Loading...
7. Mission Hills PUD, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan ReviewCITY OF ��� CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 6/1/94 CC DATE: 6/27/94 CASE #: 93 -4 PUD Bv: Al- Jaff/Hemn STAFF REPORT F- ' Z Q IJ a. PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of Property from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development for low density (16), medium, and high density (192)residential units and neighborhood commercial uses. 2) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 192 Unit Owner Occupied Multifamily Development 3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street. APPLICANT: Tandem Properties 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Bloomington, MN 55439 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family � O W H ACREAGE: Approximately 61.62 acres(gross) 37.78 acres (net) DENSITY: Single - Family 2.24 u/a Multi- Family 7.13 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm S - Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor Subdivision W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently I being farmed. It contains two wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial-High Density Residential), Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential i R R _• 47 F Y PARK CA" a HANHASS� ENNE ESTArd MINI A H4 p os, ■ ■ P4 46 _ 01111: 1111 11111 Cam; TA ql -1 - AIX E Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 2 ' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This is a preliminary planned unit development, a subdivision, and a site plan review request to ' create a mixed use (commercial and mixed density residential) development. Tandem Properties will be the developer of Mission Hills. The site is located east of existing Highway 101 and t north of proposed Highway 212. West 86th Street, which is a gravel road, bisects the site in the middle. A horse farm is located to the north of the site. To the east of Mission Hills is Rice Lake Manor, which is a large lot subdivision zoned Residential Single Family, containing 8 ' parcels, served with city sewer and equipped with on -site water wells. The site is located within the MUSA line. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Mission Hills ' site from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the site into 4 blocks and 1 outlot. The entire Mission Hills property is approximately 61.62 acres ' which includes a 8.87 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial uses, 26.92 acres for multi- family housing, and 7.15 acres for single family housing. Block 1 is proposed to have 4 four - plexes, 4 six - plexes, 6 eight - plexes, and 4 twelve - plexes. All proposed units within Block 1 are two story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 16 single family lots and will act as a buffer between the medium/high density units and Rice Lake Manor subdivision. Block 4 is proposed to contain 10 four - plexes and 2 eight - plexes. All proposed I units within block 4 are single story. The total proposed units on the site are 208 units. Development concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. This is an area of concern to staff who views the site as supporting only future neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type uses, although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The commercial site is located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212 interchange. The proposal is for a PUD so that the city can establish a range of allowable uses and design parameters. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 1, 1994, and recommended the commercial portion of the site be platted as an outlot. Any development on the commercial portion of the site will have to meet the requirements set in the development standards prepared by staff. The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning ' g Y � g Ordinance. The net density is 2.24 units /acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is ' 19,459 square feet, which is consistent with previous conceptual planned unit development submittal. Portions of the site are located within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. Under DNR regulations, this site is impacted by their Shoreland Ordinance and will have to be reviewed and approved by them. i LI I I 11 7 Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan shows the area in the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland and south of 86th Street) guided for 4 to 8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre which exceeds the district's density by 0.6. In order to meet the required density, the applicant must reduce the number of units from 58 to 54 units. This could be accomplished by moving those units west of the pond. The remainder of the site has a density that is below the permitted density. Staff raised this issue at the time of conceptual approval and stated that we felt comfortable with recommending approval of the 8.6 units per acre in the southeast portion of the site as transfer of density is permitted under the planned unit development ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council supported staff's recommendation and recommended approval of the proposed density transfer. Staff also pointed out that the overall layout of the units blends well. Furthermore, this density could be transferred west of the site, which would result in packing some units closer together. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The proposed multi - family will generate a total of 37% of hard surface coverage in Block 1, and 49% hard surface coverage in Block 4. The PUD ordinance allows a maximum of 50% hard surface coverage, which is below the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The site is impacted by the adjacent right -of -way of Hwy. 101 and future Hwy. 212. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the site. Highway 101 is located to the west of the site. This highway will provide a major link between proposed Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 5. Increased trips on Hwy. 101 will be inevitable once Hwy. 212 is completed. MnDOT will be responsible for the development of Highway 212. Existing Highway 101, however, was classified by MnDOT as a temporary highway in the 1930s. Therefore, State funds cannot be appropriated for any improvements with the exception of absolute minimum safety improvements. Recognizing that the city needed to be proactive if appropriate planning was to be done for Hwy. 101, the city commissioned a study in 1988. Prepared by Fred Hoisington, this study established proposed new development, four different possible alignments with sidewalks and berms, and design parameters. It also suggested land uses for the area. These recommendations, which called for a new alignment east of old Hwy. 101 with a 4 lane plus trail design, were incorporated into the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the road near Hwy. 5 have already been constructed in accordance with the plan. Due to MnDOT's design refinements on the Hwy. 212 Plan and approval of the ISTEA legislation, the City Council/HRA determined that the study should be updated. Urban design improvements promoted under the ISTEA regulations could diminish impacts and improve the design. Consequently, Fred Hoisington worked with staff to update his original study. This work has been completed and an alignment has been selected by the City Council (referred to as alignment #3). The conceptual PUD approval was contingent upon the City Council selecting alignment #3 as the official alignment for Hwy. 101. At the conceptual stage, the plans did not effectively take the four proposed alignments for Hwy. 101 into consideration. Staff brought this issue to the applicant's attention at the time of Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 4 ' conceptual approvals and accordingly, the applicant prepared an alternative concept plan which accommodated alternative #3. The applicant incorporated alternative #3 alignment which resulted in 4 more units in Block 4 and the neighborhood commercial area was increased from 7.72 acres to 8.87 acres. In the future, the T. H. 101 alignment will result in the removal of two existing , houses located north of the proposed Mission Hills. The project generally conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as we currently understand them. Grading plans of the site indicate that proposed highway elevations have been taken into consideration during the plan preparation stage. The area impacted the most by the highways will be the outlot containing the commercial uses. This is the location where the highways are proposed to intersect, although final plans for this intersection have not been ' adopted yet. Based upon the foregoing, the applicant will develop the outlot last. Types of commercial uses permitted in the outlot will be outlined later in the report. , As mentioned earlier, West 86th Street is a private gravel road. This road provides the only access to Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor have an easement for the public right -of -way of this road. When Rice Lake Manor was approved, it was believed that this was a temporary situation and that once the area surrounding the subdivision develops, West 86th Street would be realigned and improved. The applicant is proposing the alignment of West 86th ' Street be altered by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy. 101. This should provide for better sight distance and intersection alignment. The existing intersection will be eliminated which will allow for improved development coordination and traffic safety. The right -of -way on all public streets in the proposal have been shown at 60 feet with the exception of the most westerly right -of -way of 86th Street, to allow for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes as West 86th Street approaches Hwy. 101, and a sidewalk that would connect this proposal with parks and trail in the vicinity. An additional trail assessment may be required along West 86th Street to facilitate a sidewalk. The street servicing the single family lots is shown terminated along the northern property line of the site, with a possible future extension when the property to the north develops. This street alignment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The roads servicing Blocks 1 and 4 are proposed to be private roads maintained by a homeowners association. Staff has been meeting with the developer since late spring of 1993. We believe that they have produced a plan that is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. , We further note that it provides a mix of housing types that we believe to be in short supply in our community and appears to provide much needed, moderate cost housing. We believe that ' it can meet or exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community. There were issues that staff raised at the conceptual PUD stage that remain unanswered. They I include the following: 1 - -1 L� n Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 5 1. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission and City Council's input. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 1, 1994, and recommended the commercial portion of the site be platted as an outlot. Any development on the commercial portion of the site will have to meet the requirements set in the development standards prepared by staff. 2. Site layout and design is acceptable, however, the mass grading of the site seems to be inevitable. The applicant has introduced some variation to the site elevations. New grades in the form of berms will add some interest to the project. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the Preliminary PUD Plan be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Site Characteristics This site contains rolling hills and two wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site. The site is bordered by two major right -of -ways, Hwy. 101 to the west and Hwy. 212 to the south. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the subject site. Highway 212 is proposed to be built with four lanes by the year 2000. Subsequently, this will increase the number of trips on Hwy. 101 and push the need for improving this substandard highway. The city retained Hoisington- Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best alignment for Hwy. 101. This study has been completed and alignment #3 was selected by the City Council. However, no plans exist today with regards to upgrading T. H. 101. Long range planning anticipates upgrading T. H. 101 sometime after 1997. I Background 1 The parcels that are included in this plan include areas that were studied in depth during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city in 1991. The site is identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan as mixed use (commercial - high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two subdivisions to prevent trespassing. This was a request made by some residents of Rice Lake Manor. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high and ' requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the reduction of hard surface coverage on the site. ' The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four - plexes along the north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West ' 86th Street. Under this new site layout, 14 new multi- family units have been added and 2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50 %. The hard surface of the site is in compliance with the ordinance with the exception of Block 4, shown in the Alternate Concept Plan. The plan indicates a 55.83% hard surface coverage. This plan was prepared after the Planning Commission meeting. It accommodates alternative #3 for Highway 101, as prepared by Fred Hoisington. This plan must be revised to meet the 50% hard surface coverage required by ordinance. The density of the southeast portion of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4 -8 units per acre. The density as ' proposed by the applicant is 8.6 units per acre. However, the north and southwest portions of the site are guided for 8 -16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units per acre in Block 4. The overall r density of the site is below that required by ordinance. Furthermore, the PUD ordinance allows transfer of density within a PUD if the overall density does not exceed the density ' shown on the comprehensive plan. Based upon the following, staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to maintain the existing site layout. [I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 6 ' On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled the concept approval for Mission Hills and directed the applicant to make some changes to the plans prior to it appearing before the City Council. On October 20, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the Concept PUD application with numerous changes as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated October 20, 1993. ' The issues that were identified by the Planning Commission and residents at the October 20, 1993 meeting were as follow: r Issue: The residents of Rice Lake Manor requested that the number of single family lots be reduced, the size of the lots be larger, and a form of barrier be created between the two developments. The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two subdivisions to prevent trespassing. This was a request made by some residents of Rice Lake Manor. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high and ' requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the reduction of hard surface coverage on the site. ' The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four - plexes along the north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West ' 86th Street. Under this new site layout, 14 new multi- family units have been added and 2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50 %. The hard surface of the site is in compliance with the ordinance with the exception of Block 4, shown in the Alternate Concept Plan. The plan indicates a 55.83% hard surface coverage. This plan was prepared after the Planning Commission meeting. It accommodates alternative #3 for Highway 101, as prepared by Fred Hoisington. This plan must be revised to meet the 50% hard surface coverage required by ordinance. The density of the southeast portion of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4 -8 units per acre. The density as ' proposed by the applicant is 8.6 units per acre. However, the north and southwest portions of the site are guided for 8 -16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units per acre in Block 4. The overall r density of the site is below that required by ordinance. Furthermore, the PUD ordinance allows transfer of density within a PUD if the overall density does not exceed the density ' shown on the comprehensive plan. Based upon the following, staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to maintain the existing site layout. [I i i � r P Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 7 Issue: The plans lacked park and trail facilities. The applicant has converted one of the four -plex unit building sites into a private recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of the lot is quite small. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. The size of the tot -lot area was believed to be 1.3 acres. However, it was later discovered that it actually had an area of only 0.3 acres. The Planning Commission recommended the size of the tot -lot be increased. This issue will appear before the Park and Recreation Commission for discussion on June 28, 1994. The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. This box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff have been concerned over the type of uses in the commercial portion of the site. Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The type of uses that were agreed upon are low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses. At the October 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Mancino indicated that the Highway 5 design standards should be incorporated within the commercial district of this site. Staff incorporated these standards in the standards and design section. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 1, 1994, and recommended the commercial portion of the site be platted as an outlot. Any i� L Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 8 ' development on the commercial portion of the site will have to meet the requirements set in the development standards prepared by staff. Issue: The site is being mass graded. Site layout and design is acceptable, however, the mass grading of the site seems to be inevitable. The applicant has introduced some variation to the site elevations. New grades in the form of berms will add some interest to the project. Issue: The previous plan showed private driveways and curbcuts accessing off of West 86th Street. The plans have been revised to allow all units to access off of an interior street. ' Issue: Landscaping and berming was lacking on the original plans. The applicant has revised the plans to allow berming along the west and south side of the r site. Also, trees have been added along both north and south sides of West 86th street. Issue: Exterior building elevations were missing with the first submittal. ' The applicants have submitted the exterior elevations of the units for review. They are of high quality and meet the standards established in the guidelines for the PUD. On November 22, 1993, the City Council reviewed and approved the Concept PUD which , contained changes recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council approved the plans with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets , in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate. ' 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the ' subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 77 1 u I� II U I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 9 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site and the adoption of alternative #3 for Highway 101 alignment. If a different alignment is selected, these plans will be null and void and the applicant shall be required to resubmit the application and procedure process (to Planning Commission and City Council). 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. , 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th i Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the r sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. ' Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 10 , 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both , landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent ' dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. ' 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way PP tY P g� Y determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street. ' 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. , 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. , 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th i Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the r sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. ' Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. i Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 11 D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the ' rate then in force. 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership ' is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. ' 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage in the Alternative Concept Plan for Block 4, is 55.83 %. Plans must be revised to reduce it to a maximum of 50 %. Mass grading of the ' multi - family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. 19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development ' plan is submitted. 20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat ' will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3. 23. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 12 24. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. I 25. The applicant may proceed with plans received October 26, 1993, if an alignment for Highway 101 has been chosen and the applicant can demonstrate that the plans submitted ' October 26, 1993, can accommodate the road, sidewalks, and berms. 26. Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development. 27. A trail be installed along Highway 101." REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 62.05 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit development 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. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding There are significant rolling hills throughout the site. Also, there are two wetlands on the site. Grading plans indicate that those hills will be extensively graded. The applicant will place the units on a relatively flat terrain as a result of site grading except on the street and court providing access to the single family units. Site layout and design is acceptable, however, the mass grading of the site seems to be inevitable. The applicant has introduced some variation to the site elevations. New grades in the form I� `J � 1� Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 ' Page 13 of berms will add some interest to the project. The wetlands on the site are proposed to ' remain intact. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding The site is guided for mixed use commercial/high density residential, medium ' density residential, and low density residential. The advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individual parcels, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The ' coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding The lans and narrative submitted b the applicants propose to build different P Y PP P P types of multi- housing units that will be architecturally compatible. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along ' significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding The way the proposed plan is designed is reasonable. Low density, detached ' single family housing separates the existing subdivision to the east from the proposed multi - housing. This also creates a buffer between the two densities. A landscaping buffer is proposed by the applicant along the Hwy. 101 right -of -way. ' 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ' Finding, The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use, commercial -high density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. This area is adjacent to two major right -of -ways that are proposed to intersect along the southwest corner of the subject site. The proposed uses are appropriate for such an area. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. L Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 14 Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this application. To meet their requirements, the applicant is providing a tot -lot and sidewalks through the site. ' The size of the tot -lot will be discussed at the June 28, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission. 7. Provision of housing ffordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. g g P Finding The variety of housing types offered within this proposal has been identified in , several studies as a need in the City of Chanhassen. For example, in 1989, the city conducted an open ended Senior Needs Study. As people age, they lose their mobility, ' especially stair climbing. One of the main deficiencies identified was the lack of one story housing units, which this proposal is offering. A second study involved employees within the city's business community. Staff contacted several businesses in the city to find out where employees in Chanhassen come from. The results indicate that more than 90% of employees surveyed live outside the city and commute to work. The main reason was the lack of first time home buyer housing. The city could consider creating a housing district within this project and initiate a First Time Home Buyer program or other similar programs. The proposal indicates different types of units pertaining to size. This will cause the units to sell at different prices and will appeal to different income groups. ' 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding Chanhassen is developing an intensive trail system in the city. The Public Transit study for the city, which was prepared by Southwest Metro Transit, identifies the , site south of proposed Hwy. 212, and across from the subject site, as a Park and Ride lot that will be improved concurrently with Hwy. 212. Sidewalks should connect the site to this Park and Ride lot. , 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. , Finding. Access to this site will be from Trunk Highway 101. The existing West 86th Street is a dirt road and the city does not have ownership of the right -of -way. The , intersection of Hwy. 101 and West 86th will be improved considerably with this proposal by improving roadway geometrics, right-of-way dedication, and paving the street. The ' city has chosen an acceptable alignments for Hwy. 101 which is conducive to this development. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Final roadway improvements such as turn lanes and street widths will be addressed with the construction plans and specification review process. MnDOT will most likely require temporary by -pass or auxiliary turn lanes along T. H. 101 at West 86th Street. L-1 i L Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 15 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 allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: ' Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Screening of undesirable view of potential loading areas within the commercial district '1 Preservation of desirable site characteristics ( wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water An offering of mixed income housing General Site Plan /Architecture The preliminary plat and site plan proposes two different types of uses on the site, commercial and residential. No information regarding the commercial portion of the site has been submitted with this proposal which tends to concern staff. Staff will provide some guidelines and standards under which the development can occur. The residential /multi - family portion of the site is described in the proposal summary submitted by the applicant. The material on the building exterior is a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is proposed to be generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two story windows. On a similar project in Eden Prairie, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia and gray velour brick. Detailed plans showing the facades of all buildings is enclosed with the plans and appears attractive. Each unit has an enclosed attached garage. The two story buildings located on Block 1, reflect some architectural variation which make the units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4, have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation and interest. This could be in the form of changing the shape of windows from one unit to another, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. Staff met with the applicant and he agreed to have his architects prepare plans that would introduce changes such as color, use of brick, and a variation in the shape of windows. The street lights along W.86th Street should be of an ornamental, human scale design. This will give the street more character. The city council had requested the applicant provide street lights Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 16 and sidewalks along W.86th Street during the conceptual approval process. Street lights are normally required with all development proposals. Two types of lighting fixtures are available. , The standard fiberglass pole or corten steel pole like those located along Kerber Boulevard. The choice may be left to the City Council to decide. The applicant has submitted a light design which meets the standards set forth in this Planned Unit Development (Attachment #2). , PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for I language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent 1 The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards ' while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. ' b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive -thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses. c. Setbacks , Applicant's Proposal The applicant is proposing to have all buildings setback 50 feet ' from the exterior parcel line of the PUD and 30 feet from the interior lines. This setback is consistent with the setback requirement of the PUD ordinance. ' Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right -of -way. The Planning Commission and City Council recommended the ' standards in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This will result in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101 and 212, and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on the outlot must I Ll 1 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 17 meet these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. This was an issue that was debated by the Planning Commission and Mr. Klingelhutz. The size of the commercial outlot is fairly small. Assuming that HWY. 5 parking setback standards were implemented, the parcel would become difficult to develop. Staff is recommending the underlying Neighborhood Business District setback be used for the outlot. Staff is recommending the following setbacks: * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium density, 4 -8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area Residential Commercial Street Commercial Residential Parking Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Setback Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' W 35' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' AMC- 35' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' W 35' d. Development Standards Tabulation Box BLOCK USE Net Lot Density* H a r d Area Surface Outlot Commercial 7.72 acres cNa'v 1 136 Multi- Family units 18.00 acres 7.55 37% 2 &3 16 Single - Family units 8.55 acres 2.24 4 56 Multi- Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 43.2% ROW Street and court 1.17 acres West 86th St Right -of -Way 2.23 acres Hwy 212 and 101 Right -of -Way 18.68 acres TOTAL AREA 61.67± * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium density, 4 -8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 18 west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to this transfer. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this transfer at the time of conceptual approval. The rear yard setback for the single family units was another issue discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. It was recommended that he rear yard setback be increased to 80 feet to create a buffer from the Rice Lake Manor single family houses. Staff does not believe there is a need for separating or buffering one single family home from another. We recommend that the homes be permitted to maintain a 30 foot rear yard setback. Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 10' sides BLOCK 2 Lot 1 23,374 117.48 198.83 Lot 2 20,196 100.30 201.96 Lot 3 20,824 100.31 208.23 Lot 4 21,386 100.17 212.5 Lot 5 20,898 100.45 207 Lot 6 21,566 116 189 Lot 7 22,006 125 176.5 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 16,349 108 150 Lot 2 15,126 95.6 155 Lot 3 15,554 90 172 Lot 4 16,185 90 180 i Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 19 Lot 5 15,232 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 * 24,778 25,092 15,752 17,026 127 134.5 55.62* 189.06 78.30* 189 76.6* 135.25 112 147.5 denotes lots located on a cul -de -sac e. Building Materials and Design RESIDENTIAL Applicant's Proposal The developer is proposing that the building's exterior material be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two -story windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Finding The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1, reflect some architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. The applicant has instructed his architects to provide new scenarios. COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 20 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. , 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. ' 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. ' 9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum ' siding and brick. 2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story , units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell I white, etc.). 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. 5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living i areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. Finding In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the i PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a I r. 1� Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 21 separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right -of -way. These berms shall be seeded and /or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 2 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. g. Signage COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal None. Finding. Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one monument sign for the residential section of the PUD. 1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of e4 each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet). 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 22 6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section of the PUD. 7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height. 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on , the sign. RESIDENTIAL , One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The , sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. h. Lighting Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than lh candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall I not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. I GRADING AND DRAINAGE I The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The previous grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the multiple and single - family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 910.5 and 901.5. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. This variety in elevation will help give some rolling effect which currently exist today. I t I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 23 The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered ' in order to be compatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. The plans also propose grading the single - family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split -entry to walkout -type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. In order to avoid excessive runoff rates and ponding along the back yards of Lots 1 -7, Block 2, the applicant should install periodic catch basins and storm sewer in the rear yards. This will be addressed during the construction plan and spec review process. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. This can be addressed when a site plan is submitted for the site. However, storm drainage runoff from future development should be addressed at this time and incorporated into the overall storm drainage system. 1 A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. Berming has been provided along Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right -of- ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. This may result in encroaching the wetland. City ordinance requires a 10 foot buffer. Staff believes 86th Street can be relocated northerly to avoid impacting the wetland. The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the predeveloped and post - developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for predevelopment and post- development conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the predeveloped conditions for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. 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 market , values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. ' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Multi- family medium- density developments will have an assessment rate of $2,975 per acre. The Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 24 Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2 -inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan 1 shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both predeveloped and post - developed conditions. The drainage areas as designated in SWMP are being altered (see Attachment No. 1). Two drainage areas encompass the majority of the runoff include RM -A3 to the north and RM -A2 to the south of the development. RM -A3 is approximately 25 acres which drains to the north and discharges into the creek running from Lake Susan to Rice Marsh Lake. The applicant shall provide documentation showing that the runoff from these drainage areas is maintaining predeveloped runoff conditions. Since the downstream conditions of drainage area RM -A3 have ' not been modified in accordance with the SWMP, the applicant shall provide temporary ponding on site that will maintain the predeveloped runoff rates. The drainage plan south of 86th Street (RM -A2) drains to the large wetland located directly south of 86th Street which then drains into ' another wetland located to the east and eventually easterly to Rice Marsh Lake. The drainage plan south of 86th Street should be designed to include potential runoff from Outlot A (commercial and industrial lot). The applicant is working with staff to reduce the number of water quality ponds within the proposed development in accordance with the SWMP. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff has determined it would be prudent to perform the maintenance for the storm water quality ponds. Efforts will include wetland protection and enhancement since these wetlands have been degraded due to past land use practices. The creation of numerous storm water ponds are a maintenance burden and do not necessarily provide aesthetics in the thick of algae blooms. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. 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 market , values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. ' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Multi- family medium- density developments will have an assessment rate of $2,975 per acre. The J i Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 25 single - family low- density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development of 27 acres of multi- family residential and 7 acres of single - family residential acres would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $94,185. Staff is working with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc. UTILITIES 1 The previous staff report on the conceptual review of this development indicated that the feasibility report for the Lake Riley Hills development would have to be upgraded. Since that staff report, the feasibility study has been upgraded to reflect the current development needs in the area. A public hearing was held on June 13, 1994 but tabled for 30 days to consider the Lake Riley Area improvements. This development relies on the water service which is proposed to be extended as a part of the Lake Riley Area Improvement Project (Project No. 93 -32). Without these public improvements, this project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint due to the inadequacy of municipal water service to the site. Therefore the project should be contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. Staff has also reviewed the capacity restraints in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer service from the existing trunk line located in Trunk Highway 101. Staff has determined that there will be sufficient capacity in the existing trunk -main as long as the new trunk sanitary sewer improvements which are proposed within the feasibility study for the Lake Riley Area improvements are followed. The Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project will sustain assessments against this development for both trunk and lateral sanitary sewer and water benefits. The feasibility study for the Lake Riley Area improvements has calculated the estimated assessments for this development. ' The applicant has modified their utility layout plan to incorporated installation of a 12 -inch watermain along future 86th Street consistent with the feasibility study. However, as previously indicated, this development is dependent on the Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project. Contingent upon authorizing the Lake Riley Area improvements, the City may allow the applicant to install the 12 -inch watermain proposed along 86th Street. The City would apply a credit towards the applicants overall assessments for said construction. The credit would be applied for the oversizing cost difference between the 8 -inch watermain and the 12 -inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right -of -way and "A" Street and Court shall be a private utility system and maintained by the homeowners association. Due to the magnitude of this project, the City will require that all utilities be installed in accordance with Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 26 the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City's fire marshal recommendations. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right -of -way or easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and, therefore, the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The plan proposes dedicating an 80 foot wide right -of -way along 86th Street from existing TH 101 to the first intersection. The remaining is proposed at 60 -feet as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single - family) that the 60 -foot wide right -of -way may be insufficient to construct a trail or sidewalk along the south side of 86th Street. Additional easements may be conveyed outside the right -of -way for this. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32 -foot wide urban street Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36- foot, if not 44 -foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards /comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way will require a permit from MnDOT. The applicant previously requested staff to determine if a temporary street section could be built over /through the proposed TH 101 right -of -way. Staff believes a 36 foot wide street section should be constructed from existing TH 101 to "A" Court with provisions for a right and left turn lane out and one in -bound lane at this time. Further modifications will have to be done to 86th Street when Outlot A develops. J 1 11 ii Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 27 Staff believes the applicant needs to review and address potential sight line problems with the proposed intersection of 86th Street and existing TH 101. The applicant shall provide staff with detailed documentation that the intersection will meet MNDOT's standards for the posted design speed. This may result in the applicant performing interim safety improvements along TH 101 such as lowering hills or straightening curves. Wetlands and Proposed Alterations Wetlands The property appears to contain two wetlands. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is located just south of the proposed location for 86th Street and is classed as a semi - permanently flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBF; Circular 39 Type 5 inland open freshwater). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 2.4 acres. This wetland will not be filled as a result of the proposed development. Basin B - Basin B is partially located in the southeast corner of the property and is classified as a partially ditched/drained seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBCd; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural and urban development impacts. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland will not be filled as a result of the proposed development. It appears that there will be no fill or excavation to the existing wetlands on -site. City Wetland Ordinance This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Ag/Urban 0 -30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft t Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 28 The amount of native vegetation. within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. Mitigation Mitigation or restoration of the wetland filled will be required by the WCA. An appropriate design plan for the mitigation will be necessary for review. Staff recommends that the wetlands be delineated by a wetlands consultant and included on the survey for review. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Ag/Urban 0 -30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft The amount of native vegetation within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. Erosion Control Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. 1 I 1 F1 I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 ' Page 29 MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. The applicant should be aware that, in conjunction with the public improvements for this development, it will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. I As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way for future extension of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. PARK AND RECREATION The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying in park deficiency area #2 (see map and Zone 2 narrative). The 2000 Land Use Plan identified a 20± acre site to the east of the proposed subdivision as future park/open space (see attachments). A design study for this future park/open space has not been completed, thus it cannot be predicted what type of facilities could be developed on this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212 and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified the land in this area lying in Eden Prairie as future open space. They are planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east of this location. A second proposed park site was identified in the southeast quadrant of this zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. This future park, if acquired and developed however, would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212. During initial conversations with the applicant concerns that a recreational amenity of some sort had not been included in a plan to develop 192 dwellings which will assumedly house in excess of 400 new residents were expressed. The general response received centered on two things: 1) the applicant asserted that the targeted demographics of the development will not require park space, specifically play equipment, and 2) an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order to produce an affordable end result. The position that the people who would eventually purchase these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment and/or other park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value open Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 30 , space /parks and recreational amenities. The city's recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan states that park and open space fulfill three primary functions. "First they meet positive human , needs both physically and psychologically. The second function of parks and open space is to enhance and protect the resource space. The third function of parks and open space concerns economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate 1 values." A suggestion was made to convert one of the lots located south of the wetland from a four -plex unit into a recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The applicant has complied with this request and has provided a 0.3 acre area for it as shown on the site plan which is quite small, however, in the range of one -half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. The size of the tot -lot was discussed at length at the June 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission felt that the size of the tot lot should be increased by an acre. The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this issue on June 28, 1994. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling , new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed ' in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates ' the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. This type of trail would typically be constructed with a bituminous surface and its construction would be considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the Engineering Department. Sidewalks do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission and are not considered for trail fee credits. These concepts of a park space interrelated with a ' sidewalk/trail are depicted on the attached plan. The presence of the neighborhood commercial area would benefit greatly from such a system. !J I s Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 31 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE: On June 1, 1994 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. Numerous issues were discussed. These issues were as follows: * The architecture of the buildings and the introduction of new elements to prevent a cookie- cutter design. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant work with staff to resolve this issue. The Commission also agreed that the introduction of different colors to the buildings is also recommended. * The Planning Commission was presented with the light design which will be used throughout the development as shown in attachment #2. * The dedication of Hwy. 101 right -of -way was questioned. Staff explained that the city considers it fair to require dedication of a normal one -half of the normal right -of -way which would be required on a collector type of street (100 feet), which would result in the dedication of 50 feet of right -of -way. * Staff required the applicant to provide the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit for future upgrading of Highway 101. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after the preliminary design and feasibility study for upgrading TH 101 north of 86th Street. The applicant stated that they would consider this, however, the requirement was unclear for them to agree to. * The number of storm ponds on the site. * The applicant stated that the size of the tot -lot was 0.3 acres rather than 1.3 acres as indicated in staff's report. This caused some concern among the Planning Commission. It was decided that the Park and Recreation Commission examine this issue and determine if the proposed tot -lot is sufficient in area. * Mr. Klingelhutz, owner of the outlot which will be reserved for future Neighborhood Commercial, stated that the recommended 50 foot setback for parking is excessive and will make the outlot difficult to develop. Staff has recommended a reduction of that setback to 35 feet which is similar to a building setback within a Business Neighborhood District. * Ms. Martha Klein, an area resident on Hwy. 101 requested that the development be postponed until such time when the highway has been improved to prevent traffic accidents. J I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 32 t * The Planning Commission requested staff to verify if the landscaping plan meets the newly adopted landscape ordinance. The single family portion of the site will be required to provide 85.5 trees total, 5.3 trees per lot. The multi- family portion of the site will be required to provide 177 trees, 0.92 trees per unit. The applicant is providing 2.92 trees per unit, and is proposing 3 trees per lot in the residential single family area. The I average between the multi and single family number of trees exceeds the minimum requirements of the landscaping ordinance. * The Planning ommission recommended that staff investigate the o lion of increasing the ' g P rear yard setback for the single family homes that back up to Rice Lake Manor homes, to create a buffer. As mentioned earlier in the staff report, we do not believe it is necessary to create a buffer between single family homes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves PUD #93 -4 for the rezoning of the property from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat for 16 single family lots, 192 unit owner occupied multi - family lots and neighborhood commercial uses, and site plan review for the 192 unit owner occupied multi - family development as shown on the plans dated April, 15, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant ' will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 86th Street shall be constructed with a 36' wide urban street section from existing TH 101 to "A" Street. The remaining street may be reduced to 31' wide. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. 3. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 1 u U 1 Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 33 4. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 6. The applicant shall include a drain file system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 7. An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition. 8. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 9. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 10. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 11. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 12. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site." In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 34 Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. I 13. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 14. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. 15. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. 16. An additional trail easement along the south side of 86th Street may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall also be extended along the west side of "A" Street. 17. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 18. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 19. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Policy enclosed. r i D I Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 35 20. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). 21. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City ' Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. 22. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. 23. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. t 24. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). 25. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1. 26. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city shall determine type and placement. 27. The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south side of West 86th Street. 28. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. 29. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development and look at adding additional passive park area in the northern part of the site. 30. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. 31. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 36 32. The applicant shall deposit with the city an escrow for the future upgrading if TH 101 north of 86th Street. The escrow may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash deposit. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after a feasibility study for the upgrading TH 101. 33. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with ' seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. , 34. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction t begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 35. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for ' review and formal approval 36. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year ' storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post ' developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 37. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 38. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall ' be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 39. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of P P g g 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level of all wetlands and ponding basins. r Mission Hills PUD June 1, 1994 Page 37 40. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 41. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 42. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS 1. SWMP drainage map. 2. Planning Commission minutes date June 1, 1994. 3. Light sample. 4. Mission Hills narrative. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated November 22, 1993. 6. Plans dated April 18, 1994. I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 i ' PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF ' TO PUD (46.56 ACRES), PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S), SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HELLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 1 (Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.) ' Don Jensen: ...window shapes create budding problems for signing and other ways to make ceiling of those designs. They're a little bit more difficult and they add cost to the building. So if we can keep within those particular parameters that we've looked at and that we've proposed, we would appreciate the Planning Commission working with us on that particular «a Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 issue. If there's any questions about that particular building style, that really is our focus. We've also passed around the light fixture that we'll be working with NSP. It's a high ' pressure sodium light fixture for the internal street. For the street lighting system. It is a regular residential style light. It is not a downcast shielded light. There is glare with it and that's part of what you get for the increased security and the extra light tax. They do have ' shields on the tops so that they are focusing the light more down on the roadway surfaces. Mancino: Are they decorative? , Don Jensen: Correct. ' in • I didn't see an Manc o. y ictures. p Farmakes: They're over there. ' Don Jensen: There's still one in there so I can start one from the left side if you'd like. They're the same fixture there. NSP, in an effort to respond to development goals of having ' decorative fixtures over the last 2 or 3 years has come out with a series of light fixtures that they own and maintain under lease to associations for a period of time of about 25 years and so the benefit there is an association does not have to go to a distributor for some different ' design that goes out of vogue in 5 or 10 years and becomes very difficult to maintain and operate. This way you get the better buying power from a major utility company. They're going to maintain it if it goes out. The photo cell goes out. You call NSP or the electrical company that's in that district. They take them out and they replace it. They fix it. It's part of your ongoing monthly service charge. On the buildings themselves, you're going to have lights that may or may not be on photo cells to highlight the entry ways and those are going to be your typical residential lights. Those are normally in more of a decorative fixture with smaller incandescent light bulbs. Not high pressure sodium and those can either be controlled with a switch or they're on a photo cell. When they're on photo cells continuously, which is the theme for our villa area here, they do not tend to emit more than about a half a foot candle which is what staff is talking about. Much more than the center of that particular ' private roadway that you have there. So they're encompassing the whole driveway apron. The garage apron out to the roadway. You add streetlights, then you're able to increase your foot candles up a little bit more so that you've got more hot spots on the roadway surface. So you can put some high lights on an intersection areas where you're going to have traffic coming out and in particular that's important for the winter months. If there's any questions about the architectural style of the garden home. The villa everybody seems to be pretty , comfortable with. I'd be happy to address them. The square footage is a little bit over the 1,200 -1,225 square feet on that particular product. Again, that's designed more for empty nesters who are looking for a handicap adaptable and handicap accessible type dwelling unit. 43 1 r L� Ll Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 All on one floor. All the living area and the difference between the two buildings is that the interior units, 1 car garage on our 8 unit buildings can allow people who are widows, widowers, single people, never married who really don't need that 2 car garage. It also has 1 less bathroom in it so it's a slightly smaller floorplan. When you add all of those buildings up on the ... part of the road, you have a total of 12 different buildings. 56 units. A width real similar to single family structure when you encompass both units. We think that there's an adequate amount of diversity there which accomplishes the city's goals to have a diversity of housing type and that it is an interesting building and an exciting building to look at in real, up close and that's why we have the photographs that we brought along that we just shot out in the field about a week ago. Scott: Comments or questions? Conrad: Not yet. Scott: Okay. Do you want to talk about the buildings to the south? Don Jensen: Sure. We don't want to spend a great deal of time with them. But what we have are the two different building types. The villa, which I have on the larger lots in the back configuration. Just hold up the floor plan right here. We have square footages of about 1,125 square feet on the center with the 1 car garage. It has a living area upstairs and downstairs. Floor plan here. Upstairs. Downstairs. Direct entry into the kitchen. The living area with the patio area in front. The end units have a patio area off the side. They're approximately 1,200 square feet. 2 car garage. Again, direct access into the kitchen as well as the front door in bold design. 2 bedrooms upstairs in both particular instances and we have the bathroom upstairs in both cases has the master. We do have the opportunity in some cases, because of the plumbing, to have an optional bath on some of these dwelling units downstairs. When we go to the non back to back building, represented by this elevation and also which we passed around in a neighborhood that we're getting under way in Inver Grove Heights of what that looks like from the rear to match the elevation in a real photograph as well as the front. What we have in that particular case has increased the square footage and gone to a, not mandatory but it's going to have 2 bathrooms. 1 down, 1 up. More for guests on the downstairs for your half bath. It's labeling an upstairs square footage is increased up to 1,258 square feet on the outside and it's a little bit more square footage, about 1,180 square feet on the interior dwelling unit which again has a 1 car garage. The target market there is the first time home buyers, which have been increasingly locked out of the western suburbs. It is predominantly 50% women purchasing as the only person on the mortgage. That doesn't mean that there's a lot of children. It just means that there are single women that are applying on the mortgage and it is an opportunity for those people to get started in home ownership options, especially in light of all the employment opportunities ,V I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that exist in the Chaska, the Jonathan, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie market. That's been real consistent. We'll see another 20% that will be single men. We'll see 20% that are couples and about 10% that have been older buyers, which we believe are now served more by the garden home product because it's approximately the same square footage that we can offer to all on one floor versus the two floors and the stairs that are the inherent problem. We believe that a lot of the older buyer, and I'll categorize that as people above 55 -60 that show up on the mortgage, were interested in buying something that was within their price range and that was in a number of our neighborhoods, something between $65,000.00 and $85,000.00, depending on an end unit or interior unit in whatever neighborhood that happened to be at. And we believe that there's an awful lot of people who would like to, at least in the older market, not spend all that money that they've happened to accumulated, or not accumulate, on new housing that better meets their mobility concerns or their long term concerns. Both of these are in associations, which means that the maintenance of these areas are consistent. We have one association in the north. It's a townhouse platting, which means each individual dwelling unit has it's own lot and block number. The villa neighborhood to the south is condominium platting meaning that it's one lot for the whole building and it's added in a sequential fashion so that people own ... in the dwelling unit. Both of these are governed by the State of Minnesota with new laws that have changed as of yesterday regarding new structure for adequate maintenance. Regarding a whole series of items that were meant to level the playing field, in the legislature's eyes, as to what goes into an association. Something we've been doing for a number of years which is change the language. Mancino: Where's all the metering? Applicant; Metering of? Mancino: Electrical. Whatever. Don Jensen: Okay. If you notice on some of the photographs, and we have those probably the best way to see it, right through here. Mancino: Many of them are stuck by the front door. Don Jensen: That's the case in all of our dwelling units. The way that we lay it out. Mancino: I can't see it. Don Jensen: You can't see it? Mancino: No. W, ul '1 �1� 1 L Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Don Jensen: Well, I'll just point it out on the elevations then. Mancino: Is it here somewhere? Where you have your electrical meter and the. Don Jensen: Sure. You have to look closely because it's in a lot of the shadows through here. Where it is, it's in the wrap around right by the front door so right on the opposite side of this wall right through here, that's where the meter would be in this location. Now what Rottlund has done, which is different from some other builders, is we've got one gas meter for each dwelling unit. We've got one electrical unit for each dwelling unit and we have purposely not ganged them up so that we're not ganging them up on any one individual home unit. The gas meters on the end elevations occur on the end elevation so the only thing that's going to happen near the front door, which will occur on the 4 unit buildings, is the electrical meter which is now occurring also with the telephone and the cable box. So you've got an area of approximately this size for electrical meter, telephone and for cable, all near the front door area of each dwelling. Mancino: And is it attached to the wall? Don Jensen: Yes. And they're. Mancino: How high up is it? Don Jensen: They're screwed to the wall. By code they have to be about 5 feet high. Mancino: Can you camouflage them? Don Jensen: No, because they need to be read by the people. Mancino: Oh no, but I have a box around mine so, and it's inside so that you can't, you know it's camouflaged architecturally. Don Jensen: In this case, no. We understand Minnegasco's looking at a different supplier, as is their goal to be more service oriented to customers, which includes builders and the residents. They're have a smaller meter other than the one that they've been using for years and years and years, which is approximately the size of the television. Small television. 19 inch television. So in the case of an 8 unit building for example, right through here you have your gas meter and your electrical meter in and around the front door. In this zone through here. The end units. You have the gas on the outside and have the electrical, telephone around the front door in this area. Planning ommission Meeting - June 1, 1994 g g Scott: Any questions or comments on these two designs? Good. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add? ' Don Jensen: Not at this time. ' Scott: Great. Is there another member of the development team that would like to talk about some aspect of the development? , Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could I guess just try to wrap up by quickly going through the recommendations and where we have questions, maybe we can just ask that , question and highlight them for you. On pages 25 and 26 of the report, at the bottom of page 25 it talks about dedication of right -of -way for one lot. I think Mr. Hempel and planning staff remember this last item we discussed previously about dedication to the right -of -way. I ' guess Mr. Klingelhutz and ourselves objected to it before. We don't believe it's fair, equitable and legal. I think the staff is ... little different configuration, if I'm not mistaken. They've taken the tact that we should approach it like you would approach any other , enlarging of an existing city street or county road, is that correct? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yeah. That's essentially correct. We felt, the original concept ' review I think was that staff felt at that time the entire strip should be dedicated. 230 or 270 foot wide strip. After consulting with the city attorney's office on that, that would have been excessive and probably... legal but there was some talk of we do have some rights to some ' future right -of -way out there within reason. Most likely this will be turned back to the city for more upgrading, which will deal with assessments and financing mechanisms to upgrading this section of TH 101. Therefore we felt that it is fair to require dedication of a normal one- , half of the normal right -of -way which would be required on a collector type of street, which is 100 feet or one -half of that would be 50 feet of right -of -way. But the remaining balance of that platted as an outlot for the future intent for acquisition through condemnation or outright ' purchase of the applicant. Dick Putnam: I guess Dave, clarify it for us. In other words, the policy would be for us to ' dedicate one -half of the right -of -way necessary for a 100 foot street, is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. ' Dick Putnam: Okay. What we would propose then, since there's a 66 foot right -of -way on ' TH 101 today, or 33 feet on each side of center line, we would dedicate an additional 17 feet. Not 50 feet. Is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. That was the intent is to gain a total of 50, one -half of the right -of- ' 47 ' Ll .' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 way, 50 feet. So if they've dedicated already 33 feet or half of the right -of -way out there, an ' additional 17 feet would equal the 50 foot of right -of -way. Scott: Well how's that impacted with, I know that the alignment #3 was chosen as the proposed and that alignment does not run right over existing TH 101 but you have somehow determined how to, are you talking about. It sounds like we're talking about existing TH 101 but there's this proposed alignment #3. How do you reconcile those two? ' Hempel: Alternative #3 also blankets the existing TH 101 alignment. Therefore, we would be essentially able to acquire part of that dedication. u Dick Putnam: Okay, then our understanding is correct. Then we don't have any problem with that 17 foot additional right -of -way. The next sentence however is one that's fairly scary. If you can put yourself in a position of the IRS asking you to create a blank check for them in case there are future taxes needed and you wouldn't mind agreeing to it, that's exactly what this says to us. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit for future upgrading of Highway 101. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after the preliminary design and feasibility study for upgrading TH 101 north of Trunk Highway 212. I guess if we knew what it was, we'd certainly look at it but it's very difficult for us or anyone to agree to something that's that unclear. I notice that that recommendation is not in the recommendation section but it is referred to here and I thought I'd inform you that we make I guess our concern fairly straight forward. Until such time that someone can tell us what it is and that everyone is being assessed equitably and fairly, we can't agree to something without knowing what it is and I think you can understand our reasoning for that. If you go back to the recommendation section, the first part of it of dedicating to a 50 foot width is there but not the escrow portion and we prefer your recommendation at the end of the report rather than the sentence I just read. At the bottom of page 26 it talks, just to clarify. It talks about the wetlands and it says the property appears to contain 3 wetlands and 1 of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. We don't know of a wetland we're filling. If you read on through Basin A and B, the last sentence in that section says, it appears that there will be no fill or excavation on existing wetlands. We agree with that sentence. We are not filling any wetland up. We aren't getting any permits to do that and just so you understand, we aren't filling in any. I Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to further investigate that clarification with our Water Resource Coordinator. Dick Putnam: We really aren't doing any. That's the important thing and hopefully that's .• I Planning ommission Meeting - June 1, 1994 g g 1 clear. If we could go to the page 29 and in going through the recommendations. Item 1 talks about construction of streets, particular 86th Street where it goes through. We're, in talking ' with the staff, 86th Street where it goes through the new TH 101 right -of -way would be built as a temporary section and not as a permanent section because it would be ripped up when TH 101 comes through. Just so that's understood. ' Scott: Have members of staff heard these? I mean is this a dialogue that you've already had with the applicant that is being repeated for our benefit or should this be something that they ' should be talking to you about and then you bring it to us? Aanenson: That's what we'd like to do. ' Hempel: Most of this dialogue has not been brought to our attention. ' Scott: Okay, because let's, why don't, I think that discussion needs to be had with the staff prior to bringing that here. Because there's a lot of these things that we're not going to be , able to react to such as. Mancino: Until you work with staff. I Aanenson: Well I'm not sure how many more he's got. Maybe there's. Dick Putnam: All I'm trying to do is clarify so in everybody's case you know, when it says ' all of the streets will be built to the design section. We spoke with the engineering department and the planning staff before and obviously the section in the old, or the new TH , 101 right -of -way will be a paved road section but it won't be curb and gutter and build a permanent road because it's going to get ripped up in, I think Karen said 1997. All I'm trying to do is clarify for everyone's benefit. That's my only purpose for it. I'm not trying ' to be argumentative but just. Conrad: Do you have a lot of clarifications like number 1? ' Dick Putnam: No, I really don't. nr Okay. ' Conrad: O y. Dick Putnam: Item number 3 I think that deals with the storm water. Ed mentioned the fact that it would be very difficult to go to 3. We believe we can go to 4 ponds plus the pond that's there for the commercial section and we'd like to be able to work with the staff on defining which one of those are. I think we have a couple things that we can do to do that. 49 1 .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Item number 10, which is what we discussed with the street. We'd be looking at, and that's ' on page 30. The westerly 50 feet really is an additional 17 feet bringing it to a 50 foot total, and we don't have a problem with that. We did have a problem with the escrow for... On page 31, item 17 where the staff is asking that they be able to discuss housing districts with ' the builder, in this case Rottlund, for moderate cost. For working families. Rottlund has no problem with that. These are ... units so whatever program the city would like to work with us on, I'm sure they'd be happy to do that. They aren't rental units. They're for sale units. Other than that I think by and large most of the items are pretty clear. A question Don just mentioned on 15(a) which is the totlot. This lists a number of different things that could be included in it. I think what we're looking at for the scope of the project, the people living ' there and the size of the space, and it's location next to the pond. The picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus for small children would be the extent of the development. Not tennis courts, basketball hoop maybe but not tennis courts. That sort of thing. So with that, I guess Mr. Chairman, those were the only items that we could see other than the commercial area. If you have any questions. ' Scott: The reason for the comment was there's another development group that goes through the litany of, and unfortunately I may have painted you with the same brush but we have another gentleman that we dearly love who kind of goes through each and every item and it's ' not. ' Dick Putnam: I didn't give my name first each time I did it. Scott: So anyway, that's the explanation. I Dick Putnam: You should understand, we just received the staff report Friday? No Monday. ' Scott: Well that's when we got it right? Dick Putnam: The reason we haven't had a chance to talk very much to the staff clarifying is ' that we just got it. Scott: Good, Dave. ' Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted one more clarification. Apparently there's a duplication in conditions 7 and 18. Worded somewhat differently but they essentially mean ' the same. I would propose to delete condition 7 and rephrase condition 18 to read, preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon and the remaining sentence as stated in the staff report. 1 50 Planning ommission Meeting - June 1 1994 � g g Scott: Preliminary. Hempel: And final plat approval shall be contingent and the remaining sentence as is. ' P P PP g g Scott: And we're hearing the preliminary plat right now so basically what you're saying is , that we're not going to be able to approve, as this condition, we can't approve the preliminary plat for this development because that's what's on our. ' Hempel: That's a good point. We should rephrase it to delete the preliminary portion of it. Scott: Final plat. , Hempel: Final. I Scott: Okay, I got it. Would anybody else from the development team like to speak? Yes sir. Please state your name for the viewers at home and your address. I Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I own the property that we're talking about here pertaining to the proposed commercial portion of the property. One of the reasons that the ' plat was laid out on that property is I think I explained this at the last meeting before the Council is, when you haven't got a highway for a road, who's going to build a commercial property. How can you really lay out a plat until you know what the map is going to be? I ' guess I'm not too anxious about leaving it out of the plat but if I would have to come in and say, well this is moving to here and this is going to be here and this is going to be here at the present time, I think personally I think it'd be an effort in futility because of the fact that who ' knows what that neighborhood is going to want and who wants to come in there as a business. The other thing I had quite a shock on when I looked at 50 foot setback on 4 sides of a 8 acre tract as an open space area. Now on one side on 86th Street can be changed to ' 30 feet. But if you take 50 feet around an 8 acre tract, and you're cutting out about 3 1/2 acres of that 8 acres ... and as far as I'm concerned, that's a taking. It isn't a giving, it's a taking and I think the courts would say something on that. The 30 feet I could see, I can see , 50 feet using part of that 50 feet for the driveway and your parking lot but to expect to give 50 feet clean around an 8 acre tract of land I think is very excessive. What if Highway 212 never comes? What happens? What happens to the proposed right -of -way which hasn't been ' acquired? Probably never will be acquired. What happens to the property of that right -of- way and how can it be accessed without some other plan? Are we sure Highway 212 is going to become a viable thing within the next 50 years? It's been going on for almost 50 ' years at the present time and I've been on the Highway 212 committee for 42 years. And we're looking at something that's not very tangible. No money available. Whenever Carlson vetoes the 5% tax increase, it makes it less apt to happen. And I'm a Republican and I think 51 1 .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 F that's one thing that really turns me against Governor Carlson... something pretty essential for ' the State of Minnesota to keep our roads in shape. And you're talking about the new Highway 101 north of 212. And you're looking at a 200 foot right -of -way. Is that going to be built with Highway 212 or what are you talking about at the present time? ' Hempel: Mr. Chairman, at the present time we don't have a set date of upgrading this segment of road. Development certainly will help dictate a time line or bringing it up to ' speed here a little bit faster. We've projected a date of sometime after 1997. Al Klingelhutz: Highway 101's a state highway and if the road is built prior to the time of ' 212 coming in, you're planning on assessing the abutting property owners for part of that, for putting in that road. You're going to put in a 4 lane collector highway. Major highway from Highway 212 north and you expect the landowners to pay for part of that highway? ' Hempel: Just one clarification. We're looking at the upgrade of TH 101 north of 86th Street. That portion up to where Market Boulevard is. That segment the city and/or county will be the funding source for that upgrade. Of course there are funding mechanisms out there such as the TIF district. County Aid. State Aid dollars. And assessments are not out of the question. ' Al Klingelhutz: U to the new 86th Street? g P ' Hempel: That's correct. ' Al Klingelhutz: Okay. At the present time you aren't thinking of going beyond it? Hempel: That's correct. ' Al Klingelhutz: Well then it doesn't affect my property so it doesn't—but when you're looking at going across a large tract of land which the State, if 212 ever intends to be built, ' has said they would redo Highway 101... Scott: I think the last time we saw this project I think the comment was that MnDot was ' going to be participating very heavily in that stretch from the proposed 212 to 86th. Maybe we need to push that 86th Street a little bit further north. Push it to the creek. ' Al Klingelhutz: Well I know that's been in the plan all the time that they were going to take care of everything from 212 to 86th Street. Proposed 86th Street. ' Hempel: That's correct. That's our understanding as well. 1 52 Planning ommission Meeting - June 1 1994 , g g Scott: We'll see how that goes. Good, any other comments sir? ' Al Klingelhutz: Well you know, looking at the commercial zoning. The signage in there. One monument sign and if you're going to throw the commercial out it doesn't mean a thing at this part of it right now. But one monument sign for the whole lot and then the next ' sentence says wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. Now do I read this wrong? That I can have all the wall mounted signs of only 24 square feet. That's on 6 x 4. If I have ' 5 businesses in there, I'll have a 1 x 1 sign on each building. Al -Jaff: Well the intention is 24 square feet per sign. Not for all signage. Not all wall ' mounted signage. Al Klingelhutz: Well then clarify the one monument to me too. Where would the one ' monument be? On the one entrance or should I have one on both entrances to the property or? ' Al -Jaff: One sign for the entire. City ' Al Klingelhutz: I don't think, you know like the City of Chanhassen is going to put up ... of Chanhassen on 2 or 3 different places. When you go into a subdivision from 2 different directions, you almost should be allowed to have 2 monument signs when you enter the place. ' I don't see anything elaborate or anything but just some nice entrance signage. Scott: Which condition would this be? I Al Klingelhutz: That'd be number 1 on page 38. Aanenson: Put it this way. We're all recommending that the commercial be left as an outlot ' at this time. It's more of a conceptual. We're not going to be zoning. We don't know when it's going to come back and as Mr. Klingelhutz indicated. ' Mancino: It could be changed. I Al Klingelhutz: One problem I've got though is with storm water drainage... taking commercial into consideration at the present time. Where is that water going to go sometime I in the future? Scott: Where were you guys saying? I 53 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al Klingelhutz: Where it was proposed on the original plat, a good share of that storm water ' drainage was already designated to go into one of the holding ponds. Scott: I guess it was said that some of it's going to be draining kind of to north, northeast ' into a retention pond that's going to serve both the southern portion of the development and then also part of the commercial and then when 212 is built, into some sort of a ditch of some sort like that so I mean. Al Klingelhutz: Something that could come up in the future if it isn't thought about now. If they put a holding pond in the residential portion of the property and if by coming at some future date with commercial zoning on that, and they say well you've got to have a holding pond and there's already a holding pond's been put in that should be sized big enough for the commercial site outside of what goes along 212 and things like that. And some future Planning Commissions and future Councils says hey, you've got to put in the holding pond and there's already a holding pond been put in to take care of that portion of the water that flows from the commercial property into residential property. Scott: Well I would assume some calculations have been made based upon a pretty flat pad to convey water in both directions, I would guess. Hempel: As part of our comprehensive surface water management plan, we designated regional ponding areas for both water quality and quantity. To be quite honest I get confused ...a commercial site. What was designated, if anything, on this site. We'll look into that for him. Scott: Good, thanks. Al Klingelhutz: Okay now, about berming along 86th Street. I notice you're saying that the residential part is going to have to berm their's and you're saying that commercial. Well then there's going to have to be a berm between the residential. Are we going to have two berms there? Scott: I don't think so. 1 Al -Jaff: No. Al Klingelhutz: 86th Street and then that portion that goes up south of 86th Street up to the southerly boundary of the residential property. Scott: Sharmin. 54 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al -Jaff: There will be a berm that the residential developers will be providing to separate the residential district from the commercial district, which is consistent with what the conceptual ' approval stated and then most probably there will be a meandering berm that we would require around the perimeters of the commercial parcel as well. It's something that we're requiring with the residential district. ' Al Klingelhutz: What's the use of having a berm between the highway and a commercial property? I can see it between the residential but between the highway and commercial ' property. When you allow buildings on main street to build right up to the sidewalk. Then you come out here and you've got 50 feet of open space along 4 sides of a piece of property, it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. ' Scott: Well I think the precedent I think is set with the berming requirements for the ' Highway 5. My guess is there's going to be a Highway 212 task force that's going to be putting together the same sort of a study so I think that's consistent with the treatment that we're giving to the requirements for construction along Highway 5. ' Al Klingelhutz: I know I haven't... Highway 212. This states you're going to berm Highway 212. They're taking a 400 foot right -of -way there. What are you going to do with it all? ' Scott: I would think though, if there's a 30 to 50 foot, whatever that setback is, that is where the berm would be going. ' Al -Jaff: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: I don't know where all the ground is going to come from that you're going to not let anybody change the contours of the land. Scott: I don't have that. That's another thing I don't have an answer for. Thank you very 1 much. Anybody else like to, from the applicant, like to speak about the development. Okay. A public hearing is scheduled and I see a few residents. Could I have a motion to open the ' public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak? Yes ma'am. Please state your name and your address. ' Martha Klein: My name is Martha Klein at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. My main concern I ' guess being up here is to ... and I live on the existing TH 101 but everything that's being 55 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 shown is on the proposed. I guess my position is that, then this should not be started until the proposed highway is available because we exit onto that highway through our driveway. As do many of my neighbors. My children have to catch the bus on that highway. And this is just going to be an incredible amount of traffic increase. Scott: I'm sorry, which side of the highway do you live on? ' Martha Klein: I would be, right there. Scott: Okay. ' Martha Klein: So everything that's being shown says proposed Highway 101. It is not there yet. As Dave stated, it might not be there until '97 or after. And just 2 months ago we came ' to a meeting. You know got... alternative for TH 101 and it was stressed how the traffic has already reached it's capacity. I'm not against change but I feel we already are up to our capacity. The noise, the pollution and my children's safety as well as my neighbors. There's ' so many neighbors along there that have no facility to turn around. They're all elderly. They cannot turn their vehicles around. They have to back out onto that highway. And the traffic's already incredible. I don't know where these are, if this plan is based on a proposed highway, I think it should wait until that highway is available for use. ' Scott: Dave with, I guess in this particular area. Typically how would that work when the highway is widened? I mean obviously the ingress and egress to their property needs to be maintained. If you could maybe go through a real quick scenario of how that would work. ] know that this is, maybe take a step back. Is this a chicken and the egg situation? Let's say this development gets through to final, let's say it's completely approved. Ground breaking starts. This development will be coming on line. Applicant: August. Scott: Yeah August of Applicant: August of '94. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. This project, as we mentioned earlier, is contingent upon the city authorizing the Lake Riley trunk utility improvements which would extend trunk sewer service to this area. This area is able to be serviced through city sewer. Sanitary sewer. And it's been one of the issues that we had all along. What's going to trip upgrading TH 101. And obviously without development pressure like this, is there really a need or a warrant to upgrade TH 101. So you kind of need this to spearhead development for 56 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 upgrading of TH 101. Safety concerns along TH 101 are certainly valid. We hope to, with this project, where the new intersection of 86th and TH 101, incorporate some safety improvements such as turn lanes, by -pass lane and improve the sight distance on the hill there ... one side or the other. All that will be addressed with this temporary connection to TH 101 with 86th Street. There is also a sharp curve or narrow bridge further out to the north. ' Those issues will not be addressed with this development. Those will be addressed later on after 1997 with the future upgrade of TH 101. Fred Hoisington, who's been the city's consultant for probably over the last 4 years in designing different alternatives felt that, I've got traffic counts too for TH 101 but they felt that this development here would not exceed the traffic capacity of TH 101 on this site but it'd be pushing it to a limit. , Scott: As it exists today? Hempel: As it exists today. Right now Trunk Highway 101, based on the 1991 traffic ' counts, carries about 4,400 cars a day in the vicinity of 86th StreeVTH 101 intersection. To give you an example of the traffic north of Trunk Highway 5 up TH 101, it's 10,000 cars. Now you have a similar road design although we probably don't have the wide ditch sections and curvy roads that you have south of TH 5. Martha Klein: Excuse me, do you have driveways exiting onto that highway? Hempel: There are a few, yes. ' Scott: Yeah, on the Eden Prairie side. Hempel: On the Eden Prairie side and also in Chanhassen. Scott: And also in Chanhassen. Yeah, as a matter of fact they're kind of, they're lake. It's very, very similar. There are lake homes on Lotus Lake who have very narrow driveways but I guess what I'm trying to do here is to kind of, to give you a bit of an idea of how this is all fitting together and the impact and I know that when the development does come on line, and you live north. It looks like you live north of where the new 86th is going to be coming out. So correct me. There won't be any construction activity by their driveway because they're north of where the construction's going to be going? ' Hempel: There may be some, what we call the acceleration or deceleration or by -pass for the light at TH 101. But no 4 lane improvements. No driveway corrections in that area. That would be upon the homeowner if a safety concern arises, which is a normal responsibility of the homeowner to put in a turn around. 57 1 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Question. When will these be inhabited? If you start construction August '94. Jim Ostenson: I would think that if we were able to start this fall, we would certainly be at least 6 months before there'd be any inhabitants at all. Don Jensen: Yeah, you need at least 4 months to get one of these buildings done. That'd be about a month longer than a single family structure. ' Mancino: So next winter. ' Don Jensen: Right. Into the winter. Jim Ostenson: And then beyond that we would probably look at a 30 to a 36 month build out for the entire site. So the building's all got built and up. Don Jensen: Spring '97 is really when the whole thing is probably going to be completed. Mancino: Because I was oin to ask you about letting time. You know can ou... time g g Y g Y because the thing that's triggering developments like this or triggering would be the realignment of TH 101 and making it wider, etc, can't we compress that letting time between when the development happens and when the infrastructure is needed? ' Hempel: Funding is a major role in the upgrade of TH 101. Obviously we don't have the construction dollars to do it. But I was going to point out that with regards to the city's ... the ' improvement project, extending utilities to this area, that won't happen until sometime late this fall so as long as the project gets approved however but the City Council, we could grandfather plat approval and notes to proceed with this development to occur concurrently ' with the city's development. So it could start this fall as well. Martha Klein: So what you're telling me then is. Mancino: You mean a 2 or 3 year leg time? ' Martha Klein: But we have the effect after the cause. It's like we have to wait for this development to come in to increase our traffic and then get the okay on the highway. That seems backwards. I mean... backwards. The road is already very busy. Now you're saying that the levels are safe. Okay at that meeting just 2 months ago where they were saying they were unsafe and it had to be plotted and it needs to be changed. It's just, it seems like you're turning things to meet the needs of the city. Right now I don't see a big housing need. I mean there's houses, there's development everywhere. I don't see we're doing it for a need 1 58 I. Planning ommission Meeting - June 1 1994 , g g and there's houses everywhere. You said people can create a turn around. I can give you 3 or 4 houses right there on the lake, they do not have the facility to create a turn around and ' they are all elderly people. I can't imagine there is no facility for them. There's no room. They pull right in off the road into their driveway. They have to back out onto the highway, ' which is already unsafe. My children have to catch the bus. They have to cross that highway. I just don't see where the need is justifying it. If there was a substantial need for housing in Chanhassen, I could see it but right now it doesn't justify jeopardizing my family or the ' families around it. I just don't feel that's the situation at this time. Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make? I Martha Klein: No, that would be all. Scott: Okay. Well thank you very much and please follow this issue along. We make ' recommendations. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Dave Nickolay: I've never been at a meeting this late. ' Scott: I have. I Dave Nickolay: My name's Dave Nickolay. I've been here before you at the previous hearings. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm on the northeast corner of the proposed ' development. Approximately 2 to 2 1/2 of these single family houses will adjoin my property and in the future, as further development occurs to the north, there will be whatever other number of homes also bordering my property. I submitted a letter, or letters to you on ' September 12, 1993 and on October 17, 1993 and to make this very brief and to preserve your time and my time also, I'm not going to go back through all those issues but I would like you to review the comments that I submitted to you back then and I did testify at the ' previous hearings so all of that is on record so I'm going to save us all that time at this point. I would like to just be on record by saying that I think that this type of density as it relates to the development that I purchased land in a number of years ago, 13 years ago, is not ' consistent. This is just way too high a density. There was a compromise made by the developer here to change the single family. They did reduce it by 2. It had no impact on my lots or the number of lots that adjoin my property. I just don't believe that the transition is ' adequate here to accommodate. What we've got are 3 properties that are affected in Rice Lake Manor. One of those properties ... 3 homes and you're looking at 7 homes back up to us. The other issue that I'd like to point out. I also noted this ... but I'd like to make sure that it's ' on the record for the purpose of tonight. The horse farm operations over the years have changed the drainage plan in that area. I talked about that previously. The water drains differently today than it did back then. Some of that water drains across my property and I ' 59 1 J .' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 would like to see whatever is decided and resolved here, that there be no drainage as a result ' of this development coming across my property. Again, right now that is happening but it's a result of the farming operation and they're dumping their materials on that site. The last point that I'll make deals with the park issues occurring on the property owners that are in ' Rice Lake Manor. I don't know what the estimated number of people are that are going to be in this development but 3/10 of an acre of park. I disagree with the Park Commission's recommendation that there's adequate parks in the area. There is not. The street that's going ' to go down that row of single family housing, the developer's proposed to put in I believe a chainlink fence to cut down the traffic that might come across out of the development into Rice Lake Manor. That that does not provide for the securing of the north end of the development. You can have a dead end street that's going to open itself up to a marsh. There is a trail down below right now. It's not a public use trail. It's the right -of -way for the sewer. There's going to have to be some provisions made to protecting people or ' preventing people from just having access to that. So what's going to happen is they're going to come down this street. They're going to spill around and they're going to come across the corner of my property and then they're going to end up going through the properties that are ' in Rice Lake Manor. So there's going to have to be some provisions made to protect that. I said I'd be brief. Thank you. I'll wait to hear what your recommendations are. Scott: Okay, thank you. Yes ma'am. ' Jo Larson: My name's Jo Larson. I live at 8590 Tigua Circle and a couple things that, as per the design of the development, I really like it. Everything that the developer and staff have put into it except that I don't feel this is the right place at this time to put it. I feel that ' the only reason that multi - family or high density got put on the comprehensive plan in the first place was because proposed 212 was not a proposed plan. Along with, and right now we don't even know if 212 is going to go through. And a lot of the comprehensive plan, in ' addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act which states that you have to pay particular attention to the suitability of an area for certain development. And I just don't feel this is right without, if the highway was, if we knew the highway was going to ' go there, fine. But without the highway, I don't think this would have ever been put on the comprehensive plan you know. And I think you still have to take in effect. I hear the Planning Commission with other things coming up, well it's guided for that. It's guided for ' that but you have to remember that in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act. And what I'm really concerned about is the value of my home. I don't think the transition is right from the big lots. The market value of the existing homes there and I just want you to know that I'm concerned about the value of my home and I think it's your job to help protect mine. That's all I have to say. Scott: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak? Can I have a motion to NO n Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and , the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Were ou going to say something? , Y g g Y g Mancino: No. I just have a couple questions for Sharmin. , Scott: Go ahead. ' Mancino: Not comments yet but just some questions about some other people's concerns. On the staff report on page 6, under issue number 2 which has to do with hard surface ' coverage that was requested. I go back to the City Council meeting for November 22nd, 1993 which is on the last page of the whole report. Here you say that the planned unit development ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50% and you're over in ' Block 4 so you would ask them to come back down to 50 %. Yet when I turn to the City Council meeting Minutes it says that the City Council would like the multi - family portion of the site exceeds 30 %. Can you explain that to me? And they address it in number 23 too. ' Al -Jaff: The first time I wrote the report I worked the standards under 30% hard surface coverage, which was a mistake on my part. It should have been a 50% hard surface ' coverage. And I corrected that at the meeting. Mancino: Okay. And that is the standard PUD impervious surface? I Al -Jaff: Correct. For multi - family. Mancino: Okay, thanks. But we do have a little bit of overage on Block 4 so we've had to ' reduce that. Scott: Can you transfer density? Is that what you're. ' Dennis Marhula: If I could address that please? I sent a memo to you Sharmin. She had ' asked that we calculate the hard surface coverages within the various areas so that she can include it in the ... and the numbers that I gave to her at that time, and that's preliminary ' numbers off of the plans were Block 1 had a total of 37 %. Block 4 had a total of 49 %. So the average of those two is actually 41 %. I guess I'm not exactly sure where the 55% came from. Perhaps maybe she can explain that to us. I 61 1 C J Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: You mean she believed your numbers? Dennis Marhula: Pardon me? Mancino: She believed your numbers at 49 %? Dennis Marhula: Yeah. I guess they're also reiterated on page 34 in the staff report. Mancino: On page 34? Oh okay. So there's a discrepancy here. Al -Jaff: This was an issue at the time when the plans originally appeared before the Planning Commission. Mancino: Years ago. Al -Jaff: Yes. At a conceptual stage. That was addressed and the situation has been corrected. So the section entitled, Background. It's basically the issues that were raised at the time of the conceptual approval and since then all those issues have been addressed. So no, it's not a discrepancy. Mancino: The other question has to do on page 15 and again, has this been addressed... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Al -Jaff: ...They are providing some variation of the topography. They are creating a berm. They preserved the existing rolling terrain. Mancino: Desirable site characteristics. They preserve those. And they are preserving those? Al -Jaff: There is quite a bit of grading on this. I know they are grading additional. Mancino: But are they not creating for preserving anything? Are they preserving any site characteristics? Not creating new ones but preserving any? Al -Jaff: They're not touching the wetlands. And that is a site characteristic—grading. Mancino: Rolling hills? Al -Jaff: Rolling hills. There will be grading taking place on the site, yes. 62 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' Mancino: So then you cannot, should not be under the summary of rezoning PUD. It should not be something that we're receiving because we're not receiving on page 15 it says that ... of ' flexibility. Al -Jaff: The preservation of wetland. t Mancino: Okay. So we're not going to retain any rolling hills. They are going to go in and create man made, well I don't know if they're man made, rolling hills or whatever. Okay. ' Matt, do you have any questions about the grading and do you have any remarks on that? Because we're doing so much of it. Ledvina: Right. , Mancino: And I know that that has always been a concern since we've seen this. ' Ledvina: Yeah. I walked the site and I've been concerned with that and I can picture the size of the gullies that they're dealing with and I know that there will have to be some ' grading that's required on the site to put the building's in there. That's a given. But I do feel that there's still opportunity, especially in the northeast. I'm sorry, northwest part of the site for stepping some buildings and providing for somewhat of preservation of the general ' topography. I'm not naive to think that you can just go in and start stepping buildings all over the place and have steps in the buildings and not reach havoc with your budgets and all that kind of thing. But yeah, I would agree with you that that's a question and in my opinion ' I think that there's possibly some more things that the developer can do in that area. But I think it's a thing that should be worked out with staff. Mancino: And would you like to put that in the recommendation now? , Ledvina: Yes. I think that's appropriate. I Mancino: Okay. The totlot, again. One of the things we brought up and Sharmin would you refresh my memory. We approved the totlot as a third of an acre for this much density? Or did we have, did we know it was going to be a third of an acre? That just seems, I don't think we had... Scott: Or was this a situation where the Park and Rec department determined that this was ' not park deficient? Is that kind of how? Farmakes: No. That's not what happened. What happened was that the ark, as I recall, the ' PP PP P park ... didn't need anything and we thought they did. We asked to take that area and at least ' make it a commons, if not a park of some sort of green space. 63 1 _, Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: I don't remember a third of an acre. I Farmakes: No, they didn't have a specific. ' Scott: Because that's kind of what I was thinking. Is that the Park and Rec Department, probably because of Lake Susan Park, determined that this was not park deficient but we said hey. This is so dense, you need something. So this is something that we put in. Farmakes: Originally I jostled for having something in the south and something in the north ' and it didn't work out that way. It seems to have something in the south and not the north. They have that area that has the berm allotted for... r Mancino: Well from the City Council meeting on November 22nd, I mean it says on number 16. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts. That says to me that it's bigger than a third of an acre for this size and this density of development. I mean it doesn't take, you can put picnic tables and park benches and play apparatus on a third of an acre but you can't put a basketball court so I think that they were thinking of something and I know I was, bigger amenity common area for this development. Farmakes: What I was arguing for was to ... based on their recommendations and the rest of the parks in the area to service them. I didn't see... Mancino: Is that correct? Al -Jaff: Well one recommendation that I was going to make is, the Park and Rec Commission will be reviewing this application within the next 3 weeks so you might want to make a recommendation that they make sure that they use amenities that the applicant is providing meets the needs. Mancino: ...development in this area. You might want to see what they say first. Because I think it is deficient in that area. Scott: And we normally don't, after the public hearing is closed, we normally don't entertain additional comments. My thought here is that this is perhaps not a significant issue. I'm just trying to be fair because I, except in extreme circumstances do not allow additional comments so I'll have to respectfully request that perhaps that you take it to the Council after we get 64 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 through with this. Do you have some other comments? Mancino: No. I think that those are my two biggest issues. One is the density and how ' many... especially for being a PUD. I thought that we were getting more common area. Amenities from allowing this kind of density. And number two, the grading. I'd like to see I more ... and I don't have any more comments right now but I may later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. I Farmakes: ...the commons issue is one that I talked about before when we were looking at this. I think that, particularly when you have higher density, you have less of a sense of ' community and neighborhood and I don't necessarily think that there should be ballfields or basketball hoops there. Just even a gathering greenery area or something. I wanted to see something north up by 19 -18 area ... that wasn't in the cards. The area down below, the third ' of an acre, the common area between 15 and 16. I'd like to see more of what they have... not putting in the landscaping plan. Again, I think—should be referred to the clustering. And considering that as a passive use rather than a recreational use. If they don't determine that ' there's a need for such a thing... They're showing 1 tree per lot on the recreational homes. Or not the recreational homes, the single family homes. Is that. Mancino: ...the new tree P reservation. ' Farmakes: Is that the old or new rules? t Aanenson: That's the old. ' Mancino: You know it's a PUD. I would like to see the new tree preservation ordinance apply to this. ' Scott: Well wouldn't it apply after final approval? Whatever ordinances are in place after final approval or at the time of final approval. ' Al -Jaff: Yes. Mancino: To figure out canopy coverage and a map. ' Ledvina: Did you have a recommendation for another condition on that or do you think it's I addressed within the report? Do you think we need that? Al -Jaff: Right now there aren't any trees on the site and they're not removing any. I 65 , Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Aanenson: ...2 trees per lot. Ledvina: 2 trees per lot. Okay. Is there a specific condition or where we need a modification? Mancino: Well 2 trees per lot is not using the tree preservation ordinance. Which means that because there are no trees on it, they have to go in and do a reforestation and do a management plan and put in trees. I mean it has to be at least 15 %. With the new tree preservation ordinance there's nothing. Ledvina: Well they have an extensive landscaping plan for it. Mancino: And it may cover it. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: I don't know. But somebody has to figure that out. Al -Jaff: So do we take the single family portion as part of the entire landscaping plan for the PUD or? Ledvina: I don't think so. Scott: Or is it all PUD? Ledvina: The whole thing's a PUD. Scott: Everything's PUD so. Farmakes: But the criteria would be, unless you've granted them less than standard for the... Mancino: Pardon? Farmakes: We don't have a criteria for PUD to grant less than typically what we would ask for, assuming the requirements for forestation, do we? I mean we can say 2 or 1 or I Mancino: No but at least, I mean PUD's are taken into account in our tree preservation ordinance. Farmakes: Yeah. So currently they're showing L 1% Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 1 Mancino: And that would ... because you would have to look at canopy coverage. I mean the bushes don't count. ' Farmakes: But do you specify a number or do you say, incorporate that into the new regulations. ' Mancino: Incorporate them in the new regulations. ' Ledvina: Okay so, what. Would we just add on a condition then? Aanenson: Yeah, we just need to go back to the landscaping plan and verify the percentages ' and the canopy coverage. That they meet the... Mancino: If they have 1 tree per, I doubt it but we can see. ' Farmakes: To finish up my comments. They deal with Outlot A as a separate issue. It seems to me that the logical way of, the concern about the safety issue or the people living ' on Highway 101. It's always frustrating to listen to comments, not statistical evidence when you're looking for a reason to go ahead and put something somewhere. They use the safety issues. I remember that you have to have an accident before you have a reason to put up a ' stop sign ... but anyway, the sad part about highway systems is that highways follow the votes. That's where, if you get votes, you get highways and it requires population to get highways. That's a sad fact but that's how politics work in this state and politics are very much tied into ' highway construction on this. They don't always spend money where it makes sense. All you have to do is go to certain towns and you see an enormous over capacity of highways there. You come to other areas and you see areas that are sadly deficient in highways, i.e. ' the southwest suburbs. So it's a problem I don't have the ... to solve but if there's any way we can modify currently what we're doing and address that problem, I would recommend that the City Council... I think first and foremost we owe that to the residents. That they're safe and , that this is not going to be a, add to already an existing. Just in that, I guess that's it then. The extent of my comments. ' Scott: Okay, Ladd. ' Conrad: I don't talk after midnight Joe. Scott: Matt. I Ledvina: I'm just going to go right through this. First of all I'd like to say that I think the staff did an excellent job on this report. It's a very complicated project and they seem to ' 67 1 r I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 have worked out all the issues on many of the very difficult issues with this so they did a ' nice job. Let's see, Dave. On condition number 1. The developer is asking to get an exception to the standard specification for the street for that portion of the roadway which will be ripped up. Is that, with TH 101. Is that acceptable to you? ' Hempel: That's something I guess I'd like to look into further. It does make some sense. However, if TH 101 doesn't get upgraded after '97...3 years, 5 years, it might be 10 years. ' It's something I'd like to investigate further. Ledvina: Okay. Can you help me on number, Dave again. Could you help me on number ' 10? How do we want, do you want to change that at all? The remaining 230+ feet shall be platted as an outlot. How do I change that? C J r I 1 Hempel: On condition number 10? Ledvina: Yes. Page 30. Hempel: Right now we're requesting the applicant dedicate in the final plat the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 right -of -way. If we said ad additional 17 feet of right -of- way lying east of the existing TH 101 right -of -way. Ledvina: An additional 17 feet of right -of -way? Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Lying. Ledvina: Shall be dedicated? Hempel: Easterly of the existing Trunk Highway 101. Hempel: Correct. With the final plat. Ledvina: Okay. Then eliminate the remaining 200 feet. 230 feet, etc. That sentence is eliminated? The last sentence or leave that in there? Hempel: Well just say the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road. Ledvina: The remaining property? n Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 1 Hempel: Right. Ledvina: Okay. I think I got it. Here's a question regarding the residential area. Now as ' part of the design in terms of reducing the impacts to the existing family, existing lots there. We talked about bringing, providing those extra deep lots. Those larger lots above the city ' standards. Quite a bit above the city standards and then setting those buildings off of the back line but there's really nothing here that I see as it relates to like a modification of the rear setback. And I'll point to page 34. In the table, the last table it talks about the ' ordinance. 30 feet front. 30 feet rear. 10 feet sides. As the home setback. Do we want to modify that to insure that the houses are built away from that back line? I mean can we modify that, let's say like 80 feet? ' Al -Jaff: ...you bet. ' Ledvina: Okay. Because I was looking at it and essentially there's about, from what they've indicated here for the house pad, there's 100 to 125 feet in terms of what they setback so ' allowing for a little bit of fudge factor, maybe an 80 foot rear setback would be reasonable and would insure that that impact be reduced as much as possible. So I know that's our intent but I want to make sure that we get that in there. ' Aanenson: We'll ... lots that are adjacent... Ledvina: Yes, exactly. Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7. Just on those specific lots. Okay. And I'll ' work that in somehow. Any thoughts on that from the other commissioners here? Conrad: I think it's a good idea. ' Mancino: Yeah, I do too. 1 Scott: Say, reducing the number of lots. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see here. And let's see. I guess for the purposes of a motion then I would be in favor of adding a condition that staff work with the applicant to ... the grading in the northwest portion of the site. Adding another condition that the Park and Rec , Commission review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Mancino: Can I ask you a question about that Matt? Do you feel comfortable letting the ' Park and Recreation just kind of decide how much common area and not coming back to us after we've made a suggestion? I mean let's say that they say that this is fine. Do you feel comfortable with that as the entire common area for this density housing? That's my 69 1 .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 question. Ledvina: Well, that's a tough question. I guess maybe we can add the, well. They're going to be look at ... and I also feel that it may be appropriate for some areas to be provided in the northern part of the development, as Jeff has indicated. I think that has a valid point. I don't know if .3 acres is right for just an open space. You know I don't think there should be ballfields here and I don't think that's necessary. Conrad: Passive. Ledvina: You know like a passive type of gathering area. Maybe a third of an acre is adequate. I don't know but I would defer that to them. Considering our discussion here and what our thoughts are in the process. Mancino: Would you like to see the developer come back on the parks to show something in the common area? I Ledvina: I'm comfortable with moving it along. I think the developer's done a real good job and I trust that he would work with the staff and the Park and Rec people on doing something nice there so I'm fairly comfortable with that and that's kind of a seat of the pants type of thing but that's how I feel about it. And then the last thing I would do would be to suggest or to have a condition that the applicant verify that the landscaping meets the city ordinances regarding reforestation. Mancino: The tree preservation ordinance. Ledvina: The tree preservation, okay. I'm sorry. Mancino: Tree preservation ordinance as it relates to canopy coverage. Scott: Would you like to continue right along and make a motion? Ledvina: I think that's the extent of my comments. Ledvina: Well, do you... Scott: I would say you covered, the other commissioners covered anything that I hoped to talk about so if you'd like to continue along and make a motion. It'd be appreciated. Conrad: Before you do Matt. It is, I like the development. I think some of the neighbors 70 Planning ommission Meeting - June 1, 1994 g g brought up some concerns and they're real valid. On the other hand, I think this is a good location for this kind of density,_ even if 212 doesn't go in. I'm still comfortable with it. I ' think Dave's taken notes in terms of some concerns we have on traffic and concerns we have on drainage. Drainage going off site to the northeast so I think there's going to be some things that staff will look into. But as a high density development, you know the park issue ' is real significant. Here we have the highest density thing we've got and I don't know where people go. And that's not, I'm not trying to reduce density at all. I just don't know where people go and that's sort of I guess a naive thought because we don't deal with these here ' and I haven't over the years but it's just an issue. I like the trail around the wetlands. I think people can walk around a wetlands but I don't think there's really a place to go. I have a feeling that Park and Rec looks at ballfields more than they do internal sites like this. So on the one hand that's their job. I don't take over anybody else's job. That's what they should be doing. But I, I don't know. I'd like somebody to say well yeah, everything's fine. They've got places to recreate in here and they can get in their car and go a mile and find a park, or wherever. Aanenson: That's what their recommendation is taking revenue from this project and putting ...into parks. Conrad: But I just, here we have a high density, 200 units or whatever it is and I don't know where people go. But that's just an issue, not necessarily with this one. It's just like, what do we think when we put in high density? ' Mancino: It is one with this one though. Scott: Well we're going to be seeing, when we take a look at how the land has been guided up and down Highway 5, multi - family residential big. ' Mancino: We're going to have a lot of this. Scott: And I think it's important to do that. Oh I'm sorry. ' Conrad: Well no, that's okay Joe. , Scott: I was dust going to say. In deference to our temporarily fallen comrade, I'm thinking of the types of people who are going to be living in a lot of these. I said comrade, not Conrad. But public transit. When you think about the people, if these properties do sell for $69,000.00 up to $95,000.00, we're looking at about a $650.00 a month payment. Two people working in a not too high paying job could actually afford something like that. I think public transit then becomes an issue and just I think for your information, I don't know what 71 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Diane's title is but. Ledvina: Director. Mancino: Well there's the plan. She's done the planning for 212 ... the transit hub when 212 goes in. What happens if we develop this and we need a transit hub there sooner than when, or 212 never goes in. Scott: I'm thinking about transit access for this particular. You know are the buses going to be able to get in here so I mean, just to let you know that when this comes back for final plat approval, the lady who occupies that chair there is going to be looking at that very closely. Al -Jaff: It won't come before you. Scott: It doesn't come before us for final plat approval. It doesn't? Even though we're approving a preliminary plat. Why doesn't it come back here for final plat? Al -Jaff: Planning Commission only reviews preliminary. City Council reviews preliminary and final. Conrad: Just a couple other things. Dave, you're going to look at the commercial drainage issue going to this site? You have or you're going to. You have to do that. The buffering of the units that back up to the commercial. I just trust that once this goes in and then commercial goes in, that the owners won't be in here saying we didn't buffer. Seriously. Here's a case where there's just no excuse, whether some kind of disclosure statement that they know that there's commercial going back in here. But they just shouldn't be here. They have to know that commercial's going in there. Jeff, you brought up a point. And the only issue that I really have. I think Rottlund's a good builder. Good reputation. I like them. Every unit's the same color. You know of all the things that we talked about tonight... affordable units. It's a real great objective. It looks like a quality, affordable product. Yet on the other hand they all look the same, you know. And that bothers me. And I'm not a marketing genius in terms of what colors people like but to have all units the same color is just like ... now this is a PUD and again, I'm not trying to drive up the cost. I just wish you had a creative solution to that. Seriously. Without changing the cost and that's probably a contradiction. Can't be creative without driving up the cost. But to have all the units the same color. Look the same. That bothers me. I'm not real happy with that. It is a PUD. I think we're moving some things around. The developers have done some things to, I think they listened the first time in. I'm pleased with that. I'm just not pleased with, Matt you're talking about elevations or in terms of rolling and you know, are we leveling and are we putting in the same thing? That bothers me. That's all I have to say. 72 l Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 Scott: Okay. A motion. Ledvina: Well what would be the consensus then in terms of what we do here? Conrad: I think we should challenge Rottlund to show City Council what they can do to add ' a little bit of diversity without driving up the cost $10,000.00 a unit. I guess I don't really want to see it. We could bring it back. I don't know that I do. But I really think we should challenge them and say hey, give us the economics of allowing some diversity in there. What ' does it cost? What does it, maybe we have to negotiate. Maybe we add some density. I don't know what we do but again, seriously that seems simple. I'm not in that business but I want to challenge the Rottlund to come back to City Council and tell them why. Why you ' can't do it or what it's going to cost. And I'm not sure that little cuts that the staff has recommended, although I like them and I thank you for doing that, I'm not sure that that separates one unit from the other, to tell you the truth. Tree preservation has to be dealt with and met the ordinance and then I think you covered everything else. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend ' to the City Council approval of preliminary Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan #94 -5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994 subject to the staff conditions in the report with the following modifications. Number 1. Add, staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary ' road section for the future TH 101 right -of -way. Or for the TH 101 right-of-way. Number 3. The first sentence to read, the number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and applicant. And the rest as indicated in the condition. Eliminate number 7. Number 10. The , first sentence as it reads in the condition. The second sentence, the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. ' Number 15(a). To strike the word tennis in that condition. Number 18 shall read, final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake ' Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. Adding condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. Number 32. The Park and Recreation ' Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Number 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. Number 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the ' color schemes used in the buildings. That's it. Oh wait, hold it. Okay, yeah. That's for that motion. And then the other changes go with the PUD development plan. Scott: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Or any additions? Can I have a second? Conrad: I second. ' 73 1 I� l Jai n Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Discussion. So you're telling me Matt that you're fine that if the Park and Recreation comes back and say we don't need any more park facility in this development, as in active park. They come back and say no. That we're fine with not seeing any more common area. Any more inactive, what do I call that. Scott: Passive park. Mancino: Passive, thank you. It's getting late. So we're fine with not seeing any more passive area in this high density development? That we're going to let it go just the way it is with a third of an acre. Because the Park and Recreation's going to come back to us and say and they're going to think about it as active park. I don't feel comfortable with that. Ledvina: Well they have their job to do. That's their focus. I mean I realize that we're trying to incorporate all these things but. Mancino: But is a part of the intent of a PUD to allow transfer of density so you do have some common area for that higher density areas? Farmakes: To achieve that you're going to have to ... I don't disagree with what you're saying. Mancino: Because you guys talked about, both you and Jeff talked about some areas on the north part. North of 86th Street. Farmakes: Will the Park Commission start eliminating buildings? Mancino: I think that's up to us. Farmakes: But I'd like to get their recommendation as to what that should be because I don't know if it should be a half acre or what it is. Mancino: Alright. Farmakes: The targeted amount for that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back after that or do you want to just go with whatever the recommendation they make, is what I'm asking. Scott: Or do we want to go to the Council meeting and just say, oh by the way this is our thought and bring that up. 74 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 , Farmakes: Well I'd like to get some professional recommendations to what that should be to accommodate that many people and we rely upon the commission for that. The Park ' Commission. I will agree that I think their focus is more on recreational development than in passive use, which in this case I think is appropriate. ' Scott: Well I think the condition was pretty specific when it said, their recommendations for space within the development. ' Mancino: And maybe we should say, passive space. Ledvina: That's fine. ' Mancino: But I just want to make sure. ' Ledvina: I know it's a touchy issue. I understand that. Mancino: This is an important part of this whole development. ' Ledvina: I understand there's a lot of big issues here. I Scott: And we're going to be getting, I can think right now of about maybe 5 more PUD's of this size. Maybe smaller. Maybe larger. That we're going to see and what I think we need ' to do is to, this is something that's a little bit different but it's the type of development that we're going to see more of and I think we really need to set the tone with it. There needs to be some sort of passive gathering space within these developments and I think. Ledvina: Besides from the specific park and rec formula. Scott: Yeah. ' Mancino: Get their input and then see it back just on that one issue? But then ' when ... change. Ledvina: I can't change this. ' Scott: Or do you want to not see this again and. ' Conrad: City Council can handle it. They're big people. They know how to do this stuff. Scott: Yeah, just as long as we can let them know what we're thinking in person. Up close ' 75 1 .' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and personal. Conrad: I won't vote for that but you can bring it back. I think it should be clear though. I think Nancy brought up the fact, at the first go around City Council asked for some things and I don't think it came back the way they asked for it. So whether I agree with City Council or not doesn't make any difference. I think it should be noted what they asked for and that should be brought to the Park and Rec's attention. Scott: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Farmakes: Are you going to add that as an amendment? Recommendation. Ledvina: I would accept that. If you want to specifically state that there should be whatever passive open area provided in the northern part of the site, or whatever you want to do that's. Mancino: Yeah I would like to add some. I would like to get the Park and Recreation ' committee's suggestion as to what that might be and then I think some should be added definitely. I don't know how much. ' Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that. Scott: Okay. Any other discussion? ' Ledvina: You were the second. Do you accept that? ' Conrad: Sure. Scott: Any other discussion? Any other friendly amendments? Or amendments, friendly or otherwise. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with conditions. ' Mancino: Does this also, excuse me. I have one question. We are putting the Outlot A and it's just got Lot A. It is not part of the PUD. i Scott: No. It's just Outlot A. ' Ledvina: Then we deal with that on this next motion, right? We have two motions that we have to make. I Aanenson: ...dealing with the preliminary subdivision... The next one is just a PUD plan. 1 76 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 MnDot. ' Submittal plan. water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge ' Ledvina: So what are ou suggesting? Y i Aanenson: ...Outlot A is the commercial area. Shown as a commercial area and given ' concept approval... Mancino: Not preliminary plat approval. ' Aanenson: Right. Not approved as preliminary plat. ' Ledvina: I would accept that. Yes, thank you Kate. Scott: Is there any more discussion? It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval ' of preliminary Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan #94 -5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. ' The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. Staff shall evaluate ' the potential for temporary road section for TH 101 right -of -way. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary ' permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. ' 3. The number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and the applicant. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. The City will be maintaining the retention ponds i and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion ' control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 77 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 4. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 5. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds prior to final plat approval. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. ' 7. Deleted. ' 8. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and ben 1 9. The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm ' sewer. 10. The applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of the t site adjacent to TH 101 for right -of -way. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. ' 11. During onstruction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant g P g PP ' shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. ' 12. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. J 79 ' Plannin g Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 13. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. ' 14. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating ' commercial and residential lots. 15. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: ' A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, , etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th ' Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. ' C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. ' Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. ' D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. ' 16. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and ' development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and ' we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and , would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 17. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding ' the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. ' 79 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 i� fl 0 1 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. 19. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. 20. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 21. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Policy enclosed. 23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. 25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. 26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. 27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). 28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When :l t 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree I preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ledvina: We have one more thing to do and I guess I can do that one too. Do we label this ' as the same development plan, #94 -3? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ' approval of PUD development plan #94 -3 subject to the staff's conditions with the following modifications. On page 34. The top or first table. For the commercial parking setback for West 86th Street shall be 30 feet. Again on page 34. On the bottom as it relates to. Aanenson: Excuse me a second. We were going to strike any reference to commercial at this point because we didn't want to give—so I think we just leave the motion the way it is... reference to the commercial development. The only change I would have is when you talk about the 80 foot ... but we need to make sure that the 80 foot works and I'd like to see some changes before it goes to Council... 81 1 Planning ommission Meeting - June 1 1994 g g buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 , Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1. 29. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city ' shall determine type and placement. 30. The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south side of West 86th Street. ' 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. ' 32. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development and look at adding additional passive park area in the northern part of the site. 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree I preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Ledvina: We have one more thing to do and I guess I can do that one too. Do we label this ' as the same development plan, #94 -3? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ' approval of PUD development plan #94 -3 subject to the staff's conditions with the following modifications. On page 34. The top or first table. For the commercial parking setback for West 86th Street shall be 30 feet. Again on page 34. On the bottom as it relates to. Aanenson: Excuse me a second. We were going to strike any reference to commercial at this point because we didn't want to give—so I think we just leave the motion the way it is... reference to the commercial development. The only change I would have is when you talk about the 80 foot ... but we need to make sure that the 80 foot works and I'd like to see some changes before it goes to Council... 81 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Subject to staff review for feasibility. Aanenson: We still want the compliance for the residential so basically I think if you strike any reference to the commercial development.. Ledvina: Okay. So as part of the motion we strike the reference to commercial developments associated with Outlot A. On page 34, the ordinance, or I should say the setback requirements for the, the home setback requirements for the rear lot for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, identify that rear setback as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. I think that's it. Scott: Is there a second? I Mancino: Second. ' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD development plan as outlined by staff in the staff report striking out any reference to commercial development and adding a provision that rear yard setback requirements for ' Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, be identified as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Scott: Let me just ask a question. We have 3 items here. The rezoning, site approval and preliminary plat for the subdivision. Did we do all of them? Okay, good. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18 -57, STREETS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (N) AND (0) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING R4, R8, R12 AND R16 AND NON - RESIDENTIAL USES. Scott: Is anybody going to cry if we leave this for next time? Okay. We're going to continue item number 6 to the next time. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes? I'm sorry, yes. Al -Jaff: There is someone here that has been waiting for 5 hours. Scott: Then we need to do it then. I apologize sir. I didn't realize you were there. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. RN Designer Series Colonial The colonial style is avail- able in 18 -foot fiberglass or 20 -foot aluminum pole. The lamps are 100 and 150 watt HIPS. This lamp style is a good choice for residential and recreational areas. Rate /Service Included Colonial Style Group V Rate Cleaning, Lamp and Ballast Replacement Yes installation System Repair and Replacement NSP Included for 25yrs Ownership Customer or NSP Monthly Rate $5.30 Average Installed Purchase Price $825.00 (18 ft fiberglass pole) Base Options Buried or Mounted Two - Fixture Cross Arm Available No tThis rate will apply for a too watt High-pressure Sodium (HPS) fixture for the entire table i Ll IJ Maximum Spacing Recommendations Colonial Style Area of Use Wattage /Pole Height Recreation Residential Commercial $700.00 150 Watt 720.00 100W /18FT 19OFT 175FT 140FT 100W /20FT 21 OFT 170FT 120FT 150W/18FT 230FT 21 OFT 200FT* 150W /20FT 21 OFT* 190FT' 185FT 'Use different wattage /Pole combinations or fixture types for better lighting 550.00 Denotes best recommendation 332.00 Price List Light Cost Traditional 100 Watt $700.00 150 Watt 720.00 Pole 15 FT. Fiberglass 1,354.00 18 FT. Fiberglass 273.00 15 FT. Aluminum 1,300.00 20 FT. Aluminum 685.00 Base Pre -cast Concrete 550.00 Screw -In 6" 332.00 Northern States Power Company 6/93 2M Printed on recycled paper 414 Nicollet Mall 10% post - consumer waste Minneapolis, MN 55401 April 15, 1994 MISSION HILLS PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Mission Hills (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Highway 101 at 86th Street West OWNERS Al and Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Keith D. and Carol S. Bartz and 2209 Acorn Court Lexington, KY 40516 -9645 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT Tandem Properties 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Bloomington, MN 55439 (612) 941 -7805 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Arteka Natural Green 15195 Martin Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 934 -2200 Ref. 93364 SITE PLANNER, SURVEYOR, AND ENGINEER ' Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ' 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 937 -5150 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' "CEIVED APR 18 1994 , CHANHA -%EN PLANNING DEPT. C 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The northerly 800 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 3, of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway '10 1 and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 519.26 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 300.00 feet; thence South 30 degrees, 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 489.69 feet to the centerline of State Trunk Highway 4101 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following parcel: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 519.26 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 187.31 feet; thence South 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 239.59 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 143.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 265.45 feet to the point of beginning. Total Area: 61.67 acres Page 2 DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING: Existing Zoning: Agricultural Guided: SF/MD NC,HC Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: Outlot A (Commercial) 8.87 Block 1 (130 du Multi - Family) 18.00 Block 2 (6 du Single - Family) 3.45 Block 3 (9 du Single - Family) 3.70 Block 4 (56 du Multi - Family) 8.92 R.O.W. A street and A court 1.40 86th Street R.O.W. 2.23 Total Development Area* 46.57 *TOTAL AREA (including estimated R.O.W. for 101 and 212):61.67 Ac. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Outlot A Highway CommercialfNeighborhood Commercial. Site is largely governed by adjacent R-O.W.s (not yet acquired) Approximately 8.87 acres Block 1: 4 - 4 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 4 - 6 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 6 - 8 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 4 - 12 du (2 story) attached residential buildings Block 2 7 single family lots Block 3 9 single family lots Block 4 10 - 4 du (garden units) attached residential buildings 2 - 8 du (garden units) attached residential buildings Page 3 !I PROPOSED DENSITY: Multi - Family 192 du on 26.92 ac. 7.13 du/ac net Single - Family 16 du on 7.15 ac. 2.24 du /ac net ' Lot Size Minimum: 15,126 s.f. Maximum: 23,374 s.f. Average: 19,459 s.f. ' Combined: 208 du on 37.78 ac. 5.51 du/ac gross PHASING: ' Phasing will begin at the western edge and move to the east. Single family lots may be included in any phase as market demand dictates. ' Phase I ' Blocks 1 and 4 (west half) Phase II ' Blocks 1 and 4 (east half) Block 2 and 3 t Phase III Outlot A - Commercial (by others) I PROJECT NARRATIVE I EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project area is a 46.57 acre parcel of rolling open agricultural -use land located east of Trunk ' Highway 101 and north of the proposed Highway 212. The site area is substantially impacted by the realignment of T.H. 101 and the proposed Highway 212 right of way. 86th Street West, which bisects the site, is currently an unplatted gravel road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' The proposed project follows very closely the land use guide plan prepared by Hoisington - Koegler Groups, Inc. The proposed outlot and Block 1 south of 86th Street West, proposes Neighborhood/Highway Commercial along T.H. 101, and Medium Density Residential along the south and east surrounding a ' preserved wetland and o n water pond area; all are indicated on the guide plan. The residential units in Block 1 are two sto ,buildings of 4 to 12 units each. ndominium style units in 1' 1 Page 4 p/ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (continued) J V Blocks 2 and 3 consist of 16 single family lots which act as a buffer to an existing single family neighborhood east of the project. Block 4 consists of 12 medium density garden style (single level) attached residential units varying from N t o 4 -8 units each for a total of 56 dwelling units. 1 4A a� All attached residential units will be owner occupied and the surrounding yard areas ,vI m 11 be in comon ' 5S ownership. In final platting the southern units will become condominiums. Association covenants �1111 be developed to govern the two multiple residential areas. At this time, the nature of the proposed Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial parcel remains ' subject to a number of other planning issues. This will probably be the last piece to develop. Its perimeter, being formed by highway right -of -way and residential developments, will clarify the shape, size and access , options of this parcel. At this time, no architectural character proposals or site plan concepts are available. It is anticipated that access will be requested off both 86th Street and future Highway 101. The site plan respects the proposed alignments of T.H. 101 and 212. 86th Street as the site access, will be ' realigned to meet both the existing and future alignment of T.H. 101. PARKING , Each unit will have a 1 or 2 car garage and a 1 or 2 car wide bituminous driveway of at least 20 feet from ' the garage door to the access drive aisle. This will provide for two to four parking spaces per unit. Additionally, off - street parking spaces have been proposed to equal 1/2 space/unit. LANDSCAPING The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using , overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Red Maple, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen and ornamental trees. Landscaped monuments and entry islands will highlight the project's entrances off 86th Street. A central irrigation ' system will insure that the site landscaping will thrive and continue to enhance the living environment within the project. , ARCHITECTURE Two styles of attached residential units are proposed - Villas (south of 86th) and Garden Homes (north of 86th). The Villas are two story units and the Garden Homes are single story. The exterior materials for both styles will be similar, i.e., a combination of 5" aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the Garden ' Homes and horizontal transom windows over the Villas' windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray ' siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Page 5 r RL GRADING ' The site is graded generally to take the maximum possible advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site grading in consideration of the proposed grades of Highway 101 and Highway 212, ' and tried to buffer the site from their impact. The site drainage will be directed through 7 sedimentation ponds throughout the site which are strategically located above the recognized wetland areas. These sedimentation ponds will pretreat the storm water, recharge the wetland areas, and flow in the natural ' existing direction. UTILITIES ' The water main service will be connected to the proposed trunk water main extension by the City of Chanhassen in the southerly right of way of Highway 101. An 8" and 6" D.I.P. water main will be constructed throughout the site area with 6" hydrants as required. The 8" water main along 86th Street is proposed to be looped to the east to provide the necessary fire protection. The sanitary sewer service will be connected to an existing manhole located in the southerly right of way of Highway 101 near the residential lots on the southeast shore of Lake Susan. An 8" P.V.C. sanitary sewer line V1111 be constructed t throughout the site to serve the proposed buildings. 6" leads will be stubbed out for each multiple -unit building and 4" wyes for the single - family homes. Each unit will also include drain tile which will be connected to the storm sewer system. ' STREETS ' Bituminous paved streets will be constructed throughout the development as shown on the site plan. The width of proposed 86th Street (public) will be 32' wide with the remainder of the streets being 28 feet and 20 feet wide (public "A" street and "A" Court and private streets). All streets will be built with mountable ' concrete curbs. The alignment of 86th Street is proposed to be revised as shown on the preliminary plat. Access to the site will be at existing Highway 101 until the new highway construction is completed. ' PROJECT PHASING The first phase of the project will begin with the west end of the project and may include all the single ' family lots (Block 2 and 3) and roughly 1/2 of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 2 will consist of the balance of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 3 will consist of the commercial site at T.H. 101. PARKS AND TRAILS Included in the design of the site is a 6' wide bituminous walk along the southern edge of 86th Street and ' traversing the project from east to west. Tied into the walk is a 6' wide wood mulch trail to loop around the central wetland area and link the Tot Park to the main walk system and interior private loop road. The Tot Park is a .3 acre site located central to the southern residential area of the project. The park will include a play structure, bench seating, and pea - gravel base. ' Page 6 SOILS I The Carver County Soils Survey, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation ' Service, indicates the majority of the site consists of Hayden series soils, 0 - 12% slope. Hayden soils are generally characterized as loamy soils well suited for the development of structures and roadways. Included within the project area are several areas of Glenco soils. These soils are silty loamy that are ' seasonably wet and frequently pond water on a temporary basis. As expected, the Glencoe soils are located in areas identified as wetlands on the plans. TREE INVENTORY ' The survey indicates that the parcel contains no overstory vegetation. The property has been in an ' agricultural use for many years, and only some scrub willow brush exists along the edges of the eastern wetland areas. WETLANDS ' Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on June 2, 1993 using the Federal Manual for , Identifying, and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 197 1) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS /OBS ' Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979). The site includes part or all of three wetland basins. The two wetlands recognized by the City of ' Chanhassen and located south of 86th Street have been designated as A24 -2(1) and A24 -3(1) and classified as PEMF (Palustrine emergency semi - permanently flooded; Type 4 deep marsh) and PEMB (Palustrine ' emergent saturated; Type 2 wet meadow) wetlands, respectively. With the exception of a small area of unavoidable linear encroachment to wetland A24 -2(1), which will be due to the upgrading of 86th Street, these wetlands will be totally avoided. West 86th Street expected, the ' site plan will also comply with the buffer zones and structural setbacks applicable to these Ag -Urban wetlands under the current Chanhassen wetland ordinance. Because existing 86th Street flanks the wetland edge with no buffer zone or space for improvements, the wetland cannot possibly be avoided without t substantial changes to the road alignment. The five sedimentation basins proposed will provide more than 1 to 1 wetland replacement for the anticipated encroachment, and will also provide pretreatment for storm water draining to wetlands. ' The third wetland basin, which is located north of 86th Street, is not shown on the official Chanhassen City Wetland Map, but is shown on National Wetland Inventory Mapping. The applicant understands that City staff has indicated they do not consider this basin a City - regulated wetland. In addition, the applicant submits that, because this basin is a Type 2 (PEMB) wetland less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land, it is covered under exemption 8 of the interim program of the Wetland Conservation Act. ' Because this 0.42 acre isolated basin encompasses less than 0.5 acres, it is covered under Section 404 nationwide permit 26 without predischarge notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, the proposed development will comply with all applicable wetland regulations. I Page 7 � LEGEND to- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Tandem Propertiee Preliminary 14 ^ ' Ternporery Connection _ Proposed Hwy 101/212 R.O.W. —' 115.1 •c.1 �— Proposed Public Street /R.O.W. 11.40 sc.l Single Family Residential Subdivision 16 Lots on 8.66 sc., 1.117 du /sc. Ierosel /— Single Level, Back to Back Attached Residential ITownhome Ownerehlpl 56 du on 11.9 sc., 11. du /sc. Ierossl Proposed 88th Street Realignment �— 12.23 sc.1 - Two level Back to Back Attached Residential ICondominlum Ownershlpl 136 du on 18.0 sc., 7.66 du /w. Iyrosd ) Total Site Area 81.87 + /. acres Unit 11—nery UnIt aurnmery slulllpl• Unlls Slnel• Fsmlly el..s 1141. ems. UMI 111..k LII Arr11r.1.1� NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �1• Westwood - __ __.. ,..._. _ -- - -- !° Tandem Pro ) Mission ttilis IO 1)ertcv Site Plan ;.) t M M M M M M W mm mmmmm�mmmmm mmmmim goo SILT FENCE ir DIVERSIONARY DIKE Z I:- =-7 7-1 9 Iz iF 919 7 / �\\ \ /1�// 20 • • �f tto� - , �' ' d,•\ : �►Ros2 i �. \ 1 � \ vzl �� I i r[ z N FF 72 I 1 7 6 < ttdb 1 5 9 '�]•`� �• ; , sf trot JO l � . ! rs 0, 32 IG/ >r 31 A 4 OF dod '' �� i / /% / [ ma /S \I :� \�i \\ r _ r'r FF 33 r oil 36 41 17 4-. 0"? sf 52 v 4 \` �� Iq 14 3 7 vi yore moim' • ------ - - - - - — T' . ��f Prelim 'no urvN a Nn Tandiirri Propert" Hium Grading Plan t)An North NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION IF Prelim 'no urvN a Nn Tandiirri Propert" Hium Grading Plan t)An North WMAND (F 010 WMAND --------------- Wi t" 6 WE IL 31 AM 12 PW JL t V Firs,, •� r f c�3j.'.7 r 4ap - - .. ___ —, _. [ _ '_..�• � y •r �, - 1 �� �fi � ,•.•��: ••,. T - �_ • r i �- t L'1 �. �I. li i l � .� �:� ws ��r �r • �� S h••r v � -N FT - zt — i3a Zz 51LI FENCE DIVERSIONARY DIKE 4- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Westwood r — D- IT PreUntinary 14114's. 1 Tandem Propertim Million MIA Grading Plan J, 0. tl P10 No Sou m m � m m m m m m m m m m m m m= m W � ' ' ! ' . 0 � / } ' GOPHER STATE ONE CALL T— Clt, oleo -51-0002 W� Toll Floe 1-800 252 1166 e / o 31 m //^ ` w . ` 39` � - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION W n!twood ) -- -- Preliminery Mimion Hills Tendem Propertim Utility Pl.. "— _~^~—'- -- � GOP ER TATE ONE CALL L 'IT. Jill S OLW T 777. x m= NOT FOR mowaTnuCnmm Tandem Propertim Mimion Mile M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M po --''-~'-----`-- -'---'- -'----'--^- _^---''_----''-----___� =��-''--_-____-''_-_--.-�_ 77��;���- '---'---~~~-`^---'---�-''~` --'-~----~~^--'- -'-~-'~-'~-- s p NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION � stwood Tend* *I lul ' itV --''-~'-----`-- -'---'- -'----'--^- _^---''_----''-----___� =��-''--_-____-''_-_--.-�_ 77��;���- '---'---~~~-`^---'---�-''~` --'-~----~~^--'- -'-~-'~-'~-- s p NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION � stwood Tend* *I lul ' Af TEM N- 111ra1 ('irectl 8 Unit Patio Home -Plant List: 4 Unit Patio Home -Plant List orr a.a. w.. 1, au rm :.i. uou• a ,uYtru a ml_ ror ti4 ry..d G.... Co-po-ue. ifiv)wn.. P.... lb. r.v.. .•1t fflaa hw.. via iJ00.lo. vf. )J 11 Mission Hills Patio Homes m, rW, YlF, neo, T,rt i w mews unr. v<.YOU• u nitino auane •ru a 1 Ye ro, I> e,ttee I .lYene a 1 errru ),Iarl« •lin r I a.t. raT 11 Y000 MTtw,IW .a,eat0 � ... p� . ,VOYIwe iuuriYU, W,u, u. ry� Chrthaas«t Mkwwwla ^ . •. >'„ a c:' n r : �'.. Typ. a wt Patio Hon. Typ. 4 Unit Patio Hortn .- ,- -'��^+ ra.,r• r �e Landscape - - - - -- Development Plan '••'r'�W 4.rt �..�1"i — . - �. .. -..�. _ 1 ecu.el. JUNh l - - -_.. _ ... . _ _ — i �T u:tn 1 •T . 4_IL.e L -2 Preliminary- D -- Iopar NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TANDEM PROPERTIES liiiiiiiil• liiiiiiiii� � i1• liiiiiiiii� 11• � � iiiiiiiii� � 11• liiiiii� 11• lit• � liiiiiiii� III mmmm m m mm m m mm m mm m IMI im 12 Unit Villa-Plant List: L. ......... A AL. rot rruw 8 Unit Villa-Plant List: OTI A —11 —11. 1 LAL. rof 1P16" jk.o 1ch A •... .....• A 1— .1. AL. roT rwvl u[ A 4 Unit Villa-Plant List: cl -1, 1 I CI Mission Hills Villas Typ. 12 Ural Vm& Typ. 8 Unh VMS Typ. 4 Urit VKm Landscape Development Plan _G � 1_ 4 1111 � 1 � 100 niull 7 �_- ,, ---------- N CI Mission Hills Villas Preliminary- Deviop•: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TANDEM PROPERTIES Ctwi'mosem W"gots Landscape Development Plan _G � 1_ 4 1111 � 1 � 100 niull 7 �_- Preliminary- Deviop•: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TANDEM PROPERTIES WHITTLN ASSOCIATES,IW %k1I41TE( TIIRf 6 IIANNIN, + I S9 ft I :N I 1 T 1 11,A I I ]I All .NN ON A QlA. ul ... #I-. Zy QJ ed V) 5u -T?OnLUND -�&9MWAM . - jNr- Z rden liornes Elevatiom' I !Lr!!i Building Garden flomes III Al = = = m m = = = m = m = = m = m m w M Unit A Unit A Front Elevation 0 , -ro' 4 Unit Building amfungmi ASSOCIATI I %I IfEATIO Al 111 1 ,,, - F FON , A MI. S. cu V) c 2u ZZ; ��MPAKX M Garden Ifornes Plan 4 Unit Building Garden Homes i III A2 Main Level Plan 4 Unit Buildinp MUMN"I ASSOCIATFS,IN( 1149 )N P I M I ItI NN INKA. AIN ISW ji A- I - A' Ai 74 P.0-0 Unit A Unit B I Unit B ' '- ft— Unit A Front Elevation xC TU TM[J?OTrMND -- N5;PWPANY,I"C. Garden Homes 8 Unit Building Garden flornes tl'I A31 Side Elevation mm mm mmm mm mm mm m mmm� lim WI ASSOCIATFS,IN( ,-,*,.iri (w.t , rI S9 I jf A A Y �Ilf R 7 (��I 111��A� I \IINN N X 11 r _. 0 cq co Main Level Plan L UAN U c Arden Homes 8 Building Garden Ifornts 1 A4 KWweC —11WOO—rr. W1-111 ASSOCIATL.S,IN( 1-1 1 I1TI( 71IM I, H I'll 11N, I, M � 1111M I 11� : ' I' Front Elevation Villa Townhomes LI) zH 0 ce Mr L �u , �14 -:N OMPA Villa Townbomes -4-11nit-BuIlding— ELEVATIONS 10 A5 Side Elevation Rear Elevation W4,0. WHITIT-N ASSOCIATI:S,[N( \Pl 1111 MINE I I'1 I—", 4IS9 IIIA11111111- PIN, \JINN I TONKA, MN S%1, ul" ~w m 001- Upper Level Plan z o 03 cq , \COMPAW INc i : Ila ownhomes Main Level Plan Villa Townhomes 4 Unit Building A6� WHITTI"'N Side Elevation Front Elevation 8 Unil Building ASSOCIAI 1: * • ';,IN( I I I UM • N M M11 , .1 IN , f— , , ';fs (A Oct co U —T?=LUNT) CQMrAtfX INC. Villas 8 Unk Building T- j All A71 Main Level Plan Villas 8 Unit Building ONINEW1 ASSOCIATFS,IN IItV II IA I 110'. 11'I:11 " ! I V) ILI 7 J ` N COMPANY IN 8 Unit Building A8 Upper Level Plan j fill Fill. 10 I w o M Jam M Ml . iffl a - • er .% .,. e fAll 1113111m Your MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 0 E j 1 7T(-�4 ❑I I i ® BATH N LAUNDRY (VINYL FLOORING) O MASTER BEDROOM DINING ROOM DEN/ BEDROOM GARAGE LIVING PATIO ROOM PORCH FOYER THE BALSAM L (GARAGE.- RIGHT) � �crn�mlcnr I�r�j SIT III HIDER FOR ACIIIAL DINAIIS ON IANDSCAPING AND PIANS. 1 91 EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ROTTLUND HOMES TM AR I V, IN CONCI'.1' I' I )NLY. SIT III IIII)I {It FORMA I IAI, DI, FAILS ON IANI)S(:AI'ING AND PIANS. Nl& EQUAL HOUSING opgNlTym izcrr rLUNn MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES E 00 0� I 0 - -� - -� MASTER MASTER ATH D i KITCHEN LAUNDRY I BEDROOM \ (VINYL FLOORING) DINING ROOM DEN/ BEDROOM BATH �O GARAGE LIVING ROOM PORCH \� PATIO FOYER THE ASTER (GARAGE RIGHT) AR I V, IN CONCI'.1' I' I )NLY. SIT III IIII)I {It FORMA I IAI, DI, FAILS ON IANI)S(:AI'ING AND PIANS. Nl& EQUAL HOUSING opgNlTym izcrr rLUNn Your !erforlsfe THE BRECKENRIDGE at MISSION HILLS MASTER BEDROOM OPEN TO BELOW m BEDROOM OCOPYRIGHT,19N UPPER LEVEL AR'I M CONCEPT ONLY. THE ROTTLU; ID COMPANY. LNC. ®COPYRIGHT 1994 SEE BUYER FOR ACTUAL DETAIIS ON ALL FLOOR PL�UNS AND ELEVATIONS ARE THE EYCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE LiNDSCAPING AND PLAM. ROTTLUND COMPANY. INC. COPYRIGHT L \TRINGE,\n7 COULD RESLZT LN LEGAL PROSECUTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHT L1W. EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY p,6** Yotcr BtcilderforLife • r� :ll i►sexi %� Your 'erforLfi e V1 1 Lil\ 1 '. V L'L CCOPYRIGHT,1994 ARIISIS CONCEPT ONLY THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, Rq C. 000PYRIGHT 1991 SEE WE FOR ACTUAL DETAILS ON ALL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE THE E(CLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE LANDSCAPING AND PLAM ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC. COPYRIGHT DffZGENIENT COULD RESULT IN LEGAL PROSECUTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHT Liu'. � EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY j Bttild .je�S t A City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 12. Preliminary PUD applications will not be processed until the Highway 5 Corridor Study is approved by the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE ON 62.05 ACRES OF PROPERTY AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 86TH STREET; LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES Public Present: Name Address Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Joe Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle Sharmin AI -Jaffa This is a planned unit development consisting of single family units, multi family. The multi family is 4 plexes, 6, 8, 12 plexes. The single family is basically located along the northeast comer of the site... Block 4, which is highlighted in blue, contains 4plexes mainly and two 8plexes. Those units are single story and the remainder which is located south of West 86th Street are all two story units. There is a little over 7 acres along the southwest corner which is built for, or guided for neighborhood commercial. We've been working on this application approximately ... One of the main issues when—appeared before the Planning Commission was the fact that the majority of the lots were 15,000 square feet lots. The applicant reduced the number of single family parcels from, originally we had 18 and now we have a total of 16 units so that it exceeds that 15,000 square foot minimum. In fact a majority of the parcels that abut the existing neighborhood are in the 20,000 square foot range. Another issue we have at this time was hard surface coverage. The applicant amended the plan to meet the required hard surface coverage. Parks were lacking. Park plan was lacking on the original plan. The applicant changed that and the plans now reflect a new park as well as sidewalks that connect future TH 101 throughout this subdivision and hopefully sometime in the future with Eden Prairie. The commercial portion and the type of uses within the commercial portion of this site has always been a concern and we would like to see the type of uses that would be there. However the plan, there aren't any plans at the present time. We tried to highlight some of the uses that could possibly go in there and we have met with the applicant and he seems to be in agreement with staff. One issue that still remains a problem is mass grading of the site. Currently the site has... especially the northern portion of the site and unfortunately with these plans, the applicant is mass grading the site. We are recommending that the applicant take a look at this site again and try and maintain the existing grade when designing units on it. Landscaping was lacking at the beginning. Now we have beaming. We have additional landscaping than what was provided originally. The landscaping around the wetland is going to be native to the wetlands. Building elevations were lacking. That was provided again with the submittal. Overall the plan as a concept has come a long way and we are recommending approval of it. There is one issue that staff should point out. One of the reasons why we pulled the item off the agenda 2 weeks ago was because we 12 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 1. found out that this alignment does not accommodate an of the future Highway 101 alignments that were , g Y g Y 8 prepared by Fred Hoisington. We asked the applicant to revise the plan and ... Block 4 that is going to see the most change. Well with this design we accommodate Alternate #3 which was prepared by Fred Hoisington. This option results in moving 4 units. The commercial area is reduced from 9 acres to 7. A little over 7 acres. We're recommending approval of those plans with the condition that Alternative #3 is adopted as the official alignment for TH 101. If that alignment is not approved by Council, these plans would be null and void. With ' that we're recommending approval. As we pointed it out to the applicant and we told them that there are no guarantees which way the Council is going to vote and they decided that that was a chance they were going to take. So they are fully aware that the Council has adopted an official alignment... Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant, would you like to come forward and please state your ' name and your address. Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with the Tandem Properties. We're located at 7808 Creekridge , Circle in Bloomington. Also with me tonight is Dennis Marhula with Westwood Engineering, our engineer on the project. I really don't have anything to add to the staff report. Basically we worked through this plan over ' the last 3 to 5 months. We've worked with the Highway Department on 212. We've worked with Mr. Klingelhutz on the neighborhood commercial. We've worked with Fred Hoisington and the other people that are affected by TH 101. The neighbors to the east that are in single family and tried to work on just a number of issues that have affected this property. We have some other renditions, earlier renditions down here that would reflect the generation of changes ... gone through that probably aren't necessarily to do right now but we're in agreement with the planning report. We understand what the concerns are with TH 101. I talked with Fred again today and if you see approval of this, we would continue to work with Fred on TH 101... preliminary plat. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions that we will have at this particular time? Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'm curious as to whether any of the neighboring. Mayor Chmiel; Is there anyone here from the neighborhood wishing to address any of this at this particular time? I know that we have the Minutes of the meetings that we've had before and I see Al, you'd like to. ' Okay, if you would just move that Mission Hills down so we can see your smiling face. Thank you. Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. As you probably know part of this project is on ' some of my land. The rest of it is on Keith Parks' land who lives down in Kentucky. The concept plan for the commercial portion of this, and it's been brought up many times when we've discussed it and I think these people should understand why there is no actual concept plan on the commercial portion of this property. The , fact is that Highway 101 has not been aligned and the location of it has not been aligned and Highway 212 is looking like it could be the year 2000, if ever and to spend a lot of money drawing up a concept plan on something that you cannot see the future on, is an effort in futility as far as I'm concerned. I think I've agreed to what could go on that land as a commercial, neighborhood commercial and I know that if the road is ever ' built and I come in for a project on that portion of the commercial property, that I'll still have to go through the Planning Commission and Council...everything that's going to go on there. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If none, Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I guess I don't have any particular questions. I have some comments. ' Would you like to go through questions fast? ., 13 ' 1 r , 1 �, City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to hear some comments. Mayor Chmiel: Whatever your choice. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do it all in one shot? Okay. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I realize this is a concept plan and I have this same problem with all of our concept plans. I would like to see more detail but I realize that that's time ... I'm concerned about the TH 101 realignment. Are we putting the cart before the horse? It is one of the issues that will be coming before the Planning Commission on January ...? Paul Krauss: Yeah. We had a neighborhood meeting on—second neighborhood meeting. I think you're aware, Sharmin pointed out Fred's been doing a study on this. There are four alternative alignments starting with don't do anything. Kind of keep it where it is right now with moving it all the way over to the east ... impact on this property. We expect to have that up before you, it should be up to the City Council by February. And we'll be asking you to basically amend, pick which one you want. I mean we'll make some recommendations. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation and the residents have some feelings about it but pick which one you want. Amend the comprehensive plan accordingly and officially map it which is the step we wouldn't take 4 years ago. So it really becomes cast in stone and then it's a matter of the long haul of lobbying MnDot... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, which is a concern in terms of could it currently handle this size of a development if it stayed the way it currently is for the next 5 -10 years. Paul Krauss: Well, that gets into an area and maybe it would be appropriate for Roger to comment but I tend to get a little bit leery about holding a developer hostage... beyond their capabilities of doing anything about Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I agree. I have concerns about the mass grading. I'd really like to see the developer work with the topography of the land. And then there was also the possibility of a chain link fence between this and Rice Lake Manor which. Mayor Chmiel: I was wondering if it had 1 foot of barb Sharmin Al -Jaffa Those were requested by the neighbors and as a result. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I would have a problem with that if that came back. A big problem. Not only looking out for the existing neighborhood but also for the residents coming in living in the townhomes. Very happy to see affordable housing being addressed. I just wanted to comment. I don't know if anyone else read the article about what went on at a City Council meeting up in Maple Grove a couple weeks ago where the residents were up in arms about affordable housing. I would hope that we don't see the same thing in our community. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm ready to go ahead with this until we look at the alignment of TH 101. I'd like to hear what the rest of the Council has to say. Councilman Mason: I think in concept it's good. I understand what Colleen is saying about not liking concept approvals but I think we have to start pushing people or showing people the direction we want them to take and this seems to be good direction. It seems to me that's quite a gamble to say well, I'll put all this time and effort into it and if, gee if they don't go with Highway 101, then we're going to get shot out of the water. I'm concerned about that but if they're not, I certainly won't. Acceptance of this as a conceptual plan won't be my 14 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 driving force between, or how Highway 101 should be aligned. I would hope that they would not assume that would be the case. But conceptually, I can tell that this has gone through a number of changes and it appears to be getting better each time. I also am concerned about mass grading. I would want that as one of the conditions on this. That's all for now: Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Did I understand you correctly that the realignment in effect causes the loss of one 4 unit building and 2 acres of the commercial? Paul Krauss: That's the worst case. Councilman Senn: But there's nothing proposed on the commercial so that's pretty open ended and if you lose one 4 unit building out of a project like this, it's hardly going to be the end of the earth correct? Okay. You know conceptually I don't have any real problems with it. I agree with Colleen and Mike on the grading issue though. I think that needs to really be looked at. I'd like to keep some of the hills and the topography there. Otherwise I guess what Colleen said. It's nice to see some of the price ranges here and the affordable housing coming in. I guess the only other thing I would like to just mention so it's mentioned up front is, as you do go down the road in any commercial... discussed there, personally I will oppose any gas convenience on that site at all. I mean you have 5 within one mile of there now and I don't consider that to be a needed neighborhood service in this particular case. That's my own personal feeling. Paul Krauss: No it's not, the question I would want to pose to you though is, I don't happen to take issue with that at all but it's long been kind of one of the concerns filed away to bring up to the Council at some point. I haven't had a chance to. There's actually 3 other commercial corners around there too. They are on the comp plan. They've been in the TH 101 study before that but to be honest, we've never given a heck of a lot of thought as to how that whole interchange is going to work. And maybe that's something we ought to be taking a look at. To the same extent that we kind of set the die for how downtown's going to develop. There's a lot of space for commercial development. I'll bet you it's about 60 to 80 acres... Councilman Senn: Maybe that should be part of what we look at in relationship to the realignment. Paul Krauss: Yeah, it can certainly be tacked on that. Some kind of a land use program. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I mean again that's not before us but I agree. It's something I'd really like to see dealt with up front rather than down the road. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this by repeating but I just, Peter Olin who gets very sensitive about using the existing landforms on development now and I agree with the Council. That's a priority. Let's start using existing landforms. I get really, I can almost sit back and just stamp these because we, as a Council discuss the MUSA .line and how we're running out of developable space and how much we need it and we discussed affordable housing. We never really defined it. We don't have it zoned. We haven't really said what is our need and let's ... so we keep saying, well this is affordable housing. Well I'd like you to define that. This is kind of nice stuff here. I'm still worried about density. We move the MUSA line and every single project that has come before me since the MUSA line was moved, in the 3 years I've been on Council, have maximized 15 1 I CI City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 density. We call it PUD or standard subdivision, it doesn't matter. But it just masses come in and nobody's doing anything with low density. I mean nobody's coming in with this land and building any attractive low density. And the first comment that comes up is, well if we approve Galpin and TH 5, what are we going to do with all the traffic. I don't know. Well it's sure going to need a stop sign but we don't know if we're going to get it. Here we've got a windy, curvy road and we're going to dump how many units on it. 100 and some units. Incredible amounts of housing or vehicles and cars and traffic and city service drains without the, but we're not thinking to the future of the infrastructure. We're sort of building and then we react and build and react and put up more stop lights. I can't get through downtown anymore and they said they'd time them so I could get from A to B but I go from one red light to another red. I don't think the solution of this city is to keep bringing in high density housing and then put in stop lights and try to react to the masses of people we're bringing in. So I guess, I don't have any problem with this but I hope we never move the MUSA line again and that's where I'm going to take my stand and say, I'm going to vote no, no, no and hope we get a little less density in the rest of the city because moving the MUSA line, all of these are good projects with good people. Boy oh boy. This isn't the city I'd like to live in. I guess I like my wider open spaces. Not to diminish affordable housing. I think that's, there could be well planned and well thought out in our process here but okay. The grading. The only thing I would add to this, and I'd like to see the same thing we did to Terry Forbord on the Song property. West 86th Street's going to be a major connector. Wide street. A lot of houses. Cul -de -sacs coming in. I think we ought to go along with the boulevard trees and the street lighting on that street. I'd like to see that added as a condition when it comes back. That there be street lights and boulevard trees on West 86th Street. And now that you've allowed me to editorialize, that's all I've got. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you and good night. Okay. Paul, let me ask a question when we get these conceptual plans. I noted that there's no PE signatures on any of these. Is it normally not required even though it's a concept plan that should be on these plans themselves? And an architectural. Paul Krauss: We really, I mean I know that you raise that point repeatedly with the formal submittals and we've ' been trying to do that. On a concept it's so touchy feely and we've been working with their engineers on it. They clearly have those people on board. But we haven't asked them to verify the documents in terms of... ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So the next shot that comes at us, it will have them on there at that particular time? Paul Krauss: Yeah. n I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too had just a little bit of concerns regarding TH 101. Will that have capacity enough to carry the volume that will be coming off of TH 212 as well as proceeding on 212 plus all the additional traffic that's going to be coming from developments within that particular area. Is that going to be enough to carry that additional traffic? Paul Krauss: There has not been a traffic study done since the Eastern Carver County traffic ... and what that said is clearly this thing had to be upgraded concurrently with Highway 212. In the short term I can't tell you definitely one way or the other except to shoot from the hip. I mean we've already upgraded half of this road. It has a good intersection with Highway 5. I don't know if the analogy's an appropriate one but you know it's probably not any worse than Highway 101 is north of Highway 5, which is not to say it's great. And it certainly is sufficient in some safety respects. Again, this is a State Highway. You know the State of Florida has a concurrency requirement that says nothing happens until everything's in place and it's not a taking to do that. But where we have developers, for example we have the Terry Forbord, Lundgren is looking at the Rogers - Dolejsi piece south of here which is 114 units. Single family homes. That will add 10 trips per home. We are 16 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 working with them to make them pay towards upgrading Lyman Blvd and internal streets and to upgrade the utility system but we're simply not in the position to intervene for the State and say you've got to upgrade a ' state highway. We can make them put in safety related improvements. Turn lanes and that kind of thing and we certainly will. We'll do that here too but there's a bigger issue at stake there when we're trying to move MnDot off of dead center. Councilman Senn: That's like trying to move the Rock of Gibralter. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's a chore. Just a chore. Okay I guess with that I guess I don't have any other questions. ' Other than the fact of the grading as well, and I guess I see that as a concern with that to minimize mass grading of that particular site. We always, when we go to PUD's, I want to make clarifications. What is the city really getting for this as well. I want to know just exactly that part of it. But other than that I guess I don't have any other questions at this time. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: I have a question if I could. Paul, how does this relate back, and I know we have the alignment problem effectively with TH 101 but is there anyway that that trail configuration can be worked into ' this along Highway 101 so it's dealt with ... or at least accommodated regardless of how TH 101 in effect gets configured. I mean if I'm understanding this right, we're probably not going to take final action on this until we do on TH 101 so shouldn't we just stick it in as a condition that we're going to require the trail along TH 101, ' whatever the configuration may be. Paul Krauss: That may well be appropriate and you can certainly put in a temporary trail ... You know the north , end of this, it still doesn't touch on the city trail system ... but it's not that far away. Councilman Senn: It's not that far off from it and it seems to me that you could come up with probably a fairly reasonable trail path that would stand at least a little chance, or very little chance of changing from what I've ' seen on the plans, correct? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: I had that as item number 26. , Councihnan Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see that added. The only other thing that I forgot about, and I'm not sure whether this is appropriate for the developer or for the city but it ended up to be kind of interesting discussion last week with 3 city residents that currently rent in the city. They're single parent households and they work in ' industries in Chanhassen and the issue of affordable housing came up and I kind of said, well I think it's coming. You know and the responses were real interesting. How do we know? And stuff and I'm not sure whether it's something we should look at the developers to do or if it's something the city should do but I would ' certainly like it to be a consideration now as we're proceeding with a couple of these projects to set up some type of vehicle, especially if you go into our industry such as Rosemount and other places like that and actually notify the people that this housing's available. The rates it's available at and maybe even go so far as to run it , out and show them, hey. This means like a $500.00 a month payment which everybody paying rent more than that. Really I guess promoting it but going beyond general, or I'm going to say normal marketing modes. But I think that's something that could end up being really a win -win for both the developers and the city and maybe it's something joint. I don't know but I think. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's something that Mike had brought up some time ago as well. And I think that's something that could be looked at to see. A question that I was going to have is, what is the, what are , going to be the costs of these specific units? Do you have any idea? I know that Centex has indicated their's 17 1 I City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 ' and your's is probably going to be $5,000.00 less. No, I'm just. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it said 70 to 80 in the report. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it did say in there but is that still what you're really looking at? ' Jim Ostenson: Yes, that's the price range. We actually have three different price units and unfortunately this item got on the agenda a little earlier than we thought and the fellow from Rottlund's not here. We have more of a traditional townhouse that's on this plan in several different places that would be approximately ' $100,000.00. We have the villa which would be the 70's and the 80's. And then we have a rambler unit which is really designed for empty nesters and we have a one level unit that would be, I think this is about $100,000.00 also. t Councilman Senn: Yeah, it said 80 to 90 in here. Jim Ostenson: There are really 3 different multi family options on this site. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Paul. ' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the HRA had authorized Fred Hoisington to do some work with the major employers in town to do some survey work to find out what the marketing need is, what the desire is to live in the city and he's in the process of doing that now. And it's been talked about from time to time to see whether or not there are ways in which the city could intervene and assist in terms of possibly down payment assistance programs or ' something like that. We think that a lot of people can afford to be in housing like this but some people couldn't afford ... to get into it. If there's some way to defray some of that or absorb some of that and there's some programs potentially out there that do that. That that would help. And I believe we've got our financial counsel ' looking into the possibility of what's just out there. Councilman Senn: With MHFA and all that. ' Paul Krauss: Yeah. With the State, right. The State programs. Councilman Senn: Yeah, the State... ' Mayor Chmiel: I think we're, Michael did bring that up at the HRA at that particular time and they are in pursuit of that. Okay with that, any other discussion? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion of the ' recommendation for. Councilman Mason: I move approval of the conceptual planned unit development east of Highway 101, north ' and south of West 86th Street with the concerns noted by Council about mass grading and the boulevard and the lighting. Councilman Senn: And the trail. Councilman Mason: And the trail. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and you did indicate the PUD 93-4? 1 18 I City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 Councilman Mason: If not... Councilman Senn: Second. ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve conceptual PUD #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, revised September 4 and November 12, 1993, with the understanding that the ' developer will address the mass grading issue, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans ' should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the right -of -way is inadequate. ' proposed 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed ' construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the ' MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. ' 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the fatal plat. ' Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ' 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to ' determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the applicant installs ' the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire ' Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100- , year 24 -hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the 19 1 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. '� 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11'The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right -of -way determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. M City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site exceeds the permitted 30 %. Mass grading of the multi - family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. I9. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 20. The applicant should hold a neighborhood meeting with area residents to gain a full understanding of their concerns and attempt to address them. /21. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been fmished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. � �. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 23. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface coverage may not exceed 30% of site area. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment " i� 5! Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development. .. '26. A trail be installed al H ighway 1! � � y 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE 1994 POLICE CONTRACT. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'll comment briefly on the packet of materials included in the Council packet. The fast of month when I originally prepared the memo recommending an additional 3 hours of police contract time. The Council and staff budget meetings have not been completed. Because of the present uncertainty regarding what budget cuts may be necessary, I'm changing my recommendation regarding the police contracts slightly. What staff is now recommending to you is that you authorize a police contract with Carver 21 L n L