2. Villages on the Ponds, PUD 95-2CITY OF �
�SANI3ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
C
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: December 6, 1995
SUBJ: Villages on the Ponds, PUD 95 -2
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting conceptual approval of a.mixed use (commercial, office, residential)
Planned Unit Development, PUD, on 66 acres of land. The Planning Commission reviewed the
proposal several times and held two public hearings on the concept recommending conceptual
approval to City Council on November 15, 1995. City Council reviewed the proposal on
November 27, 1995. At that time, City Council moved to direct staff and the applicant further
refine the concept plan including the staff's recommendations and come back with a conceptual
planned unit development for the Villages on the Ponds.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant has revised their concept plan to realign the Lake Drive /Great Plains Boulevard
extension to the south, consistent with staff's recommendation. This revision designates four
mixed use areas, rather than the four Retail CBD areas, one Residential area, and three Office
areas. In the northeast corner of the site is a 4.2 acre parcel proposed for retail and office uses.
In the central portion of the site is a 20 acre parcel designated for office, institutional,
retail /services, and residential. In the southern portion of the site is a 2.5 acre residential /park
site. In the southwest portion of the site is a 1.1 acre residential area. On the west side of the site
is a 9.2 acre office and retail/service area. In the north of the parcel is a proposed 11.0 acre retail
office area. Finally, in the southern portion of the site in the wetland areas are open space. A
large wetland/ponding complex separates the northern commercial areas.
MEMORANDUM
Don Ashworth
December 6, 1995
Page 2
ANALYSIS
"The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan
to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without
incurring substantial costs."
Staff believes that the purpose of the conceptual review of a PUD is to establish the parameters
for the development to proceed through the next phase of the PUD process. Specifically, the city
needs to evaluate the types and distribution of land uses within the proposed development and
provide the applicant with direction as to the issues and concerns which the city has with the
proposal.
Staff has no problems with the designation of the northern 14.2 acres for retail and office uses.
This land use is consistent with the existing 2000 Land Use Plan and, through appropriate design
criteria, would add to the "downtown" commercial development in the community. In order for
the city to provide a full range of shopping opportunities for Chanhassen residents, additional
retail space should fill niches that are not currently available in the community. Some examples
are apparel and accessory stores, specialty stores, upscale restaurants, and personal services. In
addition, within commercial areas, office users can be located.
The realignment of Lake Drive /Great Plains Boulevard creates an appropriate transition to less
intensive uses south in the project, consistent with the direction provided by City Council.
Staff agrees with the designation of office as the primary use of the 20 acre parcel south of Lake
Drive. Institutional uses, if they can provide shared parking opportunities for the office,
commercial, and residential uses, may be appropriate within the project and is consistent with the
Highway 5 Corridor Study recommendation for the property. Staff would recommend that the
retail /services be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the building area within this parcel and
that the uses be support commercial to the office, residential, and institutional uses. Staff
supports the inclusion of residential units within the development, specifically as it relates to life
cycle (attached) and rental housing units.
Staff reiterates its recommendation that the proposed residential uses south of the trail system be
removed and left as open space and that this area be used for density transfer or as an offset to
site impervious surface coverage for the development.
Staff agrees with the designation of office as one of the uses on the 9.2 acre parcel adjacent to
Lake Susan. However, we do not support the inclusion of retail /service uses on this site and
would instead recommend that residential (medium density) be a land use component of this
parcel, which is consistent with the existing designation of the property as well as that
recommended in the Highway 5 study.
Don Ashworth
December 6, 1995
Page 3
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.
Conceptually, the proposed development has potential for meeting the future needs of the
community. Staff believes that there are numerous potential benefits for mixed use projects. A
mixed use development would be unique to the city and would provide a focal point on the fringe
' of the downtown area and additional vitality to the community. The village concept provides a
pedestrian friendly environment and the provision of transit services. Staff feels that it is critical
' to incorporate residential components as part of this development, either as upper story
residential units or as distinct structures, or in conjunction with the office development.
' RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council grants conceptual approval of PUD #92 -1 sketch plan stamped received
December 5, 1995 with the following conditions:
1. The retail /services uses shall be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the building area
within the 20 acre parcel located in the central portion of the site. The retail /service uses
shall be support commercial to the office, residential, and institutional uses.
2. The uses for the 9.2 acre parcel of land adjacent to Lake Susan shall be limited to office and
medium density residential uses.
3. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west
' across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the
project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system
on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the
' density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD or be used
to meet non - impervious surface coverage for the entire project.
4. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project.
5. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including
setbacks, building heights and bulk, maximum building square footage, and the proposed
specific uses.
Don Ashworth
December 6, 1995
Page 4
6. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific
architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in
all land uses within the project.
7. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of
affordable housing within the project.
8. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass
transit opportunities within the development.
9. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project.
10. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and
wetlands.
11. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining
public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East
will require an 80 -foot wide right -of -way and the southerly loop street a 60 -foot wide right -of-
way.
12. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and
approval.
13. The applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not
interfere with traffic congestion and public safety.
14. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to
determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use.
15. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this
development.
16. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to
guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
IT The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to
accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from
the site.
1
Don Ashworth
' December 6, 1995
Page 5
18. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report
by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan,
' wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable
permit application for wetland alteration.
' 19. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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.
' 20. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development.
' 21. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development.
22. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods
' to the east from this development.
23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent
' with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report.
24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium
density (4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density.
25. No big box users shall be permitted within the development.
Attachments
' 1. City Council Minutes of November 27, 1995
2. Staff Report (less attachments) dated revised November 22, 1995
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to deny Sign Permit Variance 095 -9 based on the
findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance.
2. Richfield Bank has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with two wall signs and
fountain area.
3. Provisions exist in the City Code for the use of directional signs.
4. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF
COMMERCIAL. OFFICE. SINGLE AND MULTI- FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD.
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
(Taping of the meeting began again during the staff report presentation on this item.)
Bob Generous: ...Every opportunity for pedestrian movement within the project is provided. We believe the
proximity to the downtown and through the designation of appropriate uses that this could be a supplement to
our downtown area and actually enhance the community. Staff is recommending that this project be given
conceptual approval with the direction contained in the staff report and that the applicant move forward to
address those issues that are outlined. Thank you and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, thanks Bob. I guess I've got just a question for Kate. Some of the letters that I've
received, one specifically here indicates that we feel however that city planning staff is forcing rental housing
through by requiring it as a part of this development. Can you put some clarifications on some of that?
Kate Aanenson: Certainly. As you know the city spent a lot of time going through the Highway 5 document
and re- addressing this specific piece of property and as Bob showed you, originally it had some commercial on
it. There was concern that there was an opportunity to put a big box user on this piece of property and that was
not desirous of the city. I think once Byerly's and Target went in, we really felt like there should be hitting
another pitch in that area. So that was reguided and that comp plan is up before the Met Council for review to
go industrial for a majority of that northerly portion of property. But with the caveat that if they did come in,
there was an opportunity for up to 25% support commercial so if there was a large user in there, there could be
some support commercial with it. So when this proposal first came before the staff we had some work sessions
with the Planning Commission because at first blush we were opposed because we spent all this time coming
forward with a different plan, that we were already in review. This basically kind of put us on our head to
rethink this whole opportunity. So our first look at it said, well if we're going to get, if the developer wants
some more commercial, what's in the best interest of the city? First of all we want to have something different.
And second of all, if there is to be additional commercial on this property, which we weren't really sure that we
needed, then what is in it for the city and we felt like one of the things we needed, as Bob indicated, some more
rental type housing. And a portion of that could be affordable. We've heard all kinds of stories that we're
trying to dump a whole project on there that's low income or something like that. That's not the case at all.
21
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
There's a whole gamut of types of rental and moderate priced or affordable housing. There's all different types
' of jargon words on that so I think there's a lot of fear in that. The other concern I have on this is that, in some
ways I think the developer's kind of made the city, the staff look like we're the ones forcing this. Whereas in
the fact that he's coming forward or the applicant's coming forward with a different proposal than was
' recommended and we're saying, well if that's the approach you want to go, then we're trying to find what would
be in the best interest of the city. So we're trying to balance those two things. If they want additional retail,
which we had never considered there, that we want something that would be a benefit ... and we do need retail.
' And the reason we felt, I mean rental. And what we felt was important about that, the rental component was
that there was an opportunity for transit on this land. Lake Drive, it makes a very nice slip on lane for the mass
transit. It's a great opportunity close to downtown, to the schools, to services. It would be a great opportunity
to provide a housing element. And there's a lot of different ways we can combine that. Whether it's on top of
' the retail. Mixed in with the office component so we're saying, we're willing to look at that but if you are going
to consider more retail, we strongly support that there should, also as a component of that, look at some
housing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions of Bob? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Not at this time, no. I think I just want to hear some more.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
' Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
' Councilman Senn: No.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Would you please state your name and your address.
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson. I reside at 7425 Frontier Trail and we represent the Ward family who are the
' owners of the property and have been for about 100 years. Basically this evening I'd like to just address the
process that we're going through with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission and now the City Council
and give you the big picture of what we're trying to accomplish here and then Jack's going to go over the land
use plan that we have and ... slide show on what we're trying to accomplish. But let's go back to what the
process is. We're in a conceptual process and I think it's been working quite well. We have a great idea ... this
particular idea was a great idea and we go to the planning staff and they don't think it's as great or we've done
something unique... But generally we'd like to see the staff report like you have now by the time we get here.
' In other words... what we're trying to accomplish rather than... trying to accomplish. The next thing I did last
summer, we've been at this for about 6 months, 7 months so far. As a matter of all... because I knew they had
some concerns... 212, Highway 101 corridor... expected that we would hear from them. So I met with the nearby
neighbors and we're set to address their issues and these will be just the neighbors along the east side and I
talked on the phone to all the people that are on the south side. And the major concern at that time that they
had was that we provide public access to the property and also that we make it possible for them to get public
' 22
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
utilities, and these are reasonable requests. And then finally, try to buffer their community which has been 2
acre or 1 acre lots, one house... We took that into consideration and put together a plan. We sent a mailing out
but our secretary forgot to send it to the other half of the community which would be, what's the subdivision...?
Audience: Brookhill.
Brad Johnson: Thank you. Brookhill and we didn't send it to ... direct response until we came to the hearing
here and we realized of course at that point that we'd made a mistake in our mailing and so therefore we went
to one Planning Commission and then had another meeting with the neighborhood and we tried to keep and
communicate... and made some adjustments in our plan based upon their concerns for this particular project.
Originally, in order to buffer the first neighborhood we had decided the best use of that was small pad rental,
for lack of anything else ... if you think of Heritage Apartments for example is on an acre and a half. 18 units so
it's a small pad in the area. And so we proposed rental but high density, we had to go to a high density zone.
Originally in our concept, before we went very far with this at all was way back even before we went to
planning was the townhouse. We had an opportunity to do some senior housing that requires high density and
the neighborhood in general was opposed to the high density concept, mainly because of the size of the
building... they had transition. A lot of legitimate reasons in the planning process so we've adjusted our plan... at
the last time we believe the neighbors are okay with is that easterly section of the property will now be, so
we're requesting at this point a townhouse type of atmosphere. In addition to that there is a lot of concern about
the traffic on East Lake Drive. Is that what it's called? And that's an issue that we'll have to deal with as we
look through and they raised the question, just because you now have a neighborhood and then you'll have that
whole area is zoned I believe all the way along here in detail so they're just concerned that... traffic over there
which is ... concern most neighborhoods have. So on our property we decided to deal with those issues. Kate
has brought up the idea and I was at your affordable housing meeting the other night, that we are concerned that
the try to figure out one, how to handle mass transit within there. This could be a winner. And then number
two, how we integrate that into the community. It's still premature to do that but we'll go back now to the
design because that's what will lead to the process. You'll see a concept now for the, probably the second time.
We were here once before just in pictures but you'll see the project as a whole initially and that's just to get
your opinion as Bob has said. Then they'll rewrite the staff report to absorb all those things that you're
concerned about. And then we have two more runs at it before we'll actually come back with the buildings and
how they perceive the whole road system will work and things like that, which is a whole different issue. Not
so much land use as now that we're using the land, what it will look like. That will take up about 6 months so
probably sometime next summer we'll probably get to a PUD possibly with preliminary plat approval, as we see
it. So this is not a real fast process. And it shouldn't be. This is, oh I'm just trying to figure out. Between $20
and $30 million development. It's probably, it won't look like that when you see the buildings ultimately
because they're not big buildings. They're mostly little buildings but the size of the development is a
combination of Byerly's, Target and Market Square and most of the downtown. It's about the same size in total
square footage. From a tax base point of view it will add about $1.7 million in taxes that it will pay when it's
accomplished. That's a little bit bigger than a Rosemount. I think Rosemount pays a million, a million two.
The last school election it would have contributed between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 to the referendum
directly. So it's not a small project. We think it's about the right time for it and a lot of it's office, which we
don't have a lot out here. Corporate type of places and the rest is retail. So we'll go through that but that's kind
of the rationale and process and then we'll come back again. We'll try to keep with the neighbors. Obviously
when we go from concept to hard facts, there's things we're going to run into that we didn't think about, and
that's probably going to be the hardest step that we have. Harder than the one we've got so the people that are
here with us, Vernelle of course is here with us from Lotus and Jack Lynch with BRW. We brought them in
because they did plan the Highway 101 alignment so they're familiar with what's supposed to happen there.
23
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
And then ... Milo will be the project architect and he's had a lot of experience in planning communities and they'll
' be going ahead and I'll be just listening to ... so Jack, do you want to go through with where we are?
Jack Lynch: We're dealing with about 65 acres. This site is a tough site to deal with for two reasons, and it's a
' difficult process. The site gives us problems from two standpoints in that, as staff has indicated, you have a
guide plan and two studies that all take a look at a little different approach at this site. So your guide plan and
your vision 2002 and your Highway 5 corridor plan all have been envisioned a little bit different to handle as a
site. The site is also extremely sensitive. It has a number of, as staff has pointed out, has a number of
wetlands. It has some steep terrain and it has some mature hardwoods. From a process standpoint it's rather
difficult because quite frankly most people do not go through three steps and a PUD process. We usually
handle the preliminary and the conceptual stage together. So that in this process staff has had no site plans, no
' parking lot layouts, no architectural details, no building pad details, to really get into depth then. Quite
frankly... asking is an inkle that the land uses we're proposing and the intensity we're proposing makes some
sense and if we carry through on what we say we're going to carry through on, we can come to an agreement.
' The land use plan envisions about 250,000 square feet of retail and extension of the downtown. The current
downtown in Chanhassen is basically complete. The only possible extension of downtown is this parcel. So
we're proposing an extension of downtown with small buildings, highly articulated architecture. One and two
story buildings. No flat roofs. Pitched roofs. Buildings pulled up close to the frontage road system. Basically
a new concept in retailing where you could park on the street and walk in the front door of a retail store. We
understand that the frontage road is MSA standards. MSA money. The MSA standards allow for parking on
those roadways. The buildings again would be pulled up close on the street. Parking would be located in the
' backs of the buildings or on the sides of the buildings. So we have on the northern portion of the property
about 250,000 square feet... The orange area includes about 200,000 square feet of office space. This is
probably the more sensitive of the site, which shows three very general... for office, located on either side of the
reconfigured TH 101. The parcels would be, since the area designated for offices is rather sensitive, it has some
steeper slopes on the southern portions of these parcels, we would have to go to basically a 2 or 3 story office
building that would require some underground parking and small pads to make sure that we don't destroy some
of the slope conditions. Also the more mature vegetation. More mature hardwoods that are located on those
' slopes. And the residential component is about 7 acres and revised recommendation or net density would
require, or would propose about 16 units of a low rise, for sale product along the eastern property line. The
access would be provided off of Highway 101, and the frontage road system. We're also showing access back
into the larger residential components that are not currently served with a public access on the eastern property
line. In fact that needs two cul -de -sacs. We are trying to look at serving those areas off of one public roadway.
Currently there is heavy terrain in this area between the two cul -de -sacs. That's the reason for the two cul-de-
sacs. And the southern portion, basically open space. There is one knoll in this area for essentially... density
residential component. And then Brad's lakefront home on Lake Susan. The proposal includes a pretty
extensive open space system, hooking up the existing major wetlands in the area to an existing trail system
that's currently in place and expanding on that trail system. I think the image that Brad's going to show you
some slides on is a highly pedestrian oriented system. Again buildings located up close to the frontage road,
Lake Drive, and on street parking. The on street parking would not be required to support the retail. It's just an
additional parking that we could take advantage of. With that staff would like to show a few slides. And again
' three problems we have. We've studied the park. We've studied this ... your guide plan, Vision 2002 along
with ... Highway 5 corridor plans all says something different for this site. It's an extremely sensitive site with a
lot of wetlands, heavily terrained in vegetation and we are going through a rather oddball type of approval
process without asking you to comment on ... detail plans and architecture.
1 24
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Can I ask one quick questions? You've got 9.5 acres. For instance 100,000 square feet.
7.4 acres, 78,000 square foot. Is that your hard cover? What is those?
Jack Lynch: These are the square footages of building components.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, so that's your, in your mind's eye.
Jack Lynch: Right. In order of magnitude...
Councilman Berquist: It's not the hard coverage, it's the actual square footage of space.
Jack Lynch: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Brad Johnson: Steve, even though he said that's an oddball process, the process happens to be working so the
idea is that we provide a concept and rather than go out and design all kinds of things that don't work because
the concept is wrong, so we get the opportunity to walk through the process. It's frustrating I think at times for
everybody but it seems to be working so we'll just keep on. I thought I'd, one of the village concepts was we
have seen some changes in retail. If you read ... I think it was last week we were talking about the revival of
43rd and France and ... and places like that. Where people are trying to figure out how you get people from the
malls. The big box concept in retail because we as consumers like cheap, low prices for high valued goods and
like parking right in front of the door ... The mega mall's proven that. There they have high service, reasonable
prices, but there is sort of a resurgence of what you'd call neighborhood type of retail. And many of the retail
centers such as Market Square and the Byerly's center over there have been considered to be viable, even though
we do have some larger facilities. Certainly Byerly's is a larger facility than Target. Currently what we're
thinking about is that the market in the next 5 years will be much, in Chanhassen probably will look a little bit
like what you just saw where you have high tech office—proposed for over on Highway 5. That type of product
looks like it can be absorbed out here... Secondly it appears that the office and market has recovered... provide
an environment for people. These are not small offices. They'd be more 10,000 to 20,000 square foot tenants.
There is that... interested in moving in there. And then finally just a retail absorption level that we've sort of
realized that we've got that probably exists. In talking to some of the landlord here, it is interesting that there
are some that you'd call mini anchor tenants that are interested in coming out but those are in the 10,000 to
20,000 square foot size. That used to sound big but now the big boxes are 100,000 to 120,000 square foot size
so we have a number of tenants that have expressed interest in the under 20,000 category. We will ultimately
need some anchors over there because people aren't just going to drive over there because we've got Berquist's
Coffee Shop or something. So the image of it is, these are more the ones that you probably have seen and
probably have not seen but I'll just kind of walk you through it. This type, anybody been here? This is
downtown Excelsior. Ever since I've been here, Chanhassen has wanted to be Excelsior so... Part of Chanhassen
has wanted to be Excelsior. We had some discussions about zip codes at one time, but I can't remember that.
But basically the idea is, obviously the architecture is different but the concepts that you see here which are on
street parking, stores grouped together, that type of thing. I'm just showing you here because a lot of questions
have come up about parking on the streets. One thing that has come through is to be pedestrian friendly also is
also the same as having parking on the streets. I can't relate the two yet but it seems to be the way all these
places, and each of these are very successful retail areas. You'll see that most of them are built sometime
between the area of time, probably 1900 to 1920. Some as early as 1880. This is Excelsior again and you're
aware of where these corners are but that kind of shows you the feeling. Again the architects. A lot of two
25
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
story buildings. They happen to have some flat roofs but we're going to avoid that. Same kind of thing here.
' It's a very viable sort of place. A lot of us have been to that movie theater. This is the parking in the rear.
Not very well organized but what happens in Excelsior is they've discovered that they could not be successful
without parking so over the years the city has been buying up parking in the rear and I didn't know that was
' there for 5 years when I lived here so I never went shopping in Excelsior because I couldn't find a place to park.
But now that I know that that's there, because the streets were always busy. I'm just ... but that's really true the
way it is out there. This is downtown Wayzata. There's is a little wider road but you'll notice that they've tried
to, and what's interesting. That one new building on the right hand side is an upscale retailer, but I don't know
' what the name of it is. It started out as Gokey's but it's shifted but that's an example of where you've got new
retail and it works. This is a little retail. This is on the main street but they have a little bit of parking right off
of it. It has a nice look to it. Comfortable. Can you rent space in a downtown like this? This is, I was told
the other day, you've got to realize that this looks at Lake Minnetonka. I didn't show you the other side of it
which is hardly a thing that we have here but the rent in there is $24.00 a square foot and that's the highest rent
being currently collected and it's in the downtown, second story about retail. So it has worked. Okay, in other
words, you can do certain things. That's unusual though. More of that downtown. There's a restaurant called
Sunsets. I think we're still in Excelsior. I'm going to go through here. Now this is over on Como Avenue and
most of you have been by it if you go to the State Fair. It's right by the University of Minnesota -St. Paul.
Again this is Muffaletta's. It's a little restaurant area over there but I thought I'd just take some pictures because
' again this is Como Avenue. It's fairly high traffic count yet they have parking on the streets and this is a very
viable kind of community. They do have niches coming off where they're got green areas and stuff like this.
Again, I think from now on you're going to feel like you're in Bavaria because that seems to be the trend of this
architecture of the two story type architecture but I just took these. These, they've got parking. They've got
sidewalks and it's busy. You can't find a place to park. This happens to be Green Bay Road in Winnetka,
Illinois on a Saturday morning. And that's really busy. This is a little strip of parking right off that area and
again this is Saturday morning at 9:30. And so obviously something is successful. In this particular case they
' have housing above that was built a long time ago but it's worked and again parking on the streets so this is
back to Como Avenue. A little bit of more of the Como Avenue area. This is a church. We were thinking that
if we put a small church into this particular area, like ... this is a church on that street. What happens with
' churches is, if you put a church in, when do they need the parking? Sunday morning. So you can intermix
what would be a lot of, and ... parking the rest of the day so you can cut down on your hard surface areas by
putting churches in. This is a little townhouse project in Deerfield, Illinois. That's kind of quaint. That's why I
' took these pictures. It gives you an idea of what maybe we could do and this is a very tightly done thing.
Those sell for about $300,000.00 each right now but in Minnesota we could probably build them for
$115,000.00. This is just an expensive area of town. And so that's kind of a background of what, the idea and
the vernacular. Taking this thing, you know some of those ideas and then translating them to modern day
' architecture. This plan is our next step. And that's when you'll actually see what it's all about. I think the
question you have before you is that a good use. I am here to say that it appears to me that we're under
valuation as far as our commercial /retail is concerned. I noticed in the staff report they indicated about a 29%
' of our total tax base is commercial and my feeling, and talking to the community is one of the reasons that the
latest referendum failed relative to the school simply is that the tax affect of having all these houses is starting
to weigh on people and it's this type of project, the type of project you saw before, which pay 3 to 5 times the
' taxes per acre of development which will help bring our taxes sort of back in line probably over time. You
can't do that as a quick fix but we've got to encourage that type of development so I think somebody's always
said, why do we need to do this? Well, we either have that choice or we're going to have very high taxes where
we have to depend on Chaska to keep developing retail or commercial so the school district has money. As far
' as tax is concerned. I realize that does not affect the Minnetonka School District because I've talked... question
that you have to deal with. But that's basically it. Since the process is a long process, we're sort of here to
' 26
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
listen tonight. We obviously have some ideas that we've been... tried to work with the neighborhood groups. To
my knowledge I think we're on the right track with them but there are doubters. You know developers are
developers so they're here to keep track of us and ... so that's where we are. We think we've got an interesting
project. I think the timing is correct with this because we have so much time to expand. As long as I've been
here we've committed to a downtown area for retail. I think we've got all kinds of studies on and off Highway
5. We've tried to fit into every study that's ever done. You know you've got your Highway 5 corridor plan and
we've tried to adapt to it as we've gone through. The confusing part is this is just a concept. This is the first,
as long as I've been here, so total land use concept that anybody's presented formally, and it's been an
interesting process. So I'm here to answer questions and I'm sure the neighbors have something to say. Any
questions of me at this time?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any questions of Brad? I guess not.
Brad Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. I'm going to open the floor to have your positions taken as to your thoughts. If
anyone would like to come forward and indicate those concerns, please so that at this time. Would you please
state your name and your address.
Dave Kooumen: My name is Dave Kooumen. I live at 8153 Marsh Drive. I'm a new resident... Our major
concern is with the buffering along the eastern property line, which runs the length of the Brookhill
neighborhood. This area is currently zoned single family residential. The current proposal before you right now
requests a rezoning of this to high density. We've met with Brad Johnson and Lotus Realty and we've agreed in
principle to for sale to in this area, which would provide us with a buffer. We do have an issue with
the staff requirement for the inclusion of rental housing... Staff is saying that it is critical to include rental
housing but provide no basis for the statement. Our... four years ago and it was still the same and it is still the
same today and it's still in front of the Met Council to stay that way. I am agreeable to the concept of the
townhouses. I don't want to see the three story. I don't want to see the big roofs come up above the trees. And
I don't believe that a high density is good nest to a single family. You need to graduate that down and I also
agree with the on street parking. It helps slow the traffic that's going to be coming down Lake Drive.
Eventually when the businesses come in there, they're going to be cranking down that road and unless there's
something there that they can see, and not an open road, they're going to start flying. There's a lot of kids in
our neighborhood and we already do have a problem getting out and getting over to the city. We have a bridge
now and as traffic increases we're going to have trouble even getting to that bridge so we'd like you to keep
those concerns in mind. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Randy Empker: I'm Randy Empker. I live at 8163 Marsh Drive in the Brookhill development and pretty much
support everything that my neighbors have said. I would like you to consider something that they've brought up
traffic problems and we've talked to Brad Johnson and Lotus Realty about Lake Drive East and that
thoroughfare that could become retail space built in that area and I would just like you to consider some kind
of, we talked to Brad Johnson about a couple of things. Maybe putting a stop sign where Great Plains
Boulevard would presently go and stop the traffic from flowing so fast into our neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we'll.
27
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Brad Johnson: I just want to add one thing that has nothing so much to do with what I said. If you looked in
the paper you'll notice that it was, that we are in discussions with St. Hubert's Church as a potential of
relocation of their church and school to this site. That's just a discussion that's going on. You should be aware
of that and I told the community about it previously but I forgot to bring it up in the last meeting and I just
' wanted to note that that's a part that could become a part of the overall plan and it will fit in ... under a
conditional use so it's just something that we're working on. This property is owned by two priests, a nun and a
judge and so therefore there is some interest. Mr. Ward.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's a joke in there somewhere you know.
Brad Johnson: So there is an interest in the Catholic Church and this point of view. It's felt that possibly the
' Ward family will ... the Wards were members of St. Hubert's, can figure out how to help St. Hubert's out and in
the process they will do that so that's what we're going to do. We haven't quite figured out how to do it from a
design point of view but we're working on it.
' Kate Aanenson: If I could just respond and make a clarification on some of the comments that were made. As
far as how the residential got there. Mr. Johnson came forward with that proposal based on the fact that he had
tenured an offer for a senior housing project to go on that site. It did not receive state funding so that was the
' site that they had collected. Obviously because it's adjacent to existing residential but we're not saying as a staff
that that's where the high density has to go. We're saying there's opportunities, a myriad of opportunities based
on the slide that Brad showed you. You could put some of the rental on top of the existing commercial.
' There's all kinds. We don't certainly say that's the only place it has to go. We've worked with the Planning
Commission to show some other opportunities. Maybe it's on the other side of Lake Ann. We certainly want
you to know that there's, that that's not the option that we've taken. That whole 60 acres, there's an opportunity
' but we do want to make it clear that this is a significant amount of retail and our issue is, in order to get that
much retail we think they should give something back and that's... Have we demonstrated that? No. But we'd
be happy to do that as a part of this report. We've talked to you. Unfortunately it wasn't shown in this report.
Where we are as far as our rental in this community but we're way under. We're less than 10% and we really
' should have a few more rentals in the city. Again we're not saying that that's the only location... And also I did
want to let you know, and it's in the report but just to clarify that, it does require, this project does trigger a
mandatory environmental assessment. Traffic is certainly one of the components we'll be looking at. It's a very
' sensitive issue to the neighbors. There will be other development on Lake Drive. It's going to be a significant
factor. The Legion property and the Mortenson property are also developing so it is a concern and we
committed during the Planning Commission to not only look at this segment but what the implications are on
either side so we certainly will be looking at that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you Kate. Let's go through the process to see where we're all at least
coming from. Steve.
' Councilman Berquist: At first blush it looks like a, I mean it really looks like a viable alternative for a piece of
land where we all know something is going to go. You know it really makes sense to do it from a planned unit
' development point of view. You can respond to different markets. We can make use of different pieces that fit.
Different parts of the puzzle that make up a community. I can certainly understand the neighbors point of view
from not wanting high density. I can certainly understand Kate's point of view from having some rental. It
seems as though the Planning Commission and the recommendations laid out therein address that by talking
' about reducing the density from high to medium. All the neighbors that are here will have an opportunity, if
this goes forward, will have an opportunity for probably 3 or 4 years to follow every particular piece of land as
' 28
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
it comes before various commissions for approvals and you'll certainly have to make your wishes known more
than tonight or tomorrow or next month. From a resident point of view I find it hard to believe that Chanhassen
will grow to the point where we need another 250,000 square feet worth of retail. On the other hand if you
look at the projections where the people that are smarter than I am say we'll have 32,000 people by the time we
hit 2020. 1 suppose another 200,000 square feet is very desirous. We don't have any place at hand right now
for small office users. The accountants, attorneys, those sorts of professionals are rather limited in the spaces
that are available for them. There are no real corporate users. I mean I'm willing to look at the project on a
PUD basis. That's probably what I should have started by saying. Go ahead.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We have dealt with other PUD's and we first do go through the concept and I
always have to struggle with not getting bogged down in the minutia. Oh, where to start. I guess I start with
my concern that we do have a lot of, still have a lot of available commercial land in our central business district
downtown here and we keep expanding out without having to deal with the vacant properties that we have here,
or the redevelopable properties. Redevelopable properties and certainly that's due to the expense. And Brad
you're probably in an excellent position to help me understand where, how you see this downtown evolving. I
mean is it going to be several more years? My concern is that, like I said, we keep going out instead of dealing
with the core.
Brad Johnson: You want me to answer that question?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes I would please.
Brad Johnson: Currently there's, this is hard to believe. We should buy a bottle of wine but tomorrow we can
possibly, they're going to pull a permit on Phase II of the Medical Arts building. I don't know if they want to...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that would be the open lot along the...
Brad Johnson: That takes care of that piece. Then the entertainment complex comes before you probably in
January. That takes care of that parcel. Todd has been working with, I know he's got two potential purchase
agreements on the last, what I perceive to be almost the last parcel. Remember it takes us probably a year just
to get some kind of momentum on this site and so I think Vernelle did a study, which is in there, that we've
been absorbing about 100,000 square feet a year and we currently have available to us probably 18 acres, which
is almost nothing. So if we just continued on doing it, when we finish... Square. Let's say our people in
Chanhassen, if we can attract people and make use of space, we collect the taxes whether we're using it or not.
I mean that's the key element of what we're talking about. So ... and we have actually filled, I think we're down
to very little. Less than 20 acres?
Kate Aanenson: 18.
Vernelle Clayton: There are ideas for most all of those.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, I think as far as we know we have no developable sites on this side of the street that we
can go after, except for one. I think Todd you've got one spot left over there where Fuddrucker's is thinking
about.
Todd Gerhardt: Two.
WE
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Brad Johnson: That's not a lot and then across the way, you have a neighborhood retail that is going to sort of
be, there's going to have to be plans for these guys. I see that as a tough site to deal with and that includes the
Legion site. And then the rest of the zone retail is pretty mature. It's on the 212 corridor. Isn't that right?
You've got some way down.
t Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and that gets away from this. So my major concern was that downtown.
' Brad Johnson: Yeah, we think this is a 5 year, we've actually made the mixed uses—and we've gone to the
smaller retail users to hedge our bet, you know and we think the office, if we can pull the office off, that will
generate traffic ... and we haven't even tried to market it because we don't know what we've got but I think we're
safe there. It's an absorption need. Our job is to go sell it ... that's our goal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. I like the fact that it is multiple use because I think it needs to
be. I mean the area's so large and so unique that it does, I agree with Steve, it does need to be a PUD. In
terms of the residential aspects, I think there's probably housing products that I'm not even aware of that would
be very unique and fit in with this. I really encourage staff and the applicant to explore those, like flats on top
of a commercial building. And I don't see why we couldn't, I think in our discussions of affordable housing and
rental housing, I think we've all agreed that you put it here and there. You don't do a big block of it so I think
there's lots of opportunities and I'm really happy with that condition that we do include that and keep that. And
particularly for the rental. I mean it's a need in this community and something that we need, a product that we
need more of. It kind of scares me a little bit that we're creating a second downtown because as much as we
like to think that it isn't, Highway 5 certainly is very divisive. But I know people who work at Rosemount and
don't go across Highway 5 to have lunch because it's considered too far. If they do, they take a car so this
would certainly provide, I think the retail could be supported there. Going through the conditions, let's see what
did I have issues on. My statements aren't as concise as the report was. Number 4, please define vernacular.
It's not being used in the context that I've ever used it in.
Councilman Mason: She's the lady that works with Lotus Realty.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's Vemelle.
Councilman Mason: Oh.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Number 6, definitely. Develop a strategy for affordable housing. And number 19
I want to stay in. The fact that we need to make a commitment to provide rental housing in the development
somewhere. Condition number 24, I'm not ready to make that, have that part of that. I'd still like to investigate
what we could do, excuse me. For people who don't have the report it reads, the density between the existing
residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density, i.e. 4 to 8 units per acre and not high density.
I'm not willing to back away from the fact that we potentially may have some needs to put a couple building
pads of high density in there so I'd like to strike that one but other than that, I'm happy with where it's going.
It's certainly very unique and something that I don't think many cities have encountered and it's a big project.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Conceptually I think it's great. I think there's just, there are some very interesting
opportunities for the city of Chanhassen here. I'd like to see it continue. I agree with Colleen. I think we need
rental in this city. I have to take a certain amount of umbrage to the letter that talks about the low income,
30
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
government assisted housing will have on our home values. It amazes me when anyone, anywhere hears rental
they assume that crime will go up 100% and nobody will ever be safe anymore and my property values are
going to fall in the waste basket. I have an 89 year old aunt that rents now because she's not going to be
around much longer and she rents instead of owns. I think as a community that is an issue that we have to
address. We do need rental housing in this community and I'm glad that Kate clarified what she, the staffs
position that it doesn't necessarily, there's no particular place it needs to be in there but that we do in fact need
rental housing. I agree with that 100 %. I had to chuckle a little bit when I heard that it's a new concept in
retail to have parking in front of the stores. I grew up in a small town and that's what it was like and it's fun to
see things kind of, the pendulum swings and things evolve and we've got the marketplace and all that stuff and
we're going to try some new things. Conceptually I like it. Obviously there's a lot of work to be done and I
think everyone realizes that but let's keep going knowing that we have concerned neighbors and things need to
be buffered but let's see what happens.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think well, I guess to start with I think the process is working and I want to see it keep
going. I read your staff report and I see substantial differences between the staff report and the plan we have in
front of us. As subtle as they may be, you know staff throws out these ideas. Starts throwing out these ideas
and something has to give somewhere because it's not... so something's got to drop out of the middle or
whatever. Personally I think this is probably going to be one of more important, or I'm going to say pivotal
pieces of property that we have left to develop given it's location. Both in terms of it's proximity to the core
but also in it's once removal, so to speak, from the core. I think I've walked it...walk it anymore. To me the
more and more I look at the plan, I think one of the major problems I see with the concept that's being
forwarded is there's just pure and simply too much retail. I think Lake Drive should be the natural barrier. The
barrier or whatever you want to call it and I think retail should be confined to the north side of Lake Drive. I
think the other commercial, being the office space should be confined to the west side of TH 101. I think if
you did that there'd be plenty of room with the rest of the site to go protect the natural features and also provide
a good mix of medium and higher density housing. If I look at the concept now, basically you've got 23.5 acres
in retail, 14.1 in office and about 10.9 in residential. I guess the more I played with those numbers and played
with those areas as they're defined, I guess I keep coming out more with something like 12.9 in retail, 10.1 in
office and then residential split 7.4 in higher density, 17.1 in medium density and 1.0 in single family. The east
side of that project, south of Lake Drive I think should be medium density housing and I think it should be
ownership housing and I think it should be a mix of affordable and non - affordable. I don't think it should be all
one way or the other. I think the 7.8, 7.4 acres is kind of bullseye or whatever I guess in the project and I
really see that as the real logical place to put the higher density rental housing. You've then got your industrial
park buffering through some office space over to some higher density residential to some medium density
residential to some single family residential which is the neighborhood to the east. At the same time you've got
your retail up to the north of Lake Drive and really confining some of those, I'm going to say traffic and other
problems that that would create if they stay on the north side and I think again create kind of a natural barrier to
what would be happening on the rest of the site. The one big thing I noticed in relationship to the plan is just
really not a real good delineation of the wetland... I think the wetlands are much broader than are indicated here,
at least the general impression I had from walking that so I think part of that's going to be an over crowding
effect.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just comment on what you're saying. I concur with, as a part of this PUD process and
you're right. I understand what you're saying. I believe that with what they're showing is the ultimate
maximum density. Are we going to achieve those numbers? I don't think so because you're right. There is a
31
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
substantial amount of wetlands which is going to bring that down and those are the critical issues that we're
' going to develop at the next level and try to articulate so we can go back and say, does it make sense to have
that. To doing that much grading on this piece. Should we move the pieces of the puzzle around and I guess
that's what they're looking at so they have some idea of what your feeling is and what direction they should go.
' But you're right, that would be a maximum density. And some of the issues that we raised, the lower density
on the end, we believe that should probably be left all in open space. It shouldn't be developed at all. Those
two little ends so you're right when you say the staff report doesn't match that because we've kind of critiqued
our own. But there are going to be some issues raised and that's the process of the next level. Articulating
' those issues so we can go back and say, that doesn't make sense for land use so again that's why there's no
standing with the conceptual because we don't have enough information to make all those critical issues. So I
agree with what you're saying. And some of these numbers are going to drop down and the development parcel
' size and it may shake up all our whole thinking. We have to come back to gee, our original thinking doesn't
work based on what we found out. It's just going to be too much degregation and we have to start the process
over. But they're looking for some direction to go back and decide what to study in the next level.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. As I understand it, I mean you're asking for and they're asking for feedback and I'm
trying not to be general. I'm trying to be as specific... The other, I guess really just one other point. I can
almost I guess assume it's coming and I guess I'd like to go on record for it right now and that is that I can't see
' any way I'd support the use of the TIF for the commercial on this property and removing it from the tax rolls. I
think it's really time that we let the market take over in the subsidy of the retail commercial. The market can
take care of itself now and certainly be able to look at that, I think maybe for some of the housing stuff,
' especially as it would relate to the affordable, the elements of the housing but, that that would be done. For
whatever it's worth.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Now when I looked at this, the first thing that came to my mind, is this in the
' best interest of the city. And then the things that I had read, a supplement to the downtown. The extension of
the downtown. In my own mind right yet, I'm not sure it's changing some of that concept of the downtown.
Of course you'll basically need it but I think we've got a lot of locations that this will be done to provide that
' kind of service to the balance of the community. Parking in the street. That doesn't excite me too much. It
really doesn't. Businesses are close to that road and granted it's only a conceptual, or a lot of things that are
going to be really addressed, critical issues all are not really in front of us so we really don't know. Just a
' question Brad. Have you signed an agreement with the Ward's for the option on this property?
Brad Johnson: We just represent them. We don't own it. We've been hired by them to develop it for them,
and we have an agreement.
' Mayor Chmiel: You do have an agreement from them?
' Brad Johnson: Oh yeah. For about 3 years. 2? 3?
Mayor Chmiel: Year and a half.
' Brad Johnson: They've been at all the meetings so far. They just couldn't be here tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I do have some concerns as to some of the things that Mark has brought out so
' I'm not going to reiterate on that. But I just feel that it's going to be taking away from the downtown and I do
agree with the TIF portion on this as well. That I don't see any of those dollars allocating to this particular
1 32
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
project. So with that I would, well the other thing I was going to mention too was the fact that with the 212
corridor, Brad even mentioned before, there's going to be a lot of additional room for commercial and business
kinds of facilities but that is going to be sort of centered just for specifics and not quite as large as what this
concept.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. There will be more support. You know the city's always had the concept of
having a downtown and maintaining our commercial downtown. Is the reason why we didn't put commercial
out at TH 5 and TH 41. We wanted to keep a true downtown center. We grappled as a planning staff for
months. Brad went to the Planning Commission just on a discussion workshop just to grapple with the same
issues. You know if it was a perfect world, the rest of the downtown would be built and then we'd be building
this. But it's a market economy, just like subdivisions. It'd be nice if all the subdivisions got built on roads that
were already in place but we don't have control over what people are willing to sell. I mean if it was our
choice, maybe we'd like to wait for this property for a couple of years. But what our position finally came
down to, it is contiguous to downtown. If there is to be any more commercial, it would make sense to make it
on a contiguous piece and that's where it finally came to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Generally on a PUD, you're granting conceptual and you've got a preliminary that you're
looking at?
Kate Aanenson: Which will be another public hearing, correct before the Planning Commission and it will
come back to the Council.
Councilman Berquist: So in fact, if we grant conceptual approval, what are we truly saying?
Kate Aanenson: You're giving them the marching orders to articulate the next level of development with all
these conditions. So as Brad indicated, because of the EAW they have to do, it will probably be several
months. I would guess, as he indicated, probably this summer before it goes back to the Planning Commission.
They have to do a lot of work to identify all these issues. And what you're kind of doing is giving him the
marching orders of what you want him to study to come back on the next level.
Mayor Chmiel: And then if you don't like preliminary that comes back, then of course that's a decision of
Council.
Kate Aanenson: Add additional conditions at that time or whatever.
Brad Johnson: Can I add one thing about... for the record. I am, one of the... rental housing business. Currently
in the city of Chanhassen to develop a rental housing unit, it takes a subsidy of $5,000.00 per year per unit.
And therefore we have to figure out, as part of this process, how we do that. And one of your work sessions on
livable city, I'd like to have the opportunity to do that because that's why, you know when we're developers we
like to develop something and get it all done with. Rental housing was such an easy thing ... but it's a very, very
difficult thing to do. So we're willing to mix it into this particular development. That's not our problem. To
set aside 17 acres for rental housing, 10 acres for rental housing, I have no clue nor does the guy from the Met
Council. We haven't figured out how to do it. I mean it's not a financial reality ... The second thing is that any
of the affordable housing for sale pays 5 times less taxes, 5 times less taxes than retail. We have plenty of
33
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
other places to put affordable for sale houses. I'd agree with you on affordable for rent is tougher... taxes are a
' lot less so these are just issues we've got to just deal with. And we will do that...
Councilman Senn: In terms of process, you know past experience has been I'd say a lot more uniformity on
' where things are going before you pass out of a concept process towards a preliminary process and I'm real
uncomfortable with kind of saying go to the next step and spend all the money and stuff associated with that
without really getting a little closer conformity in terms of where everybody sits on the conceptual part itself.
I Simply because, well for one reason I don't think it's fair to have somebody go spend the money to go to that
next level of the process when I don't think there's.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but that's their prerogative.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. But at the same time we have to approve on the concept to do that
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Right. Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Do we need a motion for this?
' Mayor Chmiel: I think you do. Right Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct, you do.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd vote a motion, with the understanding. In reading the conditions, adoption
of this is not included. I mean we're not.
' Kate Aanenson: Well with the modifications of our conditions, such as.
Councilman Senn: Which aren't defined. See that's part of the problem.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I mean I'm uncomfortable saying, I mean we're not saying this will be
retail. This little chunk or are eve?
Kate Aanenson: In general you're giving approval of the approximate.
Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the conceptual portion, yeah.
Councilman Senn: Could I try one Colleen.
Councilman Berquist: Well this gentleman used the word inkle, unless I'm mixing up presentations earlier. A
motion definitely is more than an inkle. If you're looking for an inkle, I've got hearts.
' Councilman Senn: Well if Roger's saying we're under some type of a legal thing to act on the concept plan
timewise or not?
Roger Knutson: It's a practical matter now, but you are, under our ordinance, they don't go forward to the next
' step unless you give concept approval.
1 34
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Senn: Well I mean if that needs clarification, I think in my mind our motion should be that they
continue to work with staff in terms of developing or further refining a concept plan, given the comments of
Council and stuff at this point so they can come in and do a little more discussion on.
Councilman Mason: Pre - conceptual approval?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Pre - conceptual approval.
Brad Johnson: Can I ask?
Mayor Chmiel: No, just a minute. It's already at the Council so we'll finish discussion here first. Okay.
Councilman Senn: I mean that's what I'd like to do as far as a motion like that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I too an uncomfortable saying this chunk will be this. This will be that. I
think it needs to be re- worked.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to have Mark make a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move then that the staff and the applicant further refine and lend better definition
to a concept plan that is more in keeping with staffs recommendations and comments that they've received from
Council tonight. And that they come back in for additional concept review at that time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Aren't we in fact tabling it?
Kate Aanenson: That's what I was going to ask.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but it's providing I think the direction everybody's looking for, which is the idea I
thought.
Councilman Berquist: I'd be in favor of tabling it, but I don't see any reason to vote on it. We're simply
tabling it and tell them to come back with something else.
Brad Johnson: Can we just, let me tell what the response is. The neat step is $200,000.00 from our point of
view. To meet some of the questions that they have to do this study of the environmental and all the stuff that
you guys. The reason you have this system is to give us, we write this down, as I understand this... because it's
not a binding issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Brad, your $200,000.00 is your investment that you put into it.
Brad Johnson: No, it's the Ward's.
35
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, theirs. Whoever's. But still in my position I'm not sure this is the best thing for the city
and the city comes first before a developer.
Brad Johnson: I understand that but we're coming back with a preliminary plan that you can turn down, right?
' That's what we're asking. We'll come back with a far more detailed, work out a program with the staff in about
5 months because there's quite a few things we have to do. Just to get to the next step. We can't just answer
the questions that he's asking. You know wetland questions and things like that are all things that we'll do prior
to the preliminary. You've set up an ordinance that says you walk your way through it. You give concept
' approval with conditions. You know that we do this, we do that and we do that and then we'll try to come back
and fit that mold. That's what we're trying to do. If we don't, we don't.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'm going to bring it back to Council. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor with
a second. Additional discussion.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear the motion again.
Councilman Senn: You're going to make me repeat that again?
' Kate Aanenson: I wrote it down, would you like it?
Councilman Senn: Did you write it down? Alright.
' Kate Aanenson: Further refine the concept plan including the staffs recommendations. And come back with a
conceptual.
' Mayor Chmiel: And still come back with conceptual.
Councilman Senn: You know let me explain my motion a little bit, maybe that would help.
' Mayor Chmiel: No, I understand what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: I think there's a big disparity here between what's being proposed and what I'm hearing the
staff say in their report and what I'm hearing out of various comments of Council so I mean to me that's not
where you sit here and say, let's give it conceptual approval and go forward. I mean to me in the past when I've
seen that happen, it usually ends up down the road like well gee, I thought you liked this type of thing, or
' where we were headed. You know why did you let us keep going? I think on this parcel we should make that
loud and clear that we think it's very important, very pivotal. We want to spend some time on it. I think
Council needs to talk about it. We haven't even had the opportunity to do that. Now we've got something in
front of us. Now I think maybe we can spend some time hashing around between ourselves before we just kind
of in public say, let's go ahead and say it's an okey dokey concept.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I agree. Okay.
Councilman Mason: I guess m} question then, should it be tabled then as opposed to making this motion or is
that essentially the same thing? Does it make any difference?
1 36
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Senn: It's essentially the same thing. I mean Mike I'm trying to say what I'm saying because I
think it gives everybody a clear.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's direction that is being given here to proceed with it. By tabling, that direction
would not be there. Other than what discussion was done here and what staff has picked up from our
discussion. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendoif seconded that the City Council direct staff and the
applicant to further refine the concept plan including the staffs recommendations and come back with a
conceptual planned unit development for the Villages on the Ponds. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Mason who abstained, and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. OUTLOT A FOREST MEADOW. JMS
COMPANIES.
Mayor Chmiel: ...I guess maybe what we're looking at is the recommendation that Council approve the attached
real estate agreement between the City of Chanhassen and JMS Companies. Said agreement describes the sale
and purchase of Outlot A Forest Meadow in the amount of $129,220.00 at the $26,000.00 per acre.
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Good staff report.
Councilman Senn: Since that was his first staff report and he didn't screw it up, why don't we just motion to
approve it and get on.
Todd Gerhardt: ...changes.
Councilman Berquist: Changes for?
Councilman Senn: When I talked to Todd they really...
Roger Knutson: There were two minor, wording changes.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I've got them. They were pretty minor...
Roger Knutson: There's two minor changes and I guarantee you you'd have to read it very carefully to find
them.
Councilman Senn: How about if we move approval with Roger's two minor changes?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the attached teal estate agreement between
the City of Chanhassen and JMS Companies as amended by the City Attomey. Said agreement describes the
sale and purchase of Outlot A, Forest Meadow in the amount of 5129,220.00 ($26,000.00 /acre). All voted in
favorand the motion carried unanimously.
37
CITY OF
y, CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: October 18, 1995
November 15, 1995,
CC DATE: November 27, 1995
CASE #: 95 -2 PUD
By: BG
STAFF REPORT
' Z
U
J
�a
�a
�Q
W
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a mixed used development consisting
of commercial, office, and residential uses, Villages on the Ponds
LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard
APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services
Attn: Brad Johnson
P. O. Box 235
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: IOP and RSF
ACREAGE: gross: 66 acres DENSITY: 100 residential units
INTENSITY Commercial - 247,000 square feet; Office - 203,600 square feet
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - BH, Highway 5
S - RSF
E - BN and PUD
W - IOP, Rosemount
WATER AND SEWER: Available to site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER Lowland hardwood forest, wetlands, steep slopes, significant elevation change.
2000 LAND USE PLAN Hiahwav 5 Recommended Changes: Office /Industrial and Institutional north of Great Plains
Boulevard; High Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul -de -sac; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains
Boulevard; Medium Density Residential and Office west of Highway 101
2000 Land Use Plan: Commercial north of Lake Drive East extension; Medium Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard
and cul -de -sac and west of Highway 101; Office north of Great Plains Boulevard and south of Lake Drive East; Low Density
Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard; Parks /Open Space south of creek
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use
development consisting of commercial, office, and single and multi - family residential. The project
' is known as Villages on the Ponds.
"The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to
create a retail- office- residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing
downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to
both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in
village scale and traditional character, using both on and off - street parking and traditional
architecture of vernacular character."
' The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural
detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with
a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right-of-
way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls.
The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000 -
' 20,000 square feet on 3 - 4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas
of the parcels, maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be
incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site.
The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern
' portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density
development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground
parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built.
The applicant is proposing an environmentally sensitive development of the site that will retain
major hardwoods, preserve steep slopes, and protect and enhance wetland areas. This will be
' accomplished through limitations on building pads, providing underground parking, and vertical
development of the structures.
' Due to the scope of the project, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be
completed for this project. (The project scored a ratio of 2.5; scores in excess of 1.0 require
mandatory EAW.) The project is just below the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact
' Statement (score of 0.96 with a mandatory EIS for scores in excess of 1.0).
Staff believes that there are numerous potential benefits for mixed use projects. A mixed use
' development would be unique to the city and would provide a focal point on the fringe of the
downtown area and additional vitality to the community. The village concept provides a
pedestrian friendly environment and the provision of transit services. Staff believes that it is
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 3
critical to incorporate a residential component as part of this development. Should it be
infeasible to locate the multi - family along the eastern property line due to site constraints or
design limitations, the city may wish to relocate the residential units within the commercial
village area, either as upper story residential units or as distinct structures, or exchange the office
locations for the residential location. Any residential development site should be located east of
Highway 101 and south of East Lake Drive to permit access from the residential development to
the commercial development without requiring individuals to cross collector roadways.
Staff also concurs with the applicant's assertion that additional commercial area is required for
the community. The comprehensive plan did not prohibit commercial development outside the
existing central business area; rather, it stated that fringe development would be minimized until
the central business district was largely completed. The comprehensive plan goal is to provide a
mixture of development assuring a high quality of life and reliable tax base. Based on staff
review of other communities, it appears that the comprehensive plan has an insufficient amount
of commercial land at the current rate of approximately 2 percent of the land area (272 acres).
"The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future" (Land
Use Element page 24). A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3 and 5 percent
commercial land area at buildout which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial
land. While there is no definitive amount of commercial land that should be located in a
community, based on staff's review of available literature, a target of approximately five percent
commercial land may be a reasonable amount (The Communitv Builders Handbook. "Recent
Land Use Trends in Forty -Eight Large American Cities" and "Bringing Land -Use Ratios into the
`90s ").
Currently, there exists approximately 18 acres of vacant commercial land within the downtown
area. Of this land, approximately five acres is slated for development in the near future
(Medical/Professional building and Crossroads 3rd Addition). In addition, there is approximately
six acres of land that could be redeveloped. In 1991, the city had a supply of 118 acres of vacant
commercial land within the Municipal Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. This 118 acres was
anticipated to be adequate commercial land to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995.
As can be seen, this land will be rapidly exhausted if current development trends continue.
In order for the city to provide a full range of shopping opportunities for Chanhassen residents,
additional retail space should fill niches that are not currently available in the community. Some
examples are apparel and accessory stores, specialty stores, upscale restaurants, and personal
services. In addition, within commercial areas, office users can be located.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting with residents on Wednesday, November 1, 1995.
The neighbors are strongly opposed to "for rent" housing adjacent to their homes. The applicant
further believes that the neighbors would be opposed to any rental housing within the
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 4
' development, see attached memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8,
1995, and the applicants are, therefore, looking to propose moderately priced for sale townhouses
at a lower density within the development rather than apartments. While this type of residential
development may fulfill portions of the city's affordable housing goal, staff is concerned that the
revised proposal will have serious negative impacts to the preservation of environmental features
' on the site that could be accommodated through the use of a single building pad as outlined in the
residential section of the original proposal. Vacant areas of medium density land are available
elsewhere in the community. But there are very few areas where high density residential
' development could be done. Additionally, the multi - family within this development is
strategically located adjacent to an office and commercial area. Staff believes that it will be
somewhat easier to develop affordable for sale housing and very difficult to have rental housing
built. Staff therefore believes that without a commitment to the provision of rental housing
within the Villages proposal, then there is not sufficient benefit to the community to warrant the
granting of a PUD for this project.
' Staff is recommendin g that the concept be approved with the modifications to the plan and the
appropriate conditions contained in this staff report.
Site Characteristics
' The site has rolling terrain with elevation changes from 967 in the north to 879 in the south.
There are several areas of steep slopes exceeding 10 percent that are located throughout the
property. The site is covered by lowland hardwood forest species. Areas of mature trees are
interspersed with young trees and open fields. Wetlands are located throughout the site with a
creek connecting Lake Susan with Rice Marsh Lake running across the southern quarter of the
parcel.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD,
' The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 66 acres from IOP and RSF to PUD,
Planned Unit Development. There are four components to the PUD: commercial, office, multi-
family and single- family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request.
' The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 5
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1.
2.
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. The applicant has expressed the desire to develop the site in an environmentally
sensitive manner to protect slopes, existing vegetation, and wetlands. They propose to
accomplish this through the limitation on the size and location of building pads on site,
through the use of vertical development of sites, and through the use of underground
parking to fulfill part of the required parking requirements as well as through shared
parking within the site and provision of transit opportunities.
The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west
across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the
project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail
system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an
alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in
the PUD.
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 applicant is proposing a true mixed use development incorporating
commercial, office, and residential opportunities. There is significant potential for
preservation of natural features on the site including wetland, slopes, and woodlands.
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 6
' 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. The proposed development provides a gateway to the downtown area from
southern Chanhassen. As such, special sensitivity will be required of the development
including incorporating the natural features of the site with urban scale development.
Transitions will be provided through the preservation of natural areas to the east and
south of the parcel.
' 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The proposed development is consistent with parts of the comprehensive plan
as well as inconsistent with part of the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan
amendment adding commercial uses to the site and providing office development in
' residentially guided areas will be required for this development to be approved.
5. 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 proposing the incorporation of an extensive trail system
within the development. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of
the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is
proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in the PUD.
' 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding. The applicant has expressed an interest in providing housing "affordable to the
' average two- income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park
occupants." Staff will work with the applicant to clarify and define the affordable
housing opportunities.
' 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
' Findin . The clustering of development, the mixing of uses, and the use of shared
parking provide energy conservation.
' 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
g �
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 7
Finding The applicant is proposing the construction of Lake Drive East through the
project. This facilitates traffic movement envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Staff is
recommending that the applicant realign the Lake Drive East extension to follow the
Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east -west ridge on the northern
portion of the project. This realignment can help in the preservation of this sloped area.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
• Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees,
topographical features)
• Sensitive development in transitional areas
• More efficient use of land
• Development of a high quality project, unique to the community and the region
• A planned, unified mixed use project
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The development proposes:
"The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to
create a retail- office - residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing
downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to
both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in
village scale and traditional character, using both on and off - street parking and traditional
architecture of vernacular character."
The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural
detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with
a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right -of-
way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls.
The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000 -
20,000 square feet of 3 - 4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 8
' of the parcels, maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be
incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site.
The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern
portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density
' development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground
parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built.
The low density development consists of detached and attached units.
STREETS
' The applicant has relocated proposed Lake Drive East within the development in accordance to
staff's recommendations. This alignment will provide continuity of the east -west frontage road
concept as shown in the City's comprehensive plan. The plans also propose two other access
' points to Trunk Highway 101. These access points will require both City and MnDOT approval.
Staff believes that the northerly access road would be restricted to a right - in/right -out only given
the existing roadway geometrics and the close proximity to Trunk Highway 5. The southerly
' access point (south loop road) will be subject to further review at the preliminary plat review
process.
' Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet traffic demands for this
development. Staff also recommends that the applicant should have a traffic study prepared to
document and provide data justifying the access points and to determine necessary roadway
' improvements required for this type of land use.
' The public streets in this development will be required to be built in accordance with the City's
industrial standards (36 feet wide face -to -face with concrete curb and gutter). Lake Drive East
will be required to be built in accordance to State Aid standards as well. The right -of -way
' requirement for the public streets will be 60 feet. Lake Drive East, given its State Aid status, will
require an 80 -foot wide right -of -way to facilitate boulevard landscaping, trails and walks.
' The applicant's narrative requested that on- street parking be permitted along Lake Drive East and
the south loop street. Staff strongly recommends against this from a traffic safety standpoint.
Lake Drive East will be a heavily traveled street to service this site as well as act as a frontage
road. On- street parking only encourages pedestrian crossing at unsafe points as well as
increasing unnecessary traffic turning movements. Parking should be prohibited on both Lake
Drive East and the south loop street.
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 9
UTILITIES
The Lake Ann Interceptor
southernmost end of the site.
site.
trunk sanitary sewer is available to be connected to at the ,
The developer will need to extend the sanitary sewer to serve the
The City's comprehensive water plan recommends a 20 -inch trunk watermain be extended
through this property along Lake Drive East in order to provide sufficient flow through the City's
water trunk distribution system. A connection point to an existing 20 -inch watermain is located
at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. The trunk water system should be
extended westerly through the development following the Lake Drive road alignment and
connect into the trunk watermain along Trunk Highway 101. This trunk waterline may be
installed under a private development contract by the developer with the City crediting the
oversizing costs against the trunk area assessments for the properties or this work could also be
petitioned as a public improvement project which, depending on timing, may be able to be
completed under the current Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32A.
The City's Fire Marshal will need to review the fire hydrant locations throughout this
development.
All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. The developer will also be required to enter into a development
contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of approval.
The City's Surface Water Management Plan requires that all storm drainage from this site
incorporate the City's water quality and quantity measures. The City's Surface Water
Management Plan has designated water quality and quantity ponds on the site. The applicant
should take these ponding areas into account with the development plans.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a general planning tool
for development. The SWMP serves as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources.
The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective
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 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of
the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in
shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area
based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 10
development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water
bodies.
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 water quantity and water quality runoff calculations for pre - developed and post -
developed conditions for a 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm. The applicant will be assessed for
storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Detailed drainage plans and calculations
' indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. 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 Oualitv
' The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
' upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation
' of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Water quality fees per acre were calculated from the
average cost per acre for 10, 35, and 50 acre developments. The following table shows these
values:
Land Use Water Quality
' Rates
($ /Acre)
Single Family 800
' Duplex 871
Townhome 1,530
School, Church 1,494
Apartment 1,640
Industrial 2,507
' Commercial 5,909
Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements.
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 11
Water Ouantitv
The SWMP has established a connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based
on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands), public parks, and existing
development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developer's
contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The following table is the fee structure for water
quantity connection charges:
Land Use
Water Quantity
($ /acre)
Rate
Single Family/Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Commercial/Industrial/
Business
Parks /Open Space
$1,980
$2,975
$4,360
$1,190
Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements.
WETLAND REGULATIONS
The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a
qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland
alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, and the applicable permit
application for wetland alteration.
In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to
30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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.
' h Ponds
Villages on the
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 12
' EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control is high priority during the construction period. Staff requires an erosion control
plan that meet the City's best management practices. Maintenance and upkeep of the erosion
control system will be enforced.
PARKS AND RECREATION
' The Park & Recreation Commission met on September 26, 1995. They recommended that no
development take place south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 1995. At the conclusion of the
' hearing, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit staff to provide additional
information regarding the city's need for additional commercial space and to permit the applicant
to meet with adjoining property owners to address their concerns, specifically regarding the
proposed high density residential (rental) housing being proposed on the east side of the project.
On November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission again held a public hearing to review the
' proposed development. The Planning Commission vote 6 for 0 against with 1 abstention, to
recommend to the City Council conceptual approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development.
' As it relates to the residential development on the eastern part of the project, the Planning
Commission concurred with the neighbors and is recommending that medium density residential,
' in the form of townhouses, be developed in this area. However, the Planning Commission was
also concerned that the density that is being lost in this area be made up within the project. To
this end, staff reiterates its recommendation that alternate housing could be provided within the
' commercial village by relocating the residential units within the commercial village area, either
as upper story residential units or as distinct structures, or exchange the office locations for the
residential location. In addition, the displaced office square footages could be located as second
' and third stories within the commercial area. The Planning Commission also would not limit the
location of the residential development to the east side of Highway 101.
' A second issue that the Planning Commission directed staff to address was the benefits and
criteria that the city should use in designating additional commercial land. While there is no
magic formula for determining the amount of commercial land that is appropriate for a
' community, the appropriate amount of commercial or industrial land for Chanhassen is a
function of the community's vision, its needs, the ability to transition between uses,
infrastructure availability, and the trade area.
11
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 13
Currently, the city has approximately 2 percent of its land area guided for commercial uses. An
additional 8 percent of the land area is guided for office and industrial uses. From a tax
standpoint, non - residential development and land constitute approximately 15 percent of the total
valuation in the city. Within Carver County, the 1995 valuation and taxes are distributed as
follows:
TYPE
Residential
Apartments
Commercial
TOTAL
VALUATION
VALUE PERCENT
$789,043,100
86%
$ 11,117,000
1%
$118,836,600
13 %
$918,996,700
100%
TAXES
TYPE
Residential
Apartments
Commercial
TOTAL
TAXES
$12,524,126
$ 356,325
$ 5,282,228
$18,162,679
PERCENT
69%
2%
29%
100
Chanhassen's land use goal is to "achieve a mixture of development of mixture [sic] which will
assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base." A specific policy states: "Recognizing that
some uses pay their way in terms of the property taxes they generate and some uses do not.
Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being."
As can be seen by the above valuation and tax distribution, this mixture has not been reached.
While the city is moving in a positive direction to achieve a reliable and mixed tax base and this
gap will continue to be reduced based on vacant commercial and industrial land, we still remain
overly dependent on residential development for taxes.
The specific benefits that may accrue to the community through the expansion of commercial
uses within the Ward property include expansion of the non - residential tax base, provision of
additional commercial and service opportunities for Chanhassen residents, especially those south
of Highway 5, creation of a unique development entity (mixed use development) within the
community, provision of opportunities for complementary commercial development for the
downtown area, and maintenance of the downtown area as the commercial heart of the
community.
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 14
RECOMMENDATION
t Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council grants conceptual approval of PUD #92 -1 with the following conditions:
' 1. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west
across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the
' project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system
on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the
density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD.
' 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project.
' 3. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including
setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses.
' 4. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific
architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used
' in all land uses within the project.
5. The applicant shall investigate realigning the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great
Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east -west ridge on the northern portion of
' the project.
' 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of
affordable housing within the project.
' 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass
transit opportunities within the development.
' 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project.
9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and
wetlands.
10. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining
public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East
will require an 80 -foot wide right -of -way and the southerly loop street a 60 -foot wide right -of-
' way.
1
Villages on the Ponds
October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 15
11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and
approval.
12. The applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not
interfere with traffic congestion and public safety.
13. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to
determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use.
14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this
development.
15. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to
guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval.
16. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to
accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from I
the site.
17. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland ,
Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report
by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan,
wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable '
permit application for wetland alteration.
18. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip '
monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10
to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and 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.
19. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. '
p g P
20. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. '
Villages on the Ponds
' October 18, 1995
Revised November 22, 1995
Page 16
' 21. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods
to the east from this development.
' 22. Staff shall define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area
outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other
' reports, but specifically the advantages to the community by doing so.
23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are
' consistent with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report.
24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium
' density (4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Development Review Application
2. Images of the Villages on the Ponds
' 3. PAS Memo, August 1992
4. Towle Real Estate Report, 1995, pp. 23 - 29
5. Memo from Fred Hoisington to Kate Aanenson dated September 27, 1995
' 6. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10%
7. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Vegetation
' 8. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Wetlands
9. Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen, MN
10. The Communitv Builders Handbook, 1973, pp. 130 - 131
' 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
12. Rescheduling Notice Dated September 29, 1995
13. Letter from John and Brenda Lud to Robert Generous and Chanhassen Planning
' Commission dated October 16, 1995
14. Citizen's Concern about the Ward Property Development
15. Aerial Topography of Eastern Edge of the Ward Property
' 16. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/18/95
17. Memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8, 1995
18. Vacant and Redevelopment Commercial Properties Location Map
' 19. Letter from Fred Hoisington to Bob Generous dated November 2, 1995
20. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List for 11/15/95 Public Hearing
21. Land Use Acreages
' 22. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/15/95
L
Ul