Loading...
2. Request for Land Use Plan Amendment - The HighlandsCITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 I 11 _6 C_„ PC DATE: 1/15/97 CC DATE: 2/10/97 CASE #: 96 -4 PUD, 96 -2 LUP and 96 -14 SPR Bv: Genero v 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 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, The Highlands. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5 APPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc. 15 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 (61 ?1934 -6238 r 1vr.JL1I 1 L.V14114". CIL, 1 .UiLuaal LaLaw "LOU:... DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: 50 acres + /- 5.86 units /acre (gross) 6.8 units /acres (net) 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 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 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 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 LOCATION MAP LAKE a NARR /¢ON 1 O m 1 LOCATION AR8 )HE Pq I AKE ANN PA ?K The Highlands PUD 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. 2. Perimeter building setbacks within a PUD are 50 feet. 3. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a better transition from the existing single family development to the south. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 3 4. The total number of units must be reduced to a maximum of 268. 5. The applicant shall investigate the use of a fourth housing type. A single loaded townhouse unit that could better accommodate the existing topography may be appropriate. 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 shelteribus 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 provide variation in unit views along Highland Boulevard. 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 Hennessey parcel to the west. 13. The intersection spacing from Galpin Boulevard to the access for the cottage units needs to be increased. 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 4 dwelling units: 32 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 center of the villa units. 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. 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 5 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 in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A10-14(l) 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 6 It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 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. 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 7 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). 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 8 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 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 Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 9 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 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 10 proposed intersecting road. This ponding basin must be in place or constructed as a part of the overall improvements of phase H. 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 runoff from TI1. 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 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 11 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 plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a l0 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnel 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 2 %z -inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Storm Water Oualitv 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 12 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. 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 13 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 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 14 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 (Hennessey 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 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 Il is completed, it will provide an alternative route to proposed Arboretum Boulevard for residents north of this development. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 15 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 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 Hennessey 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 The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 16 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 $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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 17 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. 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 18 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 #96 -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. 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 Hennessey'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 Hennessey parcel for ingress and egress over the private streets within the development. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 19 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." 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 20 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. 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 21 26. The applicant shall perform a traffic study to determine the limits of development. The City shall restrict the number of lots to be platted to prevent the level of traffic exceeding capacity at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the east /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. 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 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. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 22 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. 41. Perimeter building setbacks within a PUD are 50 feet. 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 unit that could better accommodate the existing topography may be appropriate. 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 proposed tot lot is too small 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 the project. The Highlands January 15, 1997 Page 23 48. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the natural features on the site. 49. The developer should revise the building orientation of the townhouse units to provide variation in unit views along Highland Boulevard. 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 increased." 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 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 & Dam Hennessy to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/12/97 10. Sketch Plan for Hennessey 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 "18/96 10 :3Z:46 i 612- 937 - 5739 -> 612 941 3438 CITY OP CHANHASSEN 890 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 6697 (012) 987.1900 612 - 937 - 573 9 `[S ��y� ♦yss ML Hfs I'age Z DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION cITY u : PPLICANT: DbRE66: Residential Development, Inc 15 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen. MN 55317 E1 EPHONE kDay tlrne) 934 -6238 tnp�alle}�sive Plan A m e ndmeM 11. Vacation of ROW /Easement` 12. Jarlanoe 13. ✓wetland Alteration Permit 14, toning Appeal 16. toning Ordinance Amendment Not 1110800n Signs p, ,. Gkb Plan 49view ,� Escrow for Filing Fees/P.ttorn Cost" !61)0 0UP /6PR/VAC/VAFVWAP $00 Minor 6UBIMe1e A bounds TOTAL F:E 6 A Ilst 1 ¢ f s 1 , {�party owners within 500 feet Of the boundarls`a of the property must Inolufs?id �I hths applloatlon. i Twenty-SIX full si=s 121M 000196 of the plans must be BUIDni 014° X 11•' Rebuced copy of transparency for each plan shoot. NOTE • When multlpMa applications art processed, the appropriate tea hall 158 eil¢,�jcd for sdch application. •' Escrow will be rbqulred for other applications through the development contract OWNER: Lars T. Conway ADDRI36i: 4415 Freemont Avenue South i i Minneapolis. MN 55409 I i S I:.LE:F`FI3riE: , t Cdhdltiorial Use Permit I B,i dln�1 >�cavation Permit 9• ..._. r_ traprirtl 64 Permit I Penned 066 Develop i g. R040ning son 6onhe e, Son PIat1 Oeview 11. Vacation of ROW /Easement` 12. Jarlanoe 13. ✓wetland Alteration Permit 14, toning Appeal 16. toning Ordinance Amendment Not 1110800n Signs p, ,. Gkb Plan 49view ,� Escrow for Filing Fees/P.ttorn Cost" !61)0 0UP /6PR/VAC/VAFVWAP $00 Minor 6UBIMe1e A bounds TOTAL F:E 6 A Ilst 1 ¢ f s 1 , {�party owners within 500 feet Of the boundarls`a of the property must Inolufs?id �I hths applloatlon. i Twenty-SIX full si=s 121M 000196 of the plans must be BUIDni 014° X 11•' Rebuced copy of transparency for each plan shoot. NOTE • When multlpMa applications art processed, the appropriate tea hall 158 eil¢,�jcd for sdch application. •' Escrow will be rbqulred for other applications through the development contract OWNER: Lars T. Conway ADDRI36i: 4415 Freemont Avenue South i i Minneapolis. MN 55409 I i S I:.LE:F`FI3riE: , t 1Z/10/96 10:33:15 1 OOOJECT NAm 4*ATION t 9# AL DESORIP'nDN 61Z- 937 - 5739 - > The Highlands See Attached P,R�SENT ZONINCI A " z-- AEbUESTE6=Z INO LAI) r I 61Z 941 3430 F'r r6 ENT LAND 1,118d DE91QNATION Z Ira - . V2 A1361.11ESTED LAND 4 8F D E SIQNATIbN RE�SON FOI%THIS REQUEST Thij applloatlo moat he completed In full and be typewritten or clearly 1 Pla p lans ing Deg rim�nt to d aicable erminG the specific ordi nance and pr000& 1 h10 Is to y the wit all Clty nn uI m the CN s o ership (elk er authorized pe on'i I w I keep Int elf uhleratand a au rizat thoio of fby kno 9. the of i m making applloatlon for the described aotlon by is with regard to jhIs request, This application ON oontact regardino any matter pertaining to this of Owner's Duplicate Certlfloate of Title, Abstre ake this application and the fee owner has also i 612- 937 -5739 Page 3 �� , J ��•.4,ti� Leh led and must be a000rrpanled by all Information V this application, e you h oo d oonf e with . the requirements app he City and that 1 am responsible for complying Ad be processed In my name and I am the party pptbstlon. I have attached a copy of proof of rt of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the fined this application. ied of the dea4llne6 for submission of matedeliand the progress of this application. I further 11 fees may be :charged for consulting fees, 1198 Iblitly E oto. with en estimate prior to any with the study. The documents and Informatloni have submitted are true s:i,d Carr__.: is the t"-31 ter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded )pony for which the approvallpermh Is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's ocument returned to City Hall Records. Date Date . speture of fade Q"r A*IORtlon ReEolved on I l ` Fee Paid ThO appAaP a t,p t!I contact staff for a copy of the staff report me0ting. If njtt c nl, cted, a Copy of the report will be mslled 10 It J ,. iyrf Reoelpt No.. � `-1 will be available on Friday prior to the )ant's address. T 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, Superintendent 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 16 1 19 9 6 CITY OF CHANH, 14 - 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. ATTEST: Ke11y H. Von De Bur, Clerk Lana u.. B$owN & HoEmAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8085 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426 -1351 (612) 5 91-99 50 DOUGLAS J. BROWN FAX (612) 591 -9202 PAUL W. GODFREY- DAVID C. HOLMAN JEFFREY G. CARL50N KIM D. AMUNDSON BETH DIESEL MANDEL Mr. Ladd Conrad Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 7, 1997 MARK G. PRYOR PENNY F. HELGREN PAULA LARSON- RICHARD DOUGLAS J. McINTYRE *ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN 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 number 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, Mark G. Pryor MGP /jaf D I m I iJ & Cindi.Ten 2171 Briiikex Street Chanhassen. MN 55317 Taman 8, 1997 Chanhassen Planning Coinrriczs; t) n Chanhassen City I lall T , r Pl.i i inin I s Comi',Jon 1 , , mK:rs )ul I'llink llio%QJ 11wil �alllt LOLlis V,111. to (Aiaidias�Cil o% cr tv), u \,I-ars auo. \Vc made th mc)v�: ift -r three veal -s in c i I (ini"ing fo ill`;! th- r '- i t f- in(ep 1xa5 to tied -,I horn. iii a ommuliit l , li.rl­ 1%� l"oLlld v 1i1li our d-lildien io g ro'A up. WC ;!jd -f"+ tocu on erne specific area to tied 11. hat NVe Wet 1c)(A iTIO, for - « e Comid .r(-d lht- lUllllkldiliLlCS Of It ;iTT1111v mlr- wt here look'"o tor a corim".1111IN Nvil . n a 'miali teet. T ind Ixith it,-)r . 'i •,11, n( -V'4, busin,; ov,n,ers and liocai hi Tfi of I 9 d 1 !I ow 1111(j1 Io 111,2 4, hiI4 - .i ( '11111tilunilk cl kkt f T . I -It"k fit \,j - L J, L, 1 11 It, .I, I ;. I d Run in Cll_;1111,\ 'C11. A L I IIIe fikcki Cfimiha and wc hkcd k\,hM %kk: No%x. :il '08inklmid Kmi. 111 ilad and *Iw`iuWidiil_­ IA_lnL:1i1'W' 1"Un al"i LO `.d J,,N' tl -nd dir.I.-Ci1v (I!!!h fit tli- \�'ItTdrjlill 1 I I. T1 U111 pqlin. inO nnor tf1 Mainz MW firlil dtNi-i(n :)h("It \k Ml M d (31,2 U] A u I poi! out ti m the, itei fit "Ikimini'll Ron wac Harinc-d w 1 Thi- vvr imporl if) us m makins olli dok:ision lo 13tilld our home a( 2173) al a piu &1\,;l1oplllIwilt LaUI.:d it 1, ..l ii­ lial id-S :,I Nvotfld appiminixt0• �O acres direc• sowh of WiTI(finill 1?1111. t he 1,rnn I Ti T i:,I If i L D U. ..v­l it, 1'. IC UI :aI lll.:U LL I U. I dr-veloper'v, pbn iiicludeo buildinj hi denlitv housim on anormirnav-kr a third ofthe iand 1 192 units Oti 1�.' Wl- I,,; oppostd to IN, prop,)S,.,7. Inn! in keening \Nlth th comprehensive elan nor is it in keeping win the ImOnnation + T ..11 irl km)ulp- min ills decl Jolt ( it% madc oil X Im 7) i. ��J To, \l hen 11c maic oui' iicclsli)Ii to IaiSe our laiilri> nn l.haiiliaaScll and to nia'mc a subatatltiai in bu llns ou. hom. - R', did so with infonnition about thl nr!?R lng communit\ from the Gitl planners at ChLard (- Mall. ',V c 1bu auLca and lou.eu for`. nr to a Inv, (1 , 1 - mi": tamily n,i hh( to mir cnUth We do not b e that tile proposed -- Iligllland, del'clopnlclit is ni Support of ChanhasscIi's comprehensive land use plan and we believe the proposed plan % unduly increase density, traflic and safely in our neighborhood. We know you have not yet made a decision on tltis matter. As you are called upon to l ,A, a planninL d1..i� ion frr,' the city of C hanhassen. <<, c sir. erely hope you «'ill follow Chanhassen's comprehensive land use plan and reject the niedium density PUD proposal. •]'hank you for taking the time to read this letter and listening io onr concerns. Sill"relt . David kns.n Cinch ':r.�en : ; � 1 CITY OF 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\mI\highIands CITY OF CHANHASOrN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 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 Reaul ements - 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. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement *3 must still be met S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers H deemed necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dweMna unit) Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Comnnerclal Reaulrsments 1. Minimum height shall be 12" 2. Strip Malls a. Mutt) tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main 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 Date: 06 /15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 fm PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .r CARVER COUNTY January 8, 1997 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Career County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 -2192 Phone(612)361 -1010 Fax(612)361 -1025 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Administration Parks Engineering Highway %laintutance surveying R Mapping SUBJ: Planned Use Development The ; ?!gy!ands, RcSidel't; Ceveloprntnt, !tic. (?5 ., FUu,96 2 L.UP an i JS i 1 SFR) Following are comments regarding the land use plan amendment for The Highlands transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated December 16, 1996. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class 1) are: Urban Undivided 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 80' 100' Urban Undivided 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 100' 110' Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 110' 120' Rural Divided 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class 1) 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. 4prtrmrt it 1. ! ni L.I;t.t! opporrmutp Emplotrr P m:, I on Io l' „�r- Convii ae r Kervr(cd 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. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive IUBJECT: The Highlands Planned Unit Development - PPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc. OCATION: NE Corner of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5 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, 1997. p a'�3 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 7521 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Sharon Pryor 7541 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Margaret Manning 7460 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Judith Selinger 7480 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joel & Susan Reimers 7495 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Charles Peterson & Bonnie Botten 7496 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 William Thompson & Mary Floto- Thompson 7491 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy & Joy Bott 7490 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy & Bonita Mihalko 2198 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kathleen Haldeman 2059 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Jeanette Fiedler 7500 Windmill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patricia Lynch & Amy O'Shea 7475 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Cheryl Kohler 7510 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael Ronningen & Dawn Cook - Ronningen 7471 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edward & Kathy Loveridge 7508 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jean Kingsrud 2027 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Carol Oberaigner 2075 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jon & Naomi Noelder 7511 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Stephen Tornio & Virignia Bell 7476 Crocus Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & Pamela Schwartz 7509 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 David & Cynthia Sebold 7470 Tulip Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ron & Diahann Potter 2180 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Joan Joyce 2043 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Brian Erdman & Dawn Harris 2091 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey Stone & Wendy Loushin -Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Colin & Desiree Brown 2103 Brinker St. 2117 Brinker St. 2131 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 whe Wojtanowski Brian & Jennifer Monteith David & Cinda Jensen Y145 Brinker St. 2159 Brinker St. 2173 Brinker St. 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ;ideny Scorse III & Rebecca Scorse 7187 Brinker St. 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Nadia Janson 2199 Brinker St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 John Hennessy & D. Rengers 7305 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 _.arty & Elizabeth Vandeveire :890 Co. Rd. 10 E. .haska, MN 55318 heodore & Marlene Bentz 1300 Galpin Blvd. :xcelsior, MN 55331 1 3luff Creek Partners 23 N. 3 rd St., Suite 307 .4inneapolis, MN 55401 Douglas & Theresa Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 J. P. Links Inc. c/o John Przymus 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darleen Turcotte 7240 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Michael Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 i. 01/09/97 III ?Bird Avenue South, Suite 350 Minneapolis, KIN 55401 (612) 332 -0421 Fax: (612) 332 -6180 Date: To: 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTON- ASCHMAN 19APITON- A5CHMAN A550CIA7 INC. FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET �7 , Time: /z °0 A.M. /P.M. Se N e Wv-:9 Firm/ 1 11d 7 Agency: Ck" AC4sAt Subject: i e-A '/ "'0 �� dBc�'PLst,4»c Sender: , iis+ K w'{50 --ti [a 001/003 Fax # Job # YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ , -3_ (including cover sheet)) PAGE(S). IF YOU DO N OT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLE4SE CALL (612) 332.0421. Atfl /c a cw✓V e y re- vie w d + is oAnt 4 HARD COPY. ❑ WILL O WILL NOT FOLLOW IN THE MAIL (check one) CC: 01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTON- ASCHMAN 121002/003 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 6181 ■ ■ WON A I BARTCN-ASCMIAN Q 003/003 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 Dear Commission Members, Jan. 12, 1997 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 . JL. Affit3m '.MAN AmsiialLiAm lxr.!Ir.01F 9 ii lbi A 16 A 1pr.nr?v SKETCH PLAN FOR HENNESSEY PARCEL • • I s� r, Nan 1 -A �.2 : 7/,t,Z �J r� 1a.. _ � � �a� -vr2G! rfi�C.c I I r I — -- T — __ — • /J/'/�i� ✓��J' I /(IUi i i `�G� ���y� —'a // �� KAY i , `1 - - - - -- - - - - -- -- , INRT/52r� �k�/ VV CITY OF 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 = S96,000 188 units @ $1,000 = $188,000 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, Todd Hoffman Park & Recreation Director c: �— Bob G'ert- rou — s, Senior PIa`nner Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer _ - F1GURF. 1. Rl bb $ �.Rx7"a�tte�K?# wit+ t1S.+ L' r7l RY .104.Xr�c:ri�tift7aQPg9rrs7;srf f Ac -r3 r ��/� I 11S'Z aa0 .�l2'y�/rMC3.4 ,� 3d, 24 Ht 2 CLZ.2t ' 2 M MC4..6e° a. 1 o we -w.t MC4.B a.3 _ uc3.2 L27f S / ( - 2 T24 - MCa.3 24' 7 tl 1 • Kt LM1.6 30 5 R y 24 " "� *-112 -• f�/ ctr r - �...r 3tY 67 9 - IT crrn.t MC_A3 �I• , MC4.t a,� 1 A fe9.s C7r A. IOD& 15 LY -A.6 979 .! 6 MC3.1 ` . , I J� , 0062 .SLL- -L].1, CL -A.It c11 e Lm -Pr 7 N l .a P I N�" -- tNO A t 13 4 17 24 7!.0 740 361 S 1014.0 1017 937.7 9 7e 2 S CL- s 33o" Lul. kyl.t 17 f 0 ct c 2a Lu t -- eo-n .I ! 7eo 9a3.f CU to Za LMt.7ty '' -/a�,� LU1 7 L I f9EA ,000. 2a /, + 17 1 1 5'2t 44 a5 16 ! l= tt 1LM1.B8 l LU1.8 \ cant < j 4, 1 2Y * 24 24. LU1. _ 99z.3 c7�ns 1 1.3 2, .0�A - -_- � rIFA •LU1. •� 72.0 4. 75FI 24- n.7 V. 0 1.94 2 2 `422 0 ,a2e3 a 7 �!5 1 t 5 pee.o 7, . �, ,e� ` 3 2i LU5.1 2 t 18 6.8 •- n> - vr.e 1 /tI-R/ d -A � 24 4_ 974.7 8777 - -- - 11.11.8 `lT 3T 975-5 riJ .0 J 7 QK �� ru=ns ,eq 099,E 1. 1.16 Yr LU1.11 242 „ %991-0 f13.7 �5 1, u _n.e '` 9e1. 96i LN1.70.3C1 2�6 a 2 5 4 m -A.7 3 s 9 gas �- 1 i ) LM1.7C 2i _,,.[ "4.0 Sae LM 1.794 1B-T er 2 LU7.1 3Q' U t i 7 LU 2. 3.3 St ` -1 r1I- .t 0907-0 Y N2.6� ` 97LW 9 69&L2 104 i�i . }�3 '• ��•\ O 9�a2 3 SE �14L-no s" K t T LM2. 023.0 1023.9 BC l.tt 24' gC-A.f / 1016.0 1021 1016 a .0 Iol 24 .d Ct.4 s A _.�A�12Q An \1, BC 1.1 801. (1:. )� 2i 24'.J s \ R u. 3\03.21 'BTF'22 ��3.8 1 �Y 1 3U' 1 LU3.4/ � 4 -AI a Lake Ann Highlands 9c2.2 i9Ci,19 9)TDT946: �- - BCt t� 024- 946.0/949.9 ` BC_A1 Bc- 1603 - 24' _t3C2.3 n;3.19 2 - \ - BC3.1 5 BC2.16 - - f .15 ,- Q&2.17 1 B BC BC2.1 49.21 13C aC, 27 2.7 ee -Ke p2k BC1.29 2 4 ' D Bcj s \ R u. 3\03.21 'BTF'22 ��3.8 1 �Y 1 3U' 1 LU3.4/ � 4 -AI a Lake Ann Highlands - 9 9)TDT946: �- - 4 _a--a _O;r S _ 4 _ n;3.19 2 C� O BC3.1 5 5 - O B - - - L 1 B BC 3\03.21 'BTF'22 ��3.8 1 �Y 1 3U' 1 LU3.4/ � 4 -AI a Lake Ann Highlands V, RecommevldOtIOV15 This section recommends a series of projects and practices necessary to achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Committee. VA Natural Re5owrces A.1 UpUM5 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 Galpin 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. 131Uff Creek WaTer5�ed NaNral Re5owce5 Moviaaemevit PUA Page 51 A Y Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary 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 prer'erred. 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 100 feet should be established along Bluff Creek and along ail wetlands within the corridor. A mixture of tree and 31uff Creek Warershed Naftval Re5ource5 ,titaraclement Plan Page 51' 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 - Alternate 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. FEB -04 -1997 12:06 BRW R, ®I DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: Miles Lindberg R w INC. PROM: Rick Nau, AICP Aaron He rmann , EIT 612 370 1378 P.02i0�. Memorandum laru=- RE: Lake Anne Highlands Development Traffic Analysis ramportartm ngintwnng :rban Oesrgn As you requested, this memo addresses two questions about the Lake Anne Highlands Development located east of Galpin Road and north of Trunk fbvshrr square Highway (TI1) 5 in Chanhassen, MN. The fast question is, how much of the OO Third street So. proposed development can be accommodated by the one access to the project Ininpa area off of Galpin Road? The second question is, how much of the traffic Tv;54Ts o�rnn generated by the proposed development is expected to use the roadway system ;zis� ,, 61.'/3 ,700 ,a through the residential development immediately to the north of the project? �-n er Directional traffic counts were collected by BRW, Inc. along Galpin Road hlwaukee approximately '/, mile north of TH 5 on January 21 and 22, 1997. The hourly TtN-raDolii counts are provided in the attached Table 1. The counts indicated a split of )r1m,do approximately 67 %/33% southbound to northbound in the AM peak hour and horro\ 33 %/67% southbound to northbound in the PM peak hour. The major and onland minor directions were found to be slightly less than 100 and 50 for the peak anD'•.gn hours, respectively. In order to generate a conservative analysis, the major Ca ttle 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 Trin Generation Manual. Fifth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) 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 Galpin Road was assumed to have a growth rate of 2 percent per year. FEB - 04 -1997 12:07 BRW 612 370 1378 P.03:0-� Miles Lindberg January 22, 1997 Page 2 Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis was performed at the intersection of the project access road with Galpin load using the procedures documented in "Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the 1994 Update to the High Caoacitv 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 $ 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 fownd 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 TABLE 1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS GALPIN ROAD NORTH OF TH 5 /ARBORETUM BLVD. 612 370 1378 P.04 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 22 1.4% 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% 11 11:00 AM 66 40 106 7.0% 5 12:00 PM 45 49 94 6.2% 7 01:00 PM k 33 1 41 74 4.9% 11 02:00 PM 53 1 46 99 6.5% 6 03.00 PM 49 41 90 5.9% 9 04:00 PM 82 43 125 8.2% 3 05:00 PM 88 40 128 8.4% 2 06:00 PM 64 24 88 5.8% 10 07:00 PM 36 35 71 4.7% 13 08:00 PM 26 19 45 3.0% 16 09:00 PM 32 18 50 3.3% 15 10:00 PM 12 7 19 1.2% 18 11:00 PM 5 4 9 0.6% 20 Totals 783 739 1,522 100.0% 01/22197 Source: BRW, Inc. counts from January 21-22,1997. U:ILAKEANNE(2).WK4 FEE' -134-1997 12.08 BRW 612 370 1378 P.0 O o CI � N H n w n N M n M GD W aa e < y FZ b p r N O� O O O p o O O O p p o rn N N S Ir o ^ w O o 0 o O O O o 0 o p p p b q U b b w w 1C b 1[l w w b b w b N N u x � 0 0 0 0 0 o it I 0 0 0 a o o ttt� b b b b b b b N b b b N u] v] ul b a r r9lo a g Q r W h' M1i S Aiz�l w MI N N m I m N N < N N w I z a. ;� & � � aE tE a2 32 x2 ;R :R 'P.• :P• 'P.. i.E a R p� n A h O1 N Ol A al N A m n N n w A O OI `j JFa N N 1 M N V f m M M w M M m Q i si 2E 2E :R :R 32 22 3e X'. 1E A .p w 4ix ?2 e e9 I �z e9 X I �F c." 6t a' a � y- _ I 'e = y { J 2 J N N N N N N N r N 7. 5 p( n n n, I m m w IR I n m b is w a b 6 1 b - n_ o I oa S d m C c 9 9 a f� cC; 'n �N , 6v 1 r 3 C 2 C .i 2 =C C N 13 V ¢ 8 g w s € ¢ $ WO LLI 2 Q W,^ N S Jl t fi 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: 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. REOUEST 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 REOUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, DEVELOPMENT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES: PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION REOUEST 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 Bill Scose Brian Erdman Brian & Jennifer S. Monteith Nancy Mancino Julie Wojfanowski D. Cook - Ronningen William Thompson Steve Janson Tom Campbell John Hennessy Mark S. & Wren Feyereisen Cindy & Henry Wanserski David & Cinda Jensen Joan Joyce Bonita Mihalko Naomi Noddner Allan Olson Virginia Bell Amy O'Shea Rick & Margaret Manning Steve Monson Pam Schwarz Rick Murray Lee Glover Tim Whitten Bob Payette Joe & Jean Bray Dean Gregory Andrea & Mike Salvador Wendy Stone Richard Neff Terri & Hani Gidani Joan & Ken Weis Jon Noeldner Charles Peterson Susan Reimers Address 2187 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street 2159 Brinker Street 6620 Galpin Blvd. 2145 Brinker Street 7471 Tulip Court 7491 Tulip Court 2199 Brinker Street 2065 Majestic Way 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7501 Windmill Drive 7521 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street 2043 Brinker Street 2198 Brinker Street 7511 Crocus Court 7461 Windmill Drive 7476 Crocus Court 7475 Crocus Court 7460 Windmill Drive 8850 Audubon Road 7509 Tulip Court 15 Choctaw Circle 15 Choctaw Circle The Rottlund Company Sathre - Berquist, Wayzata, MN 2126 Majestic Way 2101 Majestic Way 2086 Majestic Way 2103 Brinker Street 2150 Majestic Way 2117 Majestic Way 2101 Majestic Way 7511 Crocus Court 7496 Crocus Court 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? C! 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, I 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, 9 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 0 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 % 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 %2 -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 %2 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 %2 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 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 $ 1 10,000.00 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 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, I 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 I 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 flew 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 3 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 2nd 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 % 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 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. 1, 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 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 we'll 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 abetter 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 I 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. 1 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 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 staffs 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 staffs 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. ►.. 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. REOUEST 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 Gary Goll Jason Funk Terrie Thurmer Doug Cowan Michelle Johnson, APT Address 1455 Park Road 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina 1701 East 79 Street, Bloomington 1701 East 79 Street, Bloomington 27