4. Mission Hills PUD, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan ReviewCITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II .� .
' Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
' DATE: July 5, 1994
SUBJ: Update on 1) Rezoning of Property from RSF, Residential Single Family
' to PUD, Planned Unit Development for low density (16
single family lots) and medium and high density (194 units)
residential units and neighborhood commercial uses.
2) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 194 Unit Owner
Occupied Multifamily Development
' 3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site The site is
located East of Highway 101, and North and south of West
86th Street. Tandem Properties.
On June 27, 1994, the City Council reviewed this application and tabled action due to a park land
related issue. Staff and the applicant could not agree on the size of the park. The applicant was
providing a 0.3 acre park, and staff was requesting a '1.5 acre park. The City Council
recommended the item be tabled until the Park and Recreation Commission has had a chance to
' review the application and make a decision. On June 28, 1994, the Park and Recreation
Commission reviewed this application and recommended the applicant provide a 1.5 acre park.
The applicant has revised the plans accordingly. There are,some ,other changes that have taken
' place. These changes are as follows:
In the previous report, staff pointed out that the _Con
mhensive Plan shows the area
located within the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland and south of 86th
Street) guided for 4 to 8 units per acre, j'he previous plans reflect a net density of 8.6
units per acre which exceeds the distrkt'a density by 0.6. Staff recommended, and the
City Council approved, a transfer of density to the west of the wetland. This transfer is
no longer required. By locating the 1.5 acre park east of the wetland, the location of the
buildings were rearranged, bringing the density down within the southeasterly quarter of
the site to meet the designation of the comprehensive plans. The total number of units
J
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 2
within Block 1 has increased from 136 to 138. This number is still below the density
permitted within this district.
* The grading plan which was submitted to the City Council on June 26, 1994, has been
revised in conjunction with the relocation of the park, and rearranging locations of
' buildings. Staff has reviewed the revised grading plan and believe that it still needs
modifications. The revised grading plan still proposes numerous stormwater ponds as the
grading plan indicated for the preliminary plat. Staff has indicated that there are too
' many ponds proposed with this subdivision and that they should be consolidated to a
regional approach connected with a series of storm sewers. The applicant has been
working with city staff to amend the plan to reach a comprehensive storm drainage plan.
' However, we still have not resolved this issue and, therefore, the preliminary plat should
be subject to the applicant resolving the stormwater ponding issue for the development
first prior to initiating site grading. Staff will not forward the final plat to the City
' Council until this issue, among other conditions, have been resolved.
* Revised elevation plans have been submitted. These changes include the addition of
' shutters, louvers, and variation in colors. The applicant will explain at the meeting how
the facades differ.
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan #94 -5 as
' shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994 and revised plans received July 5, 1994, subject to the
following conditions:
1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant
will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street
improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the
subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 86th Street shall be constructed with
a 36' wide urban street section from existing TH 101 to "A" Street. The remaining street
' may be reduced to 31' wide.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits
such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT.
3. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the
' applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The
oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch
�l
n
Mission Hills PUD '.
July 5, 1994
Page 3 '
watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's
recommendations.
4. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted
to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat '
approval.
5.
The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk
'
Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both
landscaping materials and berming.
6.
The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public streets where the adjacent
dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm
sewer.
'
7.
An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be
dedicated with the final plat. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for
'
future road right -of -way acquisition.
8.
During construction of the site improvements, the applicant shall provide provisions for
'
maintaining ingress and egress at all times for the homes on Tigua Lane as well as
emergency vehicles.
'
9.
Allowed uses in the commercial site outlot) shall be restricted to the uses described in
the staff report.
,
10.
The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within
Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas.
'
11.
The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along
Highway 212 and Highway 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating
commercial and residential lots.
12. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: '
A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy
areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, etc. '
B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th
Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core '
sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus.
1
1
u l''
r,�
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 4
C. A bituminous trail shall be constructed encircling the wetland located south of
86th Street, connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site." In consideration
for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal
to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for
presentation to the city with documentation for verification.
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the
rate then in force.
13. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage
limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and
development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the
developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is
being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we
believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to ensure that the
ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community.
We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate
the City Council's input.
14. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the
potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been
actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and
this may be a good site.
I 15. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and
awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32.
16. An additional trail easement along the south side of 86th Street may have to be dedicated
to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction
plan review and approval process. A 5' wide concrete sidewalk shall also be extended
along the west side of "A" Street.
17. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor
Study design standards.
18. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for approval.
19. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identifcation must be followed.
Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire
Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Policy enclosed.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 5 ,
20. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street.
Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant
to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). ,
21.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to ensure that fire
,
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
'
23.
Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991
Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c).
'
24.
Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall
be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When
buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the
'
provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen
Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1.
'
25.
Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city
shall determine type and placement.
,
26.
The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the
south side of West 86th Street.
,
27.
The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation
ordinance for canopy coverage.
,
28.
The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings.
'
29.
The applicant shall deposit with the city an escrow for the future upgrading if TH 101
north of 86th Street. The escrow may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash deposit.
The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after a feasibility study for the
'
upgrading TH 101.
30.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
'
seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
'
31.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
'
I Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 6
32. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
' with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval
33. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
' accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and
' high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be
based on Walker's Pondnet model.
34. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
' 35. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
' be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
' 36. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of
3 feet above the 100 -year high water level of all wetlands and ponding basins.
' 37. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements.
38. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
39. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
' 40. Grading shall be P rohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be
installed outside the 10 -foot buffer as well.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 7 '
41. The street turnaround located southeast of the wetland shall be redesigned as shown in
attachment #2. ,
PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ,
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"Approval of the preliminary PUD development plan with the following standards: '
a. Intent I
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density
housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards '
while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to
be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through
site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. '
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to '
appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall
be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use ,
meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of
uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to '
medium sized restaurant (no drive -thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale
commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses.
c. Setbacks '
In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public ,
right -of -way. The Parking setback shall be 35 feet from any Public Right -of -Way and/
or interior property line. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from ,
the commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and
landscaping.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 8
Staff is recommending the following setbacks:
The rear yard setback for the single family units was another issue discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting. It was recommended that he rear yard setback be increased
to 80 feet to create a buffer from the Rice Lake Manor single family houses. Staff does not
believe there is a need for separating or buffering one single family home from another.
We recommend that the homes be permitted to maintain a 30 foot rear yard setback.
Residential
Commercial
Street
Commercial Residential
Parking
Parking
Building Setback Building Setback Setback
Setback
Hwy. 101
50' 50'
20'
35'
Hwy. 212
50' 50'
20'
35'
West 86th Street
50' 30'
20'
35'
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
BLOCK
USE
Net Lot Density* H a r d
Area
Surface
Outlot
Commercial
7.72 acres
GYMW
1
138 Multi- Family units
18.00 acres 7.66
37%
2 &3
16 Single - Family units
8.55 acres 2.24
4
56 Multi- Family Units
8.92 acres 6.28
43.2%
ROW
Street and court
1.17 acres
West 86th St
Right -of -Way
2.23 acres
Hwy 212 and
101 Right -of -Way
18.68 acres
TOTAL AREA
61.67+
The rear yard setback for the single family units was another issue discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting. It was recommended that he rear yard setback be increased
to 80 feet to create a buffer from the Rice Lake Manor single family houses. Staff does not
believe there is a need for separating or buffering one single family home from another.
We recommend that the homes be permitted to maintain a 30 foot rear yard setback.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 9
Lot
Lot
Home
Home
Area
Width
Depth
Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' front/30' rear
10' sides
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
23,374
117.48
198.83
Lot 2
20,196
100.30
201.96
Lot 3
20,824
100.31
208.23
Lot 4
21,386
100.17
212.5
Lot 5
20,898
100.45
207
Lot 6
21,566
116
189
Lot 7
22,006
125
176.5
BLOCK 3
Lot 1
16,349
108
150
Lot 2
15,126
95.6
155
Lot 3
15,554
90
172
Lot 4
16,185
90
180
Lot 5
15,232
127
134.5
Lot 6
24,778
55.62*
189.06
Lot 7
25,092
78.30*
189
Lot 8
15,752
76.6*
135.25
Lot 9
17,026
112
147.5
•� Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
' Page 10
* denotes lots located on a cul-de -sac
e. Building Materials and Design
' RESIDENTIAL
Building's exterior material shall be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and
' brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and
soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows
over the two -story windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft
' gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray
velour brick.
Finding The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1,
reflect some architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story
units located on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be
added to give the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape
' of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. The applicant has
instructed his architects to provide new scenarios.
1
P
COMMERCIAL
1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be
used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one
of the above materials or curtain wall on office components.
6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 11
8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line.
9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building.
RESIDENTIAL
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum '
siding and brick.
2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story
units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some
variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers,
shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell
white, etc.).
5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street.
4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening I
The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree
plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple.
Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees
and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with
the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of
native wetland species.
In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD
zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a
separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet
high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right -of -way. These berms shall be
seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas
within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum
of a 2 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall
consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree.
1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 12
2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be
required where deemed appropriate.
4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas
proposed for future development.
g. Signage
COMMERCIAL
Staff is proposing. one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one monument
sign for the residential section of the PUD.
1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument
signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each
wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet).
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the
building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural
feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section
of the PUD.
7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height.
9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
Mission Hills PUD
July 5, 1994
Page 13
RESIDENTIAL
One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The
sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height.
h. Lighting
Finding
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for
site lighting shall be no more than 1 h candle at the property line. This does not
apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not
exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet.
2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall
not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions.
4. The outlot light poles shall be corten, shoe box light standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes and staff report dated June 26, 1994.
2. Street turnaround design.
3. Memo from Don Jensen dated July 1, 1994.
4. Letter from MnDOT dated June 23, 1994.
5. Revised Plans.
g.1flarkalmission7.11
fl
1
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, one other thing too. Make sure that when we get these back, the architect's signature is
contained on there. They are not on there now.
Kate Aanenson: The only thing you'll see again is the final plat of the subdivision.
Mayor Chmieh Well I want to make sure that what we approve now is consistent, okay? Alright.
MISSION HILLS, LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, TANDEM
PROPERTIES:
A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (4656 ACRES).
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING
UNITS), 25 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S).
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa This application is for a total of 208 units ... single family units. There is an oudot located to
the west of the site. This outlot is slated for neighborhood related commercial. You reviewed this application
last year and you approved it conceptually. It appeared before the Planning Commission for approval,
preliminary plat and PUD approval. The Planning Commission approved it with conditions outlined in the staff
report. There were some issues that were raised and would ... mass grading is always an issue. Mass grading of
the site. With the type of units that we have, the grading, the mass grading is inevitable. However, what the
applicant has proposed to do is create new grade berms on this site to make up for the rolling hills that we will
be losing. Design elevations of the units on Block 4 was an issue was an issue that was ... with the applicant.
The majority of the elevations are identical and what we refer to, to the applicant of the proposed ... The applicant
indicated that he was going to meet with his architect and prepare new design elevations. Designs for the
elevations on Block 4 so that would be the one story building only. Another issue that was raised was the size
of the lot that immediately abuts ... The applicant has, he meets the minimum area of each one of those lots for
the 20,000 square feet. They also reduced the number from 8 to 7 lots abutting that subdivision. One of the
issues that were raised at the meeting, at the Planning Commission meeting was a request to increase the rear
yard setback to ... on those parcels. Staff doesn't believe that there is a need for such an excessive setback
between one single family to another and we are recommending that the rear yard setback between the single
family remain at 30 feet. Landscaping. The Planning Commission requested that staff review the landscaping
plan to make sure that it meets the standards set in the new landscaping ordinance. According to the landscaping
ordinance, the multi - family section of the site would need .9 trees per unit. The single family would need 5
trees per unit. The applicant is providing 3 trees per unit for the multi - family and 3 for the single family so
there is a transfer—exceeds the minimum required by ordinance required landscaping and we are recommending
that that transfer of landscaping from the single family to the multi - family be approved. Parking setback was
another issue that was raised at the Planning Commission for the neighborhood commercial section of the site.
Mr. Klingelhutz indicated that a 50 foot parking setback is excessive and would prevent them from utilizing the
site to it's maximum potential. Staff is recommending that we use the underlying setbacks for the zoning district
24
City Council Meeting -June 27, 1994
1•
1
for neighborhood commercial business, which is 35 feet. That would still allow for a berm as well as
landscaping and the parking area would be screened. One last issue that—is the totlot size. Totlot area. '
Originally when the plan appeared, and even now we find that—and it truly was an honest misunderstanding.
Very justifiable. The applicant showed the topped part as 1.3 or at least we read it as 1.3. Actually it is a
parenthesis and the applicant has indicated that it is a .3, one -third of an acre is what the totlot site is. Todd '
Hoffman is here to address this issue. It will appear before the Park Commission so I'll turn it over to Todd and
have him address the park issue.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Sharmin. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Conceptual site plan was reviewed '
by the Park Commission about last August and I should make it clear that it is throughout this entire time been
the recommendation that full park and trail fees be required as a part of this development for use elsewhere in
the city for acquisition and development. What we are encouraging the applicant to do is to increase the amount '
of open space within the development for use on site during those times when the residents residing... other
locations for their recreation use. Last year when I had the opportunity to speak to the applicant prior to the
commission meeting that evening and they thought ... the plan showed a todot structure. Upon the conclusion of
that meeting, at which they talked about whether or not that met the needs of this little private association totlot '
if you will, they put forth a recommendation that approving the conceptual site plan, asking the applicant shall
provide additional park space and what has been proposed to accommodate the ... needs of the residents of this
development. Since that time the applicant has moved forward with their plans and we had scheduled this '
tentatively for review by the preliminary plat stage. At the May meeting that did not occur so it will now go
back to the Park Commission... tomorrow night. I believe it was their June 1st Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission took it upon themselves to respond and in some occasions to talk about parks and the
totlot issue at length. What they came out with was they would like to see it increased as well but they'd leave '
it up to the Park Commission to decide on the acreage. Thus is this is one item you're going to review tonight
which has not been fully closed as the Park Commission won't look at it again until tomorrow evening. Review
for the applicant, they have created some other open areas which they will be explaining to you this evening '
and—which they feel meet the type of recreational needs of this development would be creating on site. With
that I'll answer any questions the Council would have in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anything more Sharmin? '
Sharmin Al -Jaffa We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has
met basically the majority of these conditions. All the issues that were raised at the conceptual stage, we feel '
have been answered. Other than the conditions outlined in the staff report, we're recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That 186 dwelling units, mixed high density. That's all in compliance with our '
requirements as well, is that correct?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Correct. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant care to approach the Council?
Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. My name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of the partners in Tandem '
Properties, which is the purchaser of the property from Mr. Baits and Mr. Klingelhutz. Jim Ostenson, who is in
the front row, is my partner. We've developed, well quite a bit of property in the southwest portions of the
Twin Cities, Eden Prairie, Plymouth. We have a project in Chanhassen currently called Trotters Ridge which is '
a single family parcel on Jerome Carlson's, right across on Galpin Boulevard Also here this evening is Dennis
25 '
1
I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
' Marhula, who's in the second row, is one of the partners in Westwood Planning and Engineering who was
responsible for the project. And Ed Hasek, who is in the front row, will be presenting the, and we'll try to make
' it brief, changes that have been made and the improvements to the project to you this evening. I think as the
staff has pointed out, the project has been around longer than maybe we all would like. And part of that is no
fault of anyone's. Initially we thought we would be under construction August of last year and when the project
' was submitted in the spring, the problem was TH 101. And Fred Hoisington's study and determining the new
alignment and working with the neighbors, that you've done here over the last few months. So we kind of get
caught in a catch 22 on that issue. Also just getting the public improvements, the watermain and sewer and
those improvements that you're dealing with have helped it out so planning has sort of been going and coming
' and stopping and going based on those issues. I think as the staff mentioned, we went through the Planning
Commission for the last time a few weeks ago and they reviewed the project in substantial detail and made
recommendations that we believe we can live with and are improvements in some cases to the project. At this
' point I think I'd like to ask Ed to maybe briefly point out to you the changes between the concept plan, which
you approved last year and the final plan that you have this evening. They're almost identical. You'll see that
we've got a couple little paste on's that show some of the issues related to ponds or the play space, the open
' space areas that we've tried to address and hopefully that will address what Todd and Shatmin were talking
about, particularly on the park issues. And we'll be happy to answer any questions. Ed.
Ed Hasek: Good evening. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. Our offices are
just down the road here in Eden Prairie, Minnesota and I recognize a few faces. I once served on the park board
out here in Chanhassen when I lived in the city so hello to those of you I recognize. Just a general orientation
of where we're talking about. The Missions Hills project is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed
Highway 101 realignment and proposed Highway 212. It's generally between Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Susan and
Lake Riley. The plan which you saw earlier and approved in conceptual form is located on the right side here
on the plan that we're proposing this evening is located on the left and I think the reason why we put both of
them up for you is just to see how close they really are to the same plan. We've got 16 single family units
shown. 16 single family units shown. 56 garden units with a single private drive. 16 garden family units with
a single drive. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned 86th Street. Berming along TH 101 and the realigned
86th Street. A 200 foot easement for the proposed upgrading of Highway 101. The commercial area. The
' neighborhood commercial area in the lower left hand corner and 136 units of villa townhomes on the south side
with basically a single private drive through. Again, berming on the commercial side along the proposed 212
and where possible, along 86th as well. Berming again is shown along, and I'll take these out of here so you
' can see where it came from.
Councilman Mason: Rubber cement is a marvelous thing.
' Ed Hasek: Spray glue. Berming along 86th, along the commercial area and again along Highway, proposed
Highway 212. The totlot in the center and the todot or the play tot area in the center here. One difference that
you may notice between the two plans is a blue areas. When the plan was put together originally we took a
cursory look at what we thought we would need for storm water ponding. The more we got into the plan, the
more we realized we were going to need more area and that's why some of these additional ponds have shown
up on the plan. This one and this one are generally in the same location, although a little bit larger in size. To
respond to the request by the parks department to increase the open space, we have worked a little bit with and
we still have some issues to resolve with the engineering department. Those related to water quality and
quantity ponding. Your engineering department's putting together a plan this week to address area storm water
ponding issues and this project will be feeding into those ponds at a future date. What we are anticipating is that
several of these ponds may not in fact have to be used for more than a few years or until that plan gets in place.
26
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1
One of those is this pond to the north. ...will be discharged from the site to a pond to be located a little bit
closer to the creek that connects Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. And in response to that, when that pond
disappears, we are advocating adding an additional half acre of open space on the north side of the property to
'
respond to some of the issues that the Planning Commission and the staff had. And that would be an addition of
.5 of an acre of open space. Also, in talking with the parks department, an additional change has been made and
that change would look something like this. We would remove the berm that we had intended to put in this area
and create .2 of an acre of just open space. We would also, when this pond is eliminated and the downstream
ponding is provided, create an additional .8 of an acre of open space there with the trail linkage that could
ultimately connect to some potential acquisition of the parkland to the east of the property. What that does for
us is gives us overall between 2 1/2 or between 1 1/2 and 2 acres of open space and play area within the project,
'
which I believe is more in keeping with what the park staff and city staff had in mind when they were reviewing
this project in the rust place. And I think with that, unless Dick or Jim or Dennis have any additional
comments, we would just like to open it up to issues that you have.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Council? Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't really have a lot of problems with what the applicant's proposing. I think they've
'
done a nice job. I don't have a problem with the solutions now in terms of the open space either. I think that
seems to make sense versus clustering it altogether in the middle. I like spreading it out a little bit and I like in
particular the potential for the trail access and stuff there. Plus I think in my mind it's a little hard just to kind
of separate the totlot because you've got a fairly substantial open area that's really with it there in terms of the
ponding area and all that sort of thing so you will probably kind of get used that way anyway. At least my kids
are drawn to water a lot. So I don't have any real big problems or questions.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Dave.
Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, if I could just interject at this time with regards to
'
storm water ponding on the site. The applicant has been in to meet with us. If you read the previous staff
report, staff was concerned with the number of storm ponds proposed on the site. Seven specifically. We felt
that those ponds were in excess. That they were essentially being plopped in wherever they could fit and we
'
wanted to see more of a regional approach on the storm water management plan. We're still working with the
applicant to determine appropriate ponding areas. We do show some areas that discusses removing eventually,
we tried, we did have concems...those ponds in their backyards... amenity to some people ... for a park or a todot.
...similar to what we do when we say this road's to be extended in the future. A future homeowner on notice
'
that there's a change coming. Again we are still working with the ponding situation and the overall servicing
water management plan. We'd like to do some regional ... ponding. However, that probably will not occur for
some time due to funding and development proposals in the area so these ponding areas could be around for
quite some time...
Councilman Senn: David, just clarify something though. But doesn't what they're suggesting down there in the ,
southeast corner kind of go a long way to accommodating that? I mean in terms of that becomes a fairly, it
seemed like a fairly significant ponding area that gets converted later with the development of the rest of the
system.
Dave Hempel: The one located in the southeast corer?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. ,
27 1
i City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
' Dave Hempel: That was actually a very small pond considering the area contributing to it. There are two large
wetlands, or one large wetland and a smaller one just to the east that will be taking runoff from this
' development. Per our standards, they all have to be pre - treated to Walker standards for discharging into their
development to serve what we call a 100 year storm event for potential flooding downstream so since we don't
have a downstream 100 year flood protection in place yet...provide that storage on site through the use of these
Walker ponds and also some use of some existing wetlands. So it's kind of a detailed plan that we're trying to
work on here.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
' Councilman Wing: Todd, can you review what you're trying to accomplish? I look at this and I see somebody
has come in and drawn as many squares as they can possibly get in there and for the number of people this
represents, and the density it represents, there seems to be no place to go to bar- be -que, to play. There's no
recreational area. What are you trying to accomplish and are we, to accomplish what you maybe would like to,
they'd have to lose a building or two but I think we've got the future to think about here. Is this hurting for
public recreational area and what are you trying to accomplish again?
it
�
1
Todd Hoffman: Again, as I prefaced my other comments, we're not attempting to create a public open space
here. Simply to ... accommodate those short trips to the open space or to walk around the development and just
stop and experience the quality which an open space park area would own. So at .3 acres, that's a very small
area ... Not a very large area. The Park Commission, that type of an area was displayed to the Park Commission
last time, I believe it was August, and they asked for additional land. Now what that is, I picked out an arbitrary
number at an acre and a half for presentation to the Park Commission last time. And whether or not they're
willing to see that acre and a half be centrally located at the totlot location and yes, you would have the ability
to do that, is yet unseen.
Councilman Wing: Have you looked at a small recreation area north and a small recreational south, so that each
complex would have it's own little park area to go to?
Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission has not considered a park, a formalized park setting to the north but the
Planning Commission asked that that be considered.
Councilman Wing: I guess just my opinion is that with those densities and the two separate areas, both should
have a bar -be-que area, a meeting place, totlot, whatever the case is. I'm not sure I would define it but some
type of recreational open space in both of those areas.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, just to tack onto what Richard said. I agree that the open space seems to be
wholly inadequate for the amount of homes we're looking at there. In addition I think we've attempted to give a
good transition to the Rice Lake Manor but I don't think we're accomplishing it yet. We've still got, looking in
these plans, we've still got 3 lots abutting one piece of property. Or 2 1/2 lots abutting one piece of property
and I'd be hypocritical if I said it's okay in one part of the city and not in another and I don't think it works
here but I still think we need a little work on that eastern side with the number or with the size of those lots in
the single family. I'm also concerned about the traffic that this will generate and is this too soon in terms of it
28
[�I
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994 1
being built and then TH 101 coming later with the construction concerns and the current amount of traffic that
TH 101 can handle. I do have a question for the developer. What price ranges are we looking at for these? ,
Dick Putnam: They're really three distinct type of units. Should I go up here?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please.
Dick Putnam: There are three distinct type of units. On the north side of the road is the atrium unit which is
really designed for the retired or empty nester person. They're one level, a townhouse type unit with their own ,
patio and 2 car garage. It's really for someone selling their house and moving in. Those units are probably
priced, and it depends on options. I mean 2 fireplaces, 1, that kind of thing. I believe they go in the
$80,000.00 - $90,000.00 price bracket. On the south side of the road, there are two types of units. You'll notice
the single or longer, the 4 and 6 unit buildings and then the wider buildings that are the back to back. Either an
8 or a 12 unit building. Those are called villa units. Those are very similar to the units in Eden Prairie. As you
drive on Highway 5 just before you get to Dell Road on the south side. The gray buildings that you see... Those
units will be priced in the probably mid 70's up to maybe the mid 80's, depending upon the units. They have '
either a 2 or 1 car garage on 1,400 square feet, two level unit and they're really set up very well for young
couples. Retired people by and large, if they have a choice, would take the single level units. Young couples,
single individuals, single parents, these are ownership units so they aren't rental units and really, particularly in
the southwest part of the metropolitan area, we haven't been able to build them fast enough. The projects, the
ones that we were associated with in Eden Prairie, they never did get a model built. It was about 100 units.
They used a trailer as a sales center and all of the units were sold before construction began so they would
expect, and Centex has had the same experience in Eden Prairie with a similar type of project. There's a real
crying need in the marketplace for ownership below $100,000.00 home.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How about single family? What price range? '
Dick Putnam: Single family, with the almost half acre lot size, the 20,000 foot lots, those are going to be
custom builders. Maybe of the same builders that are in the Trotters Ridge, Jim is really the intent at this point,
and... Price range there will be.
Jim Ostenson: Probably from $200,000.00 to $275,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you find that that works abutting next to the villa homes and the patio homes? '
That works?
Jim Ostenson: We didn't have any problems with it when we've done it...
Dick Putnam: If you drive—projects that we did, 65 single family project and a townhouse project in the villas,
and single family lots, the entrance is right across the street from the villas and ... It's worked. And we did the
villa project before the single family.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. I
Ed Hasek: Just a quick comment if I might on the ... staff's comments. It's our understanding that, and perhaps '
Dave can help me with this, that the potential for this project to be served by existing TH 101 is there. The
29 1
I City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
capacity is already existing on the existing Highway 101. So its not as though were going g gh Y ' '
g g g to overload the
existing system...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would beg to differ with that but if that's what the traffic studies say.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: The play lot issue I'm going to let rest with Park and Rec. I'll go with their
recommendation on that. However that washes out. I believe Councilwoman Dockendorf and I disagreed on the
single family issue where they abut before and I suspect we'll continue to. They're 20,000 square foot lots and
they're going to be nice homes. That's, land gets developed and that's what happens. I see that as being okay.
I'm fine with you know, depending on what Park and Rec decides and where the storm ponds go, I'm fine.
' Mayor Chmiel: I would like to just mention something. I think that this particular project should be tabled,
even though Council's reviewing it right now. It seems to be a little bit out of sequence. It has not gone to the
' Park Commission as yet. I would think with some of the wordage within, there's some changes that should be
done. Kate, are you listening to what I'm saying? This would be my suggestion at this particular time. Until
it's completely through Park and Rec, then it should be back to us to look at. But I think you've got kind of a
feel from Council as to what we're looking at. And once we get some recommendation back from them as well,
we should be able to address that at that time. Is that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, so I would motion to table.
' Councilman Senn: I'd like to ask a question if I could.
Mayor Chmiel: I've got a motion on the table. I just made it.
Councilman Senn: Oh! I thought you asked for a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I said I would motion to table this project and have it go back to the Park and Rec
' Commission.
Councilman Wing: If I second that, does he get to ask his question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Discussion. We always have discussion.
Councilman Senn: Todd what, if you go with the larger park areas, how is that going to turn around and affect
the overall plan as it relates to the trail and the dedication saw.
Todd Hoffman: It will have no effect on it.
1 30
City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
Councilman Senn: None at all?
Todd Hoffman: .3 to an acre and a half is insignificant in the realm of our overall comprehensive park plan.
Councilman Senn: In terms of the plan correct, but how about in terms of the financial contribution and that sort
of thing back to us that you were anticipating?
Todd Hoffman: We're still asking that this be a product of an association facility so we're not going to give
them credit for the facility you see here or any expansion of it. Similar to the multi- family developments at the
Oak Ponds or Oak Hill, they're putting in a private association facility as a part of their development.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well then I guess I have a question for Roger. Roger, can we still do that in light of '
what the Supreme Court decided last week?
Roger Knutson: The decision is right here.
Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand that we haven't seen any feedback on it yet. '
Roger Knutson: I've read it. This applicant started back in, this doesn't affect it, to answer that question.
Because it first, I'll brief you on that. It's long and boring. The upshot of it is, there's a lot of noise about this
but it doesn't make all that much difference. Actually since you asked, I enjoy this subject. It starts with
approval of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that we've been following for the last 20 years. Many
communities do give credit. In this situation, many communities do not. You're not asking, this is not asking
for an exaction from the developer. You're not taking something from him. It would remain in private
ownership so it's not a park and trail dedication. It's just an acknowledgement that when you come in and ask
for a planned unit development, in return for getting densities and other things, you're required to give '
something. Create other amenities. Off setting amenities. Balance densities and things like that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ,
Councilman Wing: And as we're going on a PUD on this, I think when we look at, and my views on it are
strictly my opinion but when we look at this type of density, it takes a lot from the city in terms of services and
the traffic impacts and the stop lights that are going to be coming in, etc, etc, etc. So when we start asking for a ,
little open space or parkland, I think it's a real minimum, minimal request for what this really generates in a
negative sense for the city, at least in my opinion. I have to, I just hope when all our projects are done and the
Highway 5 study is done and all these things we've got on our agenda are done, we can sit down and
concentrate with Mike and ask us, how much of this high density do we want? How much of this high density
do we need? But more important, can we transition from this high density into some affordable single family
housing. I'd just as soon, I wish we were looldng at a single family affordable housing right now.
Councilman Senn: So to make sure you get into subsidy or something, that's real tough.
Councilman Mason: We should take a look at it. Mr. Mayor, with this motion to table, Park and Rec's meeting
on it tomorrow night so I'm assuming this would be on our agenda in 2 weeks. Is that a safe assumption?
Mayor Chmiel: It will be on your agenda tomorrow? 1
31 1
' City Council Meeting - June 27, 1994
1 Todd Hoffman: It's on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: It is? Alright. Okay, motion's on the floor with a second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on Mission Hills Planned Unit
' Development until the Park and Recreation Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
BUDGET AMENDMENT, PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
' PROGRAM, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LRT TRAIL CONSTRUCTION.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. As I hope most of you are aware,
Hennepin Parks is in the final stage of completing... improvements on two different railroad segments which
affect the city of Chanhassen. The north corridor which runs from Hopkins through Minnetonka, Shorewood, to
Victoria to Carver Park. And the south corridor starting again in Hopkins, running through Minnetonka, Eden
Prairie into Chanhassen and then concluding hopefully at Chaska. Hennepin Parks looked at this and it's not
' that they don't do work in other counties. They operate many parks in other counties, Carver and Scott among
them. But once they get out of Hennepin County, they get a little bit nervous in spending money. They wanted
to find a suitable terminus however so they could head south to Shakopee. A regional trail is going to be
designed to reach Murphy Hannering Park which they operate in Scott County—Park they operate there as well.
They decided upon Bluff Creek. Throughout their entire negotiation, or planning process, we encouraged them
to keep the segment all the way through Chanhassen to Chaska. They came up ... so they're quitting at Bluff
' Creek. What we'd like to do is participate with the City of Chaska to complete that, the next mile from Bluff
Creek to Highway 212... cities of Chaska and Chanhassen lies solely within the city of Chanhassen but Chaska's
agreed to pay approximately 50% of the cost. At their last City Council meeting they approved the expenditure
up to $9,000.00 for that purpose. Thus we had Veit Construction Company on site. They work for Hennepin
' Parks. They will complete the next segment. The City of Chanhassen as the principle on the project. For $3.50
a foot, and that's putting down 10 feet of limestone rock and shoulders. In trusting that, and doing some
miscellaneous work on the far south side ... access to this site. Briefly I can show you ... so you can get an idea.
You get to the Chanhassen border at Pioneer Trail. So the trail segment comes out of Eden Prairie, then it
crosses underneath Pioneer Trail and heads down opening out onto the bluffs in this vicinity where you can see
the Shakopee river valley. Highway 101, they took the bridge out. The single concrete bridge. That will be
' replaced this fall under separate contract by Hennepin Parks. So Hennepin Parks will be paying for that bridge
overpass. And then they will conclude at Bluff Creek here with a trail head of sorts. A parking lot. The lighted
way widens up in that location so they can allow for some parking. We would like to complete the segment
from Bluff Creek to the city of Chaska It would dead end at this point for a short period of time. Short being
1 year, 2 years, until the City of Chaska can come back from the west and make a connection at that point. So
that is what I'm asking for this evening. A budget amendment amending the 410 budget, Park Acquisition and
Development to approve an additional expenditure not to exceed $12,000.00. We are far exceeding our to date
anticipated revenues from park and trail funds so there's at least a desperate shortage of revenues for this type of
expenditure to occur.
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, in discussion with what you were just saying that point to Chaska, is there a letter of
commitment that Chaska would give to us assuring that they will continue that trail?
Todd Hoffman: Certainly. Absolutely. They're going to come to this thing with $9,000.00 to finish it. We'll
get the letter of transfer of dollars as to the extension...
32
CITY OF
��4 F
CHANHASSEN
'�
PC DATE: 6/l/94
,
CC DATE: 6/27/94 '
CASE #: 93 -4 PUD
STAFF REPORT �
Z
Q
U
(.
CL
Q
PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of Property from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD,
Planned Unit Development for low density (16), medium, and high density
(192)residential units and neighborhood commercial uses.
2) Site Plan Approval for 192 Unit Owner Occupied Multifamily
Development
3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site
LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street.
APPLICANT: Tandem Properties
7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
a
W
co
ACREAGE: Approximately 61.62 acres(gross) 37.78 acres (net)
DENSITY: Single - Family 2.24 u/a Multi- Family 7.13 u/a (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm
S - Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor Subdivision
W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently
being farmed. It contains two wetland areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial -High Density Residential), Medium
Density Residential, and Low Density Residential
Ij
M ,
L 1:1wozowrwr.r.
�1
L14#T4
Rr
i IP
/
J
M _M
- A M „ :
Wi
WWI
t.= ►.�- .�
�� �� Illllli 11111 11111 ��� '
no
LN
;AI`N
v1
, R /CE
MARSH
I'
RD
. .. 4
R Zro
L `
F
4
i IN
;AI`N
v1
, R /CE
MARSH
I'
RD
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
This proposal includes a request for rezoing for a preliminary planned unit development, a
preliminary subdivision, and a site plan review request to create a mixed use (commercial and
mixed density residential) development. Tandem Properties will be the developer of Mission ,
Hills. The site is located east of existing Highway 101 and north of proposed Highway 212.
West 86th Street, which is a gravel road, bisects the site in the middle. A.horse farm is located
to the north of the site. To the east of Mission Hills is Rice Lake Manor, which is a large lot ,
subdivision zoned Residential Single Family, containing 8 parcels, served with city sewer and
equipped with on -site water wells.
The site is located within the MUSA line. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Mission Hills '
site from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the
site into 4 blocks and 1 outlot. The entire Mission Hills property is approximately 61.62 acres '
which includes a 8.87 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial
uses, 26.92 acres for multi- family housing, and 7.15 acres for single family housing. Block 1
is proposed to have 4 four - plexes, 4 six - plexes, 6 eight - plexes, and 4 twelve - plexes. All '
proposed units within Block 1 are two story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 16 single
family lots and will act as a buffer between the medium/high density units and Rice Lake Manor '
subdivision. Block 4 is proposed to contain 10 four - plexes and 2 eight - plexes. All proposed
units within block 4 are single story. The total proposed units on the site are 208 units.
Development concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this ,
submittal. This is an area of concern to staff who views the site as supporting only future
neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. We have '
met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to
respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type uses, although he believes
commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. ,
The commercial site is located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212
interchange. The request for PUD zoning enabled the city to establish a range of allowable uses
and design parameters. I
The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The net density is 2.24 units /acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is
19,459 square feet, which is consistent with previous conceptual planned unit development
submittal.
Portions of the site are located within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. Under DNR regulations, this '
site is impacted by their Shoreland Ordinance and will have to be reviewed and approved by
them.
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
' Page 3
The Comprehensive Plan shows the area in the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland
' and south of 86th Street) guided for 4 to 8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6
units per acre which exceeds the district's density by 0.6. In order to meet the required density,
the applicant must reduce the number of units from 58 to 54 units. This could be accomplished
' by moving those units west of the pond. The remainder of the site has a density that is below
the permitted density. Staff raised this issue at the time of conceptual approval and stated that
we felt comfortable with recommending approval of the 8.6 units per acre in the southeast portion
' of the site as transfer of density is permitted under the planned unit development ordinance. The
Planning Commission and City Council supported staff's recommendation and recommended
approval of the proposed density transfer. Staff also pointed out that the overall layout of the
units blends well. Furthermore, this density could be transferred west of the site, which would
result in packing some units closer together. The area west of the wetland and south and north
of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units
' per acre. The proposed multi- family will generate a total of 37% of hard surface coverage in
Block 1, and 49% hard surface coverage in Block 4. The PUD ordinance allows a maximum of
50% hard surface coverage, which is below the minimum requirements of the ordinance.
' The site is impacted by the adjacent right -of -way of Hwy. 101 and future Hwy. 212. Those two
highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the site. Highway 101 is located to the west of
' the site. This highway will provide a major link between proposed Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 5.
Increased trips on Hwy. 101 will be inevitable once Hwy. 212 is completed. MnDOT will be
responsible for the development of Highway 212. Existing Highway 101, however, was
' classified by MnDOT as a temporary highway in the 1930s. Therefore, State funds cannot be
appropriated for any improvements with the exception of absolute minimum safety improvements.
Recognizing that the city needed to be proactive if appropriate planning was to be done for Hwy.
' 101, the city commissioned a study in 1988. Prepared by Fred Hoisington, this study established
proposed new development, four different possible alignments with sidewalks and berms, and
' design parameters. It also suggested land uses for the area. These recommendations, which
called for a new alignment east of old Hwy. 101 with a 4 lane plus trail design, were
incorporated into the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the road near Hwy. 5 have already
' been constructed in accordance with the plan.
Due to MnDOT's design refinements on the Hwy. 212 Plan and approval of the ISTEA
legislation, the City Council/HRA determined that the study should be updated. Urban design
improvements promoted under the ISTEA regulations could diminish impacts and improve the
design. Consequently, Fred Hoisington worked with staff to update his original study. This work
' has been completed and an alignment has been selected by the City Council (referred to as
alignment #3). The conceptual PUD approval was contingent upon the City Council selecting
alignment #3 as the official alignment for Hwy. 101.
The plans did not effectively take the four proposed alignments for Hwy. 101 into consideration.
Staff brought this issue to the applicant's attention at the time of conceptual approvals and
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 4 '
accordingly, the applicant prepared an alternative concept plan which accommodated alternative
#3. The applicant incorporated alternative #3 alignment which resulted in 4 more units in Block '
4 and the neighborhood commercial area was increased from 7.72 acres to 8.87 acres. In the
future, the T. H. 101 alignment will result in the removal of two existing houses located north
of the proposed Mission Hills. '
The project generally conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as the city
proposes the future extensions. Grading plans of the site indicate that proposed highway '
elevations have been taken into consideration during the plan preparation stage. The area
impacted the most by the highways will be the outlot containing the commercial uses. This is
the location where the highways are proposed to intersect, although final plans for this
intersection have not been adopted yet. Based upon the foregoing, the applicant will develop the
outlot last. Types of commercial uses permitted in the outlot will be outlined later in the report.
As mentioned earlier, West 86th Street is a private gravel road. This road provides the only
access to Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor have an easement for the ,
public right -of -way of this road. When Rice Lake Manor was approved, it was believed that this
was a temporary situation and that once the area surrounding the subdivision develops, West 86th
Street would be realigned and improved. The applicant is proposing the alignment of West 86th ,
Street be altered by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy. 101. This should provide for
better sight distance and intersection alignment. The existing intersection will be eliminated
which will allow for improved development coordination and traffic safety. The right -of -way on '
all public streets in the proposal have been shown at 60 feet with the exception of the most
westerly right -of -way of 86th Street, to allow for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes
as West 86th Street approaches Hwy. 101, and a sidewalk that would connect this proposal with ,
parks and trail in the vicinity. An additional trail assessment may be required along West 86th
Street to facilitate a sidewalk. The street servicing the single family lots is shown terminated ,
along the northern property line of the site, with a possible future extension when the property
to the north develops. This street alignment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
The roads servicing Blocks 1 and 4 are proposed to be private roads maintained by a ,
homeowners association.
Staff has been meeting with the developer since late spring of 1993. We believe that they have
produced a plan that is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
We further note that it provides a mix of housing types that we believe to be in short supply in
our community and appears to provide moderate cost housing. We believe that it can meet or '
exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community.
There were issues that staff raised at the conceptual PUD stage that remain unanswered. They
include the following: I
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 5
1. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square
footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area.
1 We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this
area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located
within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our
' ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best
interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this
report and would appreciate the Planning Commission and City Council's input.
' 2. Site acceptable la out and desi n is but there are many shortfalls. Mass grading of the
Y g
multi - family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be
' improved to retain some variance in elevation. This has been the only issue that staff and
the applicant has been unable to reach an agreement over. The applicant has stated that
he will be providing the Planning Commission and City Council with a model showing
' the existing elevations and the newly created ones. They contend that with the berms and
proposed landscaping, there will still be an interesting topography on the site.
Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the Preliminary PUD Plan be approved
with conditions outlined in the staff report.
' SITE CHARACTERISTICS
' This site contains rolling hills and two wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn
and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site.
The site is bordered by two major right -of -ways, Hwy. 101 to the west and Hwy. 212 to the
south. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the subject site. Highway 212
is proposed to be built with four lanes by the year 2000. Subsequently, this will increase the
' number of trips on Hwy. 101 and push the need for improving this substandard highway. The
city retained Hoisington - Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best
alignment for Hwy. 101. This study has been completed and alignment #3 was selected by the
' City Council. However, no plans exist today with regards to upgrading T. H. 101. Long range
planning anticipates upgrading T. H. 101 sometime after 1997.
' BACKGROUND
The parcels that are included in this plan were studied in depth during the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city in 1991.
The site is identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan as mixed use (commercial -high density
residential), medium density residential, and low density residential.
1
�I
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 6 t
On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled the concept approval for
Mission Hills and directed the applicant to make some changes to the plans prior to it appearing ,
before the City Council. On October 20, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the Concept
PUD application with numerous changes as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated
October 20, 1993. ,
The issues that were identified by the Planning Commission and residents at the October 20,
1993 meeting were as follow: ,
Issue: The residents of Rice Lake Manor requested that the number of single family lots be
reduced, the size of the lots be larger, and a form of barrier be created between the two ,
developments.
The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The i
average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the
applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two
subdivisions to prevent trespassing. This was a request made by some residents of Rice
Lake Manor.
Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high and
,
requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the reduction of hard surface coverage
on the site.
,
The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four - plexes along the
north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West
86th Street. Under this new site layout, 14 new multi- family units have been added and
2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance
allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50 %. The hard surface of the site is in
,
compliance with the ordinance with the exception of Block 4, shown in the Alternate
Concept Plan. The plan indicates a 55.83% hard surface coverage. This plan was
prepared after the Planning Commission meeting. It accommodates alternative #3 for
,
Highway 101, as prepared by Fred Hoisington. This plan must be revised to meet the
50% hard surface coverage required by ordinance. The density of the southeast portion
of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4-8 units per acre. The density as
,
proposed by the applicant is 8.6 units per acre. However, the north and southwest
portions of the site are guided for 8 -16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net
density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units per acre in Block 4. The overall
'
density of the site is below that required by ordinance. Furthermore, the PUD ordinance
allows transfer of density within a PUD if the overall density does not exceed the density
shown on the comprehensive plan. Based upon the following, staff is recommending the
applicant be permitted to maintain the existing site layout.
r.
I
L�
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 7
Issue: The plans lacked park and trail facilities.
The applicant has converted one of the four -plex unit building sites into a private
recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest
wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private
street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of the lot is
quite small, however, in the range of one -half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be
of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion
of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and
benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc.
The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site
paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to
its north and south. This box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be
constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this
development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running
east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk
system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the
Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which
can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large
ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this
pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland.
Issue: The Planning Commission and staff have been concerned over the type of uses in the
commercial portion of the site.
Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this
submittal. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our
concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial
type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is
unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The type of uses that were agreed upon
are low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily
needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day
care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses.
At the October 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Mancino
indicated that the Highway 5 design standards should be incorporated within the
commercial district of this site. Staff incorporated these standards in the standards and
design section.
Issue: The site is being mass graded.
11
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 8 '
This still remains somewhat of an issue. The applicant has revised the grading plans
which revise building elevations north of 86th Street. In addition, seven retention ponds
are proposed. Staff recommends that the number of retention ponds be reduced to two
or three.
• The previous plan showed private driveways and curbcuts accessing off of West 86th '
Issue. P P P Y g o
Street. ,
The plans have been revised to allow all units to access off of an interior street
Issue: Landscaping and berming was lacking on the original plans. '
The applicant has revised the plans to allow berming along the west and south side of the ,
site. Also, trees have been added along both north and south sides of West 86th street
Issue: Building elevations were missing with the first submittal.
The applicant has submitted the elevations of the units for review. They are of high
quality and meet the standards established in the guidelines for the PUD. ,
On November 22, 1993, the City Council reviewed and approved the Concept PUD which
contained changes recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council approved the
plans with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. '
Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto
86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets
in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine '
the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates
the proposed right -of -way is inadequate.
2. All utility and street improvements ublic and private) shall be constructed in accordance ,
P rovements
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant
will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street
improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the
subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. '
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits
such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to
the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW.
1
t
II
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 9
4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control
discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the
retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on
the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot
wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion
Control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary
sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan
sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant.
In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to determine if there is excess
capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall
be responsible for all costs associated with the study.
6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the
applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by
means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs
shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. Placement
of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and
retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be
designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between
the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. The
outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped
runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water
quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional
ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location
for said ponding.
8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and
awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and
water facilities to service this site and the adoption of alternative #3 for Highway 101
alignment. If a different alignment is selected, these plans will be null and void and the
applicant shall be required to resubmit the application and procedure process (to
Planning Commission and City Council).
9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk
Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both
landscaping materials and berming.
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 10
10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent
dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm I
sewer.
11.
The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right -of -way
'
determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street.
12.
During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant
'
shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on
Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles.
13.
Submittal of PUD P lans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and
Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the
staff report.
'
14.
The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These
figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas.
,
15.
The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along
Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and
'
residential lots.
16.
Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission.
'
A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block
1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas,
picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc.
B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from ,
Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th
Street north to the street's terminus.
C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the
sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said
trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction.
Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with
documentation for verification. '
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the
rate then in force. '
i Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 11
17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square
' footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access,
and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that
the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership
is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and
we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that
the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the
community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and
would appreciate the Planning Commission's input.
18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many
shortfalls. The hard surface coverage in the Alternative Concept Plan for Block 4, is
55.83 %. Plans must be revised to reduce it to a maximum of 50 %. Mass grading of the
multi - family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be
improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale
to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This
' concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space.
19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the
potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been
actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and
this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development
plan is submitted.
20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the
applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal
approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat
1 will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not
impacted by this issue.
IJ
21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one
would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it
would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted
with the formal PUD submittal.
22. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3.
23. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the
multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street.
24. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor
Study design standards.
n
Mission Hills PUD ,
May 26, 1993 ,
Page 12
25. The applicant may proceed with plans received October 26, 1993, if an alignment for
Highway 101 has been chosen and the applicant can demonstrate that the plans submitted '
October 26, 1993, can accommodate the road, sidewalks, and berms.
26. Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development. '
27. A trail be installed along Highway 101."
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 62.05 acres from RSF, Residential Single '
Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of
the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the
relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for
a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal
than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated
against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: I
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Finding . There are significant rolling hills throughout the site. Also, there are two ,
wetlands on the site. Grading plans indicate that those hills will be extensively graded.
The applicant will place the units on a relatively flat terrain as a result of site grading
except on "A" Street and Court providing access to the single family units. The grading
has been revised north of 86th Street to the extent possible due to land use (building size).
The wetlands on the site are proposed to remain intact. '
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
n
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 13
Finding The site is guided for mixed use commercial/high density residential, medium
density residential, and low density residential. The advantage in the PUD proposal is
that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as
individual parcels, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The
coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of public improvements.
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding. The plans and narrative submitted by the applicants propose to build different
types of multi- housing units that will be architecturally compatible. The city will utilize
its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will
establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well
planned manner. The design of the commercial development should be consistent with
the residential development
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
' significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding The way the proposed plan is designed is reasonable. Low density, detached
' single family housing separates the existing subdivision to the east from the proposed
multi- housing. This also creates a buffer between the two densities. A landscaping
buffer is proposed by the applicant along the Hwy. 101 right -of -way.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use, commercial -high
density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. This area is
adjacent to two major right -of -ways that are proposed to intersect along the southwest
corner of the subject site. The proposed uses are appropriate for such an area.
' 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
' Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this application. To meet
their requirements, the applicant is providing a tot -lot and sidewalks through the site.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 14 ,
Finding The variety of housing types offered within this proposal has been identified in
several studies as a need in the City of Chanhassen. For example, in 1989, the city
conducted an open ended Senior Needs Study. As people age, they lose their mobility,
especially stair climbing. One of the main deficiencies identified was the lack of one
story housing units, which this proposal is offering. A second study involved employees ,
within the city's business community. Staff contacted several businesses in the city to
find out where employees in Chanhassen come from The results indicate that more than
90% of employees surveyed live outside the city and commute to work. The main reason ,
was the lack of first time home buyer housing. The city could consider creating a
housing district within this project and initiate a First Time Home Buyer program or other
similar programs. The proposal indicates different types of units pertaining to size. This '
will cause the units to sell at different prices and will appeal to different income groups.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and '
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding Chanhassen is developing an intensive trail system in the city. The Public '
Transit study for the city, which was prepared by Southwest Metro Transit, identifies the
site south of proposed Hwy. 212, and across from the subject site, as a Park and Ride lot
that will be improved concurrently with Hwy. 212. Sidewalks should connect the site to '
this Park and Ride lot.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic ,
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. Access to this site will be from Trunk Highway 101. The existing West 86th ,
Street is a dirt road and the city does not have ownership of the right -of -way. The
intersection of Hwy. 101 and West 86th will be improved considerably with this proposal
by improving roadway geometrics, right -of -way dedication, and paving the street. The
city has chosen an acceptable alignments for Hwy. 101 which is conducive to this
development. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Final
roadway improvements such as turn lanes and street widths will be addressed with the
construction plans and specification review process. MnDOT will most likely require
temporary by -pass or auxiliary turn lanes along T. H. 101 at West 86th Street. I
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to ,
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
1 Page 15
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
1 Screening of undesirable view of potential loading areas within the commercial
district
�1
1
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (rolling hills and wetlands)
Improved architectural standards
Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts
Improved pretreatment of storm water
An offering of mixed income housing
General Site Plan /Architecture
The preliminary plat and site plan proposes two different types of uses on the site, commercial
and residential. No information regarding the commercial portion of the site has been submitted
with this proposal. Staff is proposing guidelines and standards under which the development can
occur.
The residential/multi - family portion of the site is described in the proposal summary submitted
by the applicant. The material on the building exterior is a combination of a five inch aluminum
siding and brick. The architectural style is proposed to be generally classic with details such as
arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom
windows over the two story windows. On a similar project in Eden Prairie, exterior finishes
were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia and gray
velour brick. Detailed plans showing the facades of all buildings is enclosed with the plans and
appears attractive. Each unit has an enclosed attached garage.
The two story buildings located on Block 1, reflect some architectural variation which make the
units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4, have limited architectural
variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation and interest. This
could be in the form of changing the shape of windows from one unit to another, adding louvers,
shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
The street lights along W. 86th Street should be of an ornamental, human scale design. This will
give the street more character. The city council had requested the applicant provide street lights
and sidewalks along W. 86th Street during the conceptual approval process. Street lights are
normally required with all development proposals. Two types of lighting fixtures are available.
The standard fiberglass pole or corten steel pole like those located along Kerber Boulevard. The
choice may be left to the City Council to decide.
n
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 16
PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has
reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for
language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. ,
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density ,
housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards
while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to '
be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through
site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. The commercial
development shall physically blend with the residential component including building 1
materials and colors.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to
appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall
be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use
meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of '
uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to
medium -sized restaurant (no drive -thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale
commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses.
c. Setbacks I
Applicant's Proposal The applicant is proposing to have all buildings setback 50 feet
from the exterior parcel line of the PUD and 30 feet from the interior lines. This setback
is consistent with the setback requirement of the PUD ordinance.
Finding In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any ,
public right -of -way. The Planning Commission and City Council recommended the
standards in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This
will result in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101
and 212, and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on the outlot must
meet these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the
commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and
landscaping. Staff is recommending the following setbacks.
J
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 17
Street
Hwy. 101
Hwy. 212
West 86th Street
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
BLOCK USE
Outlot
1 (villas)
2 &3
4 (garden homes)
ROW
West 86th St
Hwy 212 and 101
TOTAL AREA
Commercial
136 Multi - Family units
16 Single - Family units
56 Multi- Family Units
Street and court
Right -of -Way
Right -of -Way
Net Lot
Density*
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Parking
Parking
Building Setback
Building Setback
Setback
Setback
50'
50'
20'
50'
50'
50'
20'
50'
50'
30'
20'
50'
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
BLOCK USE
Outlot
1 (villas)
2 &3
4 (garden homes)
ROW
West 86th St
Hwy 212 and 101
TOTAL AREA
Commercial
136 Multi - Family units
16 Single - Family units
56 Multi- Family Units
Street and court
Right -of -Way
Right -of -Way
Net Lot
Density*
H a r d
Area
Surface
CNMF
7.72 acres
18.00 acres
7.55
37%
8.55 acres
2.24
8.92 acres
6.28
49%
1.17 acres
2.23 acres
18.68 acres
61.67±
* The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium
density, 4 -8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre,
which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area
west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units
per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD
ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to
this transfer. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this transfer
at the time of conceptual approval.
Lot Lot Home Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 18
10' sides
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
23,374
117.48
198.83
Lot 2
20,196
100.30
201.96
Lot 3
20,824
100.31
208.23
Lot 4
21,386
100.17
212.5
Lot 5
20,898
100.45
207
Lot 6
21,566
116
189
Lot 7
22,006
125
176.5
BLOCK
3
Lot 1
16,349
108
150
Lot 2
15,126
95.6
155
Lot 3
15,554
90
172
Lot 4
16,185
90
180
Lot 5
15,232
127
134.5
Lot 6
24,778
55.62*
189.06
Lot 7
25,092
78.30*
189
Lot 8
15,752
76.6*
135.25
Lot 9
17,026
112
147.5
*
denotes lots located on a cul-de -sac
e. Building Materials and Design
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 19
RESIDENTIAL
J
Applicant's Proposal The developer is proposing that the building's exterior material be
a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is
generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries
of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two -story windows. On
a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring
pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick.
Finding The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1,
reflect some architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story
units located on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be
added to give the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape
of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
COMMERCIAL
Intent The commercial develompent shall physically blend with the residential
component.
1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be
used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one
of the above materials or curtain wall on office components.
6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials.
8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line.
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 20
9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building. '
RESIDENTIAL
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum '
siding and brick.
2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story
units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some
variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers,
shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell ,
white, etc.).
4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard.
5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
'
P g g
Applicant's Proposal The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a
strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash,
Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination
of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living ,
areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted
with the introduction of native wetland species.
Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the
PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a ,
separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet
high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right -of -way. These berms shall be
seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas
within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum
of a 2 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall
consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree.
1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or
covered with plantings and/or lawn material. ,
2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 21
3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be
required where deemed appropriate.
4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas
proposed for future development.
g. Signage
COMMERCIAL
Applicant's Proposal None.
Finding Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one
monument sign for the residential section of the PUD.
1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument
signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet).
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the
building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural
feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section
of the PUD.
7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height.
9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
RESIDENTIAL
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 22
One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The
sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height.
h. Lighting
Findin '
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for '
site lighting shall be no more than l6 candle at the property line. This does not
apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not
exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outiot shall not exceed 25 feet.
2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall
not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. '
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions.
4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. I
GRADING AND DRAINAGE .
The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. '
The previous grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order
to develop the house pads for the multiple and single - family dwelling units. Elevations of the ,
existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the
east end. The preliminary grading plan proposes building floor elevations for the multi- dwelling
units north of 86th Street between 902 and 910 which is best suited given the size of the units.
The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898.
The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This
variety in elevation will not maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today, however,
it is difficult to do so with this type of development (multi-family - large building pads, etc.).
The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered
in order to be compatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does not
believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted further in
elevation to give some variety and different appearance without reducing the number of units.
on grading single-family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans
'
The plans also propose gr g g y g P
propose the lots to be a variety of split -entry to walkout -type homes. The overall grading plan
does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. In order to avoid excessive runoff '
rates and ponding along the back yards of Lots 1 -7, Block 2, staff thinks that the applicant should
install periodic catch basins and storm sewer with a culvert under 86th Street. The storm sewer
I
r_l
L
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 23
should discharge into the pond on the north side of wetland A24 -3(1). The grading plans do not
propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. This can be addressed when a site
plan is submitted for the site. However, drainage from future development of the outlot should
be addressed at this time.
A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the
development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be constructed
in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. Berming has been provided along proposed T. H. 101.
The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the
future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel
roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right -of-
ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of
Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The street
was relocated northerly to avoid filling the wetland. West 86th Street is proposed to be graded
within one (1) foot of the normal water level (NWL) of the wetland and pond. This will create
problems with the street's structural integrity. West 86th Street will have to be raised to 4 feet
above the NWL of all ponding and wetland areas.
The entire development proposes three storm water drainage basins designed to meet the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. These NURP ponds are necessary to pre -treat
stormwater prior to discharging into the wetlands. The conceptual plan has not yet specified the
stormwater drainage patterns that will direct runoff to the drainage basins. Staff will require
storm sewer and runoff calculations and ponding data prior to final platting. As a rule, the
surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the pre - developed runoff
rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event through the use of stormwater detention/retention
facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10 -year storm
event. Staff will also require calculations of pre - development runoff rates to the existing wetland
basins in order to compare runoff rates to these basins after the site has been fully developed.
The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and
maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of
improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan
and specification review process.
It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are
proposed to be private. Staff has determined that maintenance responsibilities of the storm water
retention ponds shall be provided by the city in order to ensure proper drainage through the
development once the site is built out.
UTILITIES
The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right -of -way and "A" Street and Court
shall be a private utility system and maintained by the homeowners association. Due to the
magnitude of this project, the City will require that all utilities be installed in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement
shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City's fire marshal recommendations.
The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the 1
curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade
drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the
applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require
that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have
no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. '
STREETS
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 24
,
The previous staff report on the conceptual review of this development indicated that the
feasibility report for the Lake Riley Hills development would have to be upgraded. Since that
'
staff report, the feasibility study has been upgraded to reflect the current development needs in
the area. A public hearing is scheduled on June 13, 1994 to consider the Lake Riley Area
improvements. This development relies on the water service which is proposed to be extended
'
as a part of the Lake Riley Area Improvement Project (Project No. 93 -32). Without these public
improvements, this project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint due to the inadequacy
of municipal water service to the site. Therefore the project should be contingent upon the City
authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No.
93 -32.
i restraints in the existing sanitary Staff has also reviewed the capacity 8 sewer line along Lake
Susan. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer service from the existing trunk line
located in Trunk Highway 101. Staff has determined that there will be sufficient capacity in the
,
existing trunkmain as long as the new trunk sanitary sewer improvements which are proposed
within the feasibility study for the Lake Riley Area improvements are followed. The Lake Riley
Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project will sustain assessments against this development for
'
both trunk and lateral sanitary sewer and water benefits. The feasibility study for the Lake Riley
Area improvements has calculated the estimated assessments for this development.
The applicant has modified their utility layout plan to incorporated installation of a 12 -inch
watermain along future 86th Street consistent with the feasibility study. Depending on
scheduling, the City may allow the applicant to install the 12 -inch watermain proposed along 86th
Street. The City would apply a credit towards the applicants overall assessments for said
construction. The credit would be applied for the oversizing cost difference between the 8 -inch
'
watermain and the 12 -inch watermain.
The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right -of -way and "A" Street and Court
shall be a private utility system and maintained by the homeowners association. Due to the
magnitude of this project, the City will require that all utilities be installed in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement
shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City's fire marshal recommendations.
The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the 1
curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade
drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the
applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require
that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have
no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. '
STREETS
I Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 25
The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th
Street east of Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24 -foot
wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards
with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right -of -way or easements
over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6
years and, therefore, the City has established the right to use the street for public travel.
I
0
The concept plan proposes on dedicating a 60 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street as well as
"A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single -
family) that the 60 -foot wide right -of -way may be insufficient. The right -of -way for 86th street
appears to widen as it approaches Highway 101. Due to the intense land use, staff's initial
reaction is that an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street.
Beyond that, the 60 -foot wide right -of -way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th
Street to be upgraded to a 32 -foot wide urban street. Staff feels that due to the intense use it
shall be increased to a minimum of 36 -foot within a 60 foot right -of -way east of the commercial
outlot with no parking restricted on one side of 86th Street. "A" Street and Court shall be the
city's typical urban street section (31 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter back to back). The
plans also propose a sidewalk/trail along the south side of 86th Street. An additional trail
easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be
determined during construction plan review and approval process. The sidewalk along West 86th
Street should be a 6 (six) feet wide. A 5 foot wide cone sidewalk should also be extended north
along the west side of "A" Street for future looping back to T. H. 101.
T. H. 101 is a major collector street and will serve as the only access to the site. Currently, T.
H. 101 carries approximately 4400 vehicle trips per day. A 66 foot right -of -way currently exists.
Unfortunately, T. H. 101 is classified as a temporary state highway and as such, it has no
improvement funding source. MnDOT wants to turn over T. H. 101 to Carver County or the
city. Because of imminent development, the city has officially mapped the future Hwy. 101
corridor through this area. The plans appear to be compatible with the approved Hwy. 101
alignment.
The city or county have no immediate plans for upgrading Hwy. 101. Long range planning has
this section of Hwy. 101 earmarked for upgrading sometime after 1997. In the meantime, safety
related improvements such as the proposed intersection improvements (turn lanes) will have to
be provided by the applicant in conjunction with the first phase of development. Since Hwy. 101
will be upgraded by the city, the applicant should dedicate a portion of the right -of -way with this
development. This type of street would normally require a 100 foot wide right -of -way. The
approved highway alignment consumes approximately the westerly 230 feet± of the site. Staff
recommends the applicant dedicate with the final plat, the westerly 50 feet as right -of -way and
the remaining 190 feet± as an outlot for future acquisition. Since the city will be a major
participant in funding the upgrade of Hwy. 101, this parcel may sustain assessments for their fair
share of the benefit. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or
Mission Hills PUD �
May 26, 1993
Page 26
letter of credit for future upgrading of Hwy. 101. The amount of escrow will have to be
determined after a preliminary design or feasibility study for upgrading T.H. 101 north of the T.
H. 212 interchange.
The interior streets are proposed to be private. The homeowners association will be responsible '
for maintaining the private streets. The streets are fairly well laid out. They provide a "looped"
street system for good circulation. The intersections along 86th Street are• spaced appropriately
except the first street east of Outlot A and south of 86th Street. However, due to constraints such '
as the wetland and proposed access to Outlot A, staff feels comfortable with the intersection
location. The plans have been revised to eliminate individual driveway curb cuts along 86th
Street for the multiple dwelling units. '
Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and
formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest '
edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include
construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant
to MnDOT standards /comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway '
101 right -of -way will require a permit from MnDOT. Due to the public improvements proposed
for the site, the applicant will be required to enter into a Planned Unit Development
(PUD)/Development Contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee construction of the public utility and street improvements and comply with the
conditions of final plat approval. 1
The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way for future extension
of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. The entire length of 86th Street shall be constructed
with the first phase /addition. I
During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall '
provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as
well as emergency vehicles.
Wetlands and Proposed Alterations
The property appears to contain three wetlands and one of the wetlands will be filled as a
consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site:
Basin A - Basin A is located just south of the proposed location for 86th Street and is classified '
as a semi - permanently flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin
PEM/UBF; Circular 39 Type 5 inland open freshwater). The City of Chanhassen has classified
this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate
functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 2.4 acres. The street
should be realigned to avoid impact to the wetland.
I Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
' Page 27
Basin B - Basin B is partially located in the southeast corner of the property and is classified as
a partially ditched/drained seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland
(Cowardin PEM/UBCd; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh). The
City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the
wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural and urban development
impacts. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland does not appear to be filled as a
result of the proposed development.
It appears that there will be no fill or excavation to the existing wetlands on site.
t
1
Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval
This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed
setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips
for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths
are as follows:
Wetland
Buffer
Buffer Strip
% Native
Structure Setback
Type
Strip
Minimum
Vegetation in
from Outer Edge of
Average Width
Buffer Strip
Buffer Strip
Ag/Urban
1 0 -30 ft
10 ft
Optional
40 ft
The amount of native vegetation within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban
wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the
buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with
a city approved monument on each lot.
Erosion Control
Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III
erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All site
restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue
acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices.
PARK AND RECREATION
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying in park deficiency area #2 (see map and
Zone 2 narrative). The 2000 Land Use Plan identified a 20± acre site to the east of the proposed
subdivision as future park/open space (see attachments). A design study for this future park/open
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: I
The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling
new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. '
As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed
in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls
for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 '
to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into
the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 28
'
space has not been completed, thus it cannot be predicted what type of facilities could be
developed on this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212
'
and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified the land in this area lying in
Eden Prairie as future open space. They are planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east
of this location. A second proposed park site was identified in the southeast quadrant of this
zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. This future park, if acquired and
developed however, would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212.
'
Durin g initial conversations with the applicant concerns that a recreational amenity of some sort
had not been included in a plan to develop 192 dwellings which will assumedly house in excess
of 400 new residents were expressed. The general response received centered on two things:
'
1) the applicant asserted that the targeted demographics of the development will not require park
space, specifically play equipment, and 2) an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order
to produce an affordable end result. The position that the people who would eventually purchase
'
these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment and/or
other park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value open
space /parks and recreational amenities. The city's recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan
'
states that park and open space fulfill three primary functions. "First they meet positive human
needs both physically and psychologically. The second function of parks and open space is to
enhance and protect the resource space. The third function of parks and open space concerns
economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate
values."
A suggestion was made to convert one of the lots located south of the wetland from a four -plex
unit into a recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest
wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street
across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The applicant has complied with this
request and has provided a 1.3 acre area for it as shown on the site plan which is quite small,
'
however, in the range of one -half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or
association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but
typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and
'
basketball courts, etc.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: I
The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling
new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. '
As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed
in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls
for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 '
to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into
the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed
I Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 29
"A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's
' future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates
the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. This type
of trail would typically be constructed with a bituminous surface and its construction would be
' considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the
system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the Engineering
Department. Sidewalks do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission
' and are not considered for trail fee credits. These concepts of a park space interrelated with a
sidewalk/trail are depicted on the attached plan. The presence of the neighborhood commercial
area would benefit greatly from such a system.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan
#94 -5 as shown on the plans dated April, 15, 1994, subject to the following condition:
1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance
' with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant
will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street
improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the
subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits
such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT.
3. The number of water quality ponds shall be reduced to three. All water quality treatment
ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP
standards. The City will be maintaining the retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant
' shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the
retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and
should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall
' be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
4. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the
applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The
oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch
watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's
recommendations.
r
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 30
5. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted
to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat I
approval.
6. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and
retention ponds prior to final plat approval. The storm sewers shall be designed for a.10-
year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped
and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. The outlet of the retention
pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond
shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's
storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant
shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding.
7. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the city council authorizing and
awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk water facilities to
service this site.
8. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk
Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both
landscaping materials and berming.
9. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent
dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm
sewer.
10. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of site
adjacent to T. H. 101 for right -of -way. The remaining 230 feet± shall be platted as an
outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition.
11. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant
shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on
Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles.
12. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report.
13. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within
Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas.
L F
t
14. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along
Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and
residential lots.
r
w
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 31
' 15. Meet the following conditions of the P ark and recreation commission.
A. The Tot Park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped
grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball
' courts, etc.
B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th
' Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core
sidewalk on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus.
' C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the
sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said
trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction.
Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with
documentation for verification.
F
II
1 - 1
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the
rate then in force.
16. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage
limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and
development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the
developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is
being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we
believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the
ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community.
We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate
the Planning Commission's input.
17. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the
potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been
actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and
this may be a good site.
18. Approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley
Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32.
19. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk
construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval
process.
u
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 32
20. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor
Study design standards.
21. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for approval.
22. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed.
Addition monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire
Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Policy enclosed.
23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street.
Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant
to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207 (a).
24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, Le, street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants.
The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant
to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403.
26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred and fifty (150) feet
of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302.
27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991
Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (c).
28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall
be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When
buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the
provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen
Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203 exc. #1.
29. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city
shall determine type and placement.
30. The city council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south
side of W. 86th Street.
0
r
F
L
h
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 33
PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
' "Approval of the preliminary PUD development plan with the following standards:
' a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density
' housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards
while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to
be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through
site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone shall be limited to
appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall
' be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use
meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of
uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
' service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to
medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience
store, churches, or other similar uses.
' c. Setbacks
' In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public
right -of -way. The Planning Commission and City Council recommended the standards
in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This will result
' in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101 and 212,
and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on the outlot must meet
these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the
' commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and
landscaping. Staff is recommending the following setbacks.
Ll
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 34
Residential Commercial
Street Commercial Residential Parking Parking
Building Setback Building Setback Setback Setback
Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' 50'
Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' 50'
West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' 50'
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
BLOCK USE Net Lot Density* H a r d
Area Surface
CNMW
Outlot Commercial 7.72 acres
1 136 Multi - Family units 18.00 acres 7.55 37%
2 &3 16 Single - Family units 8.55 acres 2.24
4 56 Multi - Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 49%
ROW Street and court 1.17 acres
West 86th St Right -of -Way 2.23 acres
Hwy 212 and 101 Right -of -Way 18.68 acres
TOTAL AREA 61.67±
* The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium
density, 4 -8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre,
which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area
west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units
per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD
ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to
this transfer. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this transfer
at the time of conceptual approval.
Lot Lot Home Home
Single Area Width Depth Setback
Family
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear
10' sides
BLOCK 2
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 35
Lot 1 23,374
117.48
198.83
Lot 2 20,196
100.30
201.96
Lot 3 20,824
100.31
208.23
Lot 4 21,386
100.17
212.5
Lot 5 20,898
100.45
207
Lot 6 21,566
116
189
Lot 7 22,006
125
176.5
BLOCK 3
Lot 1 16,349
108
150
Lot 2 15,126
95.6
155
Lot 3 15,554
90
172
Lot 4 16,185
90
180
Lot 5 15,232
127
134.5
Lot 6 24,778
55.62*
189.06
Lot 7 25,092
78.30*
189
Lot 8 15,752
76.6*
135.25
Lot 9 17,026
112
147.5
* denotes lots located on a cul -de -sac
e. Building Materials and Design
RESIDENTIAL
Building's exterior
material shall be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and
brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 36 ,
soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows
over the two -story windows. '
The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1, reflect some ,
architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story units located
on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give
the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape of windows, '
adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
COMMERCIAL
,
1.
All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be
used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels.
,
2.
Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
'
3.
Block shall have a weathered face or be P olished, fluted, or broken face.
4.
Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone,
,
textured or coated.
5.
Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one
'
of the above materials or curtain wall on office components.
6.
All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
'
structure.
7.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen
,
fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials.
,
S.
All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line.
9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the I
building.
RESIDENTIAL I
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum
siding and brick. I
I Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
' Page 37
2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story
' units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some
variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers,
shifting entry ways, and adding dormers.
3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell
white, etc.).
' 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard.
5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
' The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree
plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple.
' Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees
and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with
the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of
' native wetland species.
In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD
' zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a
separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet
' high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right -of -way. These berms shall be
seeded and /or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas
within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum
of a 2 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall
consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree.
1. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
' 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be
' required where deemed appropriate.
4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas
proposed for future development.
g. Signage
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 38
COMMERCIAL
Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one monument sign
for the residential section of the PUD.
1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument
signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet).
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the
building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural
feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section
of the PUD.
7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height.
9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
RESIDENTIAL
One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The
sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height.
h. Lighting
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for
site lighting shall be no more than �i candle at the property line. This does not
apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not
exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet.
I
1
0
Mission Hills PUD
May 26, 1993
Page 39
2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall
not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions.
4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards.
5. Lights along the private streets shall be ornamental and of human scale. Lights
along West 86th Street shall be provided. The city shall determine type and
placement.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project summary.
2. City Council minutes dated November 22, 1993.
3. Plans
R,
� T1rP
20' ?0
20'
ACCEPTABLE
/1LT ERNATrvE TO
1 20' KWMERHEAD
/41�ac1�m=ri� #2
P. 02
7TLU" HOMESM
A nnTCr <ri QF 9 n q Ko'rtUrs Mfr JqY, EqQ
Mr. lfayor and Members of the City Council July. 1, 1994
City Staff
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MIN 55317
' Re; Mission Hills neigbborboods
' This letter is to affirm The Rottlund Company, Inc.'s interest in having the City of Chanhassen approve the
proposed plans for lYlission Hills. As the builder of the attached housing products within this neighborhood, we
loot; fonvard to providing new alternative housing options for the varied segments of the public interested in
liNing iri Chanhassen. We view this location as being important for two specific categories of the.. public,
' natneh firs* time or entry level butters, and the down sizing market (semi retired or empty nester).
Our production department has met with your Engineering, Building, and Fire M;krchali staff to rmiew the
' extenor building circulation and interior construction techniques; the model home building needs and goals,
sales trai ter zequixements, and the present day ahilit► of the fire deparbinent to serve and protect this area
ahead of nets water lines. Your staff informs us that the current di. afrhing .h .cr.-M rerogni.:es that there is
no pressurized water in this area of the City, and until the trunk lines are completed due to the Mission Hills
' project, they Kill always send tankerlpumper fire apparatus if a call were to occur We also discussed that
since 86th currently e-v&s as a gravel road that we can huild our using 86th as access
without permanent asphalt or water in place.
' We understand that in the Villa neighborhood, the 8 and 12 unit hniidings will nr..ed to be fire sprinkled duc to
exceeding the 3500 SF threshold adopted by the City. The 6 unit and 4 unit buildings are not required to be
' fire sprinkled by the City Code. In the Garden Home neighborhood, no buildings will be sprinkled as they are
town house platting, and meet fire and building code protection requircmet+ts using fire walls.
Planning staff has requested a building color and facade amendment from our initial proposal for the Garden
' Homes. which we have accommodated The attached summary descn'bes colors for the development.
Our Villa litre typically serves entry- level buyers such as singles, women, young couples and in most
' neiQhhorhnodc, about 10 older buym. abc;* the age of 55. Housing prices normally vary betweon S69,9oo
and 589.900. We imagine similar pricing here. The orientation and inti roduction of a brand new variation we
are calling a Villa Townhome create the larger dollar variation in price. The sketches attached show that all
end units come with a two car garage. Square footage ivill vary from 1080 SF to 1237 SF,
The Garden Home is targeted for empty Heaters with over 1104 SF and 1200 SF for the interior and end units
respectively, In Woodbury and Eagan (our first locations for this product) these homes are selling from
'
S Our focus is buyers who are solid creditworthy citizens who either don't have substantial
equity, or who choose not to totally use up what equity they do have. Several of our current buyers are single
heads of households with no immediate plans to change that status, hence the appropriateness of a single car
' garage.
Q
rQUAL HOMING
mrortruw,n
2681 LONG UKE ROAD ROSEMLL NIN 55113 (612) 638 -0500 PAX (612) 638 -050
a �_ 94 ^75739 P. 03
3L IL-06- �4 1�1 � �� FROf�I TO
Coxxncii and Staff
July 1991
page - 2
Your direction to staff to work with Tandem in a posith-v and reasonable manner will allow these
neighborhoods a chance to have a good first showing in the Builders Association fall Parade of Homes. To
date, many requirements and conditions of approval have come unexpected and late in the miew process.
We look fom-a d to your approval of this neighborhood so that Tandem development can deliver us and the .
City an opportunity to provide housing to two demographic sectors Chanhassen has worked hard to obtain
(servim sector) and keep (semi - retirees). Thank you in ach ance for your unanimous vote of approval for this
development.
Resp Ily submit d.
Do al.d Jenson
Land Development alter
cc: Dick Putnam -- Tandem Dm elopment
Todd Stutz. Rottlund Homes
chanmem2.docidjlm;
JUL -s=ir 1?`- -4 14:33 FROM TO 99- F.04
1
ROTTLUND HOMES 2681. Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN 55113, 638 0500
I July 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To. Doti J., Bob P., Kathy D., Janicc R., Nlike S., Kathy G., Chori P. and Duane J., Mike L.
' From: Todd Stutz
Re: Mission Hills Color Selection - Revised 7/6/94
' Charihasscn, MN
' MISSION HILLS (CHANHASSEN)
' Garden Homes
Brick ............................. ........ ....................... Birchwood (Queensize) Ochs
Door Accent && Shutters ............................... Sherwin Williams "Neptune Blue" & "Bordeaux"
' Shingles ...................... ............................... Crestwood Shadow Shale
Soflit/FacWChimney Cap Aluminum............ Snowmist
' Vinyl Siding ....
.......................... .............Antique White
Vinyl Trim. Windows /Patio Doors ....... White
' Villas
Brick ............................. ............... . en ............... Birchwood (Quesizo) Ochs
Door Accent ................. ............................... Neptune Blue (SW 2399)
' Shingles ....................... ............................... Crestwood Shadow Shale
Soffit/Facia/Chimney Cap ............................. Snowmist
Vinyl Siding .................. .......... ..................... Sandalwood
' Vinyl Trim Wiadows/Patio Doors ................ White
Row Style Villa
Brick ............................. ............................... Birchwood (Queensize) Ochs
Door Accent ................. ............................... Neptune Blue (SW 2399)
' Shingles ........................ ............................... Crestwood Shadow Shale
Soffit/Facia/Chimney Cap ............................. Snowmist
Vinyl Siding .................. ............................... Sandalwood
' Vinyl Trim Window0atio Doors ................ White
I COLORSMH.DOC (lv)
'O" r 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation
0 Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
or Roseville, Minnesota 55113
June 23, 1994 '
Sharmin Al -Jaff
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 i
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sharmin Al -Jaff: '
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Review '
Mission Hills
East of TH 101, north of 86th Street West
Chanhassen, Carver County '
CS 1009
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has reviewed the Mission Hills '
preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat
acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• The proposed berm encroaches onto the officially mapped TH 212 corridor, but appears
compatible with the future TH 101 and TH 212 interchange design. Any landscaping in '
this area will be disturbed during construction and possibly the berm. Questions should
be directed to Evan Green, PreDesign Section, at 582 -1303.
• urrent drainage patterns and rates of runoff to the TH 101 right of way '
C g Pa g Y must be
maintained. Approval and permits from the Riley Bluff and Purgatory Creek Watershed '
District and from the Corps of Engineers may be required. If you have questions
regarding drainage, please contact Bonnie Peterson, Hydraulics Section, at 593 -8505.
• An access permit will be required for the connection of 86th Street onto TH 101. The '
limited sight distances at this point will create a problem, and by -pass and turn lanes will
be required. Access to TH 101 from outlot A will not be allowed. All access to the site '
should be from 86th Street. Please contact Bill Warden of our Permits Office at 582-
1443 for applications and questions about the permit process.
F. EC;i:.iVED'
- 1 24
An Equal Opportunity Employer I
Sharmin Al -Jaff
June 23, 1994
' Page Two
If you have any questions regarding this review please contact me.
I Sincerely,
Cyrus K'Iutson
' Transportation Planner
cc: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
' John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor
0
CTLUND HOMES
A DIVISION OF THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council
City Staff
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Mission Hills neighborhoods
July 1, 1994
' This letter is to affirm The Rottlund Company, Inc.'s interest in having the City of Chanhassen approve the
proposed plans for Mission Hills. As the builder of the attached housing products within this neighborhood, we
look forward to providing new alternative housing options for the varied segments of the public interested in
' living in Chanhassen. We view this location as being important for two specific categories of the public,
namely first time or entry level buyers, and the down sizing market (semi retired or empty nester).
' Our production department has met with your Engineering, Building, and Fire Marshall staff to review the
exterior building circulation and interior construction techniques; the model home building needs and goals,
sales trailer requirements, and the present day ability of the fire department to serve and protect this area
ahead of new water lines. Your staff informs us that the current dispatching system recognizes that there is
no pressurized water in this area of the City, and until the trunk lines are completed due to the Mission Hills
project, they will always send tankerlpumper fire apparatus if a call were to occur We also discussed that
since 86th currently exists as a gravel road, that we can build our model structures using 86th as access
' without permanent asphalt or water in place.
1]
F'
L
We understand that in the Villa neighborhood, the 8 and 12 unit buildings will need to be fire sprinkled due to
exceeding the 8500 SF threshold adopted by the City. The 6 unit and 4 unit buildings are not required to be
fire sprinkled by the City Code. In the Garden Home neighborhood, no buildings will be sprinkled as they are
town house platting, and meet fire and building code protection requirements using fire walls.
Planning staff has requested a building color and facade amendment from our initial proposal for the Garden
Homes, which we have accommodated. The attached summary describes colors for the development.
Our Villa line typically serves entry level buyers such as singles, women, young couples and in most
neighborhoods, about 10% older buyers above the age of 55. Housing prices normally vary between $69,900
and $89,900. We imagine similar pricing here. The orientation and introduction of a brand new variation we
are calling a Villa Townhome create the larger dollar variation in price. The sketches attached show that all
end units come with a two car garage. Square footage will vary from 1080 SF to 1237 SF.
The Garden Home is targeted for empty nesters with over 1100 SF and 1200 SF for the interior and end units
respectively. In Woodbury and Eagan (our first locations for this product) these homes are selling from
$79,900 to $92,900. Our focus is buyers who are solid credit worthy citizens who either don't have substantial
equity, or who choose not to totally use up what equity they do-have. Several of our current buyers are single
heads of households with no immediate plans to change that status, hence the appropriateness of a single car
garage.
19
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
2681 LONG LAKE ROAD ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 (612) 638 -0500 FAX (612) 638 -0501
Council and Staff
July 1994
Page - 2
' Your direction to staff to work with Tandem in a positive and reasonable manner will allow these
neighborhoods a chance to have a good first showing in the Builders Association fall Parade of Homes. To
date, many requirements and conditions of approval have come unexpected and late in the review process.
' We look forward to your approval of this neighborhood so that Tandem development can deliver us and the
City an opportunity to provide housing to two demographic sectors Chanhassen has worked hard to obtain
' (service sector) and keep (semi- retirees). Thank you in advance for your unanimous vote of approval for this
development.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Jensen
Land Development Manager
I cc:
I I
� I
� I
Dick Putnam -- Tandem Development
Todd Stutz, Rottlund Homes
chanmem2. doc \dj\m:
ROTTLUND HOMES m
A DIVISION OF THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
InterOff ice Memo
To: VP Sales & Marketing John Dierbeck,
Admin. Assistant Kathy Gardas,
n
Note to City Council & Staff.
The planning division has requested Rottlund change the standard end elevation for our Garden
Homes. Staffs position is that our uniformity for 12 buildings, with a maximum of five buildings per
viewing direction constitutes a boring, or cookie cutter approach. We do not agree that the
neighborhood laid out by Westwood Engineering and Tandem Development, or Rottlund's building
design has any potential for blighting or harm to the public health, safety and welfare due to
uniformity of our bedroom egress accent windows. However, we have agreed to modify the transom
window over the bedroom on every other building to a half round window, in addition to changing the
accent colors for doors and adding shutters for increased visual interest. The owners of the Rottlund
Co. feel very strongly that uniformity of siding color is important in our association neighborhoods. At
this time we have not shied the siding colors in the 12 building Garden Home neighborhood
Our service department is currently experiencing some difficulties with many of the rounded tivindows
due to construction difficulties in creating a tight and uniform weatherseal around the round window
as we can with square shapes. Should this continue to be a problem, we would appreciate the right to
discuss this with the City Manager or Building official, not the planning department, in order to
minimize customer complaints and problems in the future regarding this personal esthetic taste issue.
Pursuant to conditions of approval for the Chanhassen Mission Hills project, the following buildings will
be sold with half round windows over the bedroom window on the end units versus the transom window
shown on the construction plans and which exists in the model unit. See attached plan. There will be no
deviation from this PUD plan for buyer preference.
Should there continue to be service problems with the half round window, we will discuss an alternative
window with Chanhassen.
Shutter Details will remain the same, but the accent colors will vary, see building color list.
"A" unit Window schedule over bedroom access window
Building 1: Transom Windows Building 2: Half Round Windows
Building 3: Transom Windows
Building 5: Transom Windows
Building 7: Transom Windows
Building 9: Transom Windows
Building 11: Transom Windows
Building 4: Half Round Windows
Building 6: Half Round Windows
Building 8: Half Round Windows
Building 10: Half Round Windows
- Building 12: Half Round Windows
cc: Sales Builder Representatives Mission Hills
chanmem3:n:dj
1
EQUAL MOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
2681 LONG LAKE ROAD ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 ( 612) 6 -0 FAX (612) 638 -0501
Sales Manager Cheri Peterson,
Production Mgr. Steve Swanson,
'
Exec. VP Todd Stutz
From: Donald Jensen
'
Date: July 7, 1994
Subject: Mission Hills Garden Homes Building facade modifications from standard elevations
n
Note to City Council & Staff.
The planning division has requested Rottlund change the standard end elevation for our Garden
Homes. Staffs position is that our uniformity for 12 buildings, with a maximum of five buildings per
viewing direction constitutes a boring, or cookie cutter approach. We do not agree that the
neighborhood laid out by Westwood Engineering and Tandem Development, or Rottlund's building
design has any potential for blighting or harm to the public health, safety and welfare due to
uniformity of our bedroom egress accent windows. However, we have agreed to modify the transom
window over the bedroom on every other building to a half round window, in addition to changing the
accent colors for doors and adding shutters for increased visual interest. The owners of the Rottlund
Co. feel very strongly that uniformity of siding color is important in our association neighborhoods. At
this time we have not shied the siding colors in the 12 building Garden Home neighborhood
Our service department is currently experiencing some difficulties with many of the rounded tivindows
due to construction difficulties in creating a tight and uniform weatherseal around the round window
as we can with square shapes. Should this continue to be a problem, we would appreciate the right to
discuss this with the City Manager or Building official, not the planning department, in order to
minimize customer complaints and problems in the future regarding this personal esthetic taste issue.
Pursuant to conditions of approval for the Chanhassen Mission Hills project, the following buildings will
be sold with half round windows over the bedroom window on the end units versus the transom window
shown on the construction plans and which exists in the model unit. See attached plan. There will be no
deviation from this PUD plan for buyer preference.
Should there continue to be service problems with the half round window, we will discuss an alternative
window with Chanhassen.
Shutter Details will remain the same, but the accent colors will vary, see building color list.
"A" unit Window schedule over bedroom access window
Building 1: Transom Windows Building 2: Half Round Windows
Building 3: Transom Windows
Building 5: Transom Windows
Building 7: Transom Windows
Building 9: Transom Windows
Building 11: Transom Windows
Building 4: Half Round Windows
Building 6: Half Round Windows
Building 8: Half Round Windows
Building 10: Half Round Windows
- Building 12: Half Round Windows
cc: Sales Builder Representatives Mission Hills
chanmem3:n:dj
1
EQUAL MOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
2681 LONG LAKE ROAD ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 ( 612) 6 -0 FAX (612) 638 -0501
ROTTLUND HOMES 2681 Long Lake Road, Roseville, MN 5:5113,638-0500
July 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM
I To: <on Bob P., Kathy D., Janice R., Mike S., Kathy G., Cheri P. and Duane J., Mike E.
MISSION HILLS (CHANHASSEN)
' Garden Homes
Brick............... ...............................
Door Accent & Shutters .................
' Shingles ........- ................
Soffit/Facia/Chimney Cap Aluminur.
' Vinyl Siding .... ...............................
Vinyl Trim Windows/Patio Doors..
.............. Birchwood (Queensize) Ochs
.............. Sherwin Williams "Neptune Blue" & 'Bordeaux
............. Crestwood Shadow Shale
a............ Snowmist
.............. Antique White
.............. White
' Villas
Brick ............................. ............................... Birchwood (Queensize) Ochs
Door Accent ........................ ........................ Neptune Blue (SW 2399)
' Shingles ........................ ............................... Crestwood Shadow Shale
Soffit/Facia/Chimney Cap ............................. Snowmist
Vinyl Siding .................. ............................... Sandalwood
' Vinyl Trim Windows/Patio Doors ................ White
Row Style Villa
Brick ............................. ............................... Birchwood (Queensize) Ochs
Door Accent ................. ............................... Neptune Blue (SW 2399)
Shingles ........................ ............................... Crestwood Shadow Shale
Soffit/Facia/Chimney Cap ............................. Snowmist
Vinyl Siding .................. ............................... Sandalwood
Vinyl Trim Windows/Patio Doors ................ White
From: Todd Stutz
Re: Mission Hills Color Selection - Revised 7/6/94
Chanhassen, MN
I COLORSMH.DOC (1v)
/� �; -.._._ � • wt��'�f�� NU�'� �ol� loll -
Qvoice
LV
bo
/ •. � � --- a .� 4 t h Gael
-
_�2� 3
w
1,
I
RM MR
' M XNEM
ol
Af
,�J G
2
't
� � �iirttt� rf�GIH, ��IT •� Z�,
I 6f- 4-OLF req)►D
V1 '.
N
Unit A I Unit A
Side Elevation
� L
r \
1
w
U
11-
/4` /2/
%-J i ll. L A K I v
Side Elev;
C � � Lys .�. �i \���'
.. .............. ... ....
....... NEI •
" NONNI
Mono
.OTrLUND
HOMTS
A WNISIO\ OF
THE ROTTLUND COMPANY. INC.
FACS2IILE COVER SHEET
Date:
Pages Sent (In luding Cover): � 1
TO:
Name
Company c ,W/V ylwg
Fax Phone
Telephone
F F ROM:
Name I�W ('�t 510
Company THE ROTTLUND CUMPANY
Fax Phone (612) 638-0503 l�l sfie
&16-6r,6 OA- t( s izes
Telephone (612) 638 -000
iMESSAGE:
� I
IL
Please reply
Please reply immediately
_ - No reply necessary
_X_ Ori;inal will follow `"/
- Original will NOT follow
skh = A X2.doc
t Phone 612 - 638 -0500
2681 Long Lake Road
Roseville. NIN 55113