his data, but he has not finished his report and he expects to have that report done this week. As soon as we have it in our hands, you will have it in yours. Mayor Mancino: So that should be, I'm sorry, the end of the week? Roger Knutson: Sometime this week they told us. They were thinking the middle of the week but by the end of the week. Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members to Mr. Knutson on this? Is there anyone in the chambers that would like to come up and to address the City Council on this? Have any questions or comments. Bill Kemble: I just have one quick question... Roger Knutson: It's my understanding, we've suggested, we've given him some options of the 25 26 and 27 and that's in their budget and that shouldn't be an issue. Depending on his schedule, one of those dates. We'll let you know. Bill Kemble: Have they responded at all? Roger Knutson: No. No, they have not. Mayor Mancino: Bob, this went out on February 6 so maybe in the next few days they will respond. But we have also asked, excuse me I'll tell you one other thing. We have not only asked for the meeting with the U.S. Postal Service but to have the sound consultant there too. Okay. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this issue? Okay, thank you. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A -2., AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD -R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS, 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HIGHWAY 5, THE HIGHLANDS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. Public Present: Name Address Steve Tornio 7476 Crocus Court Jon Noeldner 7511 Crocus Court 2 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Name Address Jennifer & Brian Monteith 2159 Brinker Street Mark Pryor 7541 Windmill Drive Wren & Mark Feyereisen 7501 Windmill Drive Cindy & Henry Wanserski 7521 Windmill Drive Margi & Rick Manning 7460 Windmill Drive Bill Anner 935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata Bonita Mihalko 2198 Brinker Street Douglas E. Domine 2149 Majestic Way David & Cinda Jensen 2173 Brinker Street Jeff Steinke 7481 Windmill Drive Allan & Mary Jane Olson 7461 Windmill Drive Ken & Joan Weis 2101 Majestic Way Joan & Kevin Joyce 2043 Brinker Street Virginia Bell 7476 Crocus Court Rick Sathre 150 S. Broadway, Wayzata Lee Glover Plymouth Richard Palmiter Bloomington Dean Gregory 2101 Majestic Way Richard Harbar Richfield Dani & John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd. Jeff Stone 2103 Brinker Street JoAnn & Richard Neff 2150 Majestic Way Judi & Steve Selinger 7480 Windmill Drive Nadia & Steve Janson 2199 Brinker Street Mayor Mancino: Before we begin the staff report, let me say that what I just read I don't think are the specs that we're reviewing tonight. According to the staff report I read, the site plan review before us tonight is for 32 single family homes, 48 cottage homes, 16 single loaded townhomes, 48 villas in the northern 33 acres, and 16 single loaded townhomes and 108 villas in the southern 17 acres. I want to make sure that we're all on the same page. We're reviewing the same thing. Is that correct Mr. Generous? Bob Generous: Yes Madam Mayor. Mayor, Councilmembers, thank you. Also I should clarify, part of the original submittal we put the whole packet together, what would be required to bring the project forward and they had a total number of units. After discussion with the applicant we decided that it'd be more appropriate to bring this to you as a conceptual review of the project. Under the PUD conceptual review allows you to get a grasp of the entire project and provide the developer with some directions on how...get consensus of the Council that yeah, we like this idea and these are the things that we need to address. And with that, so what the notice does is they do seek conceptual approval. Those are the approvals that would be required after preliminary steps to permit this type of project to go forward. Given the land use map amendment, the rezoning, the subdivision and the site plan for the multi - family dwellings. The applicant originally submitted a project that had a total of 293 dwelling units. This is divided into a townhouse section, a cottage home type section, and then single family detached housing. As part of the review at the Planning Commission stage, the applicant received some input and came back with the revised plan that you specify the request... Since then the applicant has reduced the total number of dwelling units to 258 units. What we've had them do is they pulled off, they've taken out the 3 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 straight connection of the north/south road and moved the road to the left and they've reduced the number of single family detached homes by 2 from their original submittal. They've transitioned additional detached housing...area of cottage homes...And they reduced the area that the townhouse products were being proposed and... When we initially met with the applicant we requested that they bring a project in that...total number of units on the site that would be permitted under the existing land use and for that we managed to calculate the northern 33 acres at 4 units per acre and the southerly 17 acres at 8 units an acre, which are the high end of low and medium density residential property. ...I believe how they calculated what the medium density and the low density areas were and then in this proposal they drop it down to... Currently the site has a 92 unit twin home project that has preliminary plat approval. This preliminary plat is in effect until March of this year when it becomes void if it's not final platted. The issues that we have within this project were one, the protection of the Bluff Creek corridor which runs along the southwest corner of the site. Recently the City adopted the Bluff Creek study which recommended some design guidelines... What the applicant has worked out...they would preserve all the existing trees along this section of the Bluff Creek and down to approximately where the ponding area, the future underpass for Arboretum Boulevard and Highway 5 when Arboretum Boulevard and Highway 5 come forward. Mayor Mancino: Is that on the medium density? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Mancino: It's guided in the medium density? Bob Generous: The medium density is the 17 acres, right. So what in essence we've forced the developer to do to preserve this area is to develop this area to the north. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Which is also amended for the developer, okay. Bob Generous: In addition, we've looked at some possible design criteria that's basically the one thing would be to provide additional sight lines or a view shed within the corridor. Specifically from this point down into the Bluff Creek corridor... By realigning these areas, they get an east /west view corridor. The City will be providing a regional storm water pond to the east of this project and so you would get a vista across the top of that... The real issue in this development is the total number of units that would be proposed or approved with this project. Again staff started out by saying we'd use the 268 total number of units allowed them to slide the development around on the site to make it work a little better. To get some nice transitioning and to open up the and preserve the natural features of it. From there we're looking at, we believe that to make...townhouse portion of the project, they should possibly remove the one structure and create a common open space for all the townhouse units around it. In addition we believe that while they're providing this open space area and they would...putting a trail corridor in, that maybe they should eliminate these two units also so that... Staff believes that this project does do a lot to implement portions of our comprehensive plan and we are recommending conceptual approval of the project at this time. They are subject to the applicant addressing these conditions and issues outlined in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Generous at this time from Council members? Bob, I have a couple. Could you give me a little bit of context here. East of the lower 17 acres, which is guided for medium density. East of that what, the land use plan, that's also medium density? 4 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it kind of parallels it and then it goes to high density, correct? Bob Generous: As you get closer to Lake Ann. Mayor Mancino: Lake Ann. And on the northern part of this parcel, the northern 33 which is guided low density, east of that is mostly low density also. Correct? Bob Generous: Correct. I think there's a jog in the medium density that comes up part way and is adjacent to that area. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that continues, that low density continues all the way over and above the high density? Bob Generous: Correct. I don't know if it shows up very well. Mayor Mancino: Just so we get some context of what's around us. And what's across the street too. Bob Generous: This is the medium density in the diagonal lines. This is the northerly 33 acres. This site is guided for either medium or low density immediately east of this low density area. This is medium density and then this site is Lake Ann Park. Mayor Mancino: Do you know that I don't have, this for 1995, mine doesn't shown that above the high density is medium density. On my land use map. Is that newer? Councilman Engel: You mean the piece just southwest of Lake Ann? Abutting Lake Ann? Mayor Mancino: Ah, okay. And then across the street from the said property is, to the west side of Galpin is single family low density, okay. And the adjacent property that is south of Bluff Creek is also medium density. In that little corner, on the real corner of Galpin and TH 5. Bob Generous: Well medium density, I believe it's commercial also. Or mixed density. Mayor Mancino: Okay, it could go either. Kate Aanenson: Either way. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, thank you. That gives me context. So you have basically put, allowed density transfer throughout the entire 50 acre parcel? I mean you have seen it that way instead of splitting it up as low density and medium density, you've just put it all together as medium density? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: In '95, did we approve the Lake Ann Highlands? That was for 92 townhouses, 184 townhomes. 184 units total. That was a preliminary plat approval, right? Bob Generous: 92, yeah. Councilman Berquist: The 92 pads. Okay. That's the only question. 5 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: And to clarify something you said, you said that preliminary plat becomes void in March of this year if it's not taken to final plat. The other option is the builder can extend the preliminary plat, correct? Kate Aanenson: Council has to approve the extension. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but they can request. Bob Generous: They can request an extension. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: And this property has not been rezoned at all until final plat. Bob Generous: Correct. The way we structure it is at preliminary plat we do the first reading of any rezoning and at final plat we'll also include the second reading. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so nothing's been rezoned here. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council please? Rick Murray: Yes Madam Mayor, distinguished Councilmembers. My name is Rick Murray. I'm with Residential Development. This proposal is our proposal. With me this evening, my development team and consulting engineer, Rick Sathre, who's been helping in this city previously and the Vice President of Rottlund Homes, Tim Whitten and the Land Management Director, Richard Palmiter. As we go through our short presentation this evening, both Rick and Tim will have aspects of our concept which they'll be explaining to you. As you're aware this site does have a first reading of a preliminary plat for 92 units, twinhomes adjacent, or on the property that's adjacent to the property owners to the north and the property owner to the west. My involvement in this plan or plat was when they realized that that plan might not work out on this site and 1 was approached by the seller and was asked if this would be a site that I would be interested in working on in Chanhassen. My home has been in Chanhassen for the last 17 years. I developed several communities in Chanhassen. It was a very compatible and good working relationship and I appreciated it very much. In working with the staff, the evolution of the plan that we have before you this evening, I've also enjoyed that experience. Even in working with the neighbors, I've enjoyed that experience and their input has been helpful and I think you'll find it reflective in many of the changes that we've done to our concept. It was never our intent when I approached staff and approached the seller, of out stepping the bounds of your comprehensive land use plan. We were trying to fit into the comprehensive land use plan. When we originally drew the line across the property, somehow we figured that this property could accommodate 300 units under your comprehensive land use plan. We were somewhat surprised when we found that 292 didn't work under the plan, but adjusted it to 268 so it did fit the underlying land use plan. We've had a couple of meetings with the neighbors. We have realigned our central road through the site to better accommodate two things. One is the short cut that might be taken by people trying to transit either north or south along Galpin Lake Road and avoid the traffic light at the new Arboretum Boulevard, in fact they did want to short cut and I think our road alignment now according to our engineers definitely discourages any kind of short cut action. And the other intent there was to provide a better view, pedestrian or both pedestrian and vehicular view of the Bluff Creek corridor itself. We have, Rick will go into that sight line as he has some cross sections across the site that will help you better appreciate how this opens up to that area. Of the 51 issues that were pointed out in the staff report of January 15 through our meetings with the staff and through 6 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 meetings with neighbors, those issues have been reduced I think to three. There remains some question about density. Although we are at the staff recommendation of 268. There remains some concern about a 964 contour around the Bluff Creek area, which Mr. Sathre will discuss. The 964 contour comes up the hill, oh probably 150 feet into the soybean field. In reading the Bluff Creek study, it recommends that all vegetation between 125 and 300 feet of the Bluff Creek be protected. We are protecting all the vegetation, existing vegetation within that corridor. We will protect it. I don't see the necessity of protecting 100 feet of a soybean field and that's where the 964 contour really doesn't fit our particular concept very well. The other issue that we'd like to work out with staff remains this central open space area in the villas. We've kind of designed and clustered our units so that our central open space would be between the housing types, i.e. the cluster homes and our villa homes. That will also be pointed out I think in our cross sections and our site plan. With that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sathre and he will go through our criteria for planned unit development and what we're requesting. Rick Sathre: I'm not sure for Council which is the best approach here. I have some big boards, some of which will be very unwieldy but we'll do our best. I'm Rick Sathre, oh excuse me. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Rick. Are the cameras catching that? Can everyone see where, oh we don't have any, nobody can see it. Rick Sathre: What would make sense? Mayor Mancino: Rick, can you push it back a little bit? Let's see. That would be fine. Is there anybody from this side would like to move and stand over here so you can see during the presentation? I'm sorry we, what did happen to the TV's? Did somebody come and take the TV's, excuse me? Will they be installed at a future time? Okay. Rick Sathre: I've been blacked out here too. Mayor Mancino: I know Hennessy's are here. Do you want to move over so you can see the presentation? Anyone else? Sony to do this. You may have to share your chair with someone else. Rick Sathre: Now that everybody's over there that wants to see it, how about if I put it over here. Mayor Mancino: Yes, good idea. Give everybody a few minutes to get settled. Rick Sathre: Okay, and I'll try to duck. Mayor Mancino: And for the rest of the people who are over there, I mean it won't be fun. Rick Sathre: My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with the firm Sathre - Berquist in Wayzata. We've done quite a bit of development work in Chanhassen through the years and I'm very pleased to be hired by Mr. Murray and Residential Development, Incorporated to work with him on this site. My initial discussion, I just want to cover two points right now. One of them is to talk about the site itself, and for that purpose I'm going to ask Lee to put an overhead up. We'll talk very briefly about the site characteristics. I think that's going to be upside down. This is a map, a 2 foot topographic map of the site. You can see a faint line up at the top of the site, top of the map is the border between the single family neighbors to the north and this 50 acre site. Off to the upper left is Galpin Lake Road, Boulevard. The Hennessy property is in the little cut -out there. Thank you Bob. And the creek corridor comes down and through the site and at the bottom is existing two lane Highway 5. The site features. Through the center of the site that red and 7 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 green squiggley line that you see going through the site is the ridge line of the property. The area that's north and east of that ridge, the arrow's point where the water goes. In general, the vast majority of the site drains off to the east to one of the branches of Bluff Creek. The south and west portion of the site drains southwesterly down to that part of Bluff Creek, or that branch of Bluff Creek that actually crosses through the site. You can see highlighted with the dark arrows that have the three dots in them, that's highlighted in blue, that's actually the channel of the creek and you'll see the green area and the black sculpted or scalloped edge, which is the existing tree line. We went out in the field with my survey crew and located where the canopy came to. The edge of the tree canopy so that we could show everyone where that drip line was. Rick Murray, I'm going to approach the overhead for a second to show you the 964 contour. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Sathre: I have to put on my glasses because I've got my old eyes. The 964 contour, I'm going to trace it and I probably should do it with a color. Kate, can I borrow something. How about a red line. I don't know, I guess that's about...we get away from the creek at that point. We've chosen in our planning to use the drip line of the trees as an important line of demarcation as opposed to the 964 or any other contour just because in some places you get out into the field. You get out in that soybean field but we know the trees are important so we're, as we go into the site plan we'll talk about how we've sited units versus that tree line. I'd like another graphic now. The second part of what 1 wanted to speak about initially is the PUD and why should this site be processed as a PUD. What is it about this site? What is it about the City that makes a PUD makes sense? Well number one, our goals are to stay in touch with your comprehensive plan. We don't want to put more units on this site than make sense with the plan. We're not trying to push the envelope. Number two, from a community standpoint. Arboretum Boulevard is going to cross through this site. The new frontage road for TH 5 will cross through this site soon and it's at the very south edge of the property. If you allow us to do a PUD, we're transferring, we wish to transfer the density internal to the site and give the City the right -of -way for that road. So there's a give and take. There's an opportunity for a dedicated right -of -way as opposed to a purchased one. Number three, from a community goal standpoint. Our site plan, our concept has very little public street. We have Windmill Curve, an east /west street and Highland Boulevard, a north /south street which would form the spine of the development. The rest of the roadway, all of the rest of the roadway system is private. It would be homeowners association, owned and maintained so the public works department would not have to do that. It would greatly reduce the burden on the public works people. From a neighborhood standpoint, why a PUD? Well number one, compatibility. We can work with our own internal transitions. I guess I'll talk about both neighborhood issues at once. If we can use the PUD to slide density around, we can pull it back away from the neighborhood, back away from everybody and put it in the middle of the site. And if you use the standard subdivision ordinance, rules, that flexibility is gone. It's, you get more like the plat that was approved preliminarily before with the twinhome neighborhood. The structure of the standard ordinance doesn't allow density transfer. It only allows minimum standards. So we think that a PUD makes a lot of sense from a neighborhood standpoint so we can pull density away from the neighbors. The land itself. The creek corridor, the Bluff Creek corridor in the southwest part of the site, in the PUD we can move the density out of the corridor, away from the corridor and put it where it's better suited, which is in that farm field area. Number two. We're working with the landform. We're not doing a grid sort of plat. The graphic I showed you about the ridge line and the contours of the land, we're working with the landform. That's another benefit of a PUD. We're not stuck in some sort of a grid. Third, a perpetuation of the long views. I've got some cross sections I can show you. We're going a long way with this PUD concept to allow every single person that would live in this neighborhood and every single person that drives through it, or near it, to enjoy the common features of it that would otherwise be platted in individual lots. And lastly, under the land categories, the 8 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 shared access. The shared vistas. Each and every person in this community would have, in this neighborhood, would have access to all the common homeowners association open space, which is the creek corridor area and the centrally located open space areas. So the flexibility that the PUD affords allows us to do these things. Mayor Mancino: Rick, may I ask you a question about that? If you could clarify it. You're asking, not just for a PUD. I mean we have a couple PUD's. We have the single family detached residential PUD, which is very specific. And we have a single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is more of a medium density. So you're asking for the single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is a medium or high density PUD, correct? Rick Sathre: Well Your Honor, I think the staff has suggested that we would perhaps be zoned PUD -R. But I think they're also suggesting, and we concur that that zoning, under the PUD, is site specific. It's plan specific. It's not open ended so that once the Council establishes the number of units that might be built on this site, that would be a contract basically between the developer and the City. So it's not an open ended. Mayor Mancino: So this does not follow any of our, this doesn't follow any of our ordinances? Kate Aanenson: What it would require is a comprehensive plan change, and that's the heart of the discussion. Whether or not the Council is changing the comprehensive plan. You cannot do the smaller lots, the smaller than 11,000 or the twinhomes under the low density. What we're saying is if you take the total number of units, and as Mr. Sathre indicated, you'd give it PUD -R. Mayor Mancino: Which means it's medium density. Kate Aanenson: Yes, overall medium... Mayor Mancino: Overall medium. I just wanted to make sure. And our medium density for PUD allows minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet. Kate Aanenson: Right, but as Bob indicated earlier, when you give this the second reading, whatever the final say is as far as an approved plan, that's what the total number of units. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying, you're asking us to change it so it could go down to 3,600 square feet? So it doesn't follow any of our. Kate Aanenson: This is what's before you tonight. We're not talking about re- writing the PUD. We're saying approve this plan based on a concept. Mayor Mancino: And this plan is not based on any existing ordinance that we have on PUD's? Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Mayor Mancino: And which one? Kate Aanenson: We're changing it up to a medium which does allow that flexibility of cluster zoning. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 9 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: We're taking it out, we're re- guiding it from a low density, which doesn't allow flexibility to get it to a medium. Mayor Mancino: But as we do that, the minimum lot size in a cluster home PUD is 5,000 square feet. Kate Aanenson: You're still under the low density. Bob Generous: That paragraph of the ordinance has 5,000 and then the next sentence says there's no minimum. Mayor Mancino: However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan is what the next. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what we're saying. It's not going to exceed that, whatever you decide that final number would be, that's what the zoning would be. Mayor Mancino: Okay, because we would be amending the comprehensive plan. Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what the discussion is about. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Rick Sathre: Your Honor. The real point and the reason that the staff has discussed amending the comp plan, we're pulling density away from the neighborhood to the north. We're pushing density out of the creek corridor. We're putting in dense, or as a result of that, the density ends up in the middle. Well, that density is in effect straddling the line between the 33 acre low density area and the 17 acre medium density area. Rather than respecting this line, we'll pulling densities. Mayor Mancino: We're putting them altogether in the pot. Rick Sathre: Yes. We're pushing it into the middle. Mayor Mancino: And how small are those lots? What's the smallest lot size? Rick Sathre: Well the way that Rottlund would prefer to plat the lots, the lot line is only 4 or 5 feet outside the unit wall. The land is owned in common so how many square feet would be shared? I'm not sure how we would calculate that right now. Mayor Mancino: Well the cottage homes are 47 x 120. Is that 5,600 it's about the smallest lot size? Rick Sathre: If they were platted that way. The way they actually would prefer to plat it is go 4 or 5 feet outside the structure wall. Plat this very small lot and have the rest of the land in a commonly owned open space. Mayor Mancino: Yes, I understand. Rick Sathre: So the actual real lot could be very small. 10 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: And then to have common space. Rick Sathre: Right. But they'd have over 5,000 square feet of perceived lot area. I would like to sit down for a minute and ask Tim Whitten, from Rottlund, to address a few issues and then I'll be back. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Tim Whitten: Good evening. Mayor and members of the Council. Again, I'm Tim Whitten, Vice President of the Rottlund Company. Also Richard Palmiter is here with our land development department, and if you have any questions as we go through the presentation, we can both try to answer those. First, I'd like to talk a little bit about the marketplace that we're going after with the products that we're proposing. We have really, excluding the single family to the north, as mentioned by Rick, is the cottage homes in the middle band. And then our villas and villa townhomes on the southern portion of the site. And our cottages are targeted towards the empty nester and retiree market. So we're going after an alternative type of buyer than is probably more traditional for Chanhassen being the single family home. And we're finding this as an opportunity in a lot of the communities around the Twin Cities because there are a lot of people who have lived in their communities for 20 -30 years raising their children and then they're finding, they're looking for an alternative life style, and in many cases they have to leave their community to find that alternative life style. So Chanhassen isn't alone in this particular market that is needed. And also in the villas and villa townhomes, we are targeting towards the young professional, singles and couples. And they are, typically the people that grew up in Chanhassen, either have jobs in Chanhassen and are looking for home ownership opportunities in a price range they can afford. So those clearly are our two targeted markets. We're using the site plan, and the PUD concept as a tool to be able to try to create those opportunities that we wouldn't otherwise have under current ordinances. And in a theme as far as planning the concept, we're clustering them together and trying to build a theme. We're doing more and more mixed use developments where we'll take a number of different products and different markets and bring them together in one community. And so we're clustering these together and then linking them together with the trails, so obviously we have this group as a cluster of townhomes, row type townhomes...walkout conditions here, slab on grade... And then we have more of... Then we have the two clusters of the detached along with the single family. And connecting these with trails and open space. The other advantage, obviously clustering them together is to create that variety throughout the development. If we did everything as one unit type and did it kind of anomogous throughout the site, we wouldn't get a lot of the opportunities. As we go down Highlands Boulevard, coming from Highway 5, or soon to be improved Highway 5, we get the exposure of the creek on one side of the pond, and trees. You have a villa type townhome here. You have only this much exposure into the villas from Highway 5, which we can work with the City as far as how to landscape that portion of it. We get different views of the types of townhomes here, with the villas. You will get into more of a...type where you create an open space, which we're promoting as a common gathering space within the site for all of those within the community to be able to experience. And also for those to use the trail from outside the community...opportunity to have an activity here... we have short range views and then we have the long range views, working all the way up to single family. That's an opportunity that we've been able to take advantage of with the PUD process. The other thing is to be able to maximize the potential of the site, or take advantage of the site in a sense of taking those total number of units and being able to put them in the right locations. And so that we don't raise the land costs and development costs. If we just took this and developed 50 less units on there, all the prices of all the product would have to go up. Land development doesn't really change much in price. The roads are basically in the same locations, and the land prices don't change. It gives us an opportunity to take some of that savings, of being able to do this number of units and attribute it to a certain portion of the product. We are looking at a theme and taking advantage of the opportunity to cluster these together and 11 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 we term it a New England village kind of a theme. And we take that from the architecture and the planning and the trails and the open space and we work that all the way through into the architecture, into the colors and materials and the landscaping and the monuments, and take that just as far through the process as we can so we can create something that's a little bit more special than just a number of sections of townhomes or single family homes. And with that I'd like to talk a little bit about the product themselves. First I'll talk about the cottage homes targeted for empty nesters. In the middle of the site. Here we have, actually the site plan shows one building pad size... With that though we really have a number of different unit types. And we are showing a sample...give you a sense in a larger scale of what we're proposing. As Rick was mentioning the lot sizes. If you equated it to a lot size, our minimum would be like you say, 47 foot wide by about 120 foot deep. You have a number of different varieties of sizes. That's pretty much our minimum. What he's referring to is the townhome...that we would really only have a lot size...but that's a preferred situation for us. It doesn't have to be that way. It certainly could be divided into lots, if that's something that's more desirable. This is again targeted for empty nesters so we're looking at slab on grade. That's what they're looking for. We have developed this...last year to respond to that marketplace. One of the things that was good for us was more variety in product. More of an opportunity to be able to adapt to the different wants and wishes of the different buyers...care of this through a more conventional row of townhomes of 4 units or 6 units, you don't have that kind of flexibility. It allows us to give different elevations and different color schemes. Different things that we wouldn't have available are also. And this terrain, as Rick has mentioned, there's a rolling hills on the site. This allows us, by detaching the product, to be able to kind of move with the site a little bit better than the larger building. We've taken advantage of that by turning it to the street at about a 30 degree angle. What that allows us to do is create more private spaces. So as opposed to being more general spaces for everybody, or very private, or semi private. It allows us to create more private spaces in here, but this is an area that is really dedicated to this unit. And then that's their front door and then their rear door, with the rear back yard...is also very private so as opposed to having them lined up and having zero lot lines...we're able to concentrate those areas into certain criteria. It also allows us to create the most...somewhere between 12 and 15 feet between the buildings. That...next to each other in more of a soldier fashion... This allows us to break up the garage doors and have some side load opportunities and to give a little bit different view as you go down the street. ...which are 3 bedroom units and 2 bedroom. In this location they vary in size from about 1,400 square feet up to about 1,700 square feet. We are proposing to develop a new type of product, a version of this, which is a walkout. To give them a basement so that we can adapt more of the site...so you can have more walkouts. That allows us to spread that square footage and maybe move it up to about 2,500 square feet of finished space in a unit. It also creates more variety as far as the views from the exterior that you get. A lot more undulation as far as the exterior elevation and what not. The price range we're proposing is in the range of $140,000.00 for our 2 bedroom and going up to about $200,000.00. That's been our experience. And since we have first introduced this product, we have found that the buyers are looking for a little bit more diversity on the exteriors and so forth and we are proposing more variety on the exteriors. And I can give you a sample of that. This is some of the type of exteriors that we can say are half graded and we're adding to that. We would have somewhere between 3 to 4 unit types with that. We would have 2 to 3 elevations per unit. And you would have the variety of whether it was a walkout or wasn't a walkout. Whether it was a side loaded garage or a front loading garage. And we have virtually been able to create a scenario where you could get a different, something different to each of these units you know up to 80 units. Some of the images that we've created are, this would be more of the front porch for the 2 bedroom unit and then creating the image of a side entry for the 3 bedroom unit. We are proposing a color palette of five colors, and with that if you add that to the mix of the numbers...and all the different elevation options and you have as much diversity as we possibly can offer. It's trying to be a balance between, or offer the advantages of single family along with the advantages of townhomes. Where you still get the association to maintain the exteriors. We're 12 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 proposing these will be vinyl exteriors with brick accents and the landscaping is maintained and all the exteriors of the buildings and properties are maintained by an association. ...villa product, we have really two product types that we have introduced and I can talk about it briefly here. We have the cluster units which are 12 and 8 unit clusters, which are back to back. Similar to what we have in Mission Hills, if you're familiar with that. And through staffs comments and so forth we have introduced the row townhomes to be able to take advantage of some of the grades...and maybe soften some of the edges and create some more variety. So you really have slab on grade and walkout conditions so we have a number of different building types in this group. Again it's targeted for empty nesters. We have made some, or proposing some differences to what we have offered in Mission Hills. And again trying to kind of take off of that New England village theme so that we can take some of the elements of architecture that we're introducing in the cottage homes and bring it into the product as far as the type of siding type of architecture. We're introducing picket fences and then we would coordinate the colors of the brick and the siding and so forth and make them be a compliment to what we're proposing for the cottage homes. These are all two story and in some cases walkouts. We have two car garages and then some single car garages. Our square footages range from 1,128 square feet to about 1,300 square feet for the villa type, which are back to back and they range from under $100,000.00 to about $120,000.00. And there are differences. We have 2 bedroom units and 2 bedrooms with a loft. The villa townhomes, the more row type townhomes shown here will be larger and they would go from about 1,250 square feet for the smallest unit and go up to about, close to 2,000 square feet. And they would range in price of about $110 to $150,000.00. They also have an association to maintain the property. One thing 1 didn't mention on the cottage homes is typically our experience is that we have .1 to .2 children per unit which is somewhere between 1 child per 10 to 20 units. That hold trues pretty much for our villa homes too. This is something that is a moving target as far as the numbers or percentages. We're looking at that as far as what our averages are with most of the developments that we have in the Twin Cities. Also, from our experience and from our traffic consultant, that these types of buyers, in the cottages average about 4 trips a day. In the villa homes it's about 6 trips a day and that compares to a single family that averages about 10 trips a day. One of the things that we're taking advantage of the theme...try to incorporate some of those ideas into the other portions of the site as far as our entrance monuments. We have the main entrance monuments and secondary entrance monuments shown here. We'd like to work with the City as far as what kind of potential we could do with the open space and kind of the village square. Where that should be located is one issue that's still being discussed and whether it should be centrally located in here, in this portion of the site or whether that should be in addition to the open space here or combine. We're more than willing to work with the City regarding that. Also, as far as what's in those areas. A gazebo might be something that just kind of gives the point of destination. Something for people to kind of have a point of reference, and that's something that we're willing to talk about and work with the City. Some of the, our feelings as far as a compliment to the community as far as how the PUD affects the plan, or how to take advantage of that PUD planning concept, is just the fact that we are connecting to the existing trails. And that can connect through a walkway going across TH 5 to the new park and to the school. Connecting up to the north. Potentially connecting out to the east. To invite and expand the open space. To give this the open space an opportunity for everybody to experience as they're walking through the trail system, along with the creek and bluff and existing tree area. Obviously Rick mentioned that the advantage of the PUD as far as a single family, being able to offer that up there and yet still keep our densities so we can save some of the development costs and put it towards the attached townhomes down to the south. To be able to offer a development that has landscaping that's controlled by an association. This entire area, as far as the cottages and the villas are maintained by an association with an irrigation system. You wouldn't get that in normal developments and that's something that's an advantage here. Architectural review committees, as far as the association to maintain the exterior. You're not going to get purple and orange units in this development. You're going to be able to maintain those color palettes that we agreed to through this process. To create some 13 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 of the variety of views. We can work with the City as far as how we work with the view coming from Highway 5. And with that, as far as views, as kind of a segue into that, Rick has got some sections that he has cut through different portions of the site that can kind of show you how some of those views have been created. Thank you. Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again... We've got three cross sections shown, and the staff can't see them. The yellow one is called AA, the orange one is called BB, and the pink one is called CC. This board I'm going to throw up here as BB and CC. We'll look at BB on top first, which is, it goes from the cottage homes down through the kind of open space areas, through these slab on grade walkouts villa units and down into the creek corridor. Let you get a feel for special relationships. Here's a cottage home. Garage floor, 1002. Walking out at 994. Sliding down through the open space. Not really sliding but there is a long gradual slope down the sidewalk, across the Highlands Boulevard, and then through the large open space, the central open space area. We've got a slope down near the road and then the open space area and slab on grade home. Two story home down, the road was at 984 and we went 1002, 984. Now this unit's down at 972 Y2. When we cross the street we have a walkout down to 963 and then a slope down into the creek corridor. The creek at that point is about 940. So we slope down from 1002 down to 940 on this orange cross section. The pink cross section, across the road, I love that one too because everybody that drives up and down Highlands Boulevard would go by this big open space. And what they'd see, we haven't shown the landscaping that would come back onto that slope because we're not to that stage of the proposal really but the villa unit up on the plateau, up at 975. Highlands Boulevard at 966.5, so about 8 feet lower. Slope down to the pond at 949. That would sit down about 17 feet below the road, and then the slope continues down to the creek, again at 937 or so. So there's a tiering affect of the cross sectional dropping as you go across the site. Mayor Mancino: Did you pick the less dense sections? Rick Sathre: Well you'll see a better picture of cutting through on the yellow one. Good question though. We wanted you to see the special relationship where next to the open space. But now this big monster board, and we're going to use both easels for. Can everyone see it? This end of the board is the top of AA. It starts up in Windmill Run, about Lot 3, Block 3, and I'm not sure who's home that is but . The elevations up there are in the 990's. The house would be about 997. Through the backyard areas you come into our northern single family lots. The ground is a little lower in between our first home which sits about 6 feet lower than the home in Windmill Run. Across the street the home would be about the same elevation but it could walk out back to our ponding site. Central pond that's between the single family and the cottage homes. Across the pond we've got a cottage home that's a walkout in the back. And the highest point of the site is found at this location. Another walkout unit across the street, down toward the, this unit walks out toward the pond. These units walk out towards the spine of open space and then this unit is shown here, and we've gone down from 1003 at the cottage home down to 982, so we've dropped down 20 feet more or less to the villa. And then there's a plateauing or a general flatness through, down to where we cross the road here at 978. Then we drop down across through the pond and out to Arboretum Boulevard and the Highway 5 area. I think what's important about this, number one is you can see the spaces, the special relationship. This cross section is drawn at 1 inch equals 20 feet, both vertically and horizontally. So it's true to life, and the buildings are true to life. These are the Rottlund buildings. And the other thing to recognize I think is that the sight lines from the northern part of the site are blocked by this, the hill form that's in the middle of the property. But not when you drive down the road. I don't know how helpful this will be but we'll take this monster down and put that away unless there's other questions. Highlands Boulevard, another thing that I really am excited about, about the project is, this has been an evolutionary process frankly. The road now, as it sneaks down through the site and you get down to Arboretum Boulevard, there is some roll to the road. You go up and down some 14 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 and from the central open space area, you'll be able to see, as you round that curve in the road, this curve in the road, you get the long view down and across Highway 5 out to all the open space that's south of the highway. Or as you're talking down the sidewalk, now this is the eye height of somebody that's 5 feet tall and they'll be able to look right down the road, over the Highway, over Arboretum Boulevard to the long views. So there's lots of nice features to this site topographically. There's lots of exciting opportunities. Lee, would you put that... This board, nobody will be able to see this little chart so maybe you can focus on it on there. I wanted to talk about density transition. And neighborhood densities. The staff I believe has mentioned that we got, or the 268 units on 50 acres. The overall density is 5.36 units per acre. But within that area, within that site we have different densities in different parts of the site. This chart, both on this map, the Council's got it I believe as well. The single family neighborhood on the north, there's 12.6 acres up there with 32 homesites. 2.54 units per acre, you know right in the middle of the low density guide plan range. Mayor Mancino: Rick, is that gross or net? Rick Sathre: That's gross. That includes the street. That's a gross density. There's about 2 '/z acres of road in that portion of the site. Mayor Mancino: So translate that. Can you calculate quickly? Rick Sathre: Oooh. We'd have about, we'd have 32 units on about 10 acres net. So it'd be about 3.2 1 suppose if you pulled out all the road right -of -way. Cottage home neighborhood, which is mostly private streets, which is in the central portion, in this portion. The cottage home neighborhood area. Again, totally lying within the low density portion of the guiding. It's 48 units on 12.3 acres for a density of 3.9 units per acre. So again it's, we're not pushing the envelope, 1 don't believe, in that, up to 4 units per acre. The villa, with the townhomes, the walkout and the larger buildings, the 8's and 12's, those are clumped together for density purposes. Villa homes of different types are 7.52 units per acre. Again that's a gross number. There's about, well in the upper density range or in the comp plan higher density area there's a little under one acre of roadway in Highlands Boulevard. So what you'll see when you look at those numbers, the 2.54, 3.90 and the 7.52 is this progression from the 2 plus density that's in Windmill Run, gross or net, it's something over 2 units per acre. You see the transitioning as we move away from the single family neighborhood. And I think the other thing that's important to note is that, that where the line between low density and medium density in the guide plan is somewhere in here. The 33 acres and the 17 acres. It's only in this segment of the villa area, right there, that's over that 4 unit per acre number. Okay. And that's because we're density transferring away from the periphery. We're pushing it into the middle so we get over that, the 4 units per acre number in here. So we're in compliance basically everywhere except right there. So doing the PUD allows us to put the density where it makes sense, we think. So the comp plan hopefully would help the City to establish what the maximum density on the site should be, and then we want to use the flexibility of the PUD to push the density internal to the PUD to make the best sense of it. And now I'm going to ask Rick to come up and close. Rick Murray: Thanks for bearing with us. We are pretty proud of our concept. We spent a lot of time working with the staff and with the community and hopefully coming up with something that works for the community and uses the site in an effective and efficient manner. As has been pointed out this evening, we are requesting the land use plan amendment. The amendment is not structured or targeted towards densities as much as it's targeted to be able to use the sites in a manner that allows the community the two principle areas that you focused on in this community. Bluff Creek corridor is being kept intact, just the way it is today and will be kept intact just the way it is today with the exception of 15 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 the pond and the trail that the City will install on the south and west side. Actually I think the trail, from what the Parks people told me, will be off of our property on the west, or southwest corner. Other than that, that Bluff Creek area will be intact. It does provide the City with the access point for the underpass that will allow pedestrians underneath TH 5 over to the city park area to the south. That will be the land that you acquire for the head of that underpass. It will allow a pond sizing of which will hold the storm water capacity from Arboretum Boulevard when Arboretum Boulevard is constructed. And it will give you the right -of -way for the Arboretum Boulevard. It also provides the connections, as everyone's explained, both pedestrian and vehicular, to provide efficient access and use of the land. We're not requesting the land use amendment to accommodate density as we see it. When we designed this concept and designed this plan, we were trying to be sensitive to the land use plan's requirements for densities. That's, from our perspective, been somewhat of a moving target. We adjusted it when we found out that we weren't there from the staff report in January 15'" and in the staff report this evening it sounds like we still might not be there. But our intent is to get a plan that works well on the site. We've been through this. We like the prospects of the marketplace and we think it efficiently and effectively uses the land. We would request that you give this consideration this evening and pass on the concept and the PUD so that we can continue on the process. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Rick. An excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Do any Council members have any questions for the applicant? For Mr. Murray at this time. Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple quick ones if you wouldn't mind. Sometimes my questions get a little, perhaps too involved so I mean if you're not comfortable answering them, feel free. Given the site and give the location, Mr. Whitten referred to land costs and development costs. What currently is the cost of the land and what are you, given the 268 unit configuration, what's your anticipated cost to develop that site? Rick Murray: Just off the top of my head? Councilman Berquist: I suspect you've done the... Rick Murray: The cost of the land is simple, Councilman Berquist. The cost of the land is 2 million dollars. Councilman Berquist: How much? Rick Murray: Two million dollars. Councilman Berquist: So $40,000.00 an acre would be an accurate division? Rick Murray: $40,000.00 an acre. The other part of your question however is a little more difficult. I could certainly get that answer to you. I'd like Mr. Sathre to investigate it a little bit further. We have some rough numbers, but they're typically broken out by different unit styles and I can't remember them off the top of my head. I'm doing three other projects like this. Typically they would be in the range of, oh total development cost would be $15,000.00- $16,000.00, in a broad brush. Councilman Engel: Per acre? Rick Murray: Per unit. That's just, that's a real, I mean I'm quite...a lot of stuff there. 16 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Berquist: Close enough. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Not right now thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I know there are many of you here tonight that would like to address the City Council. I certainly welcome you to do so. Please come to the podium. State your name and address, and should you have any questions, please direct them to me and I will refer them to the proper Councilmember or to staff. Doug Domine: Good evening Mayor Mancino and Councilmembers. If you can just bear with us a moment. We are providing some handouts for each one of the Council members and getting set up for our overhead presentation so if you'd just bear with us a moment I'd appreciate it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Doug Domine: Good evening. My name is Doug Domine and I reside at 2149 Majestic Way, which is in the Royal Oaks subdivision. And my purpose tonight really is to introduce five homeowners in the Royal Oak and Windmill subdivision that represent several of the residents that have some concerns regarding this project. These individuals are going to present, in sequence, a series of brief presentations to highlight these specific issues. Before we begin I'd like to state, we are not opposed to a quality development in the Highlands area, that we're discussing this evening, and we do appreciate the involvement of the developer and his staff and of city government in helping us and being responsive to us through this lengthy process. What we are concerned about, Madam Mayor and Council members, is that Chanhassen should work very closely with our comp plan in conjunction with the Livable Communities Act. We think that's a void in this argument that's been presented this evening. Particularly with regards to issues of compression, density and transition. And our first presenter tonight, I'd like to introduce Jenny Bell from the neighborhood who will cover some of the issues, and we'll move as 1 indicated, very quickly through this. Thank you. Jenny. Virginia Bell: Thank you. Good evening Mayor Mancino and members of the City Council. My name is Virginia Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court, which is in the Windmill Run development. I live on the northern side of that. I urge you tonight, members of the Council and Mayor, to not approve the conceptual plan that has been put in front of you, and I urge that for primarily one reason and that is because it does violate the comprehensive plan. I feel that it violates the comprehensive plan in a significant way and for that reason the Council should not approve the concept. As I look at the comprehensive plan it exists as a statement of our values and our vision. It's a covenant. A land use covenant between the City and it's residents. I think what is being asked here tonight is to approve a concept that involves essentially breaking that covenant between the City and it's residents and I urge you not to do that. I'd like to take a moment and look at some portions of the comprehensive plan because I feel they're central to what we're talking about tonight. This is a statement that's taken out of the comprehensive plan. And it states, Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. I think this is important because it states that the comp plan envisions a diversity of housing but within the context of a community of primarily single family homes and low density. And as you well know and we've talked about it, there's also a definition of low density in the comprehensive plan and I think it's important just to take a minute to focus on it because it is central I think to what we're talking about. I think there are 17 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 four key concepts here in the definition of low density. First of all the predominant type of development within this category is single family detached housing. Secondly, densities are to be calculated on a net, not a gross basis, and we've heard some density calculations in the developer's presentation. Some of those I believe are gross and we need to recalculate those into net densities. The net densities are to be 1.2 to 4 units per acre and there's an average density that's quoted there of 1.7. As you know there's also a medium density category land use which goes up to 8 units per acre, and the comp plan says that that's the category that is reserved for or is to be set aside for townhouses, twin homes and that sort of thing. If we look at the comp plan itself and look at what this area is guided for. The 50 acres under consideration. As you heard in the developers presentation and some of you brought out, the top two - thirds of the proposed development is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density and Cinda, if you could find that map and we can just put that up. Cinda, if you could just point out where the 50 acres that we're talking about again is what's Cinda's pointing out on that map and the top two - thirds of that is low density, guided for low density. If I might borrow your map here. As I think we saw when the developer was making it's presentation, this low density area is everything above a line approximately along this private road here. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Say that again please? Virginia Bell: The low density area is approximately above the private road that we see. As you can see we've mapped it out here. This is the developer's proposal with the comprehensive plan overlaid on it so you can see where the low density line runs through the development. And you can see that a substantial number of the townhouses are above the low density line, as are all of the cottage homes. Now we've gone through and calculated the densities in this area ourselves and we've calculated them on a net density basis. And that's a little small. If I could direct your attention back over here to the developer's map. Our calculations show that the net density of the cottage homes is in the range of something approximating 4.2 to 4.3 per acres. And again we are working with net, trying to work with net density numbers which is what the comprehensive plan calls for. So all of the cottage homes are above the density levels called for in the comprehensive plan. All of the. Obviously the townhomes with densities according to the developer in the range of 7.5. I don't remember exactly what his number was but again 1 think he was using a gross density number so if we use a net density, we're going to be even up higher. Those numbers, those densities of all of these townhomes which are in the low density area, are up close to 8 units per acre. So at the very top, if not above the medium density limits here in the low density housing area. Mayor Mancino: Virginia, did you take into account the open space that's allotted for there? The green area. Virginia Bell: Yes we did. Yes we did. If we look at all of the area in the proposed development that's above the low density line. In other words, all the area that's supposed to be developed low density, other than the single family homes, and we take all of that area and calculate the density, that density is approximately 5.6 units per acre, and again we're trying to calculate that on a net basis. The bottom line is, this is an area that is guided for low density and what is being placed on here is medium density and, when we get to the townhouses down at the bottom, high density. And that is contrary, directly contrary to the comprehensive plan. In addition the comprehensive plan envisions this low density area as being primarily single family housing, and what we see being placed on here is primarily townhouse housing. Cottage homes, set out as a variation of townhomes and the villa townhomes. The proposed development is also I think inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons that I think Mayor Mancino was referring to, or referencing with respect to the PUD ordinance. What is being placed on this land is a multi - family PUD. And if we look at our city ordinances, a multi - family PUD is reserved for land that is 18 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 guided under the comprehensive plan as low density. And Cinda if you could find that section, we have taken part of the ordinance and blown it up for you so that you can see how that reads. This is out of the Chanhassen City Code, Section 20 -508. Generally, single family attached, cluster, zero lot line and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed or designated for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen comprehensive plan. And what these are, are cluster zero lot line dwelling types. Obviously these are zero lot line housing types as well. So these types of units are not supposed to be put on areas that are guided as low density under the comprehensive plan. There are a couple other places in the ordinances where this concept is also expressed. In other words, no multi- family PUD on a low density area. And Cinda I believe it's 2505, if you could find that. The Section about density transfers. This is Section 20 -505, Section C(3) out of the Chanhassen Code. And what it says is density transfer in single family detached areas will be evaluated. And the second sentence says, density transfer eligible for multi- family areas are not permitted to be applied to single family areas. And we just saw how the low density area is designated as the single family area and the medium to high, the multi - family area so there can't, according to the Code, you can't be transferring densities between areas that are low density and areas that are medium to high density. So the plan that we see in front of us is inconsistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and the City's PUD ordinances for at least three very significant reasons. First of all it's putting the medium and high density onto the area guided for low density. And secondly, it is placing on that low density area predominantly multi- family housing, not single family housing. And thirdly, and very importantly, it is using and placing on a low density area a multi - family PUD which the Code sections say are not supposed to be put on a low density area. l want to emphasize that I, and many of the other homeowners in our area, do not object to the diversity of housing concept and recognize that the area at the bottom of the proposed development is guided for medium density and there are going to be some medium density housing down there. So as a concept we are not objecting to this portion. On a conceptual basis. What we object to is the introduction of the medium and high density housing on the low density area. We object to that because when we moved into the area, we moved into a low density area which we understood, and what the cornp plan very clearly provides, was going to be part of a larger, low density neighborhood. By placing multi - family housing and medium and high density in what we understood to be an extension of our neighborhood, you're changing the character of our neighborhood, and you are beginning to overwhelm the single family housing in the low density area with multi - family housing. That changes the character of the neighborhood. It changes what we were buying into when we moved to Chanhassen and were guided by the comprehensive plan. As many of you who were here when we objected, and discussed the previous development that was going to go on this, many of us were told about the comprehensive plan by planning staff. And planning staff discussed the fact that this was going to be low density and single family housing. So most of us moved in with the expectation that this would be low density. I think the residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks relied upon the comprehensive plan and the Council should not be changing that comprehensive plan. In a sense you shouldn't be breaking that covenant with the residents. The land use covenant. I think this has implications, not only for the residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks, but it has implications for our whole community. If we begin to change the comprehensive plan, break that covenant with the residents here, it can be broken anywhere. What purpose is there for a comprehensive plan if it can simply be amended and changed simply because the developer wants to add more units and to make his plan fit. I also think that this is a very visible area. One of the things that we saw in the developer's presentation was the height up here where the cottage homes are. That's a very visible area and this is a very busy intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. What people are going to see as they drive through are those cottage homes, and later you'll see some pictures of what those cottage homes look like in place, and they're row after row of garage. And so what you're going to see as you drive by and look up on that knoll, is that row after row of garage. I don't know if that's the kind of impression that we want to leave as people drive through the city of Chanhassen. I think this is also precedent setting for our community 19 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 because it's a PUD, and because it's one of the first developments along the Bluff Creek corridor with the new Bluff Creek, as I understand it, requirements in place. As a PUD, as 1 read through the PUD ordinance, I understand that the PUD is supposed to be a trade off between the developer and the City. As I look at this, I don't see much of a trade off. There's supposed to be enhanced environmental sensitivity, high quality of development, provisions of public and private space and recreational space. There is some common space up there but for this entire development there is absolutely no recreational area. No totlot, that type of thing, and frankly there is very little open space for what we see here. I don't see an enhanced quality of development as compared to elsewhere in the City of Chanhassen. Nor enhanced environmental sensitivity. The developer said that the PUD was not being used to increase density. I think that's exactly what's going on here. The PUD is being used to increase density. Raise density from, it's supposed to be on a low density area, from a medium all the way up to a high density area at the edge along here. I think what a PUD, this PUD would result in, is a winning situation for the developer. A winning situation for the land speculator, and a losing situation for the residents of Chanhassen, and those of us in Windmill Run and Royal Oaks in particular. I want to add on a, just on a personal note that I think we live in a wonderful community and I think this is a wonderful neighborhood. There's a lot of diversity in our neighborhood. We have a lot of children. We have a lot of empty nesters. We have single family parents. Or excuse me, single parent families. We have a wide variety of people. It's a wonderful, wonderful neighborhood. It's a wonderful place to live. I think if you begin to overwhelm that neighborhood with multi - family housing, I think you're going to destroy the character of that neighborhood. You're going to destroy the feel and the character that that neighborhood has. I don't think you should be doing that. I want to point out one more thing, and that is as we saw on the land use plan, there is medium density planned for next to this. There is also either medium or low density above it. Beyond us is Prince's estate which isn't going to be developed. If you allow this PUD to go through with this level of multi - family housing, we are going to be an island of single family housing in a sea of multi - family housing. That's just not what we bought into and bargained for when we moved to Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Brian Monteith: Good evening. My name is Brian Monteith. I live at 2159 Brinker and I live there with my wife and two children and we, like a lot of the other neighbors that we live adjacent to, moved in with an understanding that there was going to be a different type of development put behind us. And basically what I've been asked to do is to come up here and set the stage for what I think is being proposed here and then put up a couple of numbers as it relates to what is really, set the stage for where we are and help to understand what is being proposed here, just from a numbers perspective. Also add to some other considerations that haven't yet been addressed but I promise to be brief. Basically what we have is today 66% of the land that is under consideration is being guided for low density and 34% is presently guided for medium density. So that is where we are today and then what we have is preliminary approval for this type of zoning since 1995. I'd also like to point out that the land itself is compressed. We understand that based on Bluff Creek and the Arboretum Boulevard that's going in there. We understand that certain sections of the development poses a development challenge because of that. Now what is being proposed here, Cinda the next chart, is 70% of the housing is being proposed as multi - family housing on a piece of land that is presently guided 66% of which for low density housing. What that means in number is 188 of 268 houses is going to be multi - family houses. That is not consistent with what it's presently guided for. And only 12% of the houses being proposed are going to be put in for what it's presently being guided for. So I think that's very, very substantial and very much in conflict from what a lot of good work went into this comprehensive plan. The other reasons that I think are very key here are issues that have been brought up in that medium and high density zoning exists just to the east and I think that's very important consideration here. Why change something that is presently zoned 20 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 for something that is, why change something where it's presently zoned when you have something directly adjacent to that which would be a better fit for a development like this from a density perspective. Although the developers tried and it's been a pleasure working with Mr. Murray to try and accommodate our concerns. I mean when I look at this plan, it's very much a stacked unit development. There's very little green space overall when you consider that there's 268 units and it also, it sets a precedent here that if we start changing things around, as it's already been described, we will set a precedent that will enable that to happen more and more in the future and I don't think that's a precedent to set at this point. We do feel as a development...transitions here. The transitions of being that most of the density is up near the middle of the plan is not acceptable to us as a neighborhood. It's very visible for us and overall I think the word that I'm trying to look for is, this is not just dense, it's very intense and that is something that I think we ought to deal with. The other thing that comes to mind is that this development plan really isolates the Hennessy home. I mean they have not even considered taking that into account as being part of the overall neighborhood and I think the developer could have been a lot more creative in how he worked in the transition of the Hennessy home as an overall part of the plan. Some major concerns that I also have, have to do with the overall traffic. I mean 1 come from the East. There are a lot of trails in the East. If you come here to Minnesota there's trails around but not particularly where we live and on any given summer day you'll have my children and my neighbor's children out in the street riding their bikes and such and that's where kids ought to be but with the way this development is proposed, even though the developer has worked with us to try and move the road a little bit, I think there will be an increase in traffic in our neighborhood and I believe that what that does is it puts my children in danger. And I think that that's something that really makes me angry because my children in danger, I don't think there's any reason to do that. As it relates to base level services and the school impact. I think if you go to Bluff Creek School on a given day, you'll see one thing that's common throughout and that's that the classes are very full. Even if you added you know 10 to 15 kids, which would be consistent with what I think the gentleman from Rottlund said, even though I think the number of children would be significantly more, I think that will put an undue burden on the schools there and I don't see any new construction going on in new schools as we sit here today. So in a nutshell I think this development is much too dense. I'm not against the concept in spirit, other than the fact that it is very, very dense and I think that is the major thrust of our objections as it relates to this plan. Thank you very much. What I'd like to do now is introduce another neighbor of mine, David Jensen who will take you through the density numbers. David Jensen: Hi, my name is David Jensen. I live at 2173 Brinker Street. Our back yard is facing this development. I'm here to walk you through the density numbers, which don't show up really well there but you have them in your packets I believe and I'll do my best. Again, one of the big issues we have is all the density numbers that we hear coming from the developer have been gross numbers. And so looking at the plan and everything, everything that we're seeing pretty much is based on that acreage. So to just go through the numbers here, starting on the left. There's 33 acres zoned for low density currently, or planned for low density and 17 acres gross for medium density. As I understand the City's plans and everything, net acreage is supposed to be gross acreage minus right -of -ways and wetland areas and so forth. Talking with city planners, we had heard at one point that 6.9 acres of this property that's being developed was right -of -way acreage and there's another 6,000 square feet of wetland. So based on our numbers, we came up with, rounding that off to 7 acres. We broke that up as putting 5 acres up in the top 33 acre parcel and 2 acres in the bottom 17 acre parcel. And taking that acreage off of the gross acreage gave us 28 acres net in the low density development, and 15 acres net in the medium density development. Now going by the comprehensive plan, looking at the minimum plan, or zone for the low density, they're talking 1.2 units per acre. Taking the 1.2 and multiplying it by the 28 acres net, that gave us total units there at 33.6 units. In the medium density they're talking the minimum there is 4 units per 21 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 acre. Taking the 4 units per acre, multiplying it by the 15 acres, that gave us 60 units. So going by the comprehensive plan minimum, we came up with 94 acres being developed on those 50 acres. The next column there, we're looking at the comprehensive plan as guided. This essentially is what the comprehensive plan felt would be the averages for the certain developments and that's based on gross acreage. In looking through the plan they have averaged 1.7 units per acre gross for low density, and 4.6 units per acre gross for medium density. Again, taking those and multiplying those by the gross acreage, 1.7 units times 33 gross acres came up with 56 units on the low density. The 4.6 units times the 17 gross acres came up with 78 units on the medium density. Adding those together, we come up with 134 units on the total development. The next set of columns, this next set of numbers is a Livable Communities Act. Livable Communities Act essentially asks the communities to come up with a plan on how they plan on developing the land that they had in their areas and what kind of densities would be put on there. In talking to the city planners, it says in the plan that the City of Chanhassen submitted, they expected 1.8 units per acre to be developed on the low density and the number that we also got for the medium density from Kate was, we'd have to push that all the way up to 8 units per acre just to make up what we've lost in the past at medium density developments. Taking those numbers out and multiplying them by the acreage again, this is again net acreage. We come up with 50 units on the single family, low density acreage and 120 units on the medium density and summing those up is still only 170 units on the entire development, and that's going by the Livable Communities Act. The next column is the comprehensive plan maximum. This is the maximum units that could be developed there according to the comprehensive plan. There they're saying 1.2 to 4 units per acre net on the low density zoned parcel, and taking the 4 units, which was the maximum and multiplying it by the 28 net acres, we come up with the number of 112 units on the low density development. Medium density, the maximum there is supposed to be 8 units per acre times the 15 net acres, comes up with 120 units. Summing those up we have a maximum that could go in there of about 232 units on these 50 acres. And the fourth column or last column there is essentially the developer's calculations. They took the zone numbers, 1.2 to 4 units per acre and they multiplied those by the gross acreage instead of the net acreage. So taking 4 units per acre times the gross acreage, you come up with 132 units. Taking 8 units per acre times the gross acreage again in medium density you end up with 120 units. Adding that together gives you the 268 units. Now we have some charts here also to give you a little visual of what these numbers really look like. Again, the first bar on the left is the comp plan minimum of 94 units per acre, or I mean 94 in the development. The second bar is a comp plan average of 134 units on the development. The third one again, the LCA, the Livable Communities Act goal is 170 units on the development. The fourth bar is the maximum according to the comp plan and that's 232 units on the acreage. And the last bar there is the RDI plan which they have 268 units that they're trying to put in there. We have one more chart and that is looking at the density. Instead of just total number of units, we're looking at density here too. And we added one bar here. This is essentially, the second bar here, the WRRO, that's Windmill Run, Royal Oaks average. So the comp plan minimum has it at 2.2 units per the development. Our current developed area, we're at 2.3 units. The next, the comp plan average, we're at 3.1. Going by the LCA goals puts it up to 4. The comp plan maximum is 5.4 units per acre and again the RDI plan, they have at 6.2 units per acre. In just looking at the chart you can see, they might want to call it a transition but it's a mighty steep transition if you ask me. That's it for may little act here. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to introduce Joan Joyce who has... Mayor Mancino: Is there a back -up? Did somebody check these numbers for you? David Jensen: Check the numbers for me? Mayor Mancino: Just kidding. 22 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street. My back yard abuts this development, proposed development. I would like to take a look at RDI's Plan #3 and go through to explain some of the features that we feel definitely don't measure up to what a good development would be. It does not comply with the PUD ordinances. I would like to point that out. We feel that it is insensitive to the Bluff Creek watershed. We feel that it's going to be a very congested look from Highway 5 and it does require the City to amend it's comprehensive plan. First of all I'd like to start with, do you want to put up the comprehensive plan and show the designation of where that line goes across. I think we've seen this a couple of times before so I'll be brief. But I did want to point out how much of this development is not in sync with the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. To start with, I'd like to look at the villas and discuss the compression of the villas with regard to the Bluff Creek watershed area and the Highland Road. What we're dealing with here is, because of the Bluff Creek and the road, we end up taking a number of 12 plexes and various other combinations and compressing them down into a much smaller area. Therefore creating what is going to appear as a high density area from the Highway 5 corridor. According to Section 20 -505, referring to buffers in the city code, it states that buffer yards are, we believe, by the way I'm jumping ahead of myself but because of the compression, we believe because of the compression here, that this land is intensely used and that's been referred to before. So going back to the city code with regards to land use for intensely used purposes, the code, the ordinance reads, buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with lower density uses. In these areas a 50 foot buffer yard is to be required where the interface occurs along the public street, and a 100 foot buffer yard is required when the interface occurs on internal lot lines, and I don't see any suggestion of buffer areas in the villas. A buffering of the villas at all. Now I'd like to move on to the cottage homes and discuss Section 20 -508. That refers to the lot size. There is a minimum lot size required of 5,000 square feet. RDI's plans are proposed at 3,200 square feet. We also think that there is something to be said about the view of what these cottages are going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. Particularly the southeast corner, as you're coming up. You will see the villas and then behind the villas you will see the cottage homes up on the top of the knoll, and that will be visible. I believe the top of the knoll is 1013 feet. So that is something, I've been out there with my children sledding and you can see for miles around. Perhaps right now we might want to pull up the slides of what these cottage homes look like. We find that these cottage homes are very much a repetitive look. They're bland in color. There isn't a lot of distinction from one cottage home to the other. Basically what one would end up seeing is row after row after row after row of garage and similar structures with regard to roof lines. In addition to the fact that you can see on the upper left picture there appears to be a space between two cottage homes, 4 trees in there. Just complete, I see no green space. I don't see, I can't even imagine what that would look like from the Highway 5 corridor. Now I'd like to go back to the overhead for the, thank you Cinda. I'd like to also look at the single family lots on this area. According to Section 20 -506 in the PUD ordinances, that refers to single family detached houses. There is a minimum lot size requirement of 11,000 square feet with an average lot size being 15,000 square feet. RDI's proposal here has 12 lots that are approximately 9,000 square feet. It also states within the ordinance that there is a minimum width requirement at the building setback of 90 feet, and they have stated that the width of the lot is 70 feet on the northern side of the road that continues from the Windmill Run neighborhood, and also a 65 foot width on the southern side of that road. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about green space for this plan. As you can see, there isn't too much to talk about. Maybe we ought to progress to the next slide. We go back to the overhead of the RDI's plan #3. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, we need to stick with that. One other thing I wanted to mention before I move onto a conceptual plan that we've put together, is I just really, really feel for the neighbors, our neighbors to the south of us, John and Dani Hennessy. They have sat through I don't know how many meetings watching proposals being put forth to the City Council and I'm just amazed that they can sit in their seats and be so pleasantly quiet knowing full well how much they've been ignored. They've lived here for a number of years. They're on a 2 acre lot. I have yet to see a development, or a proposal 23 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 that incorporates them as a single family detached house, and once again I think that's something that we really need to consider here. They've been a member of residents of Chanhassen for quite a number of years from what I understand. I would like to move on now to a conceptual plan of our own that we've put together. We do not claim to be developers and so we've tried to make it simple. I'm sure there are things in here that you would find are not appropriate, but once again we are not developers. We wanted to show you what something would look like reflecting a density that we feel is a little bit more appropriate for this area. And this plan that we're going to show you incorporates a number of things and I'd just briefly like to go over those. Cinda, would you like to put the smaller slide up for that? Okay. This is the plan. It abides by the comprehensive plan. It abides by the Livable Communities Act. Goals. It provides diversity of housing. It offers small cluster of housing types, therefore creating a neighborhood atmosphere. It provides trails, green space and proper transitions, and it's a much better view from the Highway 5 corridor. Now let's put the overhead up that designates low density. High density. Thank you. We looked at this and tried to come up with again something that we thought would follow the comprehensive plan with regard to density. And in a minute we'll take a bigger look, a closer look at this overall conceptual plan that we have, but as you can see, what this does is provide a little bit better scale with regard to a single family neighborhood and how it relates to higher density areas according to the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. This comprehensive plan I think provides a lot of opportunities for transition between housing types. There's a much more gradual transition from one type of housing to another. First of all, I'd like to go over these, what we have here with regards to how many single family homes and how we came up with that configuration. We looked at the Livable Communities Act and we realized that there were some goals set forth that the City wanted to guide by. So we took those figures which are 1.8 for low density and 8 for medium density and we calculated them out according to the net density that we reflected in an earlier chart. The net density for the low, or the net density for the upper portion of the area is 28 acres and we multiplied that by 1.8 to come up with 50 single family detached homes. In the lower portion, the 17 acres to the south. We took off the 2 acres to come up with 15 acres and we multiplied that by 8 which is the maximum allowed in a medium density area and we came up with 120 units. We have included those 120 units to be the cottage homes and the villas. We have grouped those together because under the PUD ordinances those are considered to be of the same housing type. We feel that, actually what I'd like to do is, okay. Cinda, do you have the overhead that states how many cottage. We had 17 cottage homes in this conceptual plan. Okay, so 1 just wanted to clarify that. I wanted to break down the higher density units between villas and cottage homes and I don't happen to have those figures in front of me but I can go through that because I think 1 know them pretty well. I'm sorry for the delay. Okay. You do have these in your packet? Mayor Mancino: What page number are you on? Joan Joyce: It is the page that is directly, the next page after the large conceptual plan. It's called conceptual plan and it starts out with the 49. Right after our conceptual plan. Councilman Engel: There you go. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Joan Joyce: The way this lays out here, we have 49 is what we ended up doing. We put in 49 single family detached homes on 28 lots. 17 cottage homes. Then we put in 8 fourplex villas, which amounts to 32 more units. And those are the villas, right there. Thank you Cinda. Right along the Bluff Creek corridor. We put in sixplex and they're half the larger units. Then we put in 3 eightplex units to come up with 24 units and we put in three 12 -plex units. We believe that this is a much better distribution of density. There's variety in here. There's more green space. Again the lower right hand portion of the 24 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 villas lends itself to future development to the east, which is also designated as medium density. So I think that follows very well and I think it's a very logical thought out plan. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Joyce, can I ask you one question. On your densities, you used for your low density guide the exact same density that your neighborhoods are, the 2.3. Joan Joyce: No, we used the 1.8, which is what the Livable Communities Act goal is guided for, and in doing so we took that density, which is ending up to be a lower density, and pushed it together up to the northern portion to allow for a little bit more green space. Those lots are drawn to be equal to the lots in our, in the Windmill Run development. They are of equal size or smaller but predominantly they follow the PUD plan. Now again I'm not a developer so I can't. Mayor Mancino: I just wanted to know what density, net density you were basing it on. Joan Joyce: We did base it on the Livable Communities Act. Mayor Mancino: So it's a lower net density than in your neighborhood, okay. Joan Joyce: We also thought that it was appropriate to put in a trail system through the area, and that runs north of the cottage homes. Through the temporary pond. We think that's a very logical place. We also put in four areas of common space throughout the development and those again provides a little bit of buffer between the housing types. We put in two cul -de -sacs in the single family detached housing area up to the north. And we put in three cul -de -sacs being smaller, more like turn around cul -de -sacs for the cottage homes. And then we put a center island down in the middle there. Again, I think all of this, or they're small aesthetic features that contribute to a higher quality plan for this area. Another thing that we wanted to do, we think again it makes sense, is to incorporate the Hennessy property and so we changed several of those to single family lots and then again there's the possibility of them to turn their driveways so that it comes off the cul -de -sac. And one thing we did not do in this plan was we did not alter the roads. We left them where they are. Although there are concerns with residents in our neighborhood with regard to that road going through, that is a concern of ours and we would like to look at that further down the line. Right now our biggest concern was to, our biggest effort here, we wanted to show you some idea of what a more appropriate density would be in that area. Are there any questions at all? Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Councilmembers? Thank you, none. Joan Joyce: Thank you. Now Kevin Joyce would like to come up and say a few things. Kevin Joyce: And just a few things. Very quickly. Kevin Joyce, 2043 Brinker Street. My job is to summarize our presentation, which is actually a very easy chore to do because I think it was very well organized by our group. However I'll admit that I'm a little worried about some of my fellow neighbors, particularly after this weekend. When we were putting together this presentation Friday I overhead my wife and other neighbors citing by memory various City Code sections to be included in our presentation so I think some of my fellow presenters know more about the Chanhassen City Code than should be considered mentally healthy for the normal person at this point. I think they did a great job. I commend all of them. Basically what I'd like to do is distill this down into two fundamental issues. And the first issue is the economics or the price of the subject property and the second issue is the goals our city has committed for diversity in housing. It boils down to a very simple equation. The price of the property. The higher the price, the more density is necessary to achieve diverse types of housing. With that said 25 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 this project is requesting the following compromises in order for the project to go forward. It's basically asking the neighbors to compromise their expectations of 2/3 of the property to the south of us being a continuation of our neighborhood as presented to them by the City when they invested in their homes. They're certainly asking you to compromise on the comprehensive plan to inflate the densities to allow for this project. It's asking to compromise the Highway 5 corridor study, which I know some Councilmembers are intimately familiar with. I think you all had higher expectations than some of these 12- plexes, very similar to the Dell Road, Highway 5 thing that are suggested in this plan. We're also compromising the PUD ordinance, which Jenny covered. The plan certainly addresses housing diversity. But in practicality compromises the other seven aspects of the PUD ordinance which gives benefit to the City of Chanhassen. So there's a lot of compromises from our neighborhood. A lot of compromises asked for the City. What have we got on the other side of the equation? Certainly the single family aspect of the plan is a feature that I think our group is very happy with, and it helps move this project towards something. The change in the road connection from the original plan also shows that the developer's listening to our concerns, and that's important. But the density remains unchanged from the original plan. There's 268 units, we've discussed. 188 we consider high density, which actually are high density. I think there's a telling point. 268 units are probably the benchmark on whether this project is fiscally feasible for RDI. It goes back to the basic equation. We've got all sorts of compromises over here to wedge this density into this plot of land. What about the cost of the property? What about the seller? Is the City willing to request all these compromises. The zoning contortions, the PUD interpretations, so the seller gets a premium price he's asking for this site? Now no one is here faulting the owner in getting the most money he can for his property. However we do fault, find fault rather in asking us to compromise our neighborhood with artificially high densities. Also asking the City to amend it's land use plan so the seller gets his price. The idea of this PUD I think is intriguing, but the concept with the related density levels just doesn't work. And considering all the related factors, particularly the economic factor, I don't think it fits here. As we saw, there are other parcels of land in Chanhassen. The land right adjacent to us that was shown to the east, that's guided for this kind of project, could accommodate this project, then it would certainly fit in there. So in closing, I think we like certain aspects of this project. I think we're a group that's reasonable. We like to work with developers. You know in good faith. But personally my concern, what I think the neighborhood is suggesting here is the density over shadows all the other good aspects of this project. We just can't get away from where the high density is in the guided portions of the low density. So unless we see something basically radically different or certainly a lot lower densities, I would ask that you turn down this request. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council? Rick. Oh, go ahead John. John Hennessy: Good evening Mayor, Councilmen. My name is John Hennessy. My wife Dani and I live at 7305 Galpin Boulevard. We wrote a letter to the Council and I would like to summarize our main points for the record. The property in question is guided by the land use plan for certain densities. We do not feel that the circumstances are such that either the benefit to the City is so outstanding or that the quality of the project is so innovative and exciting that there's enough compelling reasons to amend the comprehensive plan. The only example I can think of where the City has amended the comp plan is for Villages on the Pond. And that project meets both the City benefit and the excitement innovation criteria, in our opinion. We are not against a PUD or two PUD's for this property as long as all of the guidelines are adhered to. In our case the issue of sensitivity of transition is a major concern. Our two story detached home will not blend at all with zero lot line detached single level cottage townhouses. Homes and lots of a similar nature to the ones in Windmill Run, the neighborhood to the north, would be more appropriate adjoining our property and in keeping with the requirements for a PUD sensitive 26 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 transition. We have lived in our home on Galpin for 15 years and I would have to say we're pretty darn happy right where we are. We would ask the Council not to make us the island in the sea of density, but a part of the neighborhood that looks like it belongs there. Lastly we'd ask that you give a little extra consideration to the area along the Highway 5 corridor. This is the gateway to Chanhassen and any development visible from the highway should reflect on the pride we have in our city. Thank you. Rick Murray: I have several comments this evening. I'll only respond probably to two of them. First of all, we learned about the net density calculations with the staff report and then some further information later this afternoon. The amount of right -of -way and wetlands on the site is 4.42 acres total. Not the 7 as reflected in the charts that you're looking at. It does have a significant impact on the 232 units on that chart. It would allow approximately 245 units on a net density basis. It's always been our plan to meet your comprehensive plan. If you'll check staff reports and discussions that we've had with staff, 268 units weren't our magic number. We responded to that number and staff with recommendation. We think the 268 units fit well on the site. We think it provides a level of opportunity of housing, which are life cycle housing in Chanhassen and we can provide that on this site. We do have to accommodate the costs aspects on our subdivision and our project. If the focus, and it seems to have been this evening, is on density and the net is the issue, we'll adhere to that. It is going to have an impact on the affordability of our housing. Unfortunately in this world it's very seldom that you get everything that you are after in one particular parcel. We wanted to provide a substantial amount of this property as affordable housing. Provide that kind of opportunity in Chanhassen because in Chanhassen there is a gap. Predominantly single family houses. We saw that on the screen tonight. We have predominantly single family houses in our housing stock in this community. We have had ever since I started developing here. We need to focus a little bit on getting some diversity in opportunities which this community has done in the last couple of years and I see it transitioning it towards and I applaud that effort because there are some communities in the metropolitan area that aren't making that kind of step forward. And that's all I'll say about that. The next issue, I want to bring back our cross section because the Highway 5 corridor has been mentioned a couple times this evening. And from Highway 5, there are going to be two units. Two buildings. These two and possibly part of that one that you will see from Highway 5. The rest of it, because of the terrain differential, will be hidden. Granted part of them will be hidden by those first two buildings. But when you're driving down... you're driving down Highway 5 and you're looking across...looking backup into the site, you're going to see the end of that building... Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry Rick, are we traveling west to east or east to west? Where are we looking from? Oh I see. Rick Murray: Okay, let's travel from east to west. You're looking back up into the site. Councilman Engel: Right to left on your long map is bottom to top on your yellow line? Rick Murray: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Say that one more time. Rick Murray: From, I was talking about, there's a visual aspect right here on Highway 5 looking back into the site. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I was just trying to figure out where the pond was. Rick Murray: As you travel Highway 5 you're going to get... 27 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: Where the pink line intersects the yellow line. Rick Murray: ...changes the point of view or image as you travel the highway. Looking this way, at these two units, it pretty much shelters everything because it is such a plateau that's behind it and it's above, well above the level of the highway. As you're traveling west to east, you're looking back across that expanse which covers the creek, and back through this way. You'll see predominantly the end of the buildings... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason has a question. • Councilman Mason: Rick, what about is the, what's the difference in elevation between Highway 5 and that first home, give or take? Rick Murray: 950 or 31 feet. Councilman Mason: Okay. Rick Murray: It's 31 feet higher... Councilman Mason: Right, understood. Right, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Murray from Councilmembers? Thank you. Anyone else? That's it for tonight? Councilman Mason: It's only been 2 hours. Mayor Mancino: I'll bring that back to Council. Yeah, Mr. Hennessy. John Hennessy: I've driven this road for quite a few years and as I come...I can see the homes up in Windmill Run quite vividly. All of this will be visible from Highway 5... Mayor Mancino: I know that too. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? This is it. Okay, seeing none. Let me bring this back to Council. First before we start with comments, do any Councilmembers have any questions of staff? Mr. Murray. Any calculations? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Bob and Kate, are you ready? If you took the first cul -de -sac as you come in, adjacent to the Hennessy's there. Okay. And shorten that cul -de -sac and put four single family lots around it, okay. Reducing the density there from 6 units to 4 units. And if I'm counting everything right beyond that, where the line is on the comprehensive plan, basically where this proposal sits is within 2 to 3 units of meeting the net density requirements on the north portion. Kate Aanenson: No. We still shifted some of the villas are still villas in some of that area, which is making it higher. Councilman Senn: Well the villas are but I'm just saying the overall density of the net density of the 33 acres is 124 units, right? Mayor Mancino: No, 144. At 4.83 units per acre. The northerly 33 acres. 28 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: ...what you're looking at, the chart that they put up showing the low density... Councilman Senn: No, what I'm saying is if you take the 33 acres and decide on a net density acreage of around 31 acres times 4 units, that's 124 units, right? Okay. So effectively, under the comp plan, there'd be an allowance of about 124 units on the 33 acres. Mayor Mancino: On the 31? Councilman Senn: That's what I'm asking, okay. Okay, so basically, give or take a unit or two. Mayor Mancino: How'd you get to 31? How you'd get to 31? Councilman Senn: I'm using net. I'm using 33 to 31 acres. Took 2 acres out and 31 times 4, okay? Mayor Mancino: But is 2 acres correct? Yeah, that's what. Rick Sathre: Net's essentially 3.2 acres. Councilman Senn: So out of the 33 acres? Not the 17 now? Rick Sathre: No. There's 3.2 acres in the northern 33... Mayor Mancino: But what about wetlands or retention ponds? Councilman Senn: So then you're roughly at 30 acres? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Senn: So roughly 120 units, okay? Okay. And if you take the 120 units, I mean with that changeover by the Hennessy's, it seems to me you're within a half a dozen units at best of meeting the coverage requirements on the north 33 acres. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, you'd have to take out 24 units because right now those 33 acres contain 144 units. 32 single family, 48 cottages, 16 single loaded townhouses, and 48 villas. The northern 33 and that's on page 4 of the staff report. So to get it down to 120, you'd need to delete 24 units. According to staff report. Is that correct? Okay. It's at the top, paragraph on page 4. Because I've highlighted it too. Councilman Senn: So you've got 20 units. Boy, then I'm still confused because I'm not seeing that. I mean you've got 48 single family units, right? Rick Murray: 48 cottages. Mayor Mancino: 32 single family. Bob Generous: And then 48 cottages, 32 row townhouses and. Mayor Mancino: 48 villas. 29 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Bob Generous: 16 row townhouses and 48 villa units. On the northern 33 acres right now. For a total of 144 units. Mayor Mancino: With a net density of 4.83. Kate Aanenson: So you were figuring 30 at 4 units an acre, that's 120 so they've got to make up the 24 units. Councilman Senn: So 24 units off. Of the north portion. Okay. And the south portion, what's the differential there? Mayor Mancino: The south portion, the net density is 8.4. We're very, very close to the net medium density of the comprehensive plan. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So that does follow, so the concern obviously is for the northern. Kate Aanenson: Maybe up to 5 units on the south or something like that. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, do you want me to. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean if somebody else has a question, go ahead. I'm just trying to. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else that has a question at this point? Otherwise I'll start asking for comments. Is there any Councilmember that would like to start with their comments? Councilman Mason: Sure. Why not? I'll even keep it fairly brief. That I'm aware of, the comp plan has been amended four times, I'd say in the last 3 years. Less than that, 2 years. Autumn Ridge, Villages on the Pond, the Highway 5 corridor study and the Bluff Creek study. So it's not that it's never done. It does happen. Something I wrote down here, as the needs of the community change, so plans get amended. So I don't, and incidentally I'm not sure the comp plan should be amended right now but I just want everybody to know that it has been done and certainly as a government body sees fit, the option is there to do that. I basically am in agreement with what's being said by just about everybody tonight. I take a little exception to part of the report that you folks did about the quote, about single family. And yes, we are primarily a low density community. I don't think we can ignore the changing times and the different and the diverse peoples that want to move into these communities. We cannot ignore that. And we have to deal with it and one way to make a community more diverse, to make a community more affordable, is clearly to play around with density issues. I think you folks know that. That can't be anything new. So I'm a little concerned about that. It seems to me the north end of this plan we're fairly close. I share Mr. Hennessy's concerns about the homes next to his area. Councilman Senn was poking around with that cul -de -sac and the plan was similar with what you folks had with single family homes. That certainly looks a whole lot better to me than what's there now. I think with the, having said that the comp plan's been amended four times in the last couple of years, I know the whole comp plan is up for review, when Kate or Bob? Kate Aanenson: We're doing it this year. 30 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Mason: Yeah, doing it this year. This may not be the most prudent time to amend that plan right now. Having said that, I suspect that the comp plan wouldn't change a whole lot for this area anyway. As I think we're close here, I think as I mentioned to the neighbors yesterday, I'm not as concerned in that area about density as they are. I think with the, particularly if that one cul -de -sac gets changed into four homes instead of the six there, there's quite a buffer of single family homes. I've got to believe with some maneuvering around, and perhaps even increasing the densities some on the southern end of this, we've got a workable plan. Conceptually my view, and I'm certainly only speaking for myself right now, is the concept is doable. I'm not convinced that the comp plan should be amended right now. And I'll let it go at that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I don't know if I can be brief but I'll sure try. I moved here 5 years ago and one of the, in fact the only question I can remember asking my realtor at the time was, what's that berm running across the back of that open space going to be and I was in Chanhassen Hills Estates, I believe is what that neighborhood's called, and the guy said that's going to be the proposed Highway 212. But don't worry about it, it's been on the books for 20 years. For most people your house is probably going to be your biggest investment. For most people. So you probably take a little extra care, especially if it's your first home you're building, and I just said why don't we go over the hill and look at those homes. You end up paying a lot more for the land and the house but I didn't have to deal with that every night wondering when they were going to come back and prove me a bad gambler so I didn't buy there. And I did it because I was basing my decision on what the City was telling me, and the County was telling me they were going to do with that land. So if they had come back just last year when the debate was going on about where they're going to put 212, or if they're going to put 212 somewhere and they decided well, we decided we're going to put it north now just by your house. I would have had a little problem with that because I built and paid more based on what they told me. I had an expectation. So I think from that standpoint I totally understand the neighbors in Windmill Run having a problem with the zoning being changed from where it was when they planned to build there. If they had known it, I would bet there are several that probably would have just looked elsewhere in Chanhassen. There was a lot of places to look. For me as well as anybody else. And you make a change or else you make a bet. It's up to you. With that said Mr. Murray, I believe in Wild West capitalism. You make as much money as you can with your assets. That land's your asset. By my calculations, you get time to run your numbers up here. My mind's not as sharp as prior to having my children but doing the math by hand and Steve's dime store calculator, you're going to have about six and a quarter million invested in that land. That's using the $85,000.00 per acre development cost, which comes from $15,000.00 a unit, that you figured it would take to develop it. Divide it by 50 units times 268, or divide that 50 acres times 268 units. You've got $40,000.00 an acre in your acquisition cost. Add that up, it comes to about 6 and a quarter million. Using the same numbers for your 268 units broken into 32 single family, 48 cottages, and 188 villa units, with the average price for the range shown in the staff report, you can turn about $32 V2 million in total sales revenue, give or take a million. All right. Now the neighbors numbers bring it down to 170 units and applying the same per unit costs, roughly, brings about $23 million in revenue on the same property. I'm not a developer either. Just playing with the numbers. I'm sure you can correct me here. I know there's some hidden costs and there's some carrying costs on land. I'm well aware of that. But I think there's room to move here. Hold on, let me finish then go ahead. They're not saying no development. They came up with a plan I think, I don't mind it either but as a, if I faced with a decision today, and I've got to say we either change the zoning or we don't, if there's neighbors against it, based on the fact that it was zoned something else when they built, then I'm against changing the plan. But I believe in self determination as well. If you can come to an agreement with the neighbors and I don't see four rows of neighbors there but maybe only one row. I can be pragmatic about it and I can say the neighborhood 31 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 wants the change and they like that development. I can go for it under those circumstances. And I know my math's not perfect but you've got to do something when you're up here listening for 2 hours. Mayor Mancino: Mr. Murray, wait until we're all, I'm sorry. Wait until we're done. Thank you. Councilman Engel: That's all I can think of. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead and keep going. I'm still figuring. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel: Use Steve's calculator. Councilman Senn: I don't have one, that's why it's taking me longer. Councilman Berquist: It's Don's. Do you want to borrow it? Councilman Senn: Not from what Engel says. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: As with everything else, I scribble furiously and try to make sense of it later. There's a number of things that I really like about this and I, while people were talking I told Nancy this reminds me of the Super Bowl because both teams have done a tremendous job of preparation. They've both done a tremendous job of presentation. 1 don't look at it as a competition. I hope that there will never be in this forum a winner take all sort of result but it's really been wonderful to watch. So I applaud you, Rick and your team as the developer and I applaud you Kevin, and your team as the neighbors. It's been great. The comp plan was finished in, it's never finished. The comp plan was implemented in 1991 and to my way of looking at it, unless there is a very compelling reason to amend it, I'm not willing to amend it on the strength of one Council meeting and one presentation by a developer or a neighborhood. When Mr. Murray first called me, and I think we traded phone calls a couple of times and we finally touched base one day, and he walked me through this verbally over the telephone and told me from a conceptual point of view what it was that they were attempting to achieve. I liked it. I liked the aspect of transitioning into higher densities as we moved south in the project. I liked the idea of mix of housing styles. I liked the idea of an interconnecting road with the Windmill Run area, but an interconnecting road that provided a minimum amount of likelihood of shortcutting and traffic increase. I felt from a public safety point of view, from a school bus cost point of view, from a snowplowing point of view and from all the other points of view that you look at when you're talking about building infrastructure, I thought that an interconnecting roadway was something that I would like to see done, but I'd also like to minimize the effect on the existing neighborhood, and I believe that that plan moves in that direction. Let's see here. Regarding the right -of -way, to give them some specifics. Regarding the right -of -way dedication, and unless I missed my guess, and I very possibly do, the right -of -way dedication that would take place for the southern alignment of Arboretum Boulevard would take place as a result of development regardless. I mean it's not, if the property were to become developed, were to be developed, we as a city have the right, if you will, to say that property is there. We've chosen this alignment for our road and we'd like it deeded over. So I don't look at that necessarily as a give and take sort of a situation. I'm concerned about the Hennessy's. While John was up here talking I wanted to 32 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 interject a little bit of humor and say, I'll let him eat pizza but I thought that probably wasn't the appropriate time and I'm not sure this was. Councilman Mason: You mean very little humor. Councilman Berquist: Very little humor. Very little humor. The Virginia Bell talked about comprehensive plans being covenants. And I think that that's a very appropriate description. I think a comprehensive plan is a covenant. But it cannot be cast in stone or in concrete. It has to be something that we believe in is right but it also has to be used as an evolutionary sort of a device that allows us to make changes and benefits the entire community. Frankly I like the direction that this development is headed in, but as it currently stands I do not have a good feeling for the benefit to the entire community. I don't know that I could honestly feel in my heart that it does that. We also have other medium density to the east. If we allow it to happen, the entire Highway 5 corridor to the northern side could become a picket fence if you will, of medium density housing and I really would rather that didn't happen. Does it make sense to approve a land use amendment without defining the acceptability of a particular or without defining project acceptability? I'm not certain that it does. The fear that I have is that if in fact this is not blessed, that you'll say well we couldn't make it work and you'll go away. Honestly, the numbers that I ran and that Mark ran while people were talking, support a land cost significant, well. 1 don't think I should get into that. I think I'm done. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead, throw a big number out. Mayor Mancino: Unless you want me to go ahead and you can end up. Councilman Senn: I don't care. I can probably do it at this point. I don't know, I guess I'm more torn. I mean I appreciate really where the neighbors are coming from in terms of what you'd like to see. In evaluating the developer's plan though I like the plan. I like the concept. Okay. I'm not going to say it doesn't need tweaking, because it does. I think it needs some tweaking around Hennessy's there and I think it needs a little more tweaking in the north, which I'm going to say at least in my mind can let it tweak in the south a little bit too. The reason is, my fear in this whole thing is, if we draw lines and just kind of say everything's got to happen according to this line, what you're going to get is somebody coming back with a plan that everything north of that line is going to meet 4 units per acre, which I don't think if what you want to see either. But I'll tell you one thing you're not going to get. You're not going to get all single family detached homes north of that line. And I think that's what you'd like to see, but it's not economically feasible. So effectively, unless you take this tweak it and work with it to get it where you need to get it, my fear is what you're going to see ultimately come back is something that meets this magical 4 units per acre north of that line. And then you're also going to get something coming back south of that line that's going to meet that magical number of 8 units per acre, which we would probably bend on for affordable housing, as we have in the past. In fact our ordinances allow us to even bend further on that as a result of that. And to me to draw that kind of a line and take that kind of approach is not the right way to deal with this piece of ground. I think this concept is the way to deal with this piece of ground where you start up by the neighborhood with the single family homes and increase the densities as you move to the south. I think what's got to happen from there though is the tweaking needs to be done and we need to get the units more in line with what we need from a net density standpoint to stay within our ordinance requirements and I don't think that's out of the realm here and I don't think that's a reason to trash this plan so to speak. You know the developer's got to decide whether, you know given that's economically feasible or not. That's a decision only the developer can 33 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 make for himself. But I don't want, I mean 1 don't want to see people leave here tonight kind of with a yeah or nay on a concept approval that's going to lead everybody to believe that oh well, we're going to get all single family houses above the north line and we're going to get high density below and we're just going to keep standing pat on our position until we achieve that. I don't think that's going to happen. And if it does happen, I think well no I'm certain, that won't happen. I think what may happen is a worse situation where you're going to get this magic line, 4 units here and 8 units there. And I think again, that would just be a real kind of travesty for this piece of ground. Steve, I don't share you comments at all as it relates to Arboretum Boulevard. We've never dealt on that basis and I don't think we should start dealing on it now. They're already furnishing quite a bit on the project so I don't think we should be in the business of requiring people to also furnish major roadways going through their property with no compensation for takings. That why we created condemnation and takings in the first place. To be fair to both sides. Mayor Mancino: Except for that isn't true on the north side of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: Huh? Mayor Mancino: On the north side of Highway 5, the frontage roads. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah, just relating to the frontage roads basically. So you know I guess from my standpoint, I mean I would like to provide the direction from nobody's standpoint other than mine that this concept's fine. The concept just needs to keep being tweaked and t think we know what the issues are now as it relates to net density, which if I'ni hearing the developer correctly, I don't think they even understood until they walked in here tonight. And out of all fairness that needs to kind of go to the next step now and I think see where this can go and conceptually again I think this is really on the right track. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll make my comments. I have attended various meetings on this proposal, including the Planning Commission session, the Park and Rec Commission meeting. I've spoken with the developer Mr. Murray and have met with various neighbors and have also read your letters. I have visited the Rottlund cottage home development in Plymouth and I'm very aware of their Mission Hills development. You might say I've had some time to process this proposal. After listening to your presentations and studying our comprehensive plan and city ordinances this past week and weekend, I'm very clear about answering the core question, whether we should say yes to request for land use plan amendment from residential low density to residential medium density for the northern 33 acres. Our comprehensive plan is what guides this community. We spent hundreds of hours creating this plan. Making sure that it reflects our community's values. It is who we are and it guides where we are going. While studying it this weekend, and wondering to myself whether a 1991 document is still relevant and valid today, I reviewed a section called housing availability, under the Housing Section of the plan. Policy number 8 and let me read it. This is on page, excuse me, this is on page 22. Policy number 8. The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. We thought about this in 1991. Chanhassen is committed to providing housing alternatives, which I am very much so. The future land use plan is evidence of this commitment. Land designated for future single family units, 1990 through the year 2000, will accommodate approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate approximately 1,500 units. We've already planned for alternative housing. It's in our comprehensive plan. It is in our land use plan. That's why we have medium, zoning for medium density housing. That's why we have high density housing. I think that our comprehensive plan has looked ahead for the land that's in the MUSA line and that we are very well planned. So for me, I would like to, or I would not be in favor of amending 34 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 our comprehensive plan to call for medium density in the northern 33 acres. I am certainly fine with the concept plan in the southern 17 acres. But I would like to see the northern 33 acres stay within the low density or low density PUD residential housing. Is there a motion? I think we've done good planning. I think we've put it out there. We have agreement from the community on it and if we do want to change it, we need to go back and decide this as a community and it needs to be done community wide. Right now the Planning Commission in 1997 will be reviewing our PUD ordinance to decide whether that needs to be revised, and hopefully residents will come out and we'll have due process so that they can make comments about our PUD ordinance. And that will also happen for our comprehensive plan changes that we'll be making this year. Otherwise this is it. Don Ashworth: Mayor? I think Roger Knutson has two points that he would like you to consider. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: A couple of possibilities you may want to consider. Well actually there are three. First, you can obviously approve it as is or with conditions. Second, you could table, you have several, even zeroing in on one issue essentially. There are several issues here. Planned unit development, land use plan amendments and what not. You could table this entire matter. Send it back to the developer to adjust what you've said here tonight and bring something else back. Or if you decide to turn it down, then I would recommend that you direct our office, in conjunction with the staff, to prepare Findings consistent with denial and bring that back to you. Not actually deny it tonight but direct us to prepare Findings consistent with denial and then bring that back. Those are the three options as 1 see it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: I'll move number two. Mayor Mancino: Ah Rick, that's what I was going to ask you. Have you heard enough comments from us tonight? Councilman Senn: Hey Rick, you don't have to answer that. Mayor Mancino: To give you concrete direction. Rick Murray: I absolutely have direction Madam Mayor. And I appreciate working with the neighbors. I think the evolution of this plan has brought it from totally unacceptable to places where gee, there are some light at the end of the tunnel here and hopefully that's where we're going. I appreciate Roger's comment because I'm trying to get out of my seat. Let's see if there's some time, give us some time to work on this a little bit. Our goal here is to get something that works for the whole community and the neighbors and the project. Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist's numbers, we think you forgot the cost of the construction of the home. You've got my land development costs pretty close and I'm sitting here scratching my head and saying, you know $28 million bucks. That's about right. What's wrong here? Then the gentleman from Rottlund taps me on the shoulder and says, we haven't built our units yet Rick so. Councilman Engel: I agree. I agree with that. Like I said, I've got those kids now. Do you get money back when you sell those homes though? Rick Murray: No. 35 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Can we, I'd like to take a minute and make sure that you did hear direction and staff did too so that we're very clear about what we want to see. Rick Murray: I'm very clear about what you want to see. Mayor Mancino: Oh well then, would you let me know what it is you heard us say. Rick Murray: I heard the comments from the Council to be, that you would rather see me stay within the land use guide plan as it exists today without amending it. We will take a very hard look at trying to do that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: I think Councilman Senn was attempting to get there but there's some land uses here that you might not end up with this product. I don't know if it's compatible with your, I mean that's the problem that bothers me because the market that we're attempting to get to might not be compatible with those land uses. For instance the cottage homes may disappear. We might end up with twins. We might end up with the same product that the neighbors have backing up to them in their present preliminary plat. Because that's what's acceptable in this particular zoning district. That's the kind of adjustments that we'll have to look into. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. That you're going to be looking at. Rick Murray: Sure. We attempted to do that transition and it's just not working out the way we were attempting to do it so. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: My comment on the, my sense of what I'm hearing from Council right now is that, I don't, I'll only speak for myself. I don't want to give up affordable housing on this. That's my feeling, and I said at this time I'm not convinced a comp plan change is necessary. Mayor Mancino: But the affordable housing comes in, if I'm not mistaken, in those lower 17 acres is really where the affordable housing... Rick Murray: It's all part of the whole. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But that's where you're picking up most of the $80 to $120,000.00. Rick Murray: Depending on where they're ending up. Councilman Mason: I mean I would like to see this tweaked. I would like to see this worked out. I'm hoping and assuming that this will get tabled tonight for that to happen, but I have some other concerns. My only concern is not just the comp plan here. Mayor Mancino: Okay. 36 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: I want to add one thing Nancy. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: He's correct. I don't have the cost of the homes in those numbers. I just wanted you guys to be aware of that. Who cares? It can't be much. Councilman Senn: That's the cheapest part of developing in Chanhassen you know. Mayor Mancino: Any other changes that you listened to? Rick Murray: There's a great concern for Mr. Hennessy's property. We had taken a look at doing two things with that piece of property, one of which is surrounding it with single family, like a couple of the gentlemen were suggesting. And another was trying to incorporate it into our project, or part of our project. With, quite frankly the extension of this line, the 964 onto his property, doesn't leave me anything to develop so it's really not a possibility. There would be three cluster homes on his site. It's better off at this point in time, from what I can see, being a single family home on a 2 acre site with a nice back yard. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: To make this a cul -de -sac, single family homes, they're going to be coming around the corner with single family homes so their building area is surrounded, it's not a huge hassle. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: There was concern with open space, and we have addressed that. it will probably be addressed in somehow getting from 268 down to 200 and what, do we know what our number is yet? 241? 245? 247? Mayor Mancino: 240 to 245. Rick Murray: Wherever that number is in that adjustment, I'm sure we'll find some space for open space. 1 still would like to keep the open space central, and it will probably stay central. I'd like to keep it in conjunction with our community trail that's coming off of Highlands Boulevard as opposed to spreading it out and putting a little bit down. I'd like to keep it together so it stays as large as it can. Let's see. Did I miss any yet? Mayor Mancino: I think that there was some consensus on the lower medium density to see the density rise in that density. We would be open to that. In the lower 17. Little higher. Rick Murray: To use that area for our transfers as opposed to letting it creep above? In some aspects Mr. Senn's comment, I agree with Mr. Senn's comment. To have a straight line across there with the way the site lays, might not be appropriate. This line comes across here somewhere like this. Some of this should stay exactly the way it is and you saw that in the neighbor's plans as well as ours. Some of this maybe we could...and consequently drop some units from that side of the site. We'll attempt to do that. 37 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that we would be open not to see a hard, fast line. Give a little bit in topography there. Rick Murray: What I would like very much to see is the ability to use some fashion of the attached. Those started out as twinhomes. Now they're detached twins because it's a lifestyle that we were trying to approach. I'd like to see some fashion of that incorporated in this plan. Or the ability to do the. Mayor Mancino: The detached single. Rick Murray: To do the detached townhomes or the cottage homes. Mayor Mancino: Oh, the cottage homes, yes. Rick Murray: The problem with your ordinance as it's written now Madam Mayor is, that's not an acceptable use. Kate Aanenson: You have to change the land use to accommodate that. That's how we got to this point. Rick Murray: That's how we kind of arrived here. If that was the only change, and we limited that change to include this kind of, because those units are only 3.9, 4.1. I'm getting my numbers gross and net. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I can't believe it. Rick Murray: Whatever that number is, they're really close. And it's the lifestyle that I'd like to offer on this site because it's going to be very, very attractive. It's going to have the walkouts on the one side. And slab homes on the other. A great variety and diversity. Mayor Mancino: I understand. Rick Murray: If that could be incorporated somehow in our direction, it would help us and our configuration of the site plan. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: You know Rick, I think you heard Mike leave the door open. You know again I'm going to say I would strongly support a guide plan amendment to transition that property versus a like across it that's going to say 4 units an acre and 8 here. The other three have to speak for themselves but I think that's the way this property has to be developed. I think what you've got to do is just tweak your densities. Rick Murray: I agree. Councilman Senn: Load the south more. Rick Murray: I totally understand Mark and I heard the comments. I've been doing this for 20 years and I always count so. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. 38 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Mason: If one does amend the comp plan, I assume that we make the amendment very specific to that certain situation, i.e. it would not be amended because of density but it would be amended because of housing style. Councilman Engel: Can we just amend that as part of a PUD? For example you were talking about, you can't do that? Roger Knutson: You need a guide plan amendment. Rick Murray: But it could be Roger, it could be very specific to... Roger Knutson: Sure. Mayor Mancino: Very, very, very, specific. Very, yes. Roger Knutson: Not transportable anywhere else. Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion. Has the motion been made to table it? Mayor Mancino: No, but I just wanted to make sure before we made the motion that there's clear communication and comments that we wanted. Because I would not like to send him out of here. Mr. Joyce has a comment. Kevin Joyce: Just a thought. When we did this back...townhomes. I can't remember the name. Kate Aanenson: Town and Country Homes. Kevin Joyce: Town and Country. We met with the developer before, we had this thing tabled and we had a real successful meeting with the developer. He saw some of the concerns from the original meeting and we were able to kind of work out some negotiations. I don't know if the rest of...possible to do that but we certainly hate to lose the single family aspect of this. Mayor Mancino: I think that's a good idea. Kevin Joyce: So I think that, I think you know we're reasonable people and I think we'd like to meet with him before this came back again. Mayor Mancino: That could be part of the tabling. Thank you Kevin. Councilman Engel: I've seen that plan too. I like this plan. I think it will be good in Chanhassen. I just don't want it when you've got this kind of opposition to it but I've seen that twin family home plan too. I'd like to see the two of you get together with that old plan and this one and see if you can merge them and come up with something that you're not going to have any disagreement on and we can pass it. I like it as a concept. It's good. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: I'd move number two again. 39 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Number two is to table I believe. Mayor Mancino: All those in favor to table this request. And that's. Councilman Senn: Table this request so the developer can go back and work with the neighborhood and staff to tweak the plan and come back again. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the request for The Highlands at the Northeast Corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 by Residential Development Inc. so the developer and neighbors can get together and meet regarding the proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DECISION AMENDING THE JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CREATING THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION, COLLEEN DOCKENDORF. Colleen Dockendorf: Thank you and 1 should state my name as Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge in Chanhassen, representing Southwest Metro Transit this evening. Just briefly, the Suburban Transit Association is about two years old. It was the organization that was responsible for getting the legislation passed last year for the local levy authority which gives the cities the option to levy transit taxes as opposed to regionally through the Met Council. Chan's contribution to the Association is approximately $2,600.00 this year, which is reimbursed by Southwest Metro through the transit levy. The fee mostly goes towards the retainer of Messerli & Kramer, which is our lobbyist. if you want to go into the legislative agenda set for this year, I'd be happy to but the matter really at hand is what Sharmin's put in her report. I don't have any issues with the changes that were requested to the agreement. It just makes it logistically difficult because ten other cities have already signed the agreement and what would need to happen is I would bring these proposed changes back to the STA Board. They would have to pass there and then it would have to go back to all 11 cities for ratification. And I'd be happy to do that if you could prove to me that the changes were substantive enough to do so. I think one of the points that Councilman Senn probably added that the development of transportation and mass transit programs add that clause or that a few words be added to the agreement, is that it's nowhere in the agreement. And it was a good idea. It probably should be. However, the agreement is between three cities, or excuse me. Through all the opt out communities and it pertains only to transportation usages. It's policed, for lack of a better word, by your Representative to the STA, which you're going to appoint later on this afternoon. Excuse me, this evening. I'm mixed up. And so there's enough control to know that Messerli & Kramer is not going to be out lobbying for whatever, other than transit issues. The other change that was made was on page 7. The top, Section 10.2. Or 10.3, excuse me. Saying a proposed budget shall be formulated by the Board and submitted to the parties and that was desired to be changed to the cities for review and comment. The parties are the cities. That's the definition of parties in the agreement. So that's, I don't think that clarifies the agreement any more. So again I'd be happy to answer any questions or concerns about you. My purpose this evening is to say, you know I'd be happy to forward these changes and next year on the go around when we talk about the agreement, this year it's just difficult given the timing. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Questions from Council members for Ms. Dockendorf. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Colleen, did you say that the ten others have already approved this? 40 USPS CARRIER ANNEX Chanhassen, Minnesota NOISE ASSESSMENT Prepared for RSP Architects and the United States Postal Service by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1313 5th St. S.E. Suite 322 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 331 -4571 14 February 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SOURCE NOISE LEVELS 2 2.1 Truck noise levels 2.2 Rooftop unit noise levels 3.0 SITE LAYOUT AND OPERATION 6 3.1 Site visit and data collection 3.2 Site layout and adjacent residential lots 3.3 Assumed truck operation 3.4 Assumed berm and wall construction 4.0 NOISE PREDICTIONS BASED UPON CURRENT PLANS 9 4.1 Truck noise predictions 4.2 Rooftop unit noise predictions 5.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED FACILITY 13 5.1 MPCA noise standards 5.2 Potential for awakening 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOISE CONTROL 17 6.1 Berm and wall extension 6.2 Daytime and nighttime operation APPENDIX A Truck Sound Level Time Histories (octave band) APPENDIX B Rooftop Mechanical Equipment APPENDIX C Lot Addresses and Pad Elevations APPENDIX D Selected Photographs of the Site APPENDIX E TRANE Acoustics Model Output LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 4.1 Predicted Noise Levels from Rooftop Equipment TABLE 5.1 MPCA Nighttime Noise Standards TABLE 5.2 Probability of Awakening by Lot Number FIGURE 2.1 Truck Arrival and Unloading Time History (dBA) FIGURE 2.2 Truck Departure Time History (dBA) FIGURE 2.3 Truck Source Sound Spectrum (assumed at 50 feet) FIGURE 3.1 Site Layout with Proposed Berm and Wall FIGURE 4.1 Truck Noise Levels with no Berm or Wall FIGURE 4.2 Truck Noise Levels with Proposed Berm and Wall FIGURE 5.1 Probability of Awakening versus Maximum Truck Noise Level FIGURE 6.1 Site Layout with Recommended Berm and Wall Extension FIGURE 6.2 Truck Noise Levels with Recommended Berm and Wall EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Noise levels associated with semi - tractor trailer trucks using the site and rooftop mechanical equipment have been predicted at the adjacent residences south of the United States Carrier Annex in Chanhassen. Noise levels have been compared with the nighttime noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for residential areas. These standards limit levels for 10% of the hour (L10) to 55 dBA and for 50% of the hour (L50) to 50 dBA. This assessment has found that the USPS Carrier Annex can be expected to meet Minnesota Pollution Control Agency residential nighttime noise standards for both the L10 and L50 levels. This assessment has been based upon conservative assumptions for both truck engine noise and rooftop mechanical equipment. The highest observed truck engine noise level was assigned to the truck, for its entire time on the site. All of the mechanical equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously and located at the edge of the roof closest to the residences. The following recommendations are made to minimize the potential for nighttime disturbance from trucks operating on the site: (1) Extend the berm and fence, currently planned for a portion of the USPS site, to the east onto the NOAA site to provide additional mitigation for Lots 1, 2 and 13. (2) Prohibit backup beepers on trucks used during nighttime hours (3) Require vehicles such as snow plows and garbage trucks to comply with City ordinances for nighttime operation. (4) Keep facility doors closed when not in use, especially at night. (5) Prohibit the use of public address systems, loud radios or similar equipment in the south parking area. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This assessment of potential noise impacts on adjacent residences from the new United States Postal Service Carrier Annex in Chanhassen, Minnesota, has been requested by the United States Postal Service in response to concerns expressed by residents and officials of the City of Chanhassen. The study has been prepared with the assistance of RSP Architects Ltd., Minneapolis, project architect, and representatives of the United States Postal Service. We understand that the primary concern of adjacent residents is noise from truck activity on the site. Since some truck arrivals and departures can be expected during the nighttime hours, this is considered the most critical period for the analysis of potential noise impacts. While noise from mechanical equipment would be associated with any new building constructed on this site, an assessment of this noise was also made for completeness. Current measures included in the design and landscaping to mitigate noise have been analyzed and recommendations are made to further shield the adjacent residences from noise originating on the site. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 1 2.0 SOURCE NOISE LEVELS 2.1 Truck noise levels A typical truck noise source level was developed from sound level monitoring data at the USPS Golden Valley facility. The 7:20 am delivery to the facility by a USPS semi - tractor and trailer combination was monitored on Thursday, 23 January 1997, using a CEL 593 sound level analyzer. Sound levels were measured 35 feet east of the truck and the dock. The sound levels (in dBA) measured during the arrival, unloading and departure of the truck are shown in FIGURE 2.1 and FIGURE 2.2. Sound levels during arrival were generally lower because of lower engine RPM. The sharp peak (78 dBA) approximately 20 seconds into the recording was due to the air brake pressure release on the tractor. Subsequent peaks were caused by unloading of containers from the truck. Spectral time histories of the truck arrival and departure are contained in APPENDIX A. John Roden of the USPS was present during the noise measurements. Information provided by Mr. Roden indicated that the containers unloaded included Bulk Mail Containers (BMC) and All Purpose Containers (APC). The BMC is the largest of the rolling equipment used on these trucks by the USPS. The APC is a smaller more commonly used piece of rolling equipment. Sound levels at 35 feet were approximately 73 dBA for the BMCs and 69 dBA for the APCs. Except for the single air brake release peak level of 78 dBA, the highest level associated with the engine of the departing truck was 76.3 dBA. The sound spectrum associated with this maximum level (adjusted to a standard distance of 50 feet) is shown in FIGURE 2.3. This maximum level was used to represent all activities of the truck as it moves around the site, thus providing conservative estimates of potential impact. 2.2 Rooftop unit noise levels Sound levels associated with rooftop mechanical units were estimated using the TRANE Acoustics Program (TAP) in Section 4.2. However, information on the individual components of the mechanical equipment were obtained from the TRANE Company (packaged rooftop units) and S &S Products, Inc. for the remaining rooftop exhaust fans. A list of this equipment is included in APPENDIX B. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 2 TRUCK ARRIVAL /UNLOADING USPS GOLDEN VALLEY (35 FEET) 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 cl 71 70 - Z 69 68 ' 66 __�_�11i1EMMUM1111 65 ij 1.1 Ii�IIL i , f � 'l l il`i�II � wr ` r 7"7 64 r 63 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:24 TIME (SECONDS) FIGURE 2.1 Truck Arrival and Unloading Time history (dBA) US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 3 TRUCK DEPARTURE USPS GOLDEN VALLEY (35 FEET) 77 - 76 75 74 73 72 71 .1\ 70 69 68 67 f 0 6 6 5 h 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 1'1\ 57 1111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 ►1111111111111 ii iiiiii 111111111illnill 11111111111111111111111111111111111111i1111111 7:25:30 7:26:00 7:26:30 7:27:00 TIME (SECONDS) FIGURE 2.2 Truck Departure Time history (dBA) US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 4 ASSUMED SOURCE SOUND SPECTRUM USPS TRUCK AT 50 FEET 78 76 74 72 70 • 68 66 64 62 60 58 N 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 32 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 41( SK 16K FREQUENCY (Hz) FIGURE 2.3 Truck Source Sound Spectum (assumed at 50 feet) US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 5 3.0 SITE LAYOUT AND OPERATION 3.1 Site visit and data collection A visit to the Chanhassen site was made with Lora Grgich of RSP Architects on Friday, 17 January 1997. Plans for the Chanhassen facility showing the site layout, location of the truck dock and rooftop mechanical equipment were provided by RSP Architects. A landscaping plan and cross - section between the facility and adjacent residences were provided by Enviroscience. 3.2 Site layout and adjacent residential lots The site layout with respect to the adjacent residences to the south is shown in FIGURE 3.1. Lot surveys were provided by the City of Chanhassen for all adjacent lots except Lot 3. However, the assessment of noise on lots adjacent to Lot 3 is also valid for the residence located on that lot. The addresses associated with the lots and associated pad elevations are included in APPENDIX C. Selected photographs of the adjacent residents from the truck dock area are included in APPENDIX D. These show the partially constructed berm south of the truck dock area and the higher ground on the adjacent NOAA site to the east. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 6 - : — ‘4 10111 -1 031 I LL. 0 0 - -. -I.- - 0 1- 11 ---.._ . ...„ 1 11.: . :111 - - ' W 1 t ,- 1- o ili _1 -I --- i4r -,- < ci < U) 0 ci) Z I-- 0 ..1 -,,-, I — ,-- - : Ix-. 7-7.r., _- 1 . . c0 _ ' _'1 lit 17 g -- - 1 -0 : 0 . _II - -WEI I : C 1 .1 . .'--- - . ' - '4. ..1 C O 'cr) 1- ......_ ,. kn on . , w ., .: • . 1 , 111 ■ I I t J cn - 1 1 . 7------ 44.r.fat-,baci:. w 0 cc 0_ :,-- .. z 44, : ' 1 • . I 1 .__, :: 44:44 , ', • . -."‘ tot .....■ ---4 .:::::•:::.•-• .1i:: ; I' ' 0 \ --::17*ii ....-- ; ) - ....:•:•::-.,' i :"i! .1 5 ° N1 4 "A11, : : : „: :1 y/i ■ 1 , 1 .._____ -. 8 Illir a 0 ' , .r. ---....:: h ,... . ',..iii i • 0-7-J i::.: ,':i It 1 1 16 ,_ "". ,:i :i , 411): u 1 .. ... 9 t-- -- °• - k r .. 4 .,,, tim --- , -..'.. t v i r "\\ as . 11 1 '. I' • *1 J ••••••••••`. - 1— . . . ' ‘ +-■ 0 CO a Z ' la - 1 ■I n h.. -4-- ...)::..... i ; :411 1., Elko! el 0 - D , fAllr..g. „t•-• 1 lb ,, :-. '4, ,, ..; . !: • : Ca k 42,"1.. L__ , . _--- i v . 4rik .? • \ r' .:.*. • : 4-• Cr) ,,," i : :•...:-. ::. t 'Hi - " 1" -, t‘ .....F- :=-=':! : i.1 i ,i,i - . et. 111,' ,.. • I- • I.-n , . _ ,,,,,x. ‘ 2 - •.-. . A k e „ ,.. _0 ---■ - 1 4.:4, I:: . 7 1 • 1 .. 1 "- _ :.. • :; ;•!: :;: ' •1 ., 1.... 0 .; .::: • • i A , dia• ' .7 - 2 & . - ! .: ; ; ; 1 .. j ' kL Ti 11•41 71 . 1 / < \ r . • L .- - ..."- it -.1; '', '.'11. ' 1 \' ii - 1 ° • \ \ I / 4 . CD 1 . cc a I ,.. :: :! . 1.- i ---.) 0 ,..w . 1 ,,_-•.. 6 .A • *4 , 1 , •• • • • , . . ' :11. r. ::::•-• -::- , A ...- • •::, f . / 1 / 1 i ),•....- . III i-- .,./ ,„ i 4' ,,,,/ • t : ,. L .11 j- r @ 1.1 l i.7. —J / / --- • \ 1 1 . : I - • •.\...\ '11. / 0 1 \ ' , I \ . \ . . . .-- '..../. ■ • tic' • ( win ; ..11,\ ' '‘ i 4* • ."-- w ' 7 ' ‘ 1 ; e NO JOU • / . 4, •. ,.., 1 3.3 Assumed truck operation The assumed path of semi - trailer trucks using the truck dock is shown as a heavy dashed line in FIGURE 3.1. The truck is assumed to enter the site along the east property line and turn to the west to permit backing into the dock. Upon departing, it is assumed that the truck travels along the southerly most traffic lane in the parking lot. The highest noise level will be associated with the truck departing the dock, although as noted above, this level will be used for all truck activities on the site. The numbers shown on the truck path represent typical locations used in the noise analysis (see Section 4.1). No backup beepers were assumed in this noise assessment. These are not used on USPS tractors. A recommendation to prohibit the use of backup beepers is contained in Section 6.2. 3.4 Assumed berm and wall construction The earth berm is assumed to have a final shape as indicated on the contours in FIGURE 3.1. The peak of the berm is 950 feet MSL. A sound wall 7 feet in height is proposed along the peak of the berm for maximum effectiveness. For purposes of this study, a 6 foot wall was analyzed as the smallest height normally considered for a wall of this type. This will provide conservative estimates of noise impacts at the adjacent residences. A wall thickness of 1/2" is assumed which is more than adequate for the amount of sound attenuation that is provided by the wall itself. Trees and planting along the earth berm will have little additional impact on reducing noise levels from site. Their primary effect will be to provide visual shielding of the site and to maintain the integrity of the earth berm. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 8 4.0 NOISE PREDICTIONS BASED UPON CURRENT PLANS 4.1 Truck noise predictions Modeli g Assumptions Truck movement is assumed to be relatively efficient as was observed at the Golden Valley facility, i.e. the truck enters the site, backs into the dock, unloads, and departs within a period of 10 to 15 minutes. Only four semi - tractor trailers will access the Chanhassen site per day. Two will be deliveries before 6 am and two will be pickups in the afternoon before 6 pm. No background noise near the level of the truck noise is assumed in the analysis. The most critical truck movement is the early morning (prior to 6:00 am) arrival and departure, which occurs during a quiet period and has the greatest potential for impact on the adjacent residences. The elevation of the parking (and truck maneuvering) area is assumed to be 926 feet MSL. The height of the truck exhaust stack is assumed to be 8 feet above grade, or 934 feet MSL. Noise receptor sites at each home are assumed to be second story windows which are the most potentially critical location for nighttime truck noise impacts. These windows are assumed to be 14 feet above pad elevation and range from 941 feet MSL at Lot 10 to 976 feet MSL at Lot 5. Pad elevations for each lot are included in APPENDIX C. Five typical locations along the track taken by the truck are used to predict noise levels at the adjacent residences. These are: 1. Truck entering the site - most critical location for homes to the east 2. Truck preparing to back into the dock - closest approach to the homes 3. Truck leaving the dock 4. Truck departing midway on the USPS site 5. Truck just before its final turn away from the residences For purposes of comparison, the predicted noise levels for each of these source locations at each of the adjacent lots without a berm or wall are presented in FIGURE 4.1. The predicted noise levels for each lot (second story window) with the currently proposed berm and wall combination are presented in FIGURE 4.2. These predictions assume a berm and wall on USPS property as shown in FIGURE 3.1. All of these predictions are based upon the maximum observed truck engine noise level and are therefore conservative estimates of expected noise levels at the adjacent lots. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 9 From FIGURE 2.2 (Page 4), it can be seen that the noise level associated with the idling truck prior to departure is 64 dBA. This is 12 dBA lower than the maximum level assumed in the noise predictions for the moving truck. Therefore, when the truck is sitting at the dock with motor idling, the noise levels (for Site 3 - dock position) will be 12 dBA lower than those levels shown in FIGURE 4.2. For example, with the currently proposed berm and wall, the idling noise level would be 42 dBA at Lot 1. 4.2 Rooftop unit noise predictions Noise predictions for rooftop units and fans have been made using the TRANE Acoustics Program (TAP). This program permits the entry of specific fan information such as horsepower, flow, RPM and static pressure. For purposes of this analysis, all equipment is assumed to be 400 feet from the nearest residence. This would place the equipment at the south edge of the roof although most of the equipment is 50 to 100 feet further from the residences. The results of the TAP noise predictions are shown in TABLE 4.1. TAP model output for each of the types of mechanical equipment is included in APPENDIX E. The level estimated for all equipment assumes that all units are operating simultaneously. TABLE 4.1 Predicted Noise Levels from Rooftop Equipment EQUIPMENT 1 LOCATION I Level at closest residence 7.5 ton unit East workroom 35 dBA 6.25 ton unit West workroom 35 dBA 6.25 ton unit West workroom 35 dBA 4 ton unit Locker room 28 dBA 3 ton unit Lunch room 27 dBA 3 ton unit Lunch room 27 dBA Exhaust fan Garage /north 36 dBA Exhaust fan Workroom /south 28 dBA All equipment 42 dBA US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 10 O .,,, ,{, �"��;�,�sh��'7"' -�.�aa 1°X3«S'�",G,audh�sw��`a.` er£',:.a v .�.; ,..F �,� ±w.ri. x 'z - s <r," v- s � 7, v a s ,^,- kr,� 7 . 1:. c `: •' v4�.S�caa�3d w.. "•i"..«.. ,.+3J s'�,n�`rd S rS N S X R t a y 7. ` r. i >4 i'rT?`rt kf 304 W W O W u) J 0 Z , m Z O r 0 0 LL Z s £1 o-' e k ; - b hp .r "„ m O 0 0 ..b "t "� t.. Jr� . �n 'S .�h }aar. ,. a ; Y'"p y c .a' CO 1.7 W YQ12, Z E 0 U W 0 CL Om -J C m °I 0 Y a -, a- �e LL N ' f ek �a h"r `'?'.%= Y12 e v:+ . s _ v r W � Z .e .. -+� �aS o` t _ .n''.. -/ � ealF s, - t (I.) NN LL U1— O D Z W m N U ,. i Q , x^ J"x " ;0- ',, .f ."r§3a a'�,va,.r +s w Ar P .. . ",'a'. r O ce a U c Z h 0 Z w (f) > < J •r 5!?. p "yT,- .y zaT�l r F ; n .`AkF • .* °fph� r y x< d N N M V U1) .. 0000 tn 1 :" ar t r 1, A x rcK .v O O 0 o O o O 0. O O o O 00 co vr N 0 00 CO N 0 O 0 N Ln N U•) v' V V V (veP)13A31 aN(lOS 0 ■ 0 INTEMMEN.1111i11.11111111W ' O a Y °- O O Z < 0 Z Q' '' Tr`w .fi s'a i- 43.4. • ET W Z D ! f' - } , H co 5 Q < _ J Z O Q W Z • (B O W U J o LL i i .. i i N 11 N M s} to [xe'0,%' ,70 .4 *' , ** t - , - 0 J Y. E - H` I6.1 'R ,: n x. �.,, M`P Ca r' . _ T .N L' ., Y ' ' CO > I- a Li J to 0 a) Z C ' . CO z F ��{,�LL� �iw w N o z 4 �'* F. s 4 a x : • " 2 +" ✓ xC n?. e ^r s. �k, s m / m t 1 . ..J . v.c. _ ..'Y r f l yL�. YL Q Z - D W O 0 .. _,.. I- H ° _ 0 C) C.) 1 e U_ co Lu r t . . L . 4 r r S W " .ui W U Z Q J W CO 1 S. s .__ a) LL ct f O m! 1 w 0 `6' �o ham;. L o i cammo - in a ,`y .._ E4 T 4 : y i y 3s I . I i . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in in in Li) sr v v v v (V8P) 13A31 aNf1OS 5.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED FACILITY 5.1 MPCA noise standards The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopted noise standards in 1974 for residential, commercial and industrial land uses based upon an extensive evaluation of observed noise levels and the potential impacts of noise on various activities. Standards were established for both daytime and nighttime periods, with more restrictive nighttime standards for residential land uses. The standards are applied to land uses that are exposed to noise from adjacent properties. Two types of noise "metrics" are included in the standards. The L10 metric refers to noise levels that are not to be exceeded for 10% of the hour and normally addresses variable noise sources such as trucks. The L50 metric refers to noise levels that are not to be exceeded for 50% of the hour and normally addresses more continuous noise sources such as mechanical equipment. MPCA residential nighttime noise standards are 10 dBA lower than daytime standards and hence most critical for this assessment. These noise standards, which can be compared with the predicted levels in FIGURE 4.1 and FIGURE 4.2, are listed in TABLE 5.1. TABLE 5.1 MPCA Nighttime Noise Standards NOISE METRIC I NOISE STANDARD L10' 55 dBA L50 50 dBA 1 Level not to be exceeded 10% (or 6 minutes) of the hour 2 Level not to be exceeded 50% (or 30 minutes) of the hour Truck noise Noise levels predicted in Section 4.1 were associated with a moving truck. It is estimated that the entering, backing, and departing phase of a truck will last less than five minutes. The truck will remain at the dock for approximately 10 to 15 minutes with the engine at idle. From FIGURE 4.2, it can be seen that none of the predicted truck noise levels at adjacent residences exceed 55 dBA. Therefore, even if the entering, docking and departing phase lasted more than six minutes, exceedance of the L10 55 dBA standard (which addresses noises lasting more than 6 minutes of the hour) is not likely. US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 13 As noted above, the maximum noise level from an idling truck is estimated to be 44 dBA. Even if this lasted for more than 30 minutes, exceedance of the L50 50 dBA standard (which addresses noise lasting more than 30 minutes of the hour) is not likely. Therefore, no exceedance of the MPCA residential nighttime standards are expected from truck activity on the site. Rooftop mechanical equipment noise The L50 50 dBA standard is normally applied to continuous noise sources such as mechanical equipment (lasting more than 30 minutes of the hour). The maximum predicted continuous level (with all equipment running simultaneously) was 42 dBA. Therefore, no exceedance of the MPCA L50 standard is expected from mechanical equipment on the building. 5.2 Potential for awakening The potential for awakening from the operation of a single truck is based upon research that was done for single aircraft overflights, since similar studies have not been performed for other transportation modes. The methodology is based upon the "sound exposure level" or the sound level associated with the total integrated energy of the event. For a typical truck operation, this can be assumed to be approximately 10 dBA higher than the maximum sound level at closest passage. However, since an open window provides approximately 10 dBA of attenuation for an outside noise source, sound exposure level inside is the same as the maximum sound level of the truck. By referring to the sound level in a room with open windows, the maximum sound level of the truck and the sound exposure level of the truck can be used interchangeably. In this discussion, the terminology "maximum" sound level will be used. FIGURE 5.1 shows the probability of awakening versus maximum truck noise level with windows open and with windows closed. The window is assumed to provide 25 dBA of attenuation, although newer energy- efficient windows may provide up to 30 or 32 dBA of attenuation. For the range of truck noise anticipated at the nearest residents, it can be seen that the probability of awakening varies from 5% to 8% with windows open and 1 to 2% with windows closed. TABLE 5.2 shows the probability of awakening by lot for the maximum expected truck noise level. It can be seen that lots 1, 2 and 13 are greater than 8% while the others are 7% or lower. This generally coincides with the lots that are projected to be at levels greater than 50 dBA which is the US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 14 7 co TD > @ -J § S . z 0 2 > § \ \ j E Q / z 0 j � p \ 0 \ 0 > =I n m E 2 k -00 m § g he � « @ > 2 @ _o B 1-- a_ , > _ CO w CO o vt n CNI o SNIN3M VMV10 uneV o d lowest level addressed in the MPCA residential nighttime noise standards. Thus, this alternative approach of evaluating impact suggests that additional mitigation should be provided to bring levels down to 50 dBA where feasible. TABLE 5.2 Maximum Probability of Awakening by Lot Number Lot Number 1 5 I 4 I 2 1 I 13 I 12 I 11 I 10 Maximum truck noise level (dBA) 50.8 51.9 49.3 48.9 50.0 50.4 50.2 48.9 Maximum probability of awakening ( %) 6.5 7.1 >8 >8 >8 6.2 6.1 5.8 US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 16 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NOISE CONTROL Based upon the discussion on the probability of awakening in Section 5.2, several recommendations to further reduce noise levels from the site are presented below. 6.1 Berm and wall extension The lots exposed to levels above 50 dBA are to the southeast of the facility and not directly shielded by the currently proposed berm and wall. By extending the berm and wall to the east 60 to 65 feet (onto the NOAA) site, shielding similar to the other lots could be provided. This berm and wall extension is shown in FIGURE 6.1. Because the ground to the east is approximately 10 feet higher than on the USPS site, the berm could be constructed more easily and at less cost than might otherwise be required. With this extended berm and wall in place, the expected truck noise levels are shown in FIGURE 6.2. It should be noted that the scale on the graph is different and that the maximum level is predicted to occur at Lot 4 for Tess than a minute as the truck enters and backs into the dock. Otherwise for this and other Tots the predicted level is 51 dBA or Tess. 6.2 Daytime and nighttime operation Backup beepers should be prohibited on vehicles using the site during nighttime hours and should be avoided whenever possible during daytime hours as well. Equipment not directly under the control of the United States Postal Service such as garbage trucks and snow plowing equipment would be associated with any industrial or commercial uses of this site and should comply with any City ordinances on the use of such equipment during nighttime hours. Doors to the facility should be kept closed when not in use, especially during nighttime hours, to minimize any noise being transmitted through these openings. No public address system or loud radios should be permitted in the area south of the facility. These conditions should apply to any use of this site. c: \job \96087 \report\ uspsnois.rep US Postal Service Carrier Annex (Chanhassen) - Noise Assessment Page 17 • I° — 4 . 1 - i I— ; .1f 0 . _ 11 .. Nr ....... 1 .- ih-•-•111 1- , ital i 0 -J 1 —J 4 1 C.) 0 Z (/) ce) - 0 .— I- 0 0 C _I 0 = - " --- 9 kIslilli CO I t:17 1 1 < 0 - * 4 ' - E ' • ...I .-"- I. 1 r I - 0 11J CO 0 1.4-- - z -=;...,-,-,4=_J . Ct3 --- • ; . ark ..131 E cl.) mi i : U..1 CD !III =- 7.7 CC s I ., ... ' Mi....1 : 1 • ‘, : ; 1 1 11 0 i. um m... •—' CD ‘, . ; : i . ; ''.! I ■ I 1 i ‘-. . 1_ ,., 4.41•46111 VINO :****- .e. '.. • i'61 J.' ' le i 1-.1— >ai i' - (-9 E i LL m E 4 1c tk 0 CD — - ° ii • 0 Ae , -,-- ...i ., 1 / 19 c.i / 1 .. : nig i' co ° .2P N li f .7 :47:J I i 11 _11 I g i i ..7,•4C1. , ..0 I- 0 • 4- c, 2 t ,...,, 111::". ' Itl , 1.• -:: il.‘ i 7 111. ,..,1 1 ._ . ';.1 . Ir.-..._-__A .- ci _ q ill.f..a s It 1.0"' 1 „, •- - i ;I:: 1 ; i ce l' ii Ili 0 -J ,...-- 7 4 0 . -: 0 F 'N ' . :._ : :: : ! I m ill I 0 i . I •I • L 4- • _ .--- -....mi I.. , , ' I: ;;;: '.....; 0 1 '"' s ti _._ • 0 R I •' INF 01' — : ! ..,.....:', ... 1 W 1 1 P --- . c0 it 1 ..." i i ...:.:.... - ii ‘i ' - - ---- IP- --.i-- -___ : ! :1\1: is: < li ',LI 1 — -Anikt.\ .,....,-.:,... , a) .: Ill 1 ' ill --- ,-, -Z-- ' • 1 ;OS .4-. ----) 1, . .. , • :- se _ y, :I ,. . f ,-g -- ...... i:.:. 4%. J Cr) 1 -."--- D a :I! . .: . :' I \ LI --.' • , CL 1 • _ ... ....: 1 /. `.• ' . 1 . '1 A . • k Li f -_-.--e- - / .. . , ...._ .. : :. , : ' t,,.: . I 2 -: • -' • cp . - • .-. . ; \. ' / _ I' I \ , . ' . f \ ",,lic : iam y .- ,1 1 1 ' i I . .../ 4° • 1 M / / :" I'l• ‘ \ . ) .,.,• ------ ..... .P-rzi. •• 0 . 1 . I 0 { ye�+t iY .n't4 *-- lb E u i . .p) ,)+4 . .. .. F 44 i , k 'Y"9Y _ as W _ . . ., _ . .: .._s .. ... 1_: in I r CO 4 � s. %:;z �l �` >�.L�x �{'j`�" 5R "� +�. A � 1 -0 tom" t �"'u� °M'.x"KS:'t - f�'x�'3' T M,= i W W Z — CO J N Z O Z p Z I co N D Z 0 I i _ , > >, F...-ws'� A'Jc.? 4'.:. 4;'Z.:t. S 1 3$ a.- t W- i. r 4 2,-wi, . € ,w,,i,". w C O 0_ W ` J _. r 2 ( O C N H F.. — z W O Z ct U O • U W H -, N U O cc re O J 0 r J 0 L Y Q LL- _= I co Q a O ^. ` j's. L�?v,-ui[ ` .4Y n `"? "i >�A�v}u,' }i. a<�'?. ,r�+x:..4.Av" - i* `4";; ' Q z w ( to Ol — z zu�io E 1 I > W m 5 W w > a Q J • ce ZOJW a W z N 1 i a W W O _�LL I m i i i i i p^ ,_,Tx �`hf ∎ :4-4 , tw`t*, -`; • ..... vr1`F #.m+;#i "4 ' � r N (I -1 V) I ❑❑❑❑ ®I "• z • U n I , -1. ~ �n�"-as$£- i>.'$env"' � cva e4,4 wizifo`' vi v $ e °.rT`i"Fw u " n r I 4 t,.A d ±as. a 7 ,t. , , .p . of - n.; e .. ,- r v a @ , n'; I in I t t-i x ,, eili t*IM *, '° s,'3`i sx x 4 A'2' , = .'Y " :'.c- '+,sv, +'s tk �'y� � , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u v v v v ° a (v9P)13A31 GNf1OS APPENDIX A Truck Sound Level Time Histories (octave band) TRUCK ARRIVAL /UNLOADING US PS GOLDEN VALLEY (35 FEET) / rl 11 I'+rf f 'r7a11, 11+ ; 111 ' 11 I r 1 �f !J I 111 1 r 11 1 1 At1 f 11 I I,I� 7 I/ \ 1 1 II ,L h 1 11 , r (' � I r'' r lr ff „1I IJ 1�1 111 IJ1,11 Ir J 1 ' , ri lri, t” J 1+ 1 J f 1 ,! Il't1 t 1111) J11 1uJ q JI 111 try 1 11 11 7 1 ) II/ 1 11 J � 11, ( 1 r ' 1 / 1 f[ �r , r ? + l r I f , lrrr r, [I1 1 + rf J. '1 �p1 'ff /'1,1, ��•GIII � r � J � ��I 1 y x , 11 1 t /! \ 'qt 7 �r 1 1 1.r �1 71!'1 151 1 ♦ r r r L � f) j /y I of 1` � 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 111, ff 1 v..(1;11, /♦ / /, �, / / %.. , , 1, d �f �; �7 + /'�/ t 7,1, r, , 1 11, J, j , � 1' 1 ;IA, f 7 ! 1 1 / r !1 1. t t J /t1 v 1 ut i , 1 Id / I /1 0 f r / / �` /� 7 / / i 11 1 1 //�/�/ 1 • / : /, r ',,....d., 1 , 1 7/.. I ! r '1 J 111 to" J 1, ; 16H 1 1 100 J AJ l i 1 ' // / 1 lit , n ,% f .. I .; / / / le ' ( r 711 t f'7, 32Hz 3. !r11/ 1' ) ♦♦ / � , .1'14 r :7* , y A if)��t N4 f 11111111IIII1 (l IIIIPj11', i z ! 1 1 1 fr +' • �' J t ) 1 1 n17 ' 1 'l Jf 1 " ' i f I 1 1 ' 1 + 111 1111)111 63 H ' i 1 r tl'1 1 5 11 �II'111 II 111 IIJ111 z 80 r�1 � fr !1 ' n { 11! 4 \ 1 J -. r t ; 7§; �,rJ R rl J t r. ,tfrn t / 1 u r i c l t r �1 !u tf t 5' 1 f f '� HZ 1 fl , 1� �9 /! 11 1 + , I 1 1 11 I � ; '1 1: P II 1 11' 1 ' O 1 1 1 IlI , 77i7 , 1 I, , L J1 1 11 " 1 1 11 711 1 125 250Hz 7 �' � 1 �1: + , J / ,7 , ,\ 1 7 17 , , Z r rr fy 1 f1 1111 1 11f, j f It 11 f111 f 11f 11111 II 11 f'1 11111 ' ' � vi : 1 ' 1 t 111 11 r:1 r 11 . Irh r1,r 1 1111 r ' 500 Hz / / fI 1 1 1 11 f1 i 1 ( 1 J 1 ' 1/) 1 I 1\ I I 1 I p 1 f 1 1 f , 1 l i O 60 ' / I/ l+ % 7 � A. I ' )1,, i uJt111 J 1 1 1 Id ) 11111111 ) 1 N',Y, 1 1 1t 7 1 1y11 11 1 00 �� I � ( /�1 ,I ,'I� Ir �f. 1r / x 111 1 r r, 1 ?.11; ,,; 1 11 t1;,t . ,1:. ♦ I�J7n 1 luq� lu�r:!U ` ! 11_tP 717 1 ;1_,'7 2k Hz 40 4k Hz El kHz 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:23 20 16kH 7:24 TIME (SECONDS) TRUCK DEPARTURE LISPS GOLDEN VALLEY (35 FEET) / 9iImI I/III_I /I 4 /111/1h r1 t rl i � m � ,� r�� «111 �� / /�� / / / / / /�� /�f ��/� �� / /) 1J�; j 16 Hz / l / 1111111111 1� 11 1/ 11 1111I1 1 � 1'`{ 111 11111 /1/1111l llllllllllllllllll ��JIl1 ��rt� 32Hz z 80 / / / / /// 11/ l// / / / /l / / / / /lll / /il,/ / /l //�` /lll/ 1111I r /1111/ /1111 /1 /1I /IIIIIII /1Q11 /�1 1111 ,��l��,ll l�fj�� 250 Hz N 60 Ii/iII IIIDI II IOI II / /llllll i�lllll/h1111,I /11lllllfi // 111 1111111/ /111111 /1111�'�I��J�� #I # 1kHzHz �� IIIIIIDIII� Illllll/ JIJ 1111lJJllllllli ��f�� 2kHz 4U �`4!'�lIJ J+ !�! BkHzz 20 I , I , nrIr “j. ,,�,, '� I„nrnm u u26 :3 ' 0 nnninunnn m „ 16kHz 7:25:30 7:26:00 7:26:30 7:27:00 TIME (SECONDS) APPENDIX B Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Chanhassen U.S. Post Office 8/26/96 October 16, 1996 Item Al A2 A3 A4 Unit No. RTU -1,6 RTU -2 RTU -3,4 RTU -5 Service Lunch Rm Locker Rm W. Wrkrm E. Wrkrm Model No. YCD036C4LOB YCD048C4HOB YCD075C4LOB YCD090C4LOB Nom. Tons 3 4 6.25 7.5 Cooling Data Total MBH 39.3 51.0 75.0 93.2 Sens. MBH 24.9 38.2 53.7 68.6 EDB 80.5 80.0 80.0 80.0 EWB 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 LDB 61.0 62.0 54.0 59.0 Amb. Temp. 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 CFM 900 1745 2600 3300 No. of Compressors 1 1 1 1 Total RLA 5.5 7.1 9.7 12.2 No. of Cond. Fans 1 1 1 1 HP .25 .33 .5 .5 Heating Data Input MBH 80.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Output MBH 65.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 Supply Fan Data TSP .5 1.0 1.0 .75 RPM 1075 850 1725 1725 HP .33 .50 1.0 1.0 Voltage 460/60/3 460/60/3 460/60/3 460/60/3 MCA 9.4 11.9 17.7 20.9 Product Data . Item: Al Qty: 2 Tag(s): RTU -1, RTU-6 Gas/electric unit Standard unit Downflow 3 ton 460 Volt 60 Hertz 3 Phase Low heat Downflow economizer (FId) Sensor - programmable night setback with system function lights (FId) 3 to 5 ton Roof curb (FId) Item: A2 Qty: 1 Tag(s): RTU -2 Gas/electric unit Standard unit Downflow 4 ton 460 Volt 60 Hertz 3 Phase High heat Downflow economizer (FId) Sensor- programmable night setback with system function lights (FId) 3 to 5 ton Roof curb (FId) Item: A3 Qty: 2 Tag(s): RTU -3, RTU-4 Gas/electric unit Standard unit Downflow 6.25 ton • 460 Volt 60 Hertz 3 Phase Low heat Downflow economizer (FId) Trane System Submittal Page 3 of 17 EXHAUST FAN INFORMATION EF -1 South end of work room Centrifugal fan with motorized damper 775 CFM .375" static pressure 1206 RPM 1/4 HP motor .EF -2.3 North end of carrier garage Centrifugal fan with motorized damper 8625 CFM .375" static pressure 553 RPM 1-1/2 HP motor faninfo.doc 9687 \report APPENDIX C Lot Addresses and Pad Elevations LOT NUMBER ADDRESS PAD ELEVATION 5 1702 Valley Ridge Trail North 962 4 1710 Valley Ridge Trail North 954 2 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North 947 1 1766 Valley Ridge Trail North 948 13 1774 Valley Ridge Trail North 948 12 1782 Valley Ridge Trail North 938 11 1792 Valley Ridge Trail North 932 10 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North 927 lotinfo.tab 96087 /report • APPENDIX D Selected Photographs of the Site ft) f. );/ p i 1 . I 1 ti f Yii• •' , • f 7 , ( i i i .1 t • 4,1 , ,If .._ . ii 1 . r 1 11 1 i 1 .. . ... • I , - ' ... ■ IP • i - 1 A io ' 1 • - h ti• 1 ...,,, . , '1.P ig -• , ' . A , , I . I / 4.. . if I : . r 1 1 •1 I 111 1 ' I • . ' a . p • , I • kl ..‘ '4% ' i l l , ■ • • , • r l■ . ii, A . • • 01 . .. . • , • ! , • 1 • lr 1 • ..,4).. i. i • ••••,,. 4 . II I 4 III f'. •,,t.'1 ,.. i \ • . I , . ; 1 ' S . , . r ' , r k 1 • ,5 • \ I ..* ; -W -. 4. 7,0 ,' ' • 1 . ; 1: :•• ' ' . ., , , , .. , . .. f : • i .,.) ....; • I t 1 •..-.„Zt:‘,., W . ... f I i .4v ilt• X ..- 4 'I'''.:- of, "R''' r 1 a . 11, 1 ' i'l? 7 .... • -g.ti / 1 t . '' 1 1i: ' • • 1 1.. • 1 .. . - kir f *) , a 1 ■?, • :,, '• Mar '' . ad ,, ' `• ,‘ o. 1,9 1 • • 't 1 ' ' ., • , • 41 a . ' , ./ j . • , 1 k i 1 v . -- 1 ... 411. ...g i ' PA I : • , — vilt. • ? ! *: :•;i 1. ..".' :-: . / , • . i ,,, . 1, , %., .,. . . f. rr i • ' I . —= • - •'20 ''.',';, • . . ' 1 :(,, , .1 P . .), i . : at _.. . % '. 'A; .," ' . „. t . ) i I ' rVai,a., , ' ■ p• • ■It ,..1.,t,s • t; i IiI • , • 1 i ,----- . •• • 'v • ' ' I %, , - • .r;" i .. '. I ' V 'ii. 11 . , . . . , 1, . • ' 1: fit li# 1 , ! ,..1*. II - ' _ ... .. . ,. 0- r' • li..r• 4 •• . LO OV•Ia. . . . .% o f f •.1 .. 4 s .' , - - * i ' ' - -...r; • ...... •• . . ' 1 ' ; , • t .. ,;,,,, .:‘,•; 14' • IA i '4 ... . 4 , .•,, 40 • • ) ■ i • 4 f ' '' V t 1, i •• 1 c O r t ! • e i - • . k , I 3 , ,,.. #. r , . --.:= ' .'';;, / ..„. , s" ,,7( ' J'i- , .. in :.I , - i". • ■.' il 1,, ., t —1 '',=:;kst s kt4 ..-,..,;#-. , , _ . ,, 4 . • • :,t It-, v it ,.. p , k I. .‘ ',i ' ' ' '‘.'4 •••/4. .-f;- 7 ',,,III• f . • ( , . i' i 1 , ;.. , I . \- '.• 4. ' ! , • . Y 1 I ' . , • Ii ••II.‘ N 1 64 ';.. IPM ,' ;`k,11,sso' .t I 1 i • 1 Ir. , • .1... . i. Ir 1 1'1 t''. . . 1 , 1 ' ' i • ' • ri..,t 1 ; • ' ..„. .' , I . C 4: t': o.' I. i li i i , 0 1 1 . % i It.. • ' 1 . 1112 .9ME .t.,. l'I.1 • •■,:i ? , ,., e 1 / ..,P •• ■'. 0 ‘ g , • c • t — —. -;':f4::•'- / • C0i'''''''.4, 4 , • • ' 'II • III k. ,,,,.,, • - • 1 ,, . . 1, • • -- ! ip :, , ,I . . 1 f i , ,•:, 7■3■L .f $ I- I 7 .. .i I Ne 4'. / ' ) • - ., t 1 •.4 •- ...',. 1 • ' .) i I ' .• * A I. 1 • I - s I '. I: '0 0 1 : i r ' Jr/ lIr t . , ,1 . 1 i I l --- i i I 1 il( lif 1 1 144 : 1 1 . . I \ I i \ • i i l ikt r r e • * i , ir f % 1 . . AR ' '..1 I • ; .. .4 : . . • , i irl r . ■ 1 , 4- . yol ■ I 1 . e l? t ' . ■ ■ •• f • , -,, • 1 I ' . 4 f. —•• ' r A .11 ') - i 0 , I . • ••••''''''‘11)-• r . ',f i II " ' 1 ' • \ : / " I 4 .•,. 4. i . ,. • _ d' „r_ . i • .,,, - .-1 • eP.,.. ' . frt . t r A - `I.S:i.' . ./ i 7, • , -'' , • • 4 ' — 1 a' rA 7.4.• It.li . tr• 1 ' li -. • • i i 1 '. i ,), t t i ' t , r t r c., '‘' e • , ( , • • A ■■■• • • • ° , 1 • . .4 I # i . 4 I 1 i • T . ... ' s . • ..t .7 -..,. •-• ” Vpat i 4, V • „ -' .. ? er • , . „) ' i : . , : • r ■ s • i I A Cf :; i. .t. 1, . , _ . ',... ..--,.; .,..-. , - .9,,pet • , r 3* ; .' 1 i , r f .:-...fr ... a : ' .. e , 1 , , • 4 • - i , • , • ' 4, - :'• ' i .,1 ' • )• '.- . i -4,11.4% • .., . , _ ., I 47..;-• -.;:•.).... ...k. 4 :. f • • . ' 1 /,/ "It .4 . • ' * ,9 4 : . ,,4i• ' , • s ts A ■ 1., ,..I" , ' • ,, ' ... ,.. I il t4 i ' . :4 ". i'• 1 • i ■4' e t" ' 1. • ' ' 31 i- i -, I i • CO ' ) li I • ,,,/ I - s i • 14 t 1 I i I c,!: '" .,-. • ' 1 1"4 ift I ,.., ';'' rk r - !,t:. - - -- - •,•=-:•,..-- -, - . . i . , - . ,,.." • : 't• ', 'Ili • .,?; ,.. ‘ 4 , , 4 :::. -- - ' ' ' 1• 11 ' '",;. '.7, -- 1 i ' ' It ' t 4 / . i l , - • '' „„ , - • . . ',.. .1' IA 4 , •rs .1 t , -, - - •-t-..-tk.'.. .. . ' . . . , . 1, :0 . • t v ‘1) \ , ‘ ” ,./ ?, • , • 7 , t ,t 4 , .1,'. t ' s• X • i t t ,, b. ..z..,.,.. - J / t 1 1 • • . ■ I i . -4 , s k t • • 1 ' ".‘ .' I 't .: ' 114 4 1% 1 , .71 2 ,A S e . • 91 y P ' '' I . ■ • • 'i ... ''' I ' 4 t .' . • ' i . II" ' •I' ' • .•-...il '' i • • .# -•• '' , ''.- .. .1. • • , t,. ' ' 1 c, / An, h.er ' .1 ( 01 • . ; • i kl • , 4 ''3' 1 '' •'' ' t '. '1 I: A 1 , ! i r lbw ' , . '. ' .. . " i i'f Ali I ■ , ..i, 1- ii ., ,,_ ' I !. . .., Iti _ 4 , id A . . 1 r -, , i '. • . , . . 4 'cf ,, i , 1 • 4 i „, .v. 1 - , , , or P ,, .,, ."1 4 1 I ' ii'. (;• ' , _ ) , t ... • l . • 1 , .1/4 : .• ” (.... . I 1, /..,,./....! i k %;;, ii .i ,. . 411 r 0 • • 1 tr . • . 1 • 1 ,, . 1 I l' • p; ■ 1 1. ' . i', "I • ' ,u , 4 , ,.,,, . • ,, 1 I. :,:' • , CI.. •-,....• J;.', / li '' ) t '1 - - `;'1, "';'. . • ' . ' ' I ' ' i • „ , t. S. 4 • 4 • !I • r 4 41, 1 • • ? li ia 4 ' -;:31 ,1 % I, :7 ' .‘ I 0 ' i +4 • v 4' i ' ' f 1 1 • . " ' • (. • ; ‘; • INI 1 ' .• 1 ' ; 4 . pi • ? ... LAI ‘‘1, 44 I . i i :,.• ' ,,'.',‘. . . .,i.. ..4 i ih if ,p. , • ,. .#, ,., ..-, 1 ,ikz . . .1 •,, — , gs.•:y•.),-..,., . - f„ ' '7i • , , : •• .., 'tf'''', I 4: _ , • • tet•tt j.' : lit r ‘ - = - '171. • - -----,-- 1 1 I • 1 , ., 1,c, ' • , , . , , , - .•1•`..• 7,' ■ ., ,- l• i ' .1 , iLir IF 1: ; , . , t 1 • ' t • • 4, : - - , • it' 1 - • :„ 4 " 14 , $ .1;1.'1. I t 4 ' i• . i. — . `-'•••!.,.• ,s,.:',,,i - - 4 : . i \ • • ' ' 4'• . - 1 - • , ' • ' •• ' ' r . • t , ) ' ). ' %,,, 1 .,".` ; ; ; : I ,4 '• ',, '. %I A f.. : (7. :i• - :•'..j,''•' . r'y t*' 1 , • Ro 1 ' " 6 r i • , , , .. ,, r . 'I i 4 i f a k.i . — ._•'• r .. ..1, :',..z:. ' t: 14 • 4 ' " • .41 ' • I I t t a t 41 ill . • - . • • t, t l' 1 ' • . .., , .,, .„ ..., , tz, • s .-A' - ' • ! i tr.' .. . , . .. , .,...- . ... . .. J . ',' -=- '''... ' ;Y.1.- _17',' • Y.: i , : ' i . ii• 1, ' ,!; , . .., 1 ,.., ,;'..... 1 . - i , , .44,1 ) . , • " ' ' , •■ ' ' . - ' a i , , . 4 t . - • , , .- • ' , .7 11 t • 1 ' ' : 4 4 - . .• ...." ' ' . 1 , - ' ' ' .."; , . t.,'• .ro. ,, kl;1/4,1 . • . , . „ 6 1 * ti ,., I , — -..-, - i.,,,...1 .r.. . , ; , a la. .1., , • 't• ,` 1 r .1- ;11.,.1 . 4 . fl .. ' ..) . r • t 1 jr,• • • i it '; ' • I : .;17,. I ' 11 it 1 i l d r , ,, L . i• • : , • r j ' --'`.•'?gi*?' .'`..=-,- -.. .'. i: , . 1 .;.. - .....• .: 2 l'• -,..?...• , i, • - -. - ,.• -,. it , , ; ; , :.,,1 .. ••,,, ,, ,. ,,,...,, .-. v.' . ‘ 1 .1 - .,;;c- , r ■. t . ,i ,e," , r,., , ..••. ,,, p I - — '' ,' • of , . . f — ...f 1.:?..,,..: I • I: •,.; • . 1. i 1 ■ 4 : .. ' ' rt 4 ' ... . __ 1 . „.. 1 ..., .. i , ''. ...0.-'.- 1 • .• -.. . ! . '' ._ ,,,,.-,,..,„ ( ,, , , : , • 1.. ,.: h., ,,.. _ , . .1 ii- ....:•• .,- , , ••, ...- .. ‘, i . • . , ,. " - _ it, $: ; ' . ' all , • f' ! . i ii , { - . •.. : 41 -.=---• "•-, . . .:. . .i. . f _ , . •;;',. , , „ - • • . , i 6 ••1 f.. - - w• 1 ■°—"---- 41 I -- -- --. 4. 1 1 • i , 'Mfg, ; a . l '•ia ' I . .. .1rW — 7n' ' f. l'. l i I O led 11 Mali i iV A - ' 4 i All iniiiriniMill ' ‘'.. ..• ' ' `Id" 7 ' '' , , . a • e 1 f I ° 1 • h *., . . . ". I i■ • . ' — '" 1. 11nIff ...nolf • . — • 4 .. • • . k i : .I.• .. ' i .• _ 51 . . f 1 _ i 4 I i. — - ,-, . • .4- f Is- m & I • • i • magild116, 4 , .i, , 1 : , -, , — • _ _-- _.............=------.■:=--- i 1,-. ;,.. . . t t .1 •• 1 1.' g . Atti AA 1 •., k ' ..'• qi : . * - .4 ' ' IIIIIIIIIMIt ---- ' ..:',.'- 1 .0, . ..,,, ,[.,.;. . ;.....,,,..,, v. .0.i. , ,. , ..,.„,„ .„..,i1 .0. ,. 6 7 mv N. ..‘, i ,-, .4 . .0 t. ..,,:,,. 1 , .:„.. i 1 i: . , t 1 ' ,,' ..r ,, ,., I _ . ,.. • : i, . i ., ..,,, i t .. 4 1iiiik :... _...... — . , ,-.„..,,i .‘ ) ..At . .., . ... i .b. ,,, ,,• I * 4 ' "' — — • . ° • .1 4 1 1 4 . ' • .,, ; li i: - , r f• T4 - • .. .;. .i.* .4 1i. . 1 . ., r ; 'coll./ • .4. .... - • . 1 k i ,.., '...., v. • , , , ■.1% , - ,. si •• ii r , I 1 i . 4, ' ‘ , - - It._ • • ......:-..-- — •---A +' • ' ' • 4 _ - ,.. . .. ..4 . t . . • , . i : z „1 t ai.., .. . :, t ,, - 0,-,: 1 ,, . ,F.,....„,„ 6,...... ‹, k. -=- . ,-..,, w.f....a 14 • — ,' ''.e 4,4, 91 4‘ . i ' 4... 1 , '. di ! .1 'i " 1 ■ t 1 . pli 1 7 _ : , ,.....0i. - ' ••• ...,"' 1 1,4 4. ,` ,,' , • ,.., °, ''• 1 r • , _ — , • , ga. 1 . L ,, _ _ _ - .t. '1;4 • . _...„. l'A _ L A i id %.. P V . • . 4i . . _ tl illikt.0.24%. • / ____, APPENDIX E TRANE Acoustics Model Output § CO 8'- § a1- < )} o ) w -- - ft < ; 0 L.L. z $ 0 § < k z < \ \� o / � w I. \_ ■ �" 2� k /k kk 0 e co 200§ m N.� @� ( - , 0 0 . . •2 ' 8 / N 0) > 7 CO $ C i 3 = I 2 28 2u, / � ,� m ) \ < k 2 a� CO 0 csi L.,._.' « §« N C)19 > \ 0 ° y\ \ w G 10 g } \ ) �■ CO E § w� z ±p .c w \ % ® \f ® I . J a 2 I < 0 2 § § 0 k 0 0 ƒ 0 _ .. \ _ L.L. 2 u § V) \ § z < \§} § UJ } ƒ $ 3 R 0 n } 0 §k < �. e =22 ƒ \ $) w .\. = o = a , . &E LF • « 10§ 4 E - C k� . © 2 m : 1 2 f t " ° CO \ . • . N. § & C k = 20 m§ m� C© 0 1LO 2§ CO \ ( 0 § 2 ¢ R j/ G \ • 10 CO § C) } co } § C 0 w 2 0 '§ ] w L Z � \ $ k § E 2 : e : , . G § o v- E O )} o I < >- / / • $ 7 § $ c z§ E 0 < 2 ■ n . \�A 0 0 \ - % E 0 0 \ E\�\ E ' \§\$ 4 m § ° ± o i � ® ',L_. d\ co o O K G $ 2 � \'\ )� {f i » « r ": .41) E -Y oo \ \\ ) / ƒ �� y /( \ j 8 2§ 5 » Ja 0 m \ \}2 1 , CO \ / / 0 § § ! ¥ ; z E i— a § G ° G 2 \ { / [ 0 Co Z , \ CO 0 / ° § i;� ' O\ '= CO } ,>\ . 3 3 \ 11J ` i o . � ® . : w. o / g To §�§0 §§ E £ z �� 0 i2 ®} CO u < 0 \ 0) m ul 0 N O - N m CI C 7 C r Q �( LL a� } ■ " ' J r,a; a 0 c0 I- _ :::.E d Z Z ..: c Z U 2 ._ I < c J 7- c" ,,,a) 0 0- ' r� o - 0 O N m w To F- O co n tl � L o� 0 c t d C d CO 0 - Y Oo O - N C L iri ' (0 a() r m .�� Z o O m C N t N I N Z E • 1 . • U N J c 0 O Q' o y W • -• 0- m ' o m a- n n N m g.- l 9 in o an ty l O 4 .. 2 m CC V N COO M CO F- 0 ‘- r � � I. d N co N M O : V. N . - LLo 0 ce) e- o %- Z c0 co W 'o co M • 0 CL N r 7.ii L m (o m` a 5. m a) Z o W c W y J W Z N a -J u 7 (0 m Q c n. F- 0) CO o, 0E )\ a. } } § : 1 - :\ 2 0) / \ \ §} § R } : ) § 3 0 0 , \? %© co E < o ; $ N 0 ` E\cL§ 0 . n =I 0 4 0000 4 F. N-< N k)k k ) 7 /) §2 m �§ 3� a 7 �\ i , 2 • a- r § m ` ^ ) .0 ± R 2 CL - I \ 2 Q 2§ co o / o 03 co CL \ { , \ A § § R o I- o ® \ § \ § CO 2 § CO m q 2 / 0 0 , h co 2° co 2 0 ' G § CC ] o . /\ Cl_ \3 e cu co D ( _,,i } \� %� \ } j \ k , , 'cL . : I-- a) Lo 0 N O Ol cc 0 C_ Z U- -:_. } J a a CO I- z �v; u) Z : x I- O eJ` `4 c Z U W I- In Q�Z 2 > (46 al c a) 1`o 0 O A U n � (•c 0 �r a Sao 0 Y n o N- ai c a� d if) a 10 1A ,- m @ o cja m v r E Z 00 = x �o .- M ,_,, O Z E N n b N o • 41) U W Y CO O W Ca.: - :� n ' m c , ' h 19 N a 7V m C1 z e ;, F I- .0 O 1A 0 LO N -- -- ;).. = 0 ca CL C10(1 CO M ' - € - > • N co n 1 c ) - O D � 0- N co 0 0 0 ( 0 M _ U o O Co) 000 0 CO Z CL 7 Co y OS CO 0_ o I > a) z co • W C N LL N W J W Z v L Z 4 j ~ a - QO t- ri