Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
3. centex Conceptual PUD Approval
1 3 i , CITYOF t 4 PI CHANHASSEN 1 _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Adrn;nistrator 1 Endorse 1 ' .1.>“) A MEMORANDUM Mod. _.� Ra:ct; 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager DEw _I;, ,: ! L— Det, Suamitted to Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner 1 Y Date Submitted to Council DATE: November 17, 1993 11 - 22- - 1 1 SUBJ: Centex Conceptual PUD Approval At the last City Council meeting on November 8, this item was tabled generally because the City 1 Council felt it was premature to give conceptual approval before the adoption of the Highway 5 Corridor Study. Staff feels that while there are still some outstanding issues with this project, they will resolve themselves as the project evolves. I Staff is still recommending conceptual approval of the PUD for the following reasons: 1 1. Although the Highway 5 Corridor Study has not been adopted by the City, staff has used the proposed Highway 5 development and design standards to review this development. The development is consistent with the standards. I 2. The project is being rezoned to PUD. The PUD zoning allows the for e P J g g I development and design standards to be placed in the Development Contract assuring compliance. I 3. This project site is zoned for medium density residential. The density range is 4 - 8 units an acre. This project has a net density of 8 units an acre, which is within the net density range. The designation remains consistent with the t recommendations of the draft Hwy. 5 plan. 4. Two of the Policies of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to I "Provide adequate land for projected housing growth and to provide housing opportunities for persons of a range of income" and "The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single 1 family housing." The Centex proposal meets both of these policies. Attachments I 1. City Council minutes dated November 8, 1993. 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 3. Submittal of the $270.00 license fee. I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENT OF NATOLE PROPERTY ON TETON LANE. 1 Dave Hempel: We're putting forward the vacation of an easement granted a couple of years ago when there were city barricades placed on Teton Lane just north of the Curry Farms development. The city obtained a 12 I foot by 20 foot wide easement over a driveway at 6251 Teton Lane, the Natole residence. The purpose of this easement was to allow the city snow removal equipment to be able to turn around when plowing roads when it was a dead end segment. Recent roadway and utility improvements to Teton Lane has removed the barricade on Teton Lane and the city no longer needs this easement for turn around purposes. As such the property owners 1 have requested that the city vacate this easement. With that, we recommend approval. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? This is a public hearing. I Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? If not, can I have a motion for the vacation of easement? Resolution #93 -112: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt a resolution I vacating the public easement over the Natole driveway as contained in Easement Document No. 100505 and described in the attachment. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. . 1 ( ,.....,.... CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10, OR 12 UNITS EACH, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY. Public Present: • 1 Name Address I Dan Herbst Dan Blake 7640 Crimson Way Centex Real Estate Corporation Kate Aanenson: ...located on the southwest corner of TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The property is 1 approximately 90 acres in size. 2/3 of this is wetland which makes it a very unique site to develop. The comprehensive plan guides this for low density development and we're putting a collector road...connect to the school site on the other side of Galpin and bring it all the way across into the Opus property...There's a very I narrow window of getting this road across between Gaipin into the Gateway property based on the fact that there is a large DNR protected wetland. It slices the property, therefore...As you can see it's laid out, we're making it very small. The largest one being only 12 acres. Staff supports the recommendation for the PUD and the multi - family. There are several issues that need to be looked at. One is the Park Commission was looking at putting a park on this site or on the Gateway property but upon investigation and walking the site, it was determined that 1 13 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 part of this property is maybe unbuildable or unsuitable for development...where the road is going to cross so further investigation needs to be made of that issue. As far as a larger issue, this is one of the first projects ' going through the city that we've looked at under the new Highway 5 guidelines and we certainly want to give it critical review of the standards that we put together for that Highway 5. We asked, this is conceptual and I think at this point what they're looking at is getting some direction, a feeling as far as... This lot is similar to the one that they have in Eden Prairie...what the view would be from Highway 5. There will be garage doors facing, a lot of garage doors facing that view and they'are proposing some berming and some retaining walls. The information that we don't have at this time and...would be the amount of impervious surface and parking appears to meet the standards but we want more detail on lighting and also the environmental issues. As far as wetlands, there will be some mitigation of the wetlands. That probably can all be worked out as far as mitigation. Again as we stated, we do have some questions as far as what the buildable area is on that so they may not be able to get that number of units as proposed, 232 units. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else Kate? Kate Aanenson: Well, I was going to mention that the Planning Commission did have some concerns similar to...as far as...up against the new Highway 5 standards so at this point what we'd recommend is that you do give them conceptual approval. At least that they come forward with more specifics in respect to building materials and...Highway 5 development standards...recommend conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here? Is there anything you'd like to address regarding this? Maybe if you could just put that directly in front of the podium. The camera can pick it up then. Dan Blake: Mr. Mayor and members of Council. My name is Dan Blake. I work for Centex Real Estate 1 Corporation. We're here before you to, as Kate said, get a little direction. This project's had a lot of unknowns with the park and the road connection across to the Opus parcel. We felt it was important to get a concept plan and get that direction from the city. That was the only way I could firm it up. Just quickly, a little bit of the information about the site again. This being north to Highway 5. There's 4 parcels generally...through the middle. There's a piece of high ground down here that the Park Commission has, I believe pretty much committed to acquiring for part of their passive park area. And then this area what's being called the questionable area. We have done a soils investigation at that location and it's our opinion that it's buildable. It's a question of what cost and we're not sure yet. We're not even really ready to make that decision but we think it makes sense. There's so little of the site that's really useable. Just quickly again...picture what the building looks like. It's a 12, 10 or 8 unit building. This is one side of the 12 unit building. It shows 6 units. We do have garage doors but they are broken up. Mayor Chmiel: Can I ask you to just put that in front of the podium? The camera's not picking that up. Sorry, we lose it. I guess maybe if you could just hold that in front of the podium there so we can. Turn it around. However, so it can be televised as well. Dan Blake: So generally a two story building. Each unit is two stories. We've got brick on the lower areas and the...roof line which I think should generally meet some of the concerns of the Highway 5 corridor study. Quickly again I'm going to show you, if you can see this on the camera. Kind of a cross section coming to the site standing on Highway 5. Generally, you can see Galpin and a building. Then an open space, then a building and a space and a building and then the wide open space is the wetland. Trying to give you an idea of the percentage of the site covered with buildings. And this is to scale. It becomes out of scale because of it's smallness but that's generally the percentage of the site...obviously it's representing the landscaping... Really I 14 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 guess other than that I can answer any questions anybody would have. Again, we're just looking for some direction here as far as the general density. The clarification of the guide plan. What was medium density. What was low density and what direct do we need to go to go towards medium...as far as the Council's concerned. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this at this time? Okay. I see some of the things that concern me in just looking at that particular parcel. There's 232 units. I think it just doesn't fit in to that particular area. I have some concerns because of all the wetland that is there. I think we ' have other concerns as far as our Highway 5 development, and you're right. With some of the designs as you have them, landscaping may do some of the things but I'm not going to say it's going to totally take care of it. I did a few calculations here and I had come up with a lot less than 232 units. I have some real concerns. What's the spacing? Do you have any idea what your spacing's going to be between those buildings? 1 Dan Blake: The spacing in the front situation like this. We use about a 64 foot minimum, which would be 20 feet from the building to the curb. 24 foot roadway and then another 20 feet from the building to the curb on these courtyard areas. Spacing end to end vary from 20 to 30 feet to more, 100 and more feet depending on the orientation. Generally that 64 feet is the minimum which allows for the driveways to be...set back a little bit so the unit driveway length is between 22 and 26 feet long in front of the garage providing full parking space in front of each individual garage. Mayor Chmiel: Dave. In looking at that. Is there, what is our, for our collector road, what are we looking at for width? ' Dave Hempel: Right -of -way width. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Dave Hempel: Or street width? Right -of -way width, 80 feet. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And you're looking at what size road then? Dave Hempel: Anywhere from a 36 foot wide to 44 foot wide. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well, I don't want to sit here and just keep talking. I'm going to go to Richard. ' Councilman Wing: I guess I...wanted to address this tonight...I think the Council made it real clear some months ago that we had a priority in the city and the decision there was the Highway 5 corridor. The task force. The completion of that issue and get that on line and staff was told that they may have to take a moratorium on some of these developments and...Highway 5 corridor study has been to the Planning Commission at least twice that ' I'm aware of and both times has been shoved to the back of the meeting and just hasn't been dealt with. And there's an enormous educational process that has to occur at the Planning Commission before it even gets to the Council with...so on and so forth. The Highway 5 task force has their report...with another group of developers ' out on the southeast corner there. They can't come back until we get this complete...we'll have issues of roads and architectural standards and setbacks and...Highway 5 guidelines but we don't know what they are. They're not established yet. We haven't gone through the process...and it's a stand over situation...becomes the priority 1 here. That these developments are put on hold and every time this comes up we talk moratorium and every time we say we don't want a moratorium but we're not...Clearly the Planning Commission has not addressed it 1 15 • 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Clearly staff has not pushed it and we've lost site of our priorities. They have been buried in all the developments and we're looking at one or two of them tonight and...staff could not possibly have had time to look at these and have completed that study so that's my position. So I'd like to ask the Council's backing on instructing staff once again to give the Highway 5 corridor study top priority. That development be put behind us temporarily and if a moratorium is necessary, then we ought to move on it tonight to get the pressure off staff's back. They have a right to develop their property. We have to react, what is it 120 days I believe? 1 Roger Knutson: Correct. Councilman Wing: Well, staff has to react...Highway 5 is off limits to development until this study is 1 completed. And then I understand that the developers will come in and help get this thing going. The Planning Commission has only one job to do, in my opinion, and that's to deal with the Highway 5 corridor study and get it complete. They have a lot of work to do and a lot of education ahead of them and it's been sluffed off so I guess I'll leave it at that. I'm not willing to address this tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I full support Richard in all of his comments. I realize that this is just concept approval but I think, if we're at that stage yet, I still have many, many questions about what this is going to look like. Whether it's even appropriate for this area. Realizing that it is highway frontage, it may be an appropriate use but there are too many outstanding issues here to even give it concept approval this evening. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: Where does this stand with, not this in particular but Kate, with the Highway 5 plan. Stand with the Planning Commission right now. Kate Aanenson: We have a Saturday meeting, a special meeting scheduled for December 5th. We tentatively set the second Planning Commission meeting in January as a public hearing. So we're hoping to hold the second meeting... 1 Councilman Mason: I support what Councilman Wing is saying. Conceptually I think this probably will end up fitting in on that corner but I do concur that this is perhaps putting, I can never remember, is it the horse before the cart or the cart before the horse? Whichever one of those...I see something like this definitely fitting in there but I'm worried that some of the other pieces of the puzzle aren't in place yet. So I guess I would support what Councilman Wing is saying. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: I asked for I guess such a consideration almost 9 months ago. I guess my only question 1 Dick is this. What portion of Highway 5 are we talking about, because in the past it's been very selective. I mean we don't want to talk about a moratorium or you don't want to talk about the Highway 5 study and how it relates to on certain parts of Highway 5. Now we do want to tallc about a moratorium on other parts of Highway 5 and that just, that really bugs me. What it really comes down to is it seems like everybody really cares about what's going to happen on the west part of Highway 5 but absolutely nobody cares what's going to happen on the east part of Highway 5. 16 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: I need some clarification there. What did ou just say? Y J Y Councilman Senn: What I'm saying, what I just said was that it seemed like nobody cared much about what was happening on the east end of Highway 5 when we had all these auto related uses with garage doors and everything else facing the highway. Right there in front of us before us and nobody cared about it and now all ' of a sudden we're out on the west side of Highway 5 and geez, we're all concerned about it in a conceptual plan level. Councilman Mason: Well, I very strongly disagree with the fact that nobody on this Council cared about what's 1 going on on the east end of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: I'll let the Minutes and the voting record show that. ' Councilman Mason: That sounds very good to me. I guess I'd like to see that. To say the Council doesn't care what's going on on Highway 5 I think is a disservice to the rest of us here. 1 Councilman Senn: I didn't say that. Councilman Mason: Well, that's what I heard. Councilman Senn: On the east end. ' Councilman Mason: East end, fine. Councilman Wing; But let's clarify, the corridor study isn't selective. It runs from the east border to the west ' border and there's going to be a bicycle ride in December. What's the date? Satuday the 4th? Or the 5th. And you talk about lack of interest and lack of people getting on the band wagon. Nobody showed up for the last one. They had to cancel it. Well I'm going to be there on the 5th. I'm going to make everybody that's in this process that isn't there accountable so we can go out and look at this. But it runs from Eden Prairie to Victoria. The Highway 5 corridor task force and study, it envelopes the entire city but the downtown is specialized and Mark has...points and I think we have dealt with those but it was very clear by the attorney that those proposals were again, the cart ahead of the horse. They were there. They existed. We couldn't stop them or change ' them. None of us liked them. The issue with Mark maybe was the moratorium and if this is going to continue in this direction, that's not a dirty word anymore. We're just simply not getting this done. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I agree with that. With that position as well because there was nothing we could do 1 as far as the eastern portion was concerned and I don't like disseminating one from the other. I think it's all that we have to be concerned with and I think we should address that accordingly. So with that. ' Councilman Wing: Who has the floor right now? I cut somebody out here. Who was speaking? I just wanted to know if it's appropriate at this time, if it's the right under Robert's Rules, if I could make a resolution instructing staff to once again, from the City Manager down, to prioritize the completion of the task force study. ' The Highway 5 corridor overlay. The PUD districting, if that's what occurs. Which is all encompassing Highway 5, and Mark's issues are equally as valid and are going to be discussed in it. Land use and what we're going to do with whatever's left there. Clearly those are issues. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but just a motion rather than a ... 1 17 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: Okay, the problem with the...resolution is that we still have State law that requires us to react to people that want to develop. A moratorium puts stop on it and staff no longer has to deal with the phone. They simply can go 100% on this corridor study and get it completed once and for all and then let development come but then we have the rules and the overlay and the PUD in place. I'm not so sure that staff can do both, and I'll leave that up to Mr. Ashworth to make that decision. But I would like to make a motion prioritizing this. 1 • Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that, let's get a, give us a little input Don. Don Ashworth: Well it should be responded to by Roger but I might say that, if you want to give a priority, a motion would accomplish that. If you want to ensure that our hands are freed up and that we're really not working on other development proposals, then the motion should be one of directing the City Attorney's office to prepare a moratorium resolution, or? Roger Knutson: It'd be an ordinance. Don Ashworth: Ordinance. Councilman Senn: Well we already did that once I thought and I thought you came back and said we could do a moratorium and then I thought staff spoke against the moratorium. Paul specifically. I don't see what's different then than what's now. I mean if that issue needs to be revisited, then I think we ought to revisit the entire issue. But again, I was real concerend about that 9 months ago. I continue to be concemed. We should 1 have put a moratorium on it 9 months ago but you know, I don't see the big difference between tonight. Councilman Wing: The reason I didn't support you then is because staff said we can get this done and we're rolling. We'll clean it up. Well, I see that not happening. 1 • Councilman Mason: Aren't we just hearing that they're hoping for public hearings in January on this? So there clearly is direction and it clearly is moving. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And there's no doubt about that but it will take time once it goes through Planning Commission. Even on Council's going to take some time to discuss it so we're really looking at spring 1 before we get anything said and done. So I think it's time to really look at it again. Can we dispense with this one and then maybe discuss that issue? Or should we do it within the context of. Mayor Chmiel: Well, whatever Council's pleasure is. What would you like? Would you like to dispense with this now? Councilman Senn: We do have a motion on the table. Mayor Chmiel: There was a motion on the table. It wasn't seconded. Councilman Wing: The motion was that the City Manager, working with staff, make this top priority of the planning department and city staff and I would go along with that tonight but then I would like the moratorium issue on the next agenda for formal discussion and action. Councilman Senn: Second. ' 18 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Roger, do we have to, since Centex has come through the door with this, do we have to deal with it within a certain time period? 1 Roger Knutson: This is for. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Concept approval. 1 Roger Knutson: Right. This does not include a preliminary plat with it? Kate Aanenson: Not at this point. It's a rezoning. I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's rezoning from A2 to PUD. 1 Roger Knutson: ...plats. Not the rezonings. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. 1 Roger Knutson: So, not to put words in your mouth. But if the direction you're going is to adopt a moratorium and you want to put this on hold and you're going to consider the moratorium with your next meeting, then the direction you want to do is table this until that time. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Table it at this particular time and then discuss it with... - I Roger Knutson: ...pass the moratorium, then it will be tabled for however the moratorium goes. Councilman Wing: Well, the motion is to instruct staff in their priorities but I would add to that then, at the same time to table this in one motion. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that acceptable? 1 Councilman Senn: Sure. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then I'd further comment to the applicant that, not speaking for Council but I I certainly agree with Mr. Mason that conceptually this is probably what will happen in that corner. We're just not ready to say you know...tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? I Councilman Senn: One thing Don, if I could, for whatever it's worth. Kate, as far as under your recommendations go. I just wanted to see that one changed on the, let's see number 4. Changed so it was 1 required, not should be considered. That maybe just eliminates the question in the future. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? 1 1 19 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make it clear. Councilman Senn I'm not...react like Mike did initially but I support Mark's comments and concerns strongly and I think I intend to look at the east end every bit as heavily as the west end. I think it's synonymous. I don't think they're independent. Mayor Chmiel: I think we clarified that in earlier discussions as well. So with that I'll call the question. Councilman Mason: What exactly is the motion now? There are two things going on here? Mayor Chmiel: The motion is to basically table and also to direct staff to go through the process as Richard has indicated and then to bring this back for a moratorium in 2 weeks, is my understanding. Is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Actually it's a two part motion as I understand it. One, table this request and put it on your next agenda. And two, preceding this item will be consideration of a moratorium on all development activity or all preliminary plats and rezonings within the Highway 5. Councilman Wing: ...but the initial discussion of the motion was, that staff be instructed that this will become a priority item and get that back on the agenda. That was the motion originally. Mayor Chmiel: Is that clear? Councilman Mason: No. Councilman Wing: It also will instruct staff to prioritize this. Table and bring back a moratorium for the next agenda. Mark, are you still with me? Councilman Senn: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: In 2 weeks what we're bringing back is a discussion for consideration. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other discussion? Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council instruct staff to put theHighway 5 corridor plan as a top priority and to draft a moratorium ordinance to be brought back to the next City Council meeting, and to table action on the concept plan for a PUD at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard for Centex Homes until the next meeting. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: And I think you've, would you like to clarify? 1 Councilman Mason: Well, because I think we're going to talk about a moratorium again in 2 weeks and I think we'll decide that's not the best way to go because the process that's in place now seems to be working fairly well and I see it as something we don't need to deal with right now. Councilman Wing: So the priority is okay. 20 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Councilman Mason: Oh I don't have any trouble with the priority at all. It's the moratorium that I. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because we have controls with PUD's and others? Councilman Mason: That's my feeling exactly. Councilman Wing: And if I could take just a quick second. My opinion, in talking to staff today, that they're buried and the only way they're going to be freed up is if we put a stop on the Highway 5 activity. But we'll leave that to staff. Councilman Mason: Sounds good. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have moved on. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 36,023 SO. FT. LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD, JEAN ADDITION, 6200 CHASKA ROAD, FRANK REESE. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we tabled it at the last meeting. Kate Aanenson: What you did is ask us to look at alternatives. Staff still supports the recommendation as we • proposed last time with...outlot. Again, Mr. Reese who owns this property here wanted to split this off in order ' to provide one building lot and keep this as part of his buffer so to speak. There is a large wetland here. It probably wouldn't be buildable. In addition Mr. Reese has a driveway going across that property. It's kind of unlikely, he's lived there for 20 some years, that he would give that property up. It could happen. So the other ' option would be to require that he get a subdivision approval with the lot here and make that one lot. I guess the thing there would be that he'd have to go to the city of Shorewood and get approval of that to be Lot 2 of that plat. The Jean Addition. So we'd have two lots in the addition. This as an outlot. We'd have Lot 1, which would be this lot. And then Lot 2 would be this portion provided with his existing lot would be the other option. So whatever proposal you would recommend, the original would be an outlot. Or maybe with two lots, we would still have the same condition of approval as provided in the staff report. ' Mayor Chmiel: Has staff had any discussion with the city of Shorewood regarding this? Kate Aanenson: We sent them a copy of the report and haven't heard anything. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion in regard to this? Michael. Councilman Mason: I'll still support Alternative #1. I don't deny that Alternative #2 gives us ultimate protection. I think that the chances of anything going wrong with Alternative #1 are so minimal that I don't think we need to put Mr. Reese through the hassle of Alternative #2. So I support Alternative #1. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Mark. Councilman Senn: Question. Basically if you do your alternatives and you have a lot that's in Chanhassen and I guess this is an outcrop of some questioning last week. Or I shouldn't say last week but at the last meeting but I mean, does the Shorewood property owner, because part of his lot is in Chanhassen and fronts on a 21 1 CITY OF ` I DATE: Oct. 6, 1993 • CHANHA!E CC DA TE : 2 Oct. O 5,1993 CASE #: UD #93 -5 , STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised 1"' of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each. Z 4 LOCATION: Southwest corner on Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard V J 0 --,,. APPLICANT: Centex Real Estate Corporation Westwood Engineering — Baker Technology Plaza 14180 West Trunk Hwy 5 4 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • Minnetonka, MN 55345 Action by Ctty Admini PRESENT ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estates L-A , -.a i/Pit.A ACREAGE: 89.59 gross 29.11 net Re; .a ^ io — �i - 3 let. SilbrAted to Comm' DENSITY: 2.59 units /acre (gross) 8 units /acres (net) D-sts St. ;fitted to ADJACENT ZONING /0 -x5-`113 AND LAND USE: N - A2 Agricultural Swings Golf Q s. PUD, Trotters Ridge Subdivision E - A2 proposed Elementary School, RR Timberwood Subdivision 1::: W - A2, proposed Gateway Business Park WATER AND SEWER: Not yet available to the site. Applicant must petition for services. W (.... PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex with upland agricultural area that is farmed. There is a tree line along the property limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the wetlands to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: North of collector street, Medium Density Smith of rnllectnr street: i .nw Density 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 1 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY ' Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing to build 232 townhouses on the project on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 21 buildings proposed four 8 unit, two 10 unit, and fifteen 12 unit buildings. This property is currently zoned ' A2, Agricultural Estate but is guided for Medium Density (4 -8 units /acre) Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units /acre) Development. The parcel is 89.59 acres all of which except for ' 29.11 acres is wetland. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the collector road that will connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor ' Plan. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has supported this area as medium density. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site. Based on the size of the development, parcels split by the road ' and the wetland it would be difficult to develop single family at this location and clustering of units is the only reasonable option. The applicants are seeking only conceptual approval at this time. The applicant still needs to provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards, PUD standards, wetland alteration permit, petition for sewer service, and a tree inventory. Staff also needs to come to some conclusions about the location of any active portion for a park on this site as well as the location of the collector road as it adjoins the Gateway parcel. There are two possible locations for the active component of the park, on the Opus or Centex parcels. 1 Recently, staff believed the Centex option was more appropriate but a problem has surfaced. The site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the eastern portion of the Centex site, 31/2 feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS, the consulting engineers, who did the soil study stated in their opinion the site in unsuitable for park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building would recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western ' portion of the site. While the design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy.5 development standards, this ' is the first development to proceed after the drafting of the Hwy. 5 document. Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 ' towards the development, impervious surface, etc. The applicant is prepared to provide more details as the project evolves. Staff believes the concept is consistent with city plans and ordinances and good planning practices but there are a number of issues and concerns that must be resolved before plans are 1 1 Centex PUD 1 October 6, 1993 Page 3 1 submitted for preliminary reviews. The proposed concept plan is serving its purpose in helping to define these issues. We are recommending that it be approved. 1 Site Characteristics The site is currently agricultural, and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm grow within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated. REZONING 1 Justification for Rezoning to PUD 1 The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.59 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD 1 request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20 -501. Intent 1 Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely be left intact. 1 1 1 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 1 Page 4 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing ' of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the ' property it is split into 4 development parcels. Block 1 is 12.93 acres, Block 2 is 8.47 acres, Block 3 is 5.46 acres and Block 4 is 2.25 acres. Because it is against city ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be ' difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family subdivision. ' 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. ' Finding. The property to the west of the subject site is being developed as a business /industrial park. The site to the east is proposed as an Elementary School. Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not ' the optimal location for single family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use. 1 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. _ Finding. The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road for 1 medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the maximum 1 buildable area for the site is around 29 acres. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be designated medium density. Any proposed single family development south of the collector street would be very small with an 8.5 acre area and a 5.5 acre area. ' 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may required p p c p p ce y be equued by the city. 1 Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. ' Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission is proposing a community park, approximately 100 acres in this area including the Trotters Ridge and Gateway property. A park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a 1 portion of both. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. 1 1 1 Centex PUD 1 October 6, 1993 Page 5 1 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed frontage road. Berms were developed along the collector road and Hwy. 5. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic ' conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. The site will have access from Hwy. 5 and from Galpin Boulevard. A collector 111 Street will tie this site with the property to the west and east of the site.. This collector street will include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single family neighborhoods. 1 Finding. The applicants have stated that the trips generated from Low -Rise Residential Townhouse/ Condominiums units equals approximately 6 trips per units. The data was based on criteria obtained from the institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual. Based on the 23 units, the total trips generated would equal 1,392. 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: 1 Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 111 Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE 1 The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards. There are a total of 21 buildings being proposed, including four - 8, two - 10, and fifteen - 12 unit buildings. The final project architecture is still being developed. The applicants have shown a similar product that they have built in Eden Prairie. All units are two story with living/dining/kitchen on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. Some units have an additional loft area 1 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 1 Page 6 on the second floor. All units have direct access to their own individual garage as well as an individual front entrance to the outside. The units also include a semi - private outdoor patio space adjacent to the living area. The floor plans range in size from approximately 1,170 square feet to 1,400 square feet. ' The units along Hwy. 5 have the garage door facing the highway. A landscape berm is proposed along the highway to act as a buffer, but staff would like to see any perspective to determine how much of he building will be seen from the highway. Staff would expect these dwelling units to have a similar design to the ones in Eden Prairie. The homes with brick on the bottom and maintenance free siding of the rest of the exterior. The roof line is pitched and the exterior walls 1 have detailing that break up the long facade. The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given 1 about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be enclosed, plus an additional 1/4 space per unit. A total of 522 spaces are provided. The 1 applicants have stated that they have provided 740 of which 316 are driveways. The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into 1 the applicants development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings. If the materials used is similar to those used on the Eden ' Prairie project, they would be acceptable with the Hwy. 5 standards. The setback for buildings along Hwy. 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. For the 1 interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100 feet maximum. Parking should not be in these setback areas. This proposal meets these standards. There will be no roof top equipment. 1 Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage road. Detail specifications are not available at this time but the signage must be compatible with the project design and low profile. Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting. ' Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 1h foot candle at the property line. ' A landscaping plan has been provided. The applicants have stated that the plan is intended to reflect the addition of common and hardy plant material with the project area. The plants in this category are varieties of maple, ash, linden, Oak, pines and spruce. The proposed quantities and 1 complete tree survey will be provided with preliminary review. 1 1 1 Centex PUD S October 6, 1993 Page 7 WETLANDS Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as agricultural/urban wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific wetland delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described as follows: Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 43.8 acres and it separates the eastern portion of upland from the western portion of upland on site. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1 C, PSS1C; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). This wetland is also a DNR protected wetland, 10 -210W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this basin. Approximately 0.60 acre of wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development for 1 the construction of a frontage road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the site. In addition, 0.26 acres of fill is proposed for the southern portion of the eastern part of the site. It appears that this fill is necessary to efficiently use the upland that is available. • Wetland B 1 Wetland B is a 0.3 acre basin located near the west property boundary. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type 2 wet meadow). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Wetland C 1 Wetland C is a 0.3 acre basin located in the northeast portion of the site. The basin is characterized as palustrine emergent saturated /seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin - PEMB /Cd; 1 Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow /shallow marsh). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Additional Wetland The western portion of upland was investigated by the Park Department for construction of ball fields and tennis courts. The area was found to be saturated with hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the soils in this section are classified as peat in the Carver County Soil Atlas. This section seems to be characterized as wetland, and therefore, it is recommended that the wetland delineation be re- evaluated before a final mitigation plan is developed. The following table summarizes the delineated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of 1 the proposed development: 1 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 i Page 8 Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Area Identification Type (acres) to be Altered (acres) A Ag/Urban 43.8 0.86 B Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 C Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 44.4 1.46 It appears that there are additional wetland acres that would be filled as a result of the proposed development. If the area in question is wetland, the wetland alteration area could well exceed ' three acres. This would require an individual permit from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as additional mitigation area that is severely limited. ' Mitigation A minimum of 1.46 acres of wetland would need to be replaced as a result of the proposed 1 development. Mitigation areas are proposed around the edges of Wetland A. All of the mitigation will occur around the western upland portion of the site, which is planned to be fully developed. It is recommended that the mitigation be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different ' vegetative zones. Wetland A will eventually be receiving treated water from the proposed development and from ' portions of State Highway 5. One stormwater pond has been designed to collect all of the runoff from the proposed development. The stormwater pond must meet National Urban Runoff Pollution (NURP) control standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the City with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. Recommendations The western portion of the site does not appear to be developable land due to the peat and muck. If this area is developed, wetland mitigation may be necessary above the 1.46 acres calculated. Mitigation areas for the site are limited since nearly half of the site is currently wetland. 1 1 Centex PUD 1 October 6, 1993 Page 9 1 The conceptual stormwater pond on the eastern portion of the site does not appear to be large enough to collect all of the stormwater runoff and treat it to NURP standards before it is discharged into the wetland. Wetland A is capable of maintaining a high functional value in an urban setting and should be maintained as open space for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreational enjoyment. This wetland also provides water quality improvement and flood retention for the Bluff Creek Watershed District. 1 STREETS The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has proposed an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 -foot wide face -to -face street section which is also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway 1 41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State -Aid route and should be built in accordance with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west. 1 Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint 1 and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5. As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works 1 Department, an additional trail easement (20 -feet wide) should be considered outside the right -of- way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES 1 According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper 1 Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. 1 1 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 ' Page 10 Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for 1 the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that the plans are fairly well laid out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary ' sewer and water lines in excess of 8 -inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant would be credited the cost difference between normal 8 -inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right -of -way or drainage /utility easements would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. 1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well �. as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin ' Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to ' match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water /sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staff's initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. 1 1 Centex PUD 1 October 6, 1993 Page 11 MISCELLANEOUS Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter 1 into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. PARKS AND RECREATION In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water 1 Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are 1 inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex 1 site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on October 26, 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their October 20 meeting. It was originally 1 scheduled for the previous meeting but was not heard due to the late hour. Due to this situation, the Planning Commission placed the item first on the agenda and agreed to have it heard at the October 25, 1993, City Council meeting. It is for this reason that minutes are not yet available. Several neighbors spoke and raised questions regarding traffic safety on Galpin Boulevard and at the Hwy. 5 intersection. Staff indicated that the road in the vicinity of the site and the intersection are likely to be improved concurrently with the opening of the new elementary 1 1 1 Centex PUD October 6, 1993 Page 12 I school in the fall of 1995. Staff is also seeking to gain MnDOT's support of signalization of this intersection in the same time frame. I The Planning Commission raised questions of buff rin fr m Hwy. utility of western island g buffering o y 5, unl y the to 1 of high ground in view of poor soils, and several related factors. Condition #2 which outlined issues for response when formal plans are submitted was modified to account for the concerns. 1 The Planning Commission recommended that the concept PUD plan be approved. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1 "The City Council approves the conceptual PUD with the following conditions: 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to 1 preliminary plat submittal. 2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as a tree I inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface ratio. Compliance with Hwy. 5 goals, traffic construction for Hwy. 5 /Galpin and Galpin Boulevard itself, access to school site, soil correction issues, more creative berming and I landscaping for the Hwy. 5 exposure and more fully explore the design implications of the ultimate Hwy. 5 expansion. Staff should also explore the potential of minor guide plan changes that may result from this proposal. I 3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. 1 The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. The stormwater pond must meet NURP standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by 1 the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. 1 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. I 5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 1 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards. 1 1 1 Centex PUD 1 October 6, 1993 Page 13 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993. 1 11. Compliance with the PUD and Hwy. 5 Design Standards and respond to other issued raised in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Summary from Centex dated September 7, 1993 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993 3. Fire Marshal's memo dated September 23, 1993 4. Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993 1 5. Park and Recreation Director memo dated September 24, 1993 6. STS Soils report dated September 28, 1993 7. Hearing Notice dated September 23, 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0V28/93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA 2001 001 1 Post -It'° brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Natpiges ► 1 From Ca. Co. Oept P-cc —Mane 5 5-9- 10 September 28, 1993 Fax N 6 _ Fix N Mr. Todd Hoffman City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 STS Project 95897 ' Re: Site Reconnaissance of Centex Carriage Homes Property in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ' Dear Mr. Hoffman: 1 This letter confirms the discussion we had during our walk- through of the Centex Carriage Homes (Centex) property located south of T.H. 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. The services that you ' requested were limited to the following: 1. Observe the general surface features during a walk - through of the parcel with City personnel. 2. Drill shallow hand auger borings to explore the local subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at selected locations on the parcel. 3. Provide in a written report judgments or recommendations regarding the suitability of the 1 encountered soils for structural support of park improvements. Background Information The City is interested in developing a park on this side of Chanhassen and is reviewing various sites. Figure One (attached) is a copy of the conceptual development sketch STS received from 1 the City. it indicates the locations of proposed park improvements for the Centex property, such as baseball fields, tennis courts, a multi -use building and access roads /parking areas. Site Surface Features As observed with you, the portion of the site where park improvements are proposed is predominantly a low, flat area with a four (4) to six (6) foot rise along the southwest side. The rise is wooded, while the low area is covered with grass and high weeds. A shallow, man -made ditch extends along the east boundary of the parcel. 1 $TI conaulanti Ltd. ' Consuiting Enpineent 3860 Annapolis Lane Suite 120 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 812559.1900/Fax 812.559.4507 09.28 '93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA el 002 I . City of Chanhassen STS Project 95897 September 28, 1993 Page 2 c4-617--4 Soil and Water Conditions 1 Three hand auger probes (HAP) were performed at the general locations noted on Figure One. Hand auger probe HAP -1 encountered 3 -1/2 feet of very soft, black to brown peat with groundwater at 1 foot. Hand auger probe HAP -2 encountered 3 -1/2 feet of firm to soft, black organic clay with groundwater at 2 feet. Hand auger probe HAP -3 was taken on the rise. Six inches of topsoil above 1 -1/2 feet of mottled gray with brown clay were sampled in HAP -3. The mottled soil color is an indication of a high groundwater table, but no water was observed directly in HAP -3. Review of the soils mapped for the site in the Carver County Soil Survey you had on hand confirmed the soil conditions we encountered. Opinions and Recommendations 1 We have developed the following opinions and recommendations based upon our site observations and the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the hand auger probes. 1 Baseball Fields: As planned, the baseball fields would be located in a swamp that has deep organic soils. The peat and organic clay soils are too weak to support a playing field and drainage would be a problem. Soil stabilization and drainage improvements would be very expensive as compared to a site without organic soils. Tennis and Basketball Courts: The tennis courts and basketball courts (and multi -use building) are even more dependent on stable soils and good drainage than the baseball fields. Pavements for these courts ■vould be very expensive to construct properly. Automobile Drives/Parkin Pavements and pavement embankments would require expensive "soft- ground" geotechnical engineering techniques for proper construction Otherwise, continuous maintenance of aggregate- surfaced pavements would be necessary. • Surnmarr In our opinion the site is unsuitable for the planned park improvements, unless the City P P P y undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. In addition, any soil stabilization or drainage may require wetland permitting and mitlgauon, since most of this site may be a wetland. Wetland mitigation was. however, not pan of this site reconnaissance. Closure 1 The opinions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with common geotechnical engineering practice for this locale and time. Other than this, no warranty of our work is implied or intended. 1 1 09/2S/93 15:46 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA ZUO3 City of Chanhassen STS Project 95897 September 28, 1993 �r Page 3 ['� if you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further assistance in your park development work. please contact us at 559 - 1900. Very truly yours, 1 STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. • Ronald A. Shaffer, P. } Senior Consultant • James H. Overtoom, P.E. Principal Engineer RAS /dn Enc. I 1 Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 2 way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way. In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard. UTILITIES According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future development to the northwest which includes this Centex development. Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get this next phase into the planning process for next year. Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that the plans are fairly well layed out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek, Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8 -inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant would be credited the cost difference between normal 8 -inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer and water improvements proposed outside the City's right -of -way or drainage /utility easements would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible for maintenance and ownership. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk 1 1 1 Kate Aanenson September 28, 1993 Page 3 Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to 1 make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity. The grading plan proposes a storm water /sediment pond located north of the frontage road which will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet NURP standards. Staffs' initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm event and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards. 1 MISCELLANEOUS Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. 2. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 3. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of PP Y P Y P trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 4. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards. 5. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). 1 1 Kate Aanenson 1 September 28, 1993 Page 4 1 6. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. jms 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal • DATE: September 23, 1993 SUBJ: 232 Unit Residential Development Hwy 5 & Galpin, Centex Real Estate Planning Case # 93 -5 PUD I have reviewed the concept plan for the Galpin Boulevard Carriage Home and have made the following requirements: 1. In general, fire hydrant locations are good. However, because of the high density of residential units with wood frame construction, additional fire 1 hydrants will be required. These will be indicated on the final submitted utility plan. 1 2. Fire apparatus access roads: The width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be less than 20 feet. All 20 foot access roads /driveways must be posted with "No Parking Fire Lane" signs per Chanhassen Policy # 06 -1991. 1 3. Please advise me if the buildings will be fire sprinklered and to what NFPA requirements. 4. An approved turnaround is required on the south /east corner of building #14, the north /east corner of building #1, and the south /east corner of building #19. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(h). 5. Building numbers, street numbers, both public and private, must meet the requirements of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Chanhassen Policy # 29 -1992. I CITYOF I , i i iii r 4 0 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM • 1 TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ` • FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official \ DATE: September 27, 1993 1 SUBJ: 93 -5 PUD, Galpin Blvd. Carriage Homes (Centex) Background: II I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some comments and proposed additions to the II conditions of approval. Analysis: 1 The applicant should be made aware that the City has adopted UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as revised by the State.' The proposed buildings will be classified as R -1 occupancies. Appendix Chapter II 38 requires fire sprinklering of R -1 occupancies with 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area. The Project Summary indicates the smallest unit is 1170 square feet and the smallest building II comprises 8 units. Based on these figures, the smallest building will be 9360 square feet and will require fire sprinklering. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and II private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. II Recommendations: Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions II of approval: 1. Submit street names, public and private, to the Public Safety II Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 1 II II CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 1 DATE: September 24, 1993 SUBJ: Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation ' Attached lease find a copy of the Planning Department's request for comments in regard to the P PY g P � g above named application. Also attached is a narrative document supplied by the applicant and a preliminary plat. In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey ' further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park 1 alternatives are explored. [Note; City staff will be conducting a second site visit with a soils specialist this afternoon. A report in this regard will be presented to the commission next Tuesday evening.] Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93): 1 I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on 1 October 26, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 A T g HEIGHTS A HORK C I T § A i A 8 8 /I A I/ N i /a N N C! K N � lV X131 - _ N MAN.!! . — — . � 1 /�- 8200 I - - / � 1 / �.. � �_ :----1,; e�� ' �/� � �� � � �� � � S �� ©:. -. , � 1! a 0. �i ..E' ire ► ��• ':��r f � • LAKE l ■■ Er ■ = . dr- I �� J� I ��-��► fie '�• Z �B: 8300 �7�1W k4Al ' ' . ii- ilr• r�l �` , ,f_- - ���1 = :8f NRG/N/A /- v 7 ' .. r ev r �� -� 3I �Ci.: � 8400 • ■ / /—nL�� • r - . /. �. \ �I� '[ • y Q�t t � ST EA j 1�1 ����'II' � 00 � 800 �! � ��::::�w y Ill // �` rs ter.& T . e :� In•, G � LS� ■ LAKE • = I ,� e 9900 LAKE' l W • Z•_aC 7y $ li ti� M I N N E W N N E W A S H T A / y 8900 /,/ / IM r REGIONAL 7000 \ _ - - - PARK ■ - - - -- ! _ ; a MKE Q ; Q ., . . a �:_� HARRIS ...! 7100 V Z :LAK lz .. p,i _ � I = IOM \ / ,? 7200 O l ��� ��� �/ lir • 7 i ,, C .,� U 1 - e } ° 6. @di -i, k. ( d } _ } / 7300 - 1 t a •N,•. — co., .-. t � ( ' t '�� j "{ "R �•Ni ! ( 7 -� ,3 _ 1400 �� = i o°� I. ® Z 1 N '. 4 7500 (. ` • 7600 ���+� I 1 � 7700 „POND d / /Q } f) O� (r�i�" `A ON I I 7800- - - - 7A .. AY t a fr , ' 1 - . 1 3 - UN 7900 I 8000 I 8200 - • d2 ND STRUT - 1 I % 1 F,. UM OC moo �y yRONO ' 9300 9400 - -- z ■ ' 6 8000 N./ I LL- J I '' IC R �{ . MI_ _��1.___ -!O _ II CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CITY OF CHANHASSEN ID ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. C/O TREASURER 275 NOREX DR. WAYZATA, MN 55391 690 COULTER DR. CHASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 147 I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK & J. TAINTOR CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON 381 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. 'CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I MITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE JAMES L. & LINDA J. HOWARD L. & L. JOHNSON 2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. LEIRDAHL 8250 GALPIN BLVD. I CH HASSEN, MN 55317 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I TROLTERS RIDGE LMT. HI -WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP THOMAS & M. SCHMITZ 7951 POWERS BLVD. C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD. • CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 DALE & M. WANNINGER LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER 1 8170 GALPIN BLVD. 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 JP'S LINKS INC. ROGER & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY ' 7750 GALPIN BLVD. 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD. EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 'LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI 4890 CO. RD. 10 E. 512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN. I HASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRAINERD, MN 56401 'MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD. 'EXCELSIOR,M N 55331 1 1 1 1 1 E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Beverly Jacobson Paul & Roxanne Youngquist 6950 Galpin Lake Road 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Duane & M. Johnson Jay C. Dolejsi Robert & Penelope Arneson Box 102 6961 Chaparral Lane 6921 Galpin Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Neal & Deborah Wunderlich Michael & C. Klingelhutz Brett A. Davidson 1 7011 Galpin Blvd. 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 7291 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 I David & Anga Stockdale Prince R. Nelson Martin & Beth Kuder 7210 Galpin Blvd. c/o BJRS 6831 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 10345 Olympic Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Los Angeles, CA 90067 1 Earl Gilbert III Valentine & C. Wirtz Mr. Terry Forbord 6901 Galpin Blvd. 19380 Highway 7 Lundgren Brothers Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1 OCTOBER 20, 1993 Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina and Diane Harberts I MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I ' PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF 1 PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10 OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE 1 CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN I BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY). 1 Public Present: i Name Address I Marian Schmitz Tim Dempsey 8190 Galpin Blvd. 8241 Galpin Blvd. Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay 1 Dan Blake Centex Real Estate Corporation Paul Krauss, Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item. 1 Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order. Dan Blake: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dan Blake. 1 I represent Centex Real Estate Corporation. As Paul said, we're really here for some direction. There's been a lot of discussion on this site as we worked with staff earlier this year on the road alignment of the frontage road and the park issue and we finally decided we 1 needed to just get a plan in so that we could start formalizing the process and where the city 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 wanted the park and where they want that road. And I think we've gotten awful close to accomplishing that. I'd like to, a little bit of site information. Again, this is Highway 5 and Galpin. Some of the natural features. A big wetland area...down here. Develop a piece of high ground down at the bottom of our site which the park department has indicated it is their desire for park acquisition of the part of the park system here... There are some areas of trees. Generally lower quality wetland...type trees. Further down the wetland there are some trees on this side of the knoll...If you go out there today, one of the most significant features is a very high natural berm left when Highway 5 was cut with trees, evergreens on it now, - roughly in this location. It's the requested Highway 5 widening of right -of -way which includes that tree line. I'm not exactly sure what impacts those trees are if you widen Highway 5...I would guess that a portion of it may be lost...The buildings, this is an artist rendition of the buildings. They are 12 unit townhouse buildings. 6 units on either side. There's also 8 and 10 unit buildings which is the same building as some of the middle units. Currently we're building this exact product in Eden Prairie and Apple Valley. We just last year completed a project of a very similar building with the city of Mendota Heights so the building design is pretty much established...our intent to build. Again the attached garages. ...and I think what that does for some of the concerns of the Highway 5 issue is provide some varied exposures. I have a drawing back here and I can pull it up. It kind of cuts through the site but it's awfully small. Given the scale of the site, it was hard to depict but we're trying to show you, this being Galpin on this end. The western boundary of the site with the varied impact of the trees and the building. This is the 3 buildings that you see here. Down here and here and here. And then the big open existing wet meadow wetland and then some of the existing forested wetland which is through here. That kind of shows you the general . 1 look from Highway 5. I think that is one of, Paul referred to as a concern. I think it's just kind of an unknown yet what that Highway 5 impacts. What exactly this is looking for and what exactly this would look like. Another cuts through the site the other way. Shows 1 Highway 5 here. The existing tree room. The proposed right -of -way. Landscaping berm, the parking drive and then the buildings so this kind of gives you a sense of the scale in relation to Highway 5. I believe it's 265 feet from the edge of the building to the center line of Highway 5. This would be the dimension from here to over there. Mancino: Excuse me, is that a 2 lane Highway 5 or is that a 4 lane Highway 5? 1 Dan Blake: This is drawn as existing. Mancino: As existing? Okay. Ledvina: Where do the other 2 lanes go then on Highway 5? Do they go to the south? 1 Okay. 1 2 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Harberts: What are your homes selling for in Apple Valley and Eden Prairie and Mendota Heights? Dan Blake: Eden Prairie the price ranges from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Apple Valley's ' a little less than that. Scott: Can you plus or minus $10,000.00 estimate, given that development, can you estimate ' what the sale prices would be for this particular project? Same range roughly? Dan Blake: Same. Similar. Maybe a little further up than Eden Prairie. Maybe a little bit ' less but a lot of the same site characteristics. It has a very prime view units. A lot of I'll say secluded, privacy units. Not too many highway units... Beyond that I guess it'd be easier for me to answer questions either now or as you see fit. ' Scott: Okay. Any questions? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, the report discusses, the staff report discusses the buildability of the area in the vicinity of units 17 to 20. Have you done? Dan Blake: We've done, we have brought engineering out to do soil borings on the site. We did deep regular soil borings on this site but because of access, because you can't cross this wetland, not very well. They just from the other side walked in and did some relatively deep ' hand auger borings, in the 6 to 8 feet down range. The unsuitable soils range from 2 to 6 feet over in this area...half a foot of topsoil and sandy clays below that. We're not exactly sure what our opinion is. Is it for sure buildable. It's buildable at some cost but that's ' exactly...too costly. I think as big of an issue this is going to be, the construction of this road which the city I believe is important no matter what goes in here and they have agreed to ' participate in the, at least the permitting process of getting that road across that wetland. Harberts: A question for staff. What's the opportunity to try and focus some priorities for affordable housing with this project? I just came from a governance committee and my understanding is the Governor's putting together a blue ribbon task force to address housing. ' Krauss: Well, I think as most of you are aware, the city has had a concern with affordability of housing. We have broached the idea to a couple of developers. I guess we really don't know what kind of flexibility we have at this point and we're having our bond counsels and some other folks who work with us on financing issues put together what our financing options are so we can go back intelligently and talk to developers. We're also having, we've commissioned a study. Fred Hoisington is working with major employers in the community and he's surveying their...to ascertain what the needs are for housing. What can they afford. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 i r What do they look for. What sort of incentive program is most useful to them. I think it's fair to say that certainly as soon as we have our ducks in order, we'd sit down with this developer. We've already talked about sitting down with another developer who's on later tonight and trying to at least tinker with some of these units to make them a little more affordable. I'm hoping that we move forward on that a little bit in the next month or so. I believe there's an item on that for the HRA agenda tomorrow night. Harberts: I think it's going to come to a point where if the cities do not take a lead in it, that the government's going to force the issue in a way that's not going to be very positive for the community and that's the message I basically got tonight at my meeting. Krauss: Well they've kind of been hinting at that for quite a while. The problem is they ' took away all the tools we had to do anything about it. You know we have to stretch the envelope a little bit to do much of anything. We used to be able to sell mortgage revenue bonds. Used to be able to do TIF districts for housing and they took that away and then they complain that you're not building affordable housing in the suburbs. Well the fact is, we the city don't build anything. We depend on the private sector to do it and they can't deliver it. I think what you've got here tonight is a fairly reasonably affordable product. Farmakes: The other thing that disturbs me is that the government has shown an abysmal record over the past 30 years of doing a very good job of project housing. And I don't believe that once you get outside the realm of market, and start dictating a large scale project housing, that if the city approaches this, that it does so on an individual housing type basis. Because otherwise I think that we're approaching a serious can of worms and I'm sure many developers will tell you that. And what bothers me about this is government is never very good at producing something that the private sector can for less at probably far more 1 efficiently targeted to the customer. That doesn't take away from staff but. Krauss: Well we don't know what the options are but none of these options have been , explored, and frankly...government subsidized housing. The approach that we've been looking at is to try to tinker with that offer for example of first time home buyer assistance. People can often...but they may be stretched to meet the down payment and there are ways to develop a small pot of money that over time allows people to get into those homes and it's blind. I mean these are owner occupied homes. We won't know who's in them. Farmakes: And I think that's more innovative. But as I said before, the tendency when you ask how much are these houses going to cost, for information that' fine but to get into dictating what that's going to be, that's a little worrisome to me anyway and the other thing that bothers me, I don't believe that that's really going to solve the problem because what's happening here, when we look at medium density profit housing, and...housing quite often the ' 4 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 assumption is well, that's affordable housing when in fact I think that the last year that you've spent here you've seen that that's not the case. That in many cases this higher density housing is up, in some cases up to the $200,000.00 range. So some of the other issues that Paul had just talked about are not necessarily large scale development type situations but 1 issues of financing and so on, which I think are fine. And I support that. Harberts: And Jeff, you're certainly correct with what you've shared but I think there's 1 some, and Paul's quite aware of some of the political perspectives. From inner city versus suburban areas and basically when you get into housing, you get into that because they don't care what market demand is out here. Farmakes: And that's fine but what I would submit is that they're two separate divergent interests there. And one was born out of the other and there is, we don't need to go over 1 metropolitan politics for the past 20 years but it is, Minneapolis and St. Paul have tried to not only curtail the school system but also housing and it's to their advantage. And then they've used their political clout to do that. And certainly from the southwest suburbs, we're new to ' our political clout and we are I think doing a pretty good job anyway, finally of responding but I don't want to use this forum for that. But I do have concerns about this and I've seen this on occasion where we get to the higher density issues of trying to accomplish this. ' There's nothing wrong I believe with single family housing and incorporating some of the issues that you're talking about. There are some innovative programs that are being done ' with that and curiously enough they're being done outside of the realm of government. They're being done through religious non - profit organizations and they're being done with philanthropic direction from architectural firms. And I think that that's far more efficient to ' deal with it that way I think in the end. The homeowner is probably far more inclined to take care of rather than rely on someone else to take care of their home and so on. And I do think that again smaller is always better with that sort of thing. Than getting very large scale 1 developments and that's the sole purpose of it. Scott: Okay. Any other comments. This is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the general public that would like to speak. Please go up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and we're interested in your comments on this particular project. ' Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin Boulevard and I have some questions that are not being addressed as far as I can see tonight. And there's basically three so I won't take too much time. The one was what was brought up 1 earlier and that is, as I understood the zoning or the guidance with the Highway 5 corridor was that this be low to medium density housing on this side. I don't understand why you want to plan this higher density in an area that's kind of far away from the corp of city 1 services that should be offered for that kind of community development. ...people I think 1 5 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 would like to be closer to bus lines, shopping, and other things like that so my first question when I saw this was, why not the northwest corner across from Target. That'd be a lot closer in. Be a lot handier. That also brings me to my real concern and that is that that intersection has been upgraded to support that kind of added traffic. On Galpin Blvd we are a corridor and that's true for the industrial complex in back of us. There is a 48 unit housing development on one side that's going in with another large development on the other side that's going in. Right now if you try to gain access to Highway 5, either in the morning or come at it in evening hours, it's quite tricky and those houses haven't even been built yet. I don't know if I can show it on this but that intersection of Highway 5 is not quite blind but it's not a very visible intersection and when there's a grain truck behind you and you're turning left, there's traffic coming at you, that intersection of Hundertmark Road looks pretty minor. So it's a very scary place. What my concern is is I have not heard anything about either the widening of Galpin, putting turn lanes in so that people aren't lined up for half a mile down the road. The development as shown, on almost all of the units and there may not even be development on the other units closer to TH 41 but almost all the units are on the Galpin side, which would indicate they'd probably use that as an egress to Highway 5. I think as a safety issue, I don't see how you can advise planning of this type without some kind of improvement to that intersection. Not only for me as a resident but for these other people, these people who buy these houses, if they choose to. So for that reason as a local resident...what are you going to do about the traffic problem. It's already bad. It's going to be worst with the existing projects already in place and this one would really add to it. Thank you. Scott: Paul, do you want to take the density question and then we can probably talk about the roads Dave. Well I think I touched on the comprehensive plan issue before. The comprehensive com Krauss: p P P plan was done based upon how this community would ultimately look when it was completely developed. It was done with a community wide perspective. It was done with an eye towards getting a variety of uses in the community so that there was balance in the community. You're talking about a site and maybe...and I guess some of the Planning Commission...with Highway 5. Just to the west of this is 170 acre industrial park. Industrial office park. And to the south of that is all the industrial uses that Chaska developed along Highway 41. So this is an area that's surrounded by intensive development. The north side of Highway 5 is also ultimately going to be brought into the MUSA line and will be developed. We've already received a petition to bring it in. We appreciate the fact that this sort of housing often times has somewhat different access needs although I don't think it's particular true in this case because it's an owner occupied. The need for immediate proximity to downtown is not as great. However, that's why we're building these streets. To get people to downtown. To schools. To recreation without having to go onto Highway 5 all the ' 6 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 time. Relative to, I guess I can leave the bus aspect to you but we've talked to Southwest Metro about ultimately providing bus service on these parallel access boulevards because that seems to be where the people can be and it's a much safer way of working it than running down Highway 5. We also do have a...amount of medium and high density housing around ' the central business district. Some of it's being filled right now up on a hill, just north, a block north of Target there's 220 unit of townhouse there. The site which was mentioned, there's a lot of people who would love to see medium density housing out there. In fact that's ' what it's guided but it's also the site that's owned by Eckankar and it's being operated as a church and it's not being developed. But it was developed, that's what it's being guided. We share Mr. Dempsey's concern with the Galpin intersection. It is not a safe intersection. There was a school bus accident there, I think it was last year or the year before. We're well aware of that and I guess I'll pass it over to Dave to talk about what we have in the works with that. 1 Harberts: Just one question Paul. What was the, I think the gentleman brought up about the northwest corner on Kerber. Was it? Krauss: That's the Eckankar site. 1 Tim Dempsey: I didn't realize all that was owned by them. Harberts: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. • Krauss: I'll be happy to get you a copy of the comp plan. PPY g Y PY P P 1 Harberts: Alright, thank you. Mancino: Dave, could you talk about a stop light there on Galpin and Highway 5. Hempel: As Paul mentioned it is a very hazardous intersection. We've had a few accidents ' there. Trunk Highway 5 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation, MnDot. Galpin Blvd is a county road. County Road 117. The City has been working with the County on a joint cooperative program for the future upgrade of Galpin Blvd south of TH ' 5. With the recent residential subdivisions going in down there, it will warrant an upgrade. The comprehensive plan that was prepared some time ago, the Eastern Carver County one which has been used as a guide lately, or up until now I guess, dictates that it be a 4 lane ' road at some point here. The other driving force behind this obviously the school site. That will include turn lanes onto TH 5. A full intersection with a traffic signal on Galpin. It's my understanding that the city and Carver County is petitioning MnDot to do a signal 1 justification report, which is the first step in order to get a traffic signal installed at the 1 7 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 intersection. So it is in the works for upgrading the intersection...as well as plans for upgrading Galpin Blvd. Widening the turn lanes. Mancino: Do you have any sense of timing on this? Krauss: Well possibly. I mean we've. been working with the school district, architects and, 1 as Dave pointed out, the County and MnDot and I was in a meeting with them last week where it was pretty clear that concurrent with the development of the school, which is opening in the fall of '95, that Galpin would be improved to a 4 lane status. I'm not, I mean ultimately I don't think, the jury's still out about whether Galpin needs to be improved to 4 lanes. I mean I really shudder to think about that, south of that area. But it certainly needs to be, have some of the kinks taken out of it and worked. But north of that area from the intersection of the east/west collector up to Highway 5 now looks like it will be improved concurrent with the opening of the school, and as Dave points out, we have begun talking to MnDot about temporary signalization. One of the problems we're dealing with is the Highway 5 upgrading was supposed to take place, I think in '95 not too long ago. But then when the 5 cent gas tax was vetoed, everything started getting dominoed on back and now, the last I heard, they're looking at 1998 maybe. But MnDot is also realizing that they have very significant safety problems that they have to address well before that at TH 41, Galpin and Audubon. So there will be something. We have every expectation that there will be 1 something in place concurrent with the opening of the school, which isn't too far out of whack with when this development might come on line. And we should have a lot more information on that certainly by next time this comes back on your agenda. • 1 Scott: Okay. Mr. Dempsey, did those comments help your understanding? Tim Dempsey: Yeah, but I'll stay tuned. Scott: Okay. That's good. Yes ma'am. 1 Mary Schmitz: My name is Mary Schmitz and I live at 8190 Galpin and my concern is the safety issue also. A high density area like you're talking, 232 units. You can anticipate at least half of those have children and you're talking at least 100, maybe 200 children living in this area. How are they going to get to the school across the street? Are they going to be running back and forth? This began an issue with the Chaska school over at Highway 41. They had that huge development, children are constantly running across Highway 41 where there's no other way other than walking way down to the light, which they won't do, and they're running across Highway 41. Again, I've lived there about 15 years and the traffic just keeps increasing and increasing and increasing on that road. It's even a hazard for me to walk across to get my mail and come back. I really have to be very alert and really watch 1 8 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 when I walk across. Now you're talking about 6 year olds and 7 year olds running across ' Highway 41. Or Galpin Boulevard and I just have a concern that you're creating a hazard by having that many children so close to a school district without some kind of control of how those children are going to get back and forth. The buses are not going to go across to pick 1 them up. They're too close so what is this development going to do to solve that issue? Scott: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public 1 hearing? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: One quick question before I give my comments. You're talking about information yet to come. If we approve this concept, preliminary. They're basically looking for a critique correct. We're not committing to anything here and I will refer to your recommendation number 2. It's kind of saying they should have some additional forth coming information such as so and so and it goes on. Should we be limiting the information that we should have forth coming to that or should we leave that more open ended? It seems ' to me that perhaps there's some additional traffic information here in coordination with the school. There are other egg and chicken type information situations here that really kind of need to look at the same time we're looking at development for that property and surrounding ' properties. How they fit in together. At least that would be my, and I don't know if that would be my consideration. I don't know. If the developer certainly is in a position to provide us with that. They're talking. The County, we're talking School Board. We're talking, do you feel that you have a handle forth coming on that information? How it will fit up with this type of development? ' Krauss: I think on the roadway issue specifically, that's out of the developer's hands. That's really our responsibility to push and I think conveniently there's a lot in the works now to make that happen and we should be able to get out information on that. In fact I think you're ' going to see the preliminary plans for the upgrade of when...I think November 17th, you'll see what it will look like at that point. 1 Farmakes: So we have some time lines converging here then? Krauss: Right. And I think the developer made a good point that a lot of things aren't 1 resolved until somebody sticks their head up and people can take shots at it and come up with some concerns. As far as in condition 2. Whether that's open ended or restricted, I'd encourage you to be as forth coming with other things as you want to have information on so 1 that we have direction and the developer has direction. So if there are other areas, certainly 1 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 roadway issues and traffic are things that we totally to expect to have information on. Farmakes: Okay. I would also, when you do get that information, is to have Public Safety 1 response to cross over situations. Children. How that would be affected to access playgrounds and so on. At the school across the street. On the Highway 5 issue, or how this fits into the Highway 5. I would like to see an assessment of that as well. How units 18, 1, 5 and 8 fit into what we're doing there. We spent really a considerable amount of time to the north. What was happening to the north and not quite as much here to the south and it seems 111 a little ironic to me that the first development we get is of course to the south and not to the north. But I guess that's to be expected. I like in general, I guess I should say, Centex. I think that Centex, just to throw out a comment. I don't know whether it's appropriate or not but I like your corporation. I like your developments. I think you did a nice job of Curry Farms. This is a different division of your company but I think that they also provide quite good value for the money in development. So I like seeing your corporation developing in Chanhassen. Since this is a PUD, I for the life of me can't figure out how you do much else with that piece of property. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. And I guess I would like to see further information across the way on the developability of that property that they sort of did hand auguring on. I'd like to get a response whether or not that is sufficient information or that's sufficient engineering information for them to proceed or if they'll have further information by the time we see this again. Getting back to the Highway 5 issue and 1 how the 1, 5 and 8 fit into buffering and how that fits into the goals that we set for that. I wanted to define that a little bit more for you with buffering. I hope that we do not wind up with a wall, a 2 mile wall on the south and north with nothing but higher density situations 1 where if we just see walls of that type of development. Similar to like what you see on 169 going north. There are occasions where you drive by and you see, you drive by for a mile and you see nothing but that type of development. I'd like to see a little bit, if not different kind of zone, at least more creative uses of berming and trees. Plantings. Otherwise I think we're defeating. We certainly would be defeating it just to do it on the north and not do it on the south at the same time. I would go back and support that we modify the recommendations on 2 to expand. I would encourage anyone to bring in, that we add onto that. Certainly the issue of the intersection and public safety and how this fits into the Highway 5 goals. That's the end of my comments. Mancino: Okay. Actually looking at that Jeff I can see where if you're going west, well actually east or west on Highway 5, that at least you have that big open space of wetland so that there will be some good viewing from Highway 5 to the south. The wetland will break that up. Paul, has anybody talked to the three homeowners on that south side of the frontage road that are to the east of this development? I mean as far as they're concerned. If I were a landowner on Galpin, on that west side of Galpin and I saw the comprehensive plan and saw that it was guided single family and then all of a sudden it's going, it may be changed to 1 10 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 medium density, have they been notified of this? 1 Krauss: Well they've certainly been notified. Mancino: Have they been notified that there is a change that may be, the process may be starting. That someone has come in and asked to put medium density. Krauss: We're not actually, Commissioner Mancino it's not actually clear to us exactly what's being changed. The guide plan has a presumption of road alignment for that east/west road. The current alignment has shifted and you know to the point where it's kind of hard to define exactly where that line will be. And now knowing what we know about the wetlands here, there is no real, I mean we had anticipated and I remember when this came up in the comprehensive plan. We knew there was extensive wetlands there but had some ' understanding that there were areas of high ground where cul- de- sac...to the south were able to be pulled in. We now know that area is entirely wetland and is forever protected from development. So I think that the single family area, the low density area that we spoke about 1 in the plan, in all likelihood doesn't exist. But we can provide you with some additional comparisons between. 1 Mancino: Well and I also think that the existing homeowners there should know that this, because if I look here, the road went way up north and it would have had the medium density area in a much smaller. It would have just, it would have been a much smaller area so I'm ' just saying that I think these homeowners need to be able to respond to something that you'll be changing around them. 1 Krauss: We can certainly do that. ' Mancino: And I'd like to hear. Krauss: I honestly don't know if people have been in contact with Kate or not. I know the last contact I had with anyone were the calls I received quite some time ago so it wasn't related to this issue. 1 Mancino: So none of them have been contacted on this particular issue? Krauss: Other than the normal notice procedure, no. I don't believe so. Mancino: Okay. I agree with Jeff on the concern about setbacks and just how Highway 5 and Galpin and all of this is going to relate and how it's going to be a safe area. That there 1 won't be a lot of noise. There won't be a lot of street lights, etc so I think a lot of attention 1 11 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 has to be paid to the landscaping and berming around the development. And any other, I don't have any other thoughts. New ones other than what he said. Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I guess I would also agree with Jeff's comments. I think there's definitely some 1 safety concerns that we need to have addressed. Looking at recommendation number 2, I'm a little concerned about the density and also the coverage, hard surface coverage. These units along the north look pretty tight to me in terms of how they're laid out. But I understand we're looking at a conceptual here but I just, and I know that's part of your evaluation but that's a comment I'll make at this time. And I had a question for Dave. As it relates to the driveways or the accesses off the proposed frontage road. Is that number of accesses acceptable or how do you see that? Is that a problem? Hempel: We always encourage to reduce access points where we can...and it's a question of it being a collector frontage road like this. Ledvina: I look at it, it doesn't look too bad on the east side but then on the west side, two of those driveways are pretty tight in there but I don't know. I think there's actually 3 driveways there. 1 Krauss: Yeah. There's a total of 7 curb cuts and I think the...certainly willing to look at but it's these 3 possibly right in here. 1 Ledvina: Right. That's just something that I noticed that I know it was an issue with one of the other developments we're going to see tonight but if that could be revisited in terms of 1 safety. I guess other than that, I think this proposed development is certainly appropriate for the site and I would support the conceptual from this point. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: My comments have been shared. I guess mine were basically in the public safety 1 area. I noticed that the Fire Marshal noted the need for turn arounds. I think it was 14, 1 and 19. Dave, did you, did someone get a chance to maybe just look at that internal circulation? When the Fire Marshal put his memo together, did he look at the internal circulation to make sure that it was adequate for the vehicles and things like that? Hempel: He did briefly look at it and we had some conversations. The driveway entrance, 1 the units on the south side of the frontage road, kind of in the east area. He was somewhat concerned about that. I recommended that the loop sweep around the back of them and I 1 12 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 think that can be easily accomplished. ' Harberts: I guess mine were just to reinforce the public safety issues, circulation. I think they're nice homes. Nice units. I think it's going to be positive so. ' Scott: Thank you. Mr. Blake, what is the future of the project if let's say that the high ground where it looks like you've got 5 buildings slated. What if that's not profitable for you do build those? Are you still planning on, or is that something that you're considering, �r what do you think is going to happen? ' Dan Blake. That would certainly be a big factor in the doableness. I don't know if that's a word or not. ' Scott: It works. Dan Blake: One of the things we've talked with Park staff at least about, and I think with a little bit talked to the rest of the staff, especially when this was maybe going to be looked at as park. If this didn't get built, does the park department want it? They were looking at this entire wetland area as a park area. And if they did want it, would the city be interested, ' would the city be able to justify constructing a road across here. This is, in my mind, the most significant issue of this project which really has nothing to do with our project. It's already been proclaimed that the road needs to get from here to here. So that issue stands no matter what goes on this site. If we drew, it can be built. That's really not a question as • how expensive it is being built because we can do it, I believe we can do it within regulations, and ...even necessarily as much of a planning issue as just a structural issue. But ' if it's too costly then we need to look at how does that affect obviously the cost of the whole project and the construction of this road through here. And sewer and water that go with it, that really are to be serve a bigger area is a big factor. You know this project may work by ' itself if it was just this piece and a road to here and that's something we looked at and I think we'll continue to work with the staff...what's the best combination. ' Scott: Okay. Well I support this. Approval of this conceptual plan so can I have a motion please. Dan Blake: Can I ask a question? Scott: Sure. Dan Blake: Pardon my ignorance but there's a lot of discussion about the Highway 5 impact and I know the city's been looking at that for a long time. We're a little confused. I don't 1 13 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 1 know if when you talk about more creative berming and landscaping, if that was more creative than what this plan here represents or if that means more creative than what's out on 169. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be trying to hide these buildings or make them more a feature. I understand the objection, or I believe what I understand is that the city doesn't want maybe a bunch of 3 story flat walled apartment buildings. 1 Farmakes: I think the first statement probably than the last. I would try to make, the typical guideline I think are goals are set out, and Paul might be able to provide you with that. Dan Blake: I think we have them. 1 Farmakes: I think the issue is to attempt to work that into the existing landscape and the existing landscape in many people's minds, although it's subjective, is probably more the 1 wetland area than a development. People want to continue to see open areas, balanced areas and a mix as they drive through. I believe that they do not want to see a parallel wall of a single type of development covering it up just because it happens to be by the highway. I think you get a certain type of development and certainly I think if we can get a mix of that going on and some, as I say some creative hiding of some of these issues. Parking. Some of the buildings themselves go a long way. This is not a huge development plan so I'm not. 1 Dan Blake: Right. I mean we're talking about 3 buildings and...facing• ends to the highway. The higher peak or the fronts, which have a little more character and that was kind of our ' attempt to respond to the concerns of your staff. Farmakes: I think also your particular development is one of the first in this particular area 1 that we've been discussing. Dan Blake: I realize that. That's why it's a little bit hard to know exactly what... 1 Scott: Well if you hide them, that's probably a good two word description of what Highway 5 task force is looking for. Mancino: Well yeah, not only from the Highway 5 perspective but from the homeowner's perspective too. We don't want to be looking onto this huge highway and having traffic noise and lights and everything else and the safety issues if there were children. Farmakes: Although we've been working on this now for, what is it? Going on 2 years now. We have yet to finalize but we're in the process of doing that now. Where those requirements are going so lead time may still be a bit out but I think that there's a relative 1 14 1 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers I Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive. I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems I with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I would fully support staff's recommendation. 1 Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion. Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City 1 Council approval of the conceptual planned unit development #93 -5. The applicant being Centex Real Estate Corporation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional information 1 and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the 1 proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio. I Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval I of Conceptual PUD #93 -5 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to I preliminary plat submittal. 2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree I inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the proposed frontage 1 road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio. 3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap I additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A 1 buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. 1 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin 1 15 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 1 5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard 1 Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP). 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1 1993. 11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues raised in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address 1 16 • 1