The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Autumn Ridge: Conceptual and Preliminary PUD.C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: July 19, 1994 SUBJ: Autumn Ridge PUD At the July 11, 1994 City Council meeting, d not present at the meeting. The applicant has Tuesday, July 12th. We are therefore placing permit the applicant to present his developme While the applicant had originally requested c aware that staff is recommending only coucef amenable to this recommendation. was tabled because the applicant was :hat he did not receive his packet until m on the July 25th agenda in order to preliminary PUD approval, he is at this time. We believe that he is RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council grant conceptual ap PUD by adopting the motion contained in the attached staff al only to the Autumn Ridge Attachment 1. Staff report 93 -5 updated CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 6/15/94 CC DATE: 7/11/94 r CASE #: 93 -5 PUD By: Generous, Hempel, Desotelle U J �a l 1 1 1 1 �Q W co STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and preliminary plat creating 34 blocks, 166 lots, and three outlots and associated right -of -way for a residential medium density development consisting of 166 dwelling units in 34 buildings consisting of 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units. The development is called Autumn Ridge. LOCATION: APPLICANT: Southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Good Value Homes, Inc. 9445 East River Road NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (612) 755 -9793 Agricultural Estate, A2 gross: 89.59 net: 29.11(less wetlands) PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: llDmlt By ally Mmhtist Or e bb Submitted to Commissla Q.A10 1.85 units /acre (gross); 5.08 units /acres (net, less ROW and Outlot C) N A2, Highway 5 and Miniature Golf and Driving Range S - PUD, Trotters Ridge and a wetland complex E - A2, Elementary School Site, single - family homes, and Galpin Boulevard W - A2, vacant, proposed Opus Industrial- Office Park The applicant has petitioned the city for the extension of services. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex (43.8 acres) with an upland agricultural area that was farmed most of the last decade. There is a tree line along the property limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the wetlands to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential north of collector road and Low Density Residential south of collector road V i Y _IOM _ STA © I LAKE y\ �KL I c do r Ew' x I 2:Y � M P7N_ ciSE FT ` i /. POKD ♦ Q I PARK I IYMGN BLVD. (CR IB) � J - p ! C y� 8700 —j . PARK n I \ H `�.. �J CITY OF 9,00 -------- -� i HANHASSEN 3-7 - BASE MAP o � a 9500 i I 9600 BY: A"SSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. REVISED JAN, 1994 I r '0200 PO N 10300 �. d 1 � 0 0 I' C Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 166 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 34 buildings proposed nine 8 -unit, five 6 -unit, eleven 4 -unit, two 3 -unit, and seven 2 -unit buildings on a net area of 32.68 acres. This property is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, but it is guided for Medium Density (4 -8 units /acre) Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units /acre) Development_ The developer is proposing densities of 5.69 units per acre north of the collector road and 4.12 units per acre south of the collector road. However, if the city would like to average this density over all of the upland located south of the collector road, then the density falls below 4 units per acre and would comply with the guide plan designation. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has supported this area as medium density. These densities are at the low end of the medium density land use density. In order to permit the proposed development south of the collector road, a minor comprehensive plan amendment will be necessary to permit attached single - family homes. The parcel is 89.59 acres. There is a DNR protected wetland which is 43.8 acres. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will eventually connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. The extension of the collector road must cross a portion of DNR protected Wetland 10 -210W. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site at the east end of the project. The final alignment on the west end must be determined in conjunction with the development of the Opus site. Based on the size of the development, the parcel being split by the collector road and the large wetland complex, it would be difficult to develop single - family at this location and clustering of units is a reasonable alternative. The applicants are seeking conceptual and preliminary PUD approval at this time. The applicant still needs to provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards, wetland alteration permit, and tree preservation determinations. The site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the western portion of the Good Value Homes site, 3;6 feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS, the consulting engineers who did the soil study, stated in their opinion the site is unsuitable for park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building and would recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western portion of the site. L11 Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 ' Page 3 The design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy. 5 development standards. Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. The building ' design include the pitched roof elements, variation in facade treatments with dormers and colonial windows, variated building components, and the use of colorful and functional plant , materials. The applicant has not provided the city with building materials, textures, roofing treatment, and color schemes. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree preservation calculations, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, ' impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, etc. Staff is also concerned that the applicant has not, to the maximum extent feasible, minimized the amount of site grading ' that would be done. Instead, the site will be mass graded to accommodate the proposed , building pads for the townhouses. While staff is aware that due to the topography of the site grading and filling is necessary, we still believe that the amount of grading can be minimized ' through the design of the project and the rearrangement of unit sizes (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10). The development has, at times, taken great care in arranging building orientations to provide , diversity and varying perspectives, specifically in the central portion of the development north of the collector road and throughout the southern portion of the development. However, along the eastern and western edges north of the collector road, the applicant has provided a monotonous building orientation and perspective. Staff is recommending that the applicant alternate building orientations in these areas. Additionally, the applicant should exchange one or two 6 -unit structures along Galpin Boulevard. For example, exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. Staff is recommending conceptual approval only at this time with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions outlined in this report. Additionally, a minor comprehensive plan amendment for the property south of the proposed collector road changing the land use designation from Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium density will be required to bring the development in compliance with Section 20 -508, standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs. This amendment is necessary in order for the developer to transfer the residential densities from the west side , of the DNR protected wetland to the uplands on the east side of the wetland, or, if the City is able to negotiate an acceptable purchase price for Outlot C as recommended by the Parks and ' Recreation Commission, then to permit the density of the development as proposed by Good Value Homes. Staff can support this proposed amendment based on the development proposal submitted for Autumn Ridge, contingent on the applicant agreeing to the transfer of ' the development rights from the western portion of the site to the eastern uplands, and believes that this type of development provides an excellent transition from the School site and single - family homes to the east and the proposed industrial -office park to the west. �J Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 4 Site Characteristics The site is currently a g ri cultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned Y � �' g P farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm growing ' within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated areas. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.6 acres from A2 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 developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a ' greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more ' sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS ' It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. ' Finding The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 5 ' be left intact. Staff is requesting revisions to the plat to minimize the amount of ' grading. A Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Plan needs to be developed. 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. Findina Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the ' site, the property is split into two developable parcels. Because it is against city ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single - family subdivision. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding The property to the west of the subject site is being developed as a business /industrial park. The site to the east is proposed as an elementary school. Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not ' the optimal location for single family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. P P Finding . The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road ' for medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the ' maximum buildable area for the site is around 32 acres after elimination of wetlands and road ROW. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be designated medium density. The net density of the developable area south of the collector road is ' well below the upper limit of the residential low density permitted densities. While the net density south of the collector road would meet the comprehensive plan ' requirements, section 20 -508 of the code permits this type of development and transfer of density only on lands designed as medium or high density residential uses. Therefore, a minor comprehensive plan amendment will be necessary. , 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 6 Finding. The development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained and enhanced as part of this development. A passive park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a portion of both. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. ' 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building des and sightings g g g g and the clustering of buildings and land uses. ' Finding The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground —.� �' g Y g �' ' elevations. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed frontage road and the wetland complex. Staff is requesting that the applicant re- evaluate the proposed grading plans to determine if the grading is being minimized. 8. 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 The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard. A collector street will tie ' this site with the property to the west and east of the site. This collector street will include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single - family neighborhoods. Summary of Rezoning to PUD ' Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees, topographical features) Sensitive development in transitional areas ' More efficient use of land Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 7 GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 166 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 34 buildings proposed with nine 8 -unit, five 6 -unit, eleven 4 -unit, two 3 -unit, and seven 2 -unit buildings on a net area of 32.68 acres. The townhouses are located around an internal private roadway system that is accessed via a south Highway 5 collector road.. The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards. The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be enclosed, plus an additional 1/ space per unit. The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into the applicant's development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings. Buildings shall incorporate pitched roofs, variations in the rhythms of the building components and details including dormers and colonial windows, the use of colorful and functional plant materials, variation in the mass of buildings with 8-, 6 -, and 4 -unit buildings along Highway 5, and the provision of open spaces and sight lines. The applicant has not provided the city with details on building materials, textures, or colors. The setbacks for buildings along Highway 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. For the interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100 feet maximum. Parking should not be in these. setback areas. This proposal meets these standards. There will be no roof top equipment. Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. Detail specifications are not available at this time, but the signage must be compatible with the project design and low profile. Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting. Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 16 foot candle at the property line. G 0 7 Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 ' Page 8 WETLANDS ' Almost f percent of this site is characterized as natural wetland according �Y P g to the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific wetland delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described as follows: ' Wetland A - Wetland A is a DNR protected water (10 -210W) and is approximately 43.8 acres in size. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1 C, PS S 1 C; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). DNR will be establishing an ordinary high water mark (OHW) for this basin in the interest of the development and the proposed frontage road. ' The western portion of upland was investigated by the park department for construc- tion of ball fields and tennis courts. The area was found to contain the hydrology, ' vegetation, and soils necessary to define the area as wetland. Staff recommends that the wetland delineation in this area be re- evaluated. Wetland B - Wetland B is located near the west property boundary and is character- ized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type 2 wet meadow). This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre will not be impacted as a ' result of the proposed development. Wetland C - Wetland C is located in the northeast portion of the site and is character - ized as palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin - PEMB /Cd; Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow /shallow marsh). This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre will be filled as a result of the proposed development. ' Mitigation - Wetland C (0.3 acre) will be filled as a result of the ro osed P P development. The City will also fill approximately 1.7 acres if the Highway 5 ' frontage road is constructed as stated in the comprehensive plan across this wetland. The applicant will have to follow the wetland replacement guidelines of the State Wetland Conservation Act. The City is the LGU for administering the act and will review the project based on state and local regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of En- gineers also has permitting authority over wetlands and may need a permit application. Staff recommends that a wetland replacement plan be developed for both the proposed project and the frontage road in conjunction with a single wetland permit application. Through restoration and enhancement efforts Wetland A could be a highly functional Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 9 wetland in an urban setting. This wetland will be an asset for wildlife habitat, aesthet- ics, and recreational enjoyment. This wetland also provides water quality improve- ' ment and flood retention for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. A wetland restora- tion and enhancement plan for the Wetland A will most likely meet the sequencing ' requirements of the City, WCA, and Corps and will protect and enhance the natural resource. This process will also assist with the DNR public water permit application that the City will pursue for the road crossing. ' Buffer Strip - The buffer strip width for Wetland A is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the , outside edge of the buffer strip. DRAINAGE I 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 the City's water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and there- fore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to deter- mine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The City requires storm water quantity and quality calculations from the applicant ' prior to final plat. After review of the calculations, the City will make recommendations for approval of the storm water plan in accordance with the SWMP. Water Quality - Two stormwater retention ponds are proposed on the site. A large sediment and nutrient trap is shown in the west central portion of the site. The ponds' , side slopes can be designed as either 4:1 or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 thereafter for safety purposes. , A second sediment and nutrient trap is shown at the southern edge of the development to pretreat runoff from the small area around the cul -de -sac. The City is interested in keeping water quality ponding to a minimum, and therefore, the runoff from this area should be routed to the larger pond if at all possible. Storm sewers are proposed to . I I Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 10 convey runoff from the lawns and streets to the retention ponds. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's Pondnet methodology shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees would be waived. Water Quantity - The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Medium density single family developments will have an assessment rate of $2,975 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. A credit could be applied to this fee for any segments of trunk storm sewer or ponding the applicant installs as a part of the overall development. GRADING The plans propose to mass grade the site in order to accommodate placement of the multi- family type units. The existing topography shows an elevation change of approximately 32 feet from Galpin Boulevard to the Wetland located approximately the middle of the site. the proposed site plan shows an elevation change of approximately 15 feet in this same area after development. In conjunction with reconstructing Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19), the existing roadway grade will be lowered. Commencing at Trunk Highway 5, Galpin Boulevard will be lowered by approximately 7 feet. At the intersection of the proposed frontage road and Galpin Boulevard, the grade will be approximately 4 feet lower than it exist today. These grade changes are necessary in order to improve sight lines along both Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. These modifications are proposed to be completed sometime in 1995 in conjunction with the school construction. I have attached a copy of the proposed Galpin Boulevard profile form the feasibility study for the Trunk Highway South Frontage Road (Attachment No. 1). The applicant's grading plan should be revised to be compatible with the future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 11 As previously mentioned, the entire site is proposed to be mass graded as a result of , the development. The site contains scattered trees throughout but the majority of the site has been employed in agricultural uses. There are significant wetlands along with a significant stand of trees located in the southeast and northeast corner of the site. All the trees in the southeast corner are proposed to be lost as a result of the grading for the streets and building pads. Staff is not sure due to the steep slopes in this area if any of the trees could be saved with any kind of development. The other , alternative is to restrict or prohibit development in this area. STREETS I The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan proposes an east/west collector -type street (Frontage Road) from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This frontage road , will also serve a future industrial park lying west of this development (Opus). The frontage road is also designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System (MSA). The applicant is proposing to construct a portion of this frontage road in conjunction ' with the overall site improvements, specifically from Galpin Boulevard to the easterly edge of the wetlands. Both the applicant and staff has had concerns with regards to extending and funding the frontage road through the wetlands to the west property line , of the site. Other concerns such as outside governmental agencies (DNR, Army Corp of Engineer, etc.) will also have to be consulted and the appropriate permits obtained prior to extending the frontage. The City feels reasonably comfortable, though, in obtaining the necessary permits to construct this frontage road due to the fact it's been on the City's Comprehensive Guide along with being designated on the State -Aid system. The DNR is currently in the process of mapping the wetlands to determine the ordinary high water level which will give the City and applicant a better perspective of exactly where the road may be extended. The applicant is concerned with future assessments for the extension of this road. Staff understands that the road may not be assessed to those parcels of land which do not receive benefit. There may have to be alternate funding mechanisms employed ' such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or State -Aid funds to assist in the construction of this segment of roadway across the wetlands. State Aid funds are encumbered up to the next five years. , Since the frontage road plays a significant role in accessing this development, a condition should be placed in the approval process that the subdivision is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary approvals for extending the frontage road across the wetlands. Should this not be the case, the applicant will have to go back and redesign the street system layout to include possibly a right -in right -out only on to Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 12 Trunk Highway 5 and/or extending the southerly cul -de -sac back out to Galpin Boulevard. The cul -de -sac could access Galpin Boulevard directly south of the home on the west side of Galpin Boulevard at the cost of removing some trees. The Carver County Highway Department would also have to be consulted regarding this access point. The applicant will also need to apply for and obtain an access permit from the Carver County Highway Department for the proposed frontage road access. ' As previously mentioned, this frontage road through the site is listed on the City's MSA route and therefore must be constructed in accordance with MSA design standards. The interior streets are fairly well laid out from a traffic circulation standpoint. The streets all to connect back out to the frontage road with the exception of the southerly cul -de -sac. All of the streets which branch off the frontage road are proposed to be private streets and not maintained by the City. Since there will be public improvements constructed in conjunction with this development, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees. UTILITIES The City has previously authorized extension of trunk sewer and water facilities along Galpin Boulevard to service this area. Other than construction of the trunk utility lines and the frontage road, the remaining portions of the site are proposed to be private. Due to the magnitude of this development, it is recommended the applicant use the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for construction of the private utilities. Utility inspections for the installation of the private utilities will be done through the City's Building Department. The site contains remnants of an old farmstead. The applicant should be responsible for abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to ' City/State codes within 30 days after final plat approval. This development will sustain assessments as a result of the extension of trunk and ' lateral utilities to the site. The assessment methodology is proposed in the feasibility study. ' LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The western and southern portions of the site are heavily wooded consisting of central and lowland type hardwood forest species. Significant tree stands are located within Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 13 the wetland complex. The significant tree inventory of the site verifies these tree types consisting of maples, oaks, box elder, and elm. Conifers have been planted in the area of the farmstead. The applicant has not provided the city with the base line canopy coverage calculations nor the post development canopy coverage estimates. Staff has attempted to estimate these figures in order to determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan Since the landscaping plan as well as development proposals are limited to the eastern portion of the site, staff has limited the analysis to this portion also. The only significant tree preservation proposed on the eastern portion of the site is in the northeast corner of the property and along the northern portion of the site within the Highway 5 right -of -way. Staff estimates that the base line canopy coverage is 9 percent (4.0 of 43.8 acres) The minimum canopy coverage requirement for a medium density residential development is 20 percent. Based on this base line canopy coverage, none of the existing canopy coverage should be removed and an additional 4.76 acres of forestation would need to be provided. Of the existing canopy coverage, approximately three acres will be removed. Code requires a replacement of these trees at 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed, in this instance, 3.6 acres of replacement trees. Adding together the 4.76 acres and 3.6 acres equals 8.36 acres of forestation and replacement tree planting that will be required or 334 trees. Staff believes that additional trees can be preserved in the southeast corner of the site by relocating the proposed retaining wall closer to the street and leaving the area east of the private road in its natural state The landscaping plan provides 356 trees which would exceed the forestation/replacement planting by 22 trees. There are 16 different tree species included in the plant schedule. Of the total number of trees provided, 110 trees are ornamentals (31 percent), 72 are conifers (20 percent), 133 are primary species (37 percent), and 41 are secondary species (12 percent). Staff has two concerns with the landscaping plan. The first is the distribution of tree species. While the northern half of the site has 69 percent of the dwelling units, the landscaping plan locates 74 percent of the ornamental trees, only 45 percent of the primary trees in this half of the development, and only 56 percent of the total trees being proposed. The second issue of concern is that the landscape screening for this development is being provided primarily by the evergreens that are being preserved within the Highway 5 right -of- way. To resolve both these issues, staff is recommending that a more equitable distribution of trees be incorporated into the landscaping plan and that additional groupings of evergreens be planted along the northern project boundary to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens with the widening of Highway 5. Fj n Li Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 14 PARKS AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on June 28, 1994 to discuss this development. They recommended that the City Council negotiate acquisition of Outlot C in its entirety through a reduction in park dedication fees or purchase. Furthermore, a public trail shall be constructed by the applicant and any necessary easements for trail purposes be dedicated to the city. In consideration for trail construction, a lump sum reduction in trail fees equal to the cost for said construction shall be granted to the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 1994 regarding the proposed Autumn Ridge Development. Upon review of the plan and discussion held with staff, the developer, and affected Chanhassen residents, the Planning Commission 1 concurred with the staff recommendation that this development should be granted only conceptual PUD approval at this time in order to permit staff and the developer to work out the issues and concerns expressed in the staff report and specifically the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council grant conceptual approval to 93 -5 PUD to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, subject to the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion (Note: conditions 37. and 38. were added by the Planning Commission; condition 15. has been updated based on the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation): 1 "The City grants conceptual Council approval of PUD #93 -5 to rezone 89.59 from P PP Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, subject to the following ' conditions: 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. Good Value Home, Inc. ; Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 15 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. , 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). 5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform ' Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). ■ 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to Ci ty Engineer ineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). 8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, De artment Inspections Division for P review prior to final plat approval. 9. Revise the relimin grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling P �'Y �' g P P P g pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. ' 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. I � 10. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or , confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. 11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus I stops /shelters within the development. 12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a ■ more equitable distribution of trees throughout the site. Additional groupings of evergreens shall be planted along the northern project boundary to provide 1 Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 16 additional screening and to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens in the right -of -way with the widening of Highway 5. 13. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be altered to minimize grading (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc. 14. Staff recommends that the applicant alternate building orientations along the eastern and western perimeter of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the applicant should exchange one or two six unit structures along Galpin Boulevard (e.g., exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. 15. Pay park and trail fees as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the construction of the trail segment within the development and or the dedication of park land. T he City and the developer shall initiate negotiations for the acquisition of Outlot C in its entirety through a reduction in park dedication fees or purchase. Furthermore, a public trail shall be constructed by the applicant and any necessary easements for trail purposes .be dedicated to the City. In consideration for trail construction, a lump sum reduction in trail fees equal to the cost for said construction shall be granted to the applicant. 16. If feasible, two water retention ponds should be combined to one large water retention pond located in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 17. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity assessment fee of $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the overall development. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the applicable credits, if any. The Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 17 SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval process will be adjusted accordingly. 18. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. 19. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The street shall be constructed in accordance to State -Aid standards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State -Aid office. 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel. 21. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD /development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days after the final plat is approved. 24. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City. 25. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, L� Good Value Home, Inc. ' Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 ' Page 18 DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department. 27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles ' found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best Management Practice Handbook. 29. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 30. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDOT's State -Aid office approving the street alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State -Aid review process. 31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around all natural wetlands. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wetlands. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflect this requirement. 32. The applicant shall provide a full-time, on -site construction inspector for the construction of the frontage road. The inspector will need to be State - certified. 33. A driveway or cross - access easements including maintenance agreements will be needed for the private drives throughout the development. 34. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated. i 35. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant ' combine the proposed project and the frontage road as one project. 36. The City requires detailed storm water quantity and quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat (stormwater system should meet the City's i SWMP requirements). Good Value Home, Inc. Autumn Ridge Development June 15, 1994 Updated July 5, 1994 Page 19 37. The applicant shall incorporate architectural and color variations to the housing styles. 38. Staff and the applicant shall look at reducing the grading and tree loss in the southeast corner of the development south of the parkway. ATTACHMENTS 1. Galpin Boulevard Profile 2. Development Review Application 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Building Elevations and Unit Floor Plans 5. Letter from Joe Richter dated 6/6/94 6. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated 6/2/94 7. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated 6/6/94 8. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 9. Planning Commission minutes of 6/15/94 No �r . Ir r n� "IN "` w" now mum o ft mm i■m ami mm . mmm :.. .....:.........:.. .....:.... ;....::: :::::::: ................... ::::::::::: ....................... ........... .. . ..................... . .............:... ....:.........:...: ................... ................ ...... .. .......:...... .7 ' I' 13 :... ......:.........:........:i:: ....... : ......... : . PV1 �!0S,EL.,971.93 • ::PVC: ItlBO:E1::969 :88 @0 E1: 9 .I. :.........:..................: ...............:...:.......... PVT IO!2S: ,.... .:.:::::: : :::::::::::i:::::::::f::::::': �...:..a 970.6E:::: :::: :::::::::i:::::::::i::: L::'��' 79 ....... ............ .......:.........:......:.:i::: ::::::::: ........ :......... p . L�'4g0 IZ.... ................... .. .................. ................ ................ ::::::::i:::::::::i: t''ftOPERt'( ........... ; .. .........:..................... ........ .. ; .. .. " . ' 90UT►t: t�liOHEta[t iA i4G ............................ .... ..... ORIYEWAY ::` ptli/EWaY ........ : p/1: 19 } ............... 7'S 26:Q: 96G2S:::: ::: ......:................ ..... . ORI1fE1 lEpX..................,•. . '1F]QPORAgY LE:NiI . •t]fFSFING Cr4l.P1 : LI�:I?SS2' : MM Q3A:': ............ .............................:. i • 'E'I�VYEC710h" • :!t 1!IG:: ... .... :I:' ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.i.:.:.:.:.: ' ..... ... .... ..Y• ..... ...........................4',! MPH. .. ::r,:::: rn . o-sa. tt snB ea.. :::::: :: ................ Pao .. � PVC 0•IB 947. ...... ................... .. 1� �. :Y. - Mr 1•tt��JV.. - 1 • 1.. .�: . KO Q ' Y. POSt`D�IiALPIN� ............ . :::� ":: _ r+Atf ft yQ.. i . Own F,k STl laftOf I :::::i::::::: TIMBt7tYM00D OR :: IVE i r• :' :: .�: 0• 20' Ir1:: ..WNNE� 1 aMa : . .: TRMa :,: �:___�. :G : tR . J. ..r.... :...•rr...�.,...,.. :..r... .... :........r :......... .'........ V .tiRl ...'.. : .........:... .• .............r.r..................r................r...r... ............................... .. ......... ............. r ...................... ....................:......... ............. ................. • , .IOC •Q/� W ' 3 •,: FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CHANHASSEN TH 5 South Fron Road (from Gilpin 8w1mrd to Rand) MAWOIWAfCPMNAN Al W@4=IATMrft MMM Galpin Bou W (CSAH 19) ® PMlecom Toukr a pm 1 TXW ORONP (from Tfmbsmood Driw to TH 6) FIGURE 0 Galpin Boulevard Profile 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 12. Variance 3. 690 COULTER DRIVE 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 14. Zoning Appeal 5. X Planned Unit Development (512) 937 -1900 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 7. Sign Permits 8. APPLICANT: Good Value Homes.Inc. OWNER Betty O'ShauQhnessy 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUPISPRIVAC/VAR/WAP • $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. ADDRESS: 9445 E. River Rd. NW ADDRESS: 1000 Hesse Farm-Rd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Chaska, MN 55318 NE Da time TELEPHONE (Day ) - TELEPHONE` 496 -1707 f 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. X Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review _ X Notdication Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUPISPRIVAC/VAR/WAP • $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8%" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Autumn Ridge LOCATION Southwest Quadrant of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION please see attached PRESENT ZONING A -2 Ag State District REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION M d to Low DPncitU RQ,e REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION PLID REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Progose to dPvPl np_pA rrcl This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. ' This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I al o understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded aga with the Carver Cou nt t the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days w C C y Recorder's 1 Offi a nd the orig'naId ument retumed to City Hall Records. 1 s i Signatur p scant f Date l . Signature of e' Owner lbate Application eceived on Fe P ' Receipt No. i The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 01� DSMN?IRM aoa® � 8900111 0C. �ifa! ��D. � a01... COZ111= LW WOM51020 s 9L46 1 15 a=. W= W2 AUTUMN RIDGE = = M a] M*EL DE.SCMPTlON The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Sixteen (16). Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23) West. Carver County, Minnesota. ALSO: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North half of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (15); thence North 1254.00 feet (76 rods) to the center of Smithtown and St. Paul Road; thence South 76 degrees East 814.4 feet; thence South 19 degrees 21 minute west, along the oenter of the . North and South road, a distance of 1202.5 feet; thence West 155.15 feet to the place of beginning. all In township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23) Went. Carver County. Minnesota. Also: The following described tract of land: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section Shen (16), Township One Hundred Sixteen (118) North, Ran a Twenty Three (23) West. Caner County, Minnesota; thence Best on the East —best Quarter Una of - Section Fifteen (15), Township One Hundred Sixteen (118) North, Range Twenty Three (23) West, a distance of 146 feet to a point; thence in in a southwesterly direction a distance of 176 feet to a point; thence in a narthwesterlT direction a distance of 395 feet to a point in the East—West Quarter line of 8eeti0n Sixt1 (18). Township One Hundred Sixteen (116). North, Range Twenty Three (23) Weet, which said point is 194 feet and 4 inches West of the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section Sixteen (16); thence Bast, on said East — West Quarter line, a distaaca of 194 feet 4 inches to the place baglaniag. DEVELOPMENT DATPA Project name: Autumn Ridge Zoning Existing Zoning: A -2 Ag. Estates District Guided: Mad. Density Residential Proposed Zoning: P.U.D. Density 8.64 DU /AC. Tow Site Area Excluding Mapped Wetlanda and Mitigations Areas and R.O.W. 7.62 DU /AC. Blocks ` 1 -4 and adjacent Final Upland Aram. Expecting therefrom . Tract O ne: TJaa per Minnesota deeoglbed E the Northwest Quarte � 0 19 ty oeatarfte. distant to distant 200 feet; that 90 degrees distant 2( ' to the point of begin TRACT_ TAO. Hesinnin of 9sotiom Fifteen (11 Carver County. 18an• Northwest Quarter. c feet; thence South. a distance of 188.88 fe Fifteen (15): thence I Northwest Quarter of (11e) North, Banjo T SITE AR'SA Bloc Bloc Bloc Bloc Out) Out) &0: • 11, , DNR PEI[ V LAM D1 MMUTi0N9 43.8 ACM 'w W M M Bkpscting therefrom above the following two tracts of land: of Tract One: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section Fifteen (15). Townshipp One Hundred Sixteen (116) North. Range Twenty Three (23) Test. Carver County. ]fnneso[a described as follows: at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of Northwest Northwest the Northwest Quarter; thence North, along1he along . Test line of said Quarter of the Quarter, distant 130 feet; thence deflecting to the right 91 degrees 48 minutes distant 206.52 feet to the nth 7b centerline of Count Road No. 117; thence deflecting to the left 70 degrees 05 minutes, al said 20 W South 0De centerline. distant feet to the actual point of beginning. thence denecting to the left 90egrees,. distant 200 feet; thence d to the right 90 degrees distant 150 feet; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees distant 200 feet to saw oenterlina; thence to the right 90 degrees distant 150 feet to the point of beginning. carter TRACT TWO. at the Southwest coraar of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest quarter p Of Section. lliteenn (15 . Township One Hundred 33steeai (116) North, �nga Twenty Three (23) Teel, Northwest = Carver County. Minnesota; thee North, al the Test line of said Quarter of the ano 91 degrees 48 East distance 206.52 . direatlan, a Northwest Quarter, distant 130 feet; thence North minutes a of feet; thence South. al the centerline of Count Road No. 117 (formerly County Road No. 122). a distance 138.28 feet the South line of the Northwest Quarter the Northwest quarter of Section has F, �_ of of Fifteen (15): thence Tea fining, Teat, along said Quarter Section line. to the lace of situated in the Northwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section Fifteen (153. Township One Hundred Mzteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23) Test, Carver County. Minnesota. SITS AREA Block 1 12.98 AC. ' Mock 2 8.47 AC. Block 3 5.40 AC. Block 4 2.25 AC. Outlat 0utloy B ` -- , 84.74 AC. R.O.T. DEDICATION 11.12 AC. nMAL AREA 89.59 AC. $Using additional R.O.T. (Hwy. 5 sit Galpin Blvd.) i R.O.T. PEI[ V LAM D1 MMUTi0N9 43.8 ACM 'w W M M iL InAyr 1 L L It ! Pd L r ^ � ..• h ti y Ifs �L L f Sid .. YJ 1 N ovnar c rr Qsvmu rerr . -w v ; "`•- `- ��' - -li n '� r. C r4 LL ea eeo~rn,w1 j j � �O�,AI >! _ 7_ • ' ' 1 � z f 149O 7 No Allow gels ■ > ' r � �� .ra . ' \. ' � � sC S Y t ¢ , roi RM� 1 .n -_ r I • I4. �r 'w•io .,w r,..s: 6 iF i3 ' Ay„_ • jlf .o. .,...1 rnr. Pe• • s .ryr er4 � � 67DBR4►Jt � � ' • t ><il�j 3 ,.wss err o.4w rw�•+.o � �■aR ssrrvlrf �� )Irlf /� Idler 5 f 1 •• A r '� ■ rra I I ww rte... ft*" rr r t. 1010 Q_ 1100 200 ♦ y HMS wrr,>vs .-1 lwr.. W..■ I lA >i,:u: w rsltt rf Fr wrl.fr asar N r •ona. • e!".A[i ►71117 we �1 ..r ,a■f,c 1r1 aloeaea~r r wM • k � r W t t � y 1 ON � r �i 1� 1� j `•fir -T h- ! `7/ � J ttr S_.�l � 1 1 �, f t O .b M �1,~j• .�J.. f ir- I " ' � 1 � ` � � � s � • f i.� fir.- �� ,.. � ��.-i _r� J / r ��. r�- - 'r'1.,� --- �.. � I • l •, ! t AL,''I'UMN RIDGE RE7A7NlNG 4ALL I �q �-�... 4f-� NOTE: SAVER REMOVED TOTAL �i� l t �[ _ i� TREE SYMBOLS Ci .a U B ^�uekAtx �U Oi 1 i';+,�' . ; °.. f SIGNIFICANT TREES 27 72 AA SPECIAL TREES 14 4 16 a4 N eta lea 0 100 200 , � M �-- ----.� !CAU l OEM ym I IW1EL� 98lOfbo lOA - auryYN Mrr 0 151p ... . ........ I DR .— � .�� q � � �� - - -_.. � �I� � I � :�_ .. i � I .I. J _ �S �_ : _ ` ^� -�...� .� �.�"'.' ~� IIEE-1�9 -, - - -1 . 1 1 ."u 3 �• U f a ; 9,jll. I 1:; 1 W, �iil t ' . I�:. ip ��' It �� fr 1!,i }��` �ll � I ll, I i� � I II�Ii� I ' + �I� I. � �• '�' i � � ��i ;�� 'I'. I �I f �� Y' i �' � � •t,�;` _ ' ii � � +�I � }��,{ �`l � j t.�l� 1 I�' � l�� h�,��1�` I i�I,I I �.�.�'�' I �1 ��, {�►! i `�I` I },�� ! gip{ I I`, I �'� y y ��lu .1C��'+�Im�� 4 •1,. i':lic „� I� i� l i�i.Si J�. �'Ik3��im('11U�..K� �'�1��`'�1�..��III11�I1..lill Jl��lllil�� I�I�I�IIII�. �I�i�l '1111��1111►)IIIII�111,��1 II� 1�� IIY�I t .I i I � �s T SIDE ELEVATION F l 4 -� - - F H il - 1 I nr. ILG Cau •11' -, �1ll1L� - -= F I,�S -1 �_� loam ai �� y �� _: L�ll� --- - _ .( �.I o 1 I. K� IN uliGltold i u► — _ _ __ —� • I" T.F.F. M �d- i i. TI FIR. 11 (D-•!LoN�r r_I.r_vnrloN PROJECT: r --] Fu -,7 T -, 1 ,,,, u- -,, , ,, [ ---- ' '- Fs-i xsnsi lv QW[AALL 11 LOCATION: .... . .. ... I .. .... ... ... .... /� . � �piq .ra..r wi w:.rw .tee r '• S U Zg 3 Q ` ^ i•I I i Zi o /� � ,.� '• it I � C K � I U - -- oil 1 0 0 c z a < t k v I I I I I C L-V dl m I�I c � z II I 111 o ° ?= X }' Ih pm F ; x t J S OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL PHONE NO. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. 772 -7910 June 6, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RESOURCES PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. RE: AUTUMN RIDGE, DNR WETLAND 10 -21OW, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, (City NUMBER 93 -5 PUD) Dear Mr Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received May 24, 1994) for the above - referenced project (Sections 15 and 16, T116N -R23W) and have the following comments to offer: ' 1. The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain district. 7 I u 2. Public Water Wetland 10 -21OW is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross - section of Public Water Wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. No official OHW has been established for Public Water Wetland 10 -210W. We are in the process of making arrangements for the DNR hydrographic survey crew to perform an OHW investigation. The plans show a "future road" that appears to cross a portion of Public Water Wetland 10 -210W. Placing fill for road crossings in Public Waters is prohibited by State Law. However, a local unit of government, such as the City of Chanhassen, may obtain a waiver of the prohibition against fill where this prohibition would prevent or restrict the project, or create a major conflict with other public interests, provided: a. There is no other feasible and practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact; and b. that the public need for the project rules out the no- build alternative. ,i > r 1'0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II June 6, 1994 Page 2 It is possible that a request by the City of Chanhassen for a waiver of the prohibition against fill would be rejected. It seems inappropriate to approve a plat that is based upon a road that may never be built. The City of Chanhassen is ' advised to consider alternate alignments for the road or the construction of a bridge over the Public Water Wetland for this project. 3. It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 4. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Public Water Wetland 10 -210W. 5. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. , This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the , wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota ' Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water &Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year,_ the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. ' C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott t Thompson @ 296- 7203). i Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II June 6, 1994 Page 3 d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, 'Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen General File CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall DATE: June 2, 1994 SUBJ: Galpin Blvd. - Autumn Ridge - Good Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy) Planning Case # 93 -5 P.U.D. I have reviewed the proposed planned unit - de 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V..tran can be quickly located and safely operate( and have the following requirements: inacceptable. Developer must contact the City )lacement of hydrants. round fire hydrants; ie street lamps, trees, shrubs, )rmer bones. This is to insure that fire hydrants pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Pre rise Identif cation must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs f br ,address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire M *,�fial for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). gNSafevj nUMvecode.gvh MEMORANDUM 10 CITY OF CH 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHAdilEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY ' PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General ' Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Require nerttg - General �i. 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from�the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script ' 3. If a structure is not visible from the sheet, additional umbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. ' 4. Numbers on mall box at drlveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement #3 must still be met S. Administrative authority may require additional numbers H. deemed necessary. ' Residential Requirements f2 or less dweMna unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 114 ". ' 2. Building perm' Its will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Corer wrcial Requirements 1. Minimum height shaWbe 12% 2. Strip Malls a. Mutt! tenant building will have minlmuin height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the ' buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of.l two PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ". 2. Red on white is preferred. 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING A, FIRE LANE 5. cans shall be posted at each end "he fire lane and at least at 5 boot intervals along the f ire a.,aane . All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 Date: 1/15/91 ry Revised Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 If ��«►� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 7. Post shall be set back a minimum `of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. 8. A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5-feet on each side and along all areas designated by the FAxe,- Chief .., . ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE %µSUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, ; FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE . ;DEPARTMENT 'TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 Date: 1/15/91 ry Revised Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 If ��«►� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF 0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: June 6, 1994 SUBJ: 93 -5 PUD (Autumn Ridge, Betty O'Shaughnessy property) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, publi( Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory; of building permit issuance. For the igame reason, proposed lowes floor elevations are required to be "indicated on the proposed pad RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwel lessen the chance for - errors during the plan review The enclosed. private, must be reviewed by the Public the submitted documents. is necessary to enable the Inspections )Ian review of the structure at the time level floor elevations as well as garage ocation. Standard designations (FLO or ing types. These standard designations memo explaining these designations is ' Existing structures on property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be fumished.to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The side of a number of buildings appear to be on the property lines. Table 5 -A of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls that are Within three feet of a property line. Projections (decks, overhangs, etc.) must comply with UBC 504 and 1`710 which generally permit projections to extend a maximum of one third the distance to the property line, but require these projections to be of one -hour fire- resistive construction. What this means is that property lines should generally be four to five feet from the buildings. Bob Generous June 7, 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 4. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum g:�safety�k\memos\plan\autmrdge.bgi 1 1 1 1 1 1 TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -)�- cr January 29, 1993 ' SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. PY,O or RLO Designates Pront Lookout or Rear,Lookot L. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its4eepest v+#th the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level �W. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings wrfthe basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. ' SE Designates Split Fatry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Fatty Walk Out This includes dwelruigs with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at itsdeepest with the surrounding grade sipping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates:Tw* Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade -at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the WO 13es4019"'Walk Opt This indudes dweUingswit the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping 1 8 ; own to thelowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. TU SE nR S.EWO WO �LO A o L - - -- -- , - -- Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. n t «r$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CL !` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Autumn Ridge Developer: Good Value Homes, Inc. Location: Southwest Corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard Nonce You are invited to attend a public ii- aumu� --- J -- area. The applicant is requesting a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD and preliminary plat to create 34 blocks and 3 outlots for a 166 unit residential development comprised of 34 buildings of either 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 units in each. The units are two story, slab on grade construction with attached one or two car garages. The property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property). What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8 :00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 2, 1994. * The Park and Recreation Commission will hear this item on June 28 at 7:30 p.m. I; 1 r L t HID ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING 4275 NOREX DR. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. 2381 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHASKA, MN 55318 WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I HI - WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP JAMES AVIS C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. MARK & J. TAINTOR 7481 SARATOGA DRIVE ' ROGER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA J. LEIRDAHL CURRENT RESIDENT 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8250 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I HI - WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP JAMES AVIS C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 David & Anga Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Jay C. Dolejsi - �f�f'Jlh 6961 Chaparral Lane _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Earl Gilbert III 6901 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Michael & C. Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 E. Jerome Carlson c/o Instant Web 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 DALE & M. WANNINGER 8170 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JP' S LINKS INC. c/o John Przymus 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. CHASKA, MN 55318 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Neal & Deborah Wunderlich 7011 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Dennis & Beverly Jacobson 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Prince R. Nelson Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY ' ROGER 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI 512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN. P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRAINERD, MN 56401 E r E. Jer ome & Linda Carlson Duane & M. Johnson 6950 Galpin Lake Road Box 102 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 David & Anga Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Jay C. Dolejsi - �f�f'Jlh 6961 Chaparral Lane _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Earl Gilbert III 6901 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Michael & C. Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 E. Jerome Carlson c/o Instant Web 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 DALE & M. WANNINGER 8170 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JP' S LINKS INC. c/o John Przymus 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. CHASKA, MN 55318 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Neal & Deborah Wunderlich 7011 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Dennis & Beverly Jacobson 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Prince R. Nelson Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Valentine & Wirtz 19380 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Brett A. Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Paul & Roxanne Youn g4 uist Robert & Penelope Arneson 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 6921 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Martin & Beth Kuder Mr. Terry Forbord 6831 Galpin Blvd. Lundgren Brothers Excelsior, MN 55331 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 r Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 ' Scott: Can I have a motion please? Conrad: I move that we, hold on. I move that we table Planning Case #94-1, IUP. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table case #94-1 IUP. Is there any discussion? ' Conrad moved Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the ' Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCKS AND 3 OUTLOTS FOR A 166 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 34 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 2, 3, 4, 6 OR 8 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY). Public Present: Name Address 1 Jim & Sue Avis 8190 Galpin Blvd. Chuck Gabrielson 2600 Arboretum Blvd. Howard Dahlgren 1786 Irving Avenue So, Mpls. ' Derrick Passe 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 John Peterson 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: Bob, can you please show me where the 4 or 5 single family homes are. I've never seen them on any of their drawings. On Galpin east of the development? And how many are there? Can you draw that in? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Resident: There's 3 there. Mancino: There's more than that, isn't there? Resident: Where it says retaining wall is where I live. Yeah, one right there. Scott: We just had that development in here last. Resident: One on the other side of the easement. Yeah, right there. That's the 3 right there. Mancino: There's only 3? Resident: Yeah. Generous: And then the existing farm is up there. Mancino: And where does Trotters Ridge begin? Aanenson: They're south of the wetland. Generous: They're down on this end. Mancino: So between Trotters and then it's wetland. Okay, thanks. Generous: And this trail system will actually connect into that. Mancino: But there is land between Galpin and the wetland on that west side between. Aanenson: There's some upland area that will. Resident: Yeah, that's real wetland. There's a ... creek that runs through there. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Resident: And it's about 40 feet... Scott: Bob, since we're talking conceptually here, the reason for having a PUD is to gain, have some gain, preservation, enhancement, environmental enhancement for the city of Chanhassen. It wasn't real obvious to me what the city of Chanhassen is getting out of this development as it sits right now. I mean I see a trail going around the western edge of the W Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 development. But what are we getting out of this? Is it strictly "affordable housing" or what am I missing here? I'm looking for something significant which would say to me, this warrants a PUD. Generous: I believe it's probably most likely going to be the preservation of these areas west, on the western edge. Scott: But didn't a previous applicant drop this property because they couldn't build there? What I'm trying to get to is that if they can't build there, we can't hold that up and say they're preserving it if it's unbuildable. Or if it's too expensive to build on. ' Aanenson: I think what you're saying is correct. I mean there's certain things that they have to do based on the fact that there's a wetland but the reason the staff would support a PUD is we allowed on other PUD's to help with the design framework which we wouldn't if this was a straight site plan review. So what we're looking at here is the architectural standards and some of those issues. Scott: But aren't the architectural standards covered by the Highway 5? They'd have to have that anyway. ' Aanenson: Yeah, but they're not officially adopted yet. We're trying to do those. With a PUD we definitely can put that in a development contract and hold them to that. Scott: So the major advantage then is to stop using the PUD as a design stop gap because the Highway 5 ordinance hasn't passed yet. Aanenson: Yeah... ' Scott: What are the other major benefits? Generous: Efficiency on the site. Use of the site and development of the site. They're clustering their development in the eastern pocket of this wetland complex that they're looking to preserve. Scott: But aren't they just, but once again, is that the only, that's the only area that they can build on. I mean what it sounds like is if you can't build on it, you're. Generous: This is developable down here. 46 J Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 199 Scott: Is it? Can they get a street to it or something? Generous: They could have gotten to it. They could come from the west. They looked at coming from the south. While it might be more expensive, it's possible to develop that area. I don't believe they're interested in doing that and one of the things that we can tie them to is, the Comp Plan actually says that south of the road is single family. They meet the density by averaging it out over all the upland area south of that road. ' Mancino: But it's not single family. Aanenson: If you spread those units across the entire... Generous: Yeah, they clustered it. They transferred the density. ' Aanenson: So you take the entire package, that's how many units they can have. They pushed it into one area. , Generous: When I made my calculations to determine the density south of the road, I didn't even look at the upland area here because I wasn't exactly sure right now what that acreage was. I was able to calculate back and they were under about 3 units per acre. Scott: Okay. You've been grilled enough. Anybody else? Conrad: But just real quickly, we've transferred densities from north of the road to south of I the road? Generous: No. On the south side of the road you clustered all your densities up in the northeast corner. That gives the possibility of development on this site ... they technically meet for this area, they're a medium density development. If you look at the developable upland area south of the road, they meet the densities that could be done in single family. But by , putting them all up in this area. Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff? , Mancino: Do you get that? Am I seeing that right? Conrad: Do L was just told? understand what I a � Mancino: Yeah. , Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' Conrad: I'm going to think about it, and let you know. Farmakes: Can you clarify again the reasoning that you used ... follow the Comp Plan? ' Generous: Okay. The Comp Plan says that on the north side of the collector, the future collector road it's medium density residential. It's 4 to 8 units. On the south side of this road, all the developable land could have single family residential. Up to 4 units per acre. Instead of putting in single family homes over here and trying to develop these even though they might be tougher single family, they transferred all the density up here to meet with the ' low density. Farmakes: Are you saying that all the property you're showing there is unbuildable? Ledvina: Oudot C. Farmakes: Where you're drawing arrows. I Aanenson: No, it's buildable Generous: This area up here is developable. This is the wetland complex in the middle. Mancino: So they couldn't develop. How could they use that to get density? Generous: But this area is upland. It's possible they could develop this. Put units there. This is upland. It's possible they could develop that. But instead of doing all the ... to get their access there, all the density is concentrated in this area where we can provide the ' services. Where the sewer line can be brought in. Where the access can be provided. Scott: So basically what you're saying is that we've got 166 units and for density ' calculations purposes, we have "buildable ", two areas of buildable land that there won't be any building on and that because that space is available. Mancino: It's calculated in the density. Scott: Yeah. You're using the net buildable land for density calculations, even though it is pretty tight in there. Generous: Right. They've clustered it all. Mancino: Is that compatible with what's south. South is Trotters Ridge, which is single 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 family and west is Timberwood, which is large lot. East, excuse me. , Scott: And the elementary school site. Generous: Well the school... Mancino: No, the school site is just north of the collector. Timberwood is directly east of that south park. There's not, the school site. According to what's shown here. Generous: This does connect further to the east on that site. , Mancino: So it is surrounded by single family on the south and on the east and then you've ' got on the west, it's surrounded by wetlands. Generous: Yes, and to the south. Timberwood is down here. The wetland complex is this, basically the whole middle of this proposal. , Scott: Did you have any discussions with the applicant regarding some community type open space, because this looks like it's pretty dense? Kind of like we were talking about Mission Hills. Totlot or something like that. Or is it because of the wetland. Aanenson: Well there is some upland area that's adjacent to Trotters Ridge. As you know when we looked at the Opus property, we were preserving all that upland area that's nicely wooded and there's trails going through that ... Access through Trotters Ridge and Opus , development. Mancino: But there's nothing right in sight here. If somebody wants to have, I think Ladd ' you brought it up with Mission Hills a couple weeks ago. What if I had some people over and I want to go outside and bar -be-que or have a group of people, where do I go in this dense of an area? There's nothing... Conrad: Yeah, I get real frustrated. I really like, every time we see something dense we always react to it. We want, you know we've zoned it for density but then once we see it, those questions come up. Or let me give you another one. How do these people move around? And it's not that it's bad it's just that because we don't have it in Chanhassen, I'm not familiar with it being here. We just don't have high density areas. It seems to me, in , high density areas, we should have sidewalks everyplace. Although you'll ask a developer, they'll say people don't want sidewalks. Mancino: Because people don't want to keep them up. 49 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Conrad: Well it's maintenance. Yeah, it's all that plus there's a privacy type deal too. People who exist in suburbs don't want sidewalks but when I see more density than we normally have, I think well. Now we've crammed more people, twice as many people. ' Maybe 3 times as many people in the same space and I say well, we don't know, I don't know what things should be. I don't know what the park requirements should be for, you know how close should they be. Is there a park within 3 blocks, 4 blocks of here that ' somebody can walk over to? And what we're doing here is we do have a sidewalk going through on the main street but that's the only one and I think geez, they've got a lot of density there and saying boy, how do people move around in higher density areas? The statement is I'm very naive as we get into some of these. It's appropriate for the site. It's been zoned or it's been planned this way. I just get uncomfortable thinking we're applying our same single family, low density residential standards to a site like that. ' Mancino: It may be the other point of view is multi-family is just fine but shouldn't w y p y � e have some common area for those people in that? It's more important than even in a single family where you have large lots. It's more important that they some space and it doesn't have to be huge but some area within it. r Conrad: Maybe. And maybe that's sort of a joke. You know maybe, how many units do we have here, 160? Generous: 166. Conrad: So you know if we have a totlot that's the size of this room, is that a joke in relationship to 166 units? Does that count? Mancino: Well a lot of these multi, and I don't know why they're not coming in this way but when I go around town and I see some of these multi- family units, they have them as part of the development. There is this place, whether it's a tennis court. Whether it's whatever it ' is, a little park area. You hardly see them without it so it surprises me that we're getting them in without any of that. Aanenson: I think it might be appropriate to have the applicant talk about who their market age is, just so they can give you some comparisons. Eden Prairie Rottlund one's ... When we looked at this, it's got the school across the street. They're looking at passive park, nature trails going into Opus ... and then just south of this is the park in Stone Creek and has access to the Minger subdivision which is across the street. That also has a passive area and an active area. So we feel there is... Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Would the applicant or their 01 t Planning Commission Meeting June 15, 1994 representative like to speak? Please give us your name and your address. John Peterson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Peterson. I'm President of Good Value Homes and our address is 9445 East River Road, Minneapolis, 55433. Good evening. As you probably know... experience in the city of Chanhassen. We're a 25 year old development company. We've built over 6,000 homes in the metropolitan area. We currently have a development involved in various kinds of...in cities throughout the metropolitan area. This is a rather complex staff report and situation development and there are an awful lot of issues as you know. I brought the staff report with me on a weekend trip and there's a lot there and I don't know how many of those issues we can actually address tonight. I don't know exactly how much time or how much you want to hear from me but let me give it a start and if it gets too long, in too much detail, Mr. Chairman if you would just advise me and I'll sit down and listen. One of the early issues on this plat was the possible construction of what has been called in your staff report as a frontage road and as a collector in the east/west street south of Highway 5. We would like to call it a parkway. We think that frontage, neither of those two terms do justice to the kind of neighborhood that we'd like to put in. But in any case, what the major issue was, who's going to pay and how it's going to be built and I think while this is not a ... planning issue. It's maybe something that the City Council may get more involved in, and I think it's important to know that this parcel cannot support the, and pay for the construction of that parkway through it's, the entire length of the property. That is down to the wetlands to the west part of our parcel. That just is not feasible. We have a difference with staff on several issues. One of which is we're not 100% sure that it's going to be real easy to get a DNR permit to cross that beautiful wetland. We deal with wetlands all around the area and our policy as a company has become to, whenever we possibly can to stay away from them but this is the kind of thing that a private developer would never dare try to do. And while I understand there's some larger public issues here, where we get caught in the conflicts involved in trying to preserve wetlands and they come quite often but a condition that's in the staff report that's somewhat troublesome is that all of the permits for that crossing have to be obtained before we can do our development. And you know and we know that that means that this project is frankly out there a ways and that's a burden I think that we would not like to be involved with. We would prefer to not build that. Not only not pay for that road but also not have that road built across that wetland. We think it's possible to serve this site with a much less road that would be designed to carried must less traffic and just hook up to the north and have a right - in/right -out intersection on TH 5. I don't know how that would be resolved but I think that's one overall planning issue. On the question of density that you've been discussing, I think it's important to note that north of the parkway we're proposing that the density that is significantly less than the maximum density allowed, or planned in your comprehensive plan. You're talking between 4 and 8 and we're at 5.86 units per acre. The landscape plan frankly, in our 25 year experience, is the most generous landscape plan we've 51 LJ CJ r F, Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ever put together but we turned it over to our landscape architect and I said go to it. I said here's your proposed ordinance. There were about 3 ordinances that we're working under that are not adopted by your city but have been proposed that we're trying to comply with. 1 One of which is the tree ordinance. The tree preservation plan. Maybe that has been adopted. Okay, it had not been when we started the process but we asked our landscape architect to prepare a plan that met your ordinance and we'll be happy to hear ... that he did, ' and it does and it's very, very generous by any standard in our standard of experience. It's troublesome that we are, I don't mind shifting the trees around on that site. Frankly I certainly didn't realize that we had more trees on one side of the parkway than on the other ' side but we can shift those trees. To be asked to add a significant screening along Highway 5 I think is troublesome. That is a problem for us. On the existing screen on Highway 5, and I'm ... but there is a nice row of evergreens along Highway 5 now and there's also a significant berm, natural berm and we'd like to leave that there and have that serve. Now I understand the MnDot plans, we have had access to MnDot plans for Highway 5 and we understand that it's, that those trees are within the right -of -way. And here again, MnDot has no trouble. I ' would think that it might be possible to encourage MnDot to leave those trees there. I don't know if we can get a commitment at this point from them but I think that would be a reasonable request to ask them to do with—trees that do form a nice, natural berm or screening there. I'm wondering if you could, would it be possible, well before we do that. I have a few renderings and I'll go just a little bit into the kind of units that we're proposing. North of the parkway, and south of TH 5, we're proposing to build units in 4, 6 and 8 unit buildings. I'm wondering would this work for everybody or no? It doesn't work for you, _ does it? Oh great. Scott: You can put it facing over here and then the camera will pick it up for anybody who wants to see it on the monitor. ' John Peterson: Okay, great. These are, this is a rendering of the 8 unit version of this building. One correction in the staff report, it talks about that we have in the opening paragraph that we have 1 or 2 single or double garages in these units. One of the differences ' between this proposal and some of the proposals, or any proposals that you've seen on this site in the past, is that all of our garages are double garages. We do not have any single car garages proposed on this site. Where you see an 8 unit building on your plan, this is what ' you would see. This would be a 4 unit version of that same, the ones that are north of the parkway. The units are 1,400 square feet plus. They have a bath and a half. Two bedrooms, fireplace is standard. Air conditioning is standard. It's really hard for me to tell you price ranges and we developers hate to get pinned down to price ranges because we obviously don't know all the costs and we won't know exactly where they're going to end up. It would be my best guess today, on June 15th, that the pricing would be between, I'm going to make it a fairly wide range here. Between $85,000.00 and $105,000.00. Maintenance free siding. Double garage. The units have on the lower level a living room, dining area. I have the ' 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 sketches but I won't show you all that right now ... We have an upstairs. There are 2 bedrooms plus a loft area. The targeted market surprises us a little bit. We have this product approved in the cities of St. Louis Park, in Roseville and Champlin. This would be the fourth site on which we would like to put this project. St. Louis Park we have not begun construction. Roseville we have our model nearly built. And in Champlin also we have the model underway. We are in those two, the two locations that we're really actively marketing right now we're finding it becoming to more over 50 and above people than we thought we would. We thought this would be for the young people, possibly coming out of apartments but we're not talking to those people so we don't know where the market's going to settle in but I think it would be young professionals, empty nesters. The empty nesters like that single level. That's a disadvantage of this. They really want to be on one level but they're still talking to us about this project. We think those are the two markets that we would experience. Now south of the parkway, we're proposing in twos, threes and four configurations of 2, 3 and 4. The rendering that I have here is a 3 unit building. It's a more expensive product. These will be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00 and they are all double garages. They're up to 1,800 feet. They're between about 1,600 and 1,800 square feet. And this is going to be, we think, predominantly people 50's and above who have lived in this area and would now want to be ... and they want a nice townhome. The entire landscaping plan will be irrigated, of course. Underground sprinkling. And in the south of the parkway, of the 52 units, I think it's 18 will be, would back up to the open space, the wetland and we expect this to be just a really highly desirable, beautiful. I guess that's relative and... developer on it but really a nice townhome development. It would be a real positive addition to your city. We have the capability in our company to do 3 dimensional renderings and I didn't get every 3 dimensional rendering that you want. We guessed at what angle we should do it and we did it at that angle. It turns out that the staff report is asking for one from Highway 5. I don't have that but I do have this. That's going to be kind of small. Maybe you can see it okay... We have here a 3 dimensional rendering. The aerial view of what we expect the neighborhood to look like if it were developed and completed... I'll address a couple issues. I talked about the landscape plan. I talked about, or no. I didn't talk about tree protection. We think that the staff had a good idea. Maybe more than one good idea. Several good ideas but one of the ideas that they had that we think we could work into the scheme is moving the retaining wall that is adjacent to the single family homes somewhat closer to the single family homes and we can save a few more trees. However, it is really difficult for us to save trees, very many trees, a significant number of trees, in the parcel that would be right behind the people that are here in their single family homes and south of the parkway. I think we're replacing with our generous landscape plan, according to your ordinance, those 'trees and we think we can do a little better, not a lot. The truth of the matter is, that that site which slopes down towards the wetland, takes some grading and it takes some, a little bit of... takes the planting back in of some trees to replace what we take out. I have with me tonight Derrick Passe, who's a principle of Passe Engineering and he's 53 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 our engineer for many years and he's prepared to address issues, specific issues that you may have on the grading plan and we'll talk about that at this time. I guess there are several other things but maybe I should just leave it at that and see what other concerns you may have and I would be happy to be available to answer any questions. Ledvina: Mr. Chair? Scott: Yes. t Ledvina: I had a question for the applicant. What are your specific thoughts as it relates to open space that people are looking for in these types of developments and what provisions have you here for that type of situation? John Peterson: Okay, that's a good question. I did have it on my notes based on the comments that had been made. Your Parks Director I believe it is, has assured, has commented to me that the land that we will be giving to the city as part of this wetland which is substantial, 43 acres. And the trail system around the site and some additional land that will probably be taken as part of the Opus development to the west, that that whole system is probably, will probably be the largest public open space area than anywhere in the city of Chanhassen, and you know that better than I. I think I'm quoting him accurately. My comment would be that this site, even though the density is normal for us. It appears to be high, is immediately adjacent to a tremendous resource that is open space. There is a lot of open space. The question of totlots for these people, there are at least two problems. Well, I'll start this way. In two of the developments that we did many years ago where we used to put totlots in, the homeowners associations, when the Board of Directors was formed and the people started paying the insurance, the developments with the totlot, which is tremendous. The insurance costs are very, very high and the association has a very high level of liability with totlots. And the lack of use, two Board of Directors said, of course those are the ones that I'm aware of have acted, in our developments, have taken the todots out and they've been able to do that. I mean they voted and gone to the city and taken them back out. We have not done one development in the last several years where we have built a private totlot amenity. Scott: But you're talking about like a playground with playground equipment, right? John Peterson: That's what I'm talking about. Scott: Not just more of a passive, open area. John Peterson: Okay. Now in terms of this particular site. One of the comments that your 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 staff made is along Galpin Avenue, the 4 and 8 unit buildings that we have there, are somewhat lined up. I'd like to explain why we did that. We left a rather large space, I'm going to step over here. Here's Galpin right over here. And we discussed this at length with your staff. The entire site, the farm buildings that are there and the out buildings and the , large trees that are a part of that will all be left. I mean the buildings won't be left but that is a significant open area that we, that will be available to the residents and that would be potentially, put park benches in there. But I would not want to put a swing set in there, and that's not the right location anyway. But the combination of this plus the large open space. And that reminds me of one other issue that I need to just mention. We've been in contact with your staff of course and also with the property owners to the west, the Opus parcel I believe it's called. And there is some question on the alignment. I'm wondering if you could put up on the screen for me the layout. This, how this road would cross the wetland, the exact location of that road is undetermined right now but it's the view of the property owners to the west, and I think the staff is concurring with this. That this probably has to be tilted slightly to the north. And we've agreed to do that but we didn't redo all of our drawings because we don't know exactly where that should go. They've identified where they would like it. Oh yeah, okay. Good. This is not exactly accurate. The people, the Opus people to the west would like it slightly north of this but it would take a rather minor. I just want for the record say, that we're willing to do that and we feel it can be accommodated and I think staff agrees that that is not a major problem. Are there any other questions? Scott: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Do you have any questions for the applicant? Farmakes: I have no questions for the applicant, if you're asking me directly. Mancino: And I have no questions. Scott: Thank you. Thanks very much sir. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. i Scott: Anybody who wishes to speak, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself and give us your address. Seeing none, may I have 'a motion to close the public hearing , please? Excuse me, sir. Please do. Howard Dahlgren: I wanted to give the others a chance to speak first but my name is Howard Dahlgren. I live at 1786 Irving Avenue South. I'm one of the partners in the Opus 55 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 land to the west. We've been working with the city, as you folks know, for almost 3 years now developing plans ... and trying to do it carefully and ... the development of this property with Good Value Homes of course is the vehicle for getting utilities to the Opus property. So we support the development in the sense that we must have utilities in order to develop the land. And this development provides the vehicle to get utilities to the site. That's been planned with your engineering folks, with your staff and with the consultants. We've met with all those folks again and again trying to work all this out so it will work well for everyone. Mr. Peterson mentioned our problem with respect to the ... that east/west road. If it lines up with where we have it planned on our preliminary plan that you have given concept approval to about a year and a half ago, it will save the site south of that road. If you draw it where they have it, it will run right through the highland and we lose a site so that's one of our problems. We went over that directly with the staff and I think we all concluded in the meeting we had here recently that if we bend the road slightly to the north, it will line up where we have ... all along and will give us the site to the south and there will be a wetland to the north. So in summary, we support the development. We feel it fits with the comprehensive plan. The land that we have of course, as you noticed, is planned for industrial. We want to do a very nice industrial park there. That's our objective. We support it. We do need the utilities and we would like adjustment on that roadway so that it can meet what we had proposed and save us...We appreciate the opportunity to... Scott: Thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? May I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: Okay, I'm going to bring up some topics and I'd like everybody to respond. First ' of all Kate or Bob, can you respond to the applicant's concern about the parkway and whether it can end at the wetland and go north and have a right- in/right -out on Highway 5. Aanenson: Staff has always supported this and it's on the comprehensive plan as a southern frontage road... parkway. We feel it needs to go through. There's going to be people living here. The purpose of those frontage roads is to keep people off of Highway 5. The ... to get ' people over to the school. People working at the Opus project without going onto Highway 5. Not only that but the utilities will be going across this section anyways. We certainly believe that based on, as Mr. Dahlgren indicated, we've got a touch down point on the Opus site that we feel is the most sensitive to get it across there on their property. We certainly feel like this is a wetland that we want to work to enhance with no development on the 56 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 western portion of that. We feel like we can do a lot. There is a wetland north on the Opus site and then another upland area where we're going to preserve the integrity by keeping it park and natural area so we feel like even though the road's going across, that's going to be very nominal as far as the overall impact so we'd certainly support the decision made a while ago about the integrity of having that road go across. We feel like it can be minimized through -the wetland. As far as the ... when we first met with Mr. Peterson that the city would support the application process as far as the permitting process. There are also...as far as how that road gets paid for with this development... if the road stops at this end of the development, how that road gets paid for. So there's several options that can happen there. But as far as the road going through, we would certainly support the road to go through and we would not recommend that it be stopped at the end of this development. That would just force more traffic onto Highway 5. Mancino: Okay. Conceptually land use, and I'm looking at, I feel very comfortable with the north side of the frontage road being multi- family and medium density as it is. I would like to suggest not a line up of the units as they are. I'd like to see them more creatively placed. I mean those are pretty good sized units. Each unit building is what, 11,200 feet. That's a fairly good sized footprint. So I would like to see them adjusted so they're all not lined up. I would also like to see, Jeff brought this up last time on Mission Hills, some variation in the architectural detail upon them and the color of them. Whether that's paint. Whether that's aluminum siding. But I would not like to see them all being exactly the same. South of the frontage road, land use. I still support, in a little different fashion, the comprehensive plan guided use for single family, low density south. And the reason why I say that is because of the, where it is adjacent to a wetland. A wonderful, gorgeous place for single family. It could be low income housing. Whatever. It has single family to the south. It has single family to the west. Or to the east. And also the other feeling that I get is that these places where we have designated for multi- family, that the footprint of that multi- family doesn't get too big so it's a sea of roofs as far as you can see. And I'm a little concerned about that. The view from Highway 5 south into seeing a sea of roof tops. Since I don't have a perspective from that, I can't tell you exactly what that will look like but that's my concern. That talks about my land use issues. On the Highway 5 where it buffers Highway 5, I would definitely want to see more screening, more buffering from the roadway. I'm not sure if the existing pines can be saved but I would like to see more actually south of the pines. Some of them are in good condition. Some of them are not. I live on Galpin so I see them quite a bit. Bob, you talked a little bit about the massive grading and what were your concerns and what are some of your solutions for that? Generous: Both Dave and I went back and forth on this one. It just seemed that there was excessive grading on this site. You couldn't really tell based on the plans we have but it looks like there were things they could do such as moving an 8 unit and replacing those with 57 n P Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 smaller units that might not need as much grading. There's a, we realized from the elevations that there's a knoll on the eastern edge and it sort of goes down from that so we're going to have to bring the development down a little bit. Mancino: Oh, right where that cul-de -sac is? ' Generous: Just northwest of the first intersection of the private road and the collector street in there and there's a Y. That's one of the high points on the site. And they're right. It does slope down to the wetland area. There's a big question, when you get to the far western edge of the development, it looks like they have those at a 14 foot elevation change and the small little ... at the ends, how are they handling that? Is that all fill? Could they step this development more? And those are some of the issues we wanted the applicants engineer to bring out. We also had a tough, like I said, with the scale of the grading plans, it was really hard for us to decipher all the changes that were being proposed so one of the recommendations is to come in with a larger scale so we can evaluate in more detail. Mancino: I know one of the things we discussed on Highway 5 guidelines was having a much more natural topography as much as we possibly can so I'd like to see that worked on i in this concept. And in the Opus too. We talked about that. The rollingness. Not the steep retaining walls all the time. To keep some of the rolling hills still there. Not to level them off and have nothing and have just cut off retaining walls. I love the parkway with the, I think the ... effect is good. Could be beautiful there. The boulevard trees. I don't know what they are. Do you know what they are? Generous: Lindens. Mancino: And that's on both sides? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Up and down. That's great. Those are my comments for right now. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I heard a comment about the, or excuse me. The comment's already been made about the density. I guess in looking at the overall path, it's kind of clustering, although they won't be able to build on it, it's still philosophically what they're doing is in a way clustering to move it up. It is creating barriers between other usages. Significant barriers so we don't get into the situation where we're building a fourplex and then a duplex and then a single family home. So I guess I'm, with this particular development I'm comfortable with how 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 that's laid out. The grading may reduce some of that. I would also back up the grading issue. I think we should follow that on everything, particularly these higher medium density developments where, and including the industrial development next to it where it's simply easier to get more on when you level it out. I really would like to see more massing of trees. I realize that there's a limited amount of space for your right-of-way but maybe the city can get involved in what's sitting up on Highway 5 there because some of those trees are not in great condition. The clustering that you have on the northeast comer there, where you see , that clump of trees up in the corner. I'd like to see more of that, which is more of Morrish had on his drawings. Where you get more of a natural... clustering look rather than rows of trees all in a row. And even on the west side also where the ponding is, the trees sort of stop there and don't go into that corner. Where you would get a view on that angle from TH 5. Are we going to see actual materials that are being used when this comes back? Aanenson: That's why we're just recommending concept at this point... Farmakes: Okay. But we will sometimes we get a brick and sometimes we get actual ' materials or we get a concept of what is going up. In particular, the reason I ask is with these no maintenance materials, and we were discussing issues of where you see a large grouping of homes where they're all the same color. The idea being is that we maybe should look into this on a recommendation of how we deal with that on our PUD. You don't want to create a company town or look where you get all these neutral taupes where you get 500 buildings all in the same color. And one of the builders that I think did a good job with it is Centex over in Eden Prairie. They used neutral coloring but they have subtle changes in color of these no maintenance materials. And it makes it look more like a, more random like , people's homes rather than a big company look to it. I just talked about Highway 5. Mancino: ...concerned about some of these details... Farmakes: The issue of distance on this plan, as I look at it, it's really not that bad as I'm measuring it out. Maybe it's the same as it was before but L..on the previous plan. I Aanenson: 75. 1 Mancino: It is 75? And that's minimum. 75 is the minimum and 150 is the maximum. Farmakes: Let me just jump back into, before we start talking feet here. The intent with this i particular development, and you add it to the other developments as talk about it. I might as well use this as an example. When we get that medium or high density corridor, which is what it's going to wind up being, up and down TH 5 between Lake Ann and TH 41, with the exception of a couple of business developments. 59 i n L Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Aanenson: You keep telling us that but we're not going to see it. We already know what's happening on either side of that. Farmakes: Okay but I disagree with that. I disagree with that it isn't going to happen but it is. That's what we're seeing up and down the highway. Aanenson: This is the only one on the south side. Farmakes: On the south side, that's correct. Mancino: East of the school. Farmakes: You have the school and then you have the previous development that we saw from the blond fellow, what's his name? Scott: Heritage. Aanenson: And we're not sure... Mancino: Well we talked about zero lot lines. Farmakes: ...north side of the highway. I'm talking about conceptual here when we're talking about up and down the highway. Both north and south side. When we're talking about this type of development. What we're doing is we're grouping all the density homes, and it's in our plan. It's in our comp plan. It's not a surprise to anybody. But when we're talking about, when we're talking about alternate siting, and we were talking about this type of grouping of density, what we're doing is we're going to create, we're shoving all these buildings right up against TH 5. This type of housing and I'm wondering if somewhere, either in the north side or in the south side they're not connected. She's right. They are broken up by industrial use and they're broken up by the school. But we might want to consider somewhere along TH 5 the breaking up of this group. Now they went with the alternate site where, if they go with one and it runs all the way down to the highway. There's going to be a significant corridor of housing similar to this. And I'm just wondering if bring it up, you may want to consider that maybe even altering the comp plan to break up some of that or to at least be cognizant of the fact that we may wind up with a corridor of that visual. Not necessarily all connected but visually as you drive down. You get the type of density that you see on 169 and some of the areas in Minnetonka. Some of the ones farther north up on 494 and 100 where literally you can drive for 10 minutes and see nothing but high density. But this is small. It's on a small scale. Actually this is, for this type of housing, this is what I like to see. I like to see a smaller scale and it does utilize the .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 clustering well with the existing property. On the setback on TH 5, if we can get more trees in there, with this particular slice, I'd be fine with that. If we can get more trees along that Highway 5 corridor area. I'll leave it at that. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well I would support the other comments that the other commissioners have made. As far as the land use south of the parkway, I don't know. I think Nancy you're thinking that that should be single family residential? Mancino: I can see single family. Actually almost mixed use. I can see single family along the wetlands area going north and then maybe the two unit areas in the middle there and doing a nice kind of a mixed use south of it. Because I think that they are nice amenities for single family and I do also think that we need some moderate priced homes in the area. Single family. Not just multi - family. I mean whenever we talk about affordable housing or moderate priced homes, it's always got to do with multi- family. I would like to see some single family too, Farmakes: Now that's not going to run up. This isn't affordable housing. This is not... affordable. Ledvina: Well I can understand your desire to mix the housing and, but I don't know about specifying that to that level for the developer, you know I think we can say maybe the density should be decreased down there or maybe try some 2 units or something in there or I don't know. I don't know that. Aanenson: We looked at that ..the way we looked at it is, you can have 4 to 8 on the north side. He's indicated he's got 5. He's at the low end. So if he comes back with a different product, as you indicated Matt, and you come in with single family here, then we come back with something completely different on the north end. ...see that the north end is kind of palatable the way it's laid out. The...orientation of the buildings... but when you start messing with the bottom end, and then what does that do to the upper, to the northern... Ledvina: Yeah, and I'm sensitive to that. So I guess I don't know. That's a real tough issue. But I don't know. Aanenson: ...mix them up more. Like you said, maybe do the duplexes throughout and that's what Bob is saying with the grading plan it maybe is appropriate where you mix them... Ledvina: Right. Where you can use the larger, or I'm sorry, the smaller building footprint in 61 14 1 . i Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' a sensitive area to reduce the grading. That you know, that seems to be a good idea. Mancino: Well and there are all sorts of trees in that area. Ledvina: Right, exactly. Mancino: That's where a lot of. 1 Ledvina: So maybe some variation can be done in that specific area without you know messing too much with their density that they're looking for. In terms of units per acre. I don't know. I'm interested in what Ladd may have to say on that. I think some of the other things, that open area where the abandoned house is, I think that's a nice opportunity for the developer. I think he had a good idea that I hadn't seen in here before as it relates to the passive use of that area as park or open space or whatever. I guess maybe if that could be a little bit more inviting and I don't know how that's done. With maybe just a small trail segment into that, I don't know but something on that nature. I had a question for staff on the trail along the edge of the wetland. I presume that we're going to be maintaining our ' setbacks and does the trail, as it's drawn, do that? I suppose we don't have to specifically worry about that now but. 1 Generous: Well I believe the way Todd is proposing this whole thing, that we would maintain that buffer strip outside of the trail...the trail wider than it actually is. Ledvina: So you're saying that the trail will not be built within the. Generous: Within the buffer. Ledvina: Within the buffer strip, okay. Generous: Yeah, it would be within the 50 foot setback or 40 foot actually... Aanenson: It is classified as an ag urban wetland... Ledvina: Okay. Within the setback or outside of the buffer, okay. Alright. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Bob the, do you like the density transfer? Has there been something that you think is neat over there and what you're giving up is, you know the reason this was single family 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 was because it was next to our favorite Tirnberwood, right? So you're comfortable that Timberwood's protected in terms of transition? Kate you too? You're comfortable with their. Aanenson: Well we have a concern with the, as indicated the grading and the tree loss... Conrad: The issue's not density down there per se. The issue is buffer. Aanenson: It's a transition. If you look at how much open space is left on the other side, I mean it's just pushed in this corner. But again, I think if we looked at a different product, as I indicated, and you put more on this, I'm not sure that would make it, more on the north side, I'm not sure that would make it a better product either. But I think we're on a good start. We need to look in a little bit more detail... Conrad: I just need, you know you guys are planners and you have to assure us that we're doing the right thing for Timberwood. I love density transfer. It's a good use. It's neat to do. It looks like we can do it here. But I also have to be, I need your best guess that it's doing what we want it to do, or I want your best guess that we're buffering Timberwood too. I just want to reinforce some quick thoughts. What Jeff said, the building designs. We need a little variety in here and I think what Jeff's comments were real valid. I just don't want the same color, same thing, every building over there. There has to be some architectural or some color modifications. I would like Kate or Bob, if you could bring back, when this comes back in a preliminary mode, I'd just like your recommendations in internal sidewalks for high density areas. I'd just like you to think about it and tell me what you think. Okay. And then at the same time when this comes back in a preliminary stage I need, and you could probably do it now. I don't want to do it. I need to know the impact of the parkway on the wetland that it's going through. I just have to feel comfortable again that the impact on the wetland as the road goes over it, is not just killing the wetland. I don't think it is but I need to know that before I can approve this. And the grading. All the things that have been said about grading I really believe in. That just has to happen. So again, I really like what staff said. I like what Bob said when he kicked this off and the things that he wanted to look at. Overall I think it's fairly decent. But I would hope that the developer could start reducing some of these points. I pretty much agree with what the staff has there and I guess I'd dike to see fewer items coming back next time and not just leave them 3 -4 pages long. I'd like to see some movement on that because I don't think we're that far off. That's all. Scott: Okay, thanks. Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd like to follow up. On the situation with the permits for the wetland alteration. The developer has stated that they want to disconnect the approval with those 63 11, C� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 requirements. What are your thoughts on that and I guess my initial thought is that, we want to have this thing together as one project and I don't think we can separate those things but. Aanenson: Plus as a part of this, we're transferring some of that density. We're looking at the whole property and putting it on one side. I mean yes, the development's heavy on one side but we're looking at the whole gross acreage. We can't just wash our hands of the road because the development stops there. The utilities are going through that segment. This is a wetland. We've certainly identified that we want to locate—and we will work to secure the... Ledvina: Well one thing that the applicant mentioned that this would slow them down potentially. Do you see that? I mean is this going to be a long, drawn out process? Aanenson: Well that ... one condition in the staff report by engineering that the condition 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the necessary permits. Ledvina: Right, I saw that. Aanenson: I guess part of that too is we want to locate, we want to tie down the alignment of the road. They're kind of tied together. We know the touchdown, we have an approximate idea of the touchdown on the Opus site but where it crosses the wetland, it's my understanding the DNR... Maybe that can be modified as we move along to the next... Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Good. I don't have anything to add. Mancino: I have one question. Bob, you've got on 31 that the grading has to stop within 10 feet of the natural wetland. 10 feet? They can get within 10 feet? Generous: Well that's the minimum buffer strip. Mancino: What's the maximum? I mean isn't there a max and a min? Generous: Well actually it's 0 to 20 with a 10 foot average. Mancino: Okay. I just, I was surprised that the natural wetland, that you can get machinery within 10 feet. Aanenson: It's not a natural wetland. It's an ag urban. Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 Hempel: Diane has classified certain portions of the wetland south could be considered natural. Aanenson: But generally it is classified as an ag urban. , Mancino: But you can get within 10 feet of a wetland? I Aanenson: This land up here is all ag urban. What she's saying and this comes out of Diane's report, the southern end where they're not doing anything, where we've got a passive area. There's a ... that are pretty high quality. Portions of this whole wetland. That's the part we would look at ... that natural. That's why we're saying, our intent for this development is to upgrade that wetland. We think it can be made into something very nice. Ledvina: We'll maybe even want to have staff take another look at that specific element and potentially increasing that to protect those southern areas of that wetland, if it is in a more natural state. Whatever. I guess we, in the preliminary, we'll see that again and maybe we can revisit that. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: Well I would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93 -5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to , Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat. Whoops. No. Excuse me. That's it. Subject to the conditions in the staff report. And I don't have any changes. Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment? Ledvina: Do you want to second it? Mancino: Second. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment and that has to do with, let's see. I think the 3 of us talked about and that is we'd like it to come back to the preliminary plat to see some variations and architectural details and colors so they're not all the same. That there is ' some diversity in that look. And Bob, a question for you. I would specifically like to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in that southeast corner. Is that specific in here? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - lune 15, 1994 1 Generous: Not specifically. I want them to come with a tree protection plan. Mancino: Okay. And I will say that 37 has to do with, well is that okay Matt? 1 Ledvina: Sure, that's fine. Mancino: Adding the architectural and color as an amendment and the 38 would be, for staff and the applicant to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the southeast corner of the development south of the parkway. And 39, and I think you may have this in here. Talking about increasing the landscaping parallel to Highway 5. Generous: Yes, number 5. Under 12 I mean... Mancino: �Y Okay. And I would also you know as you look at that if we need to add more to the setback on Highway 5, I would be in favor of that to give more screening. Ledvina: That's acceptable. Scott: Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93 -5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. 1 3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a). 5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved ' by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). 66 n Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required. Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details, pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991 Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c). 8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 9. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. 11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops /shelters within the development. 12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a more equitable distribution of trees throughout the site. Additional groupings of evergreens shall be planted along the northern project boundary to provide additional screening and to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens in the right -of -way with the widening of Highway 5. I I u 13. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be altered to minimize grading (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc. 14. Staff recommends that the applicant alternate building orientations along the eastern , and western perimeter of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the applicant 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 1 ' should exchange one or two six unit structures along Galpin Boulevard (e.g., exchange Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17. ' 15. Pay park and trail fees as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the construction of the trail segment within the development and or the dedication of park land. 16. If feasible two water retention onds should be combined to one large water retention p g pond located in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to ' City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. 17. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity assessment fee of ' $130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the overall development. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine ' the applicable credits, if any. The SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval process will be adjusted accordingly. 18. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with future street grades along Galpin Boulevard. 19. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The 1 street shall be constructed in accordance to State -Aid standards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, State -Aid office. ' 20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for r extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel. 21. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD /development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee ' compliance with the conditions of approval. 1 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private ' utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval ' by the City Council in conjunction with final platting. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper abandonment of the septic system, well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days after the final plat is approved. 24. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City. , 25. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army ' Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department. 27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found ' during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best , Management Practice Handbook. 29. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 30. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDOT's State -Aid office approving the street , alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State -Aid review process. 31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around all natural wetlands. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wetlands. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflect this requirement. ' � 69 .I Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994 ' 32. The applicant shall provide a full-time, on -site construction inspector for the construction of the frontage road. The inspector will need to be State - certified. ' 33. A driveway or cross- access easements including maintenance agreements will be needed for the private drives throughout the development. 34. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated. ' 35. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed project and the frontage road as one project. 36. The City requires detailed storm water quantity and quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat (stormwater system should meet the City's SWMP requirements)." 37. The applicant shall incorporate architectural and color variations to the housing ' styles. 38. Staff and the applicant shall look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the southeast corner of the development south of the parkway. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of ' the Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: We didn't put one in the packet because City Council met Monday night... ' Kindercare was given conceptual approval. The list that the staff had put in with all the conditions ... it was either table it or give it conceptual. Mancino: 26 but. ' Aanenson: Well there was more than that. There was a conditional use. There were conditions under the site plan so all those had to be incorporated into a new site plan and brought back. 70