Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
4 Highlands of Bluff Creek
MEMORANDUM CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 O"an~lassen MN 55317 Administration Ph ~r e: 952 227 1100 Fax 952 227 1110 Building Inspections PI~one 952227 1180 Fa~< 952 227 1190 Engineering Phone 952227.1160 Pax 952227 1170 Finance R'on,~: 992227 1140 Fax 952 22711!0 Park & Recreation Phone 952227 1!20 Fax 952227 1110 R(=creation Oenter 2510 Oaulter Boulevard Phone: 9522271400 Fax: 952227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone, 9522271 Fa,x 952 227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 9522271300 Fax: 952 22,~ 1310 Senior Center Ph',,r~e: 9522271125 Fax: 9522271110 Web Site ci~anh,xssen ~1rl us TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: SUB J: Bob Generous, Senior Planner/~/ ,2' March 22, 2004 Highlands on Bluff Creek EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommended denial of the land use amendment, rezoning and consequently denial of the subdivision with the setback variance to the Bluff Creek primary zone and conditional use permit due to inconsistency with the zoning. The primary issues the Planning Commission had were resolving the primary zone location, tree removal and access. Staff has consistently stated that the primary zone boundary follows the tree line north of the house and structures on the north side of the property. What the applicant is proposing is that they be permitted to remove some of these trees and create a new tree line that would become, if approved, the revised primary zone boundary. The forested areas within this property are an example of upland hardwood forests, specifically, maple basswood forest, otherwise known as "Big Woods". Staff has prepared an analysis of the tree removal due to structure placement vs. pond placement. Tree Removal for retention pond in primary scenario: Creating a storm pond within the primary zone would remove a minimum of 9,300 square feet of canopy. Significant trees would also be removed. They include a 10" boxelder and a 20" boxelder. Trees that are at the edge of the grading limits, and therefore questionable as to their survivability, include 12" boxelder, 27" boxelder, 32" boxelder, 13" boxetder, 24" boxelder, and 15" sugar maple. This design creates fragmentation in an otherwise connected piece of woods, possibly having a negative effect on the quality of the woods. Tree removal for townhomes in primary zone: Building townhomes in the primary zone would remove a minimum of 3,250 square feet of canopy. According to the plans, no significant trees in the primary zone would be removed. However, there are trees located at the edge of the grading limits, and therefore questionable as to their survivability. These include a 22" sugar maple, 26" sugar maple, and a 21" sugar maple. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 are the buildings having the most affect on tree removal within the primary zone. The City of Chanhassen · & growing o0mnlklrlity with clean lakes Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 2 Tree quality in relation to removal standards: Chanhassen city ordinance does not discriminate against certain tree species. The ordinance does not have a ranking of tree species in regards to preservation because the aim is to recognize that all species have value. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve tree cover in the city, not to insure that only certain species of trees are preserved. In the case of the retention pond for this development, the trees identified for removal are boxelder and the question arose about whether or not these trees were of consequence. From the perspective of city ordinance, yes, they are. They are providing all the benefits of other species, namely, oxygen, shade, runoff reduction, CO (carbon monoxide) reduction and habitat. The DNR has documented that at least 5 different species of wildlife use boxelders for shelter or food. Staff agrees with the ordinance that the important question isn't what trees are removed, but rather how many. At the March 2, 2004, Planning Commission (PC) meeting, concerns were raised about the location of the proposed access to the site off of West 78th Street. The PC asked staff to look at the possibility of moving the proposed private street access so that it would come from the east off of Century Trail. Staff has since met with the applicant's engineer and reviewed the location of the proposed site access. In order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant would need to purchase a piece of park/open space land from the City. The City currently owns the open space property (Outlot G, Arboretum Village plat) immediately to the east of the McAllister parcel. Staff has concerns with potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. From an engineering standpoint, it doesn't appear that the private street can access off of Century Trail. The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the south side of the street. These townhomes must be three feet above the high water level (HWL) of the adjacent pond. The applicant's engineer has provided a road design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For the above reasons, staff does not feel that the access location to the site should be moved. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the primary zone, potential access via Century Trail and tree removal. Based on this meeting, the applicant has prepared one last development option. This option combines the twin units on the south side of the access street in to a four-unit structure. By doing this, they are able to realign the street farther to the east. These revisions result in additional tree preservation of the significant maples along Highway 41. Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 3 As alternative, the applicant could also have eliminated one unit and developed three two-family structures in this location, which would also result in the moving of the street to the east, preserving the trees along Highway 41. However, this alternative would have reduced the total number of units to 17 from the 18 proposed. Additionally, the City has determined that construction of the Highway 41 trail will be done by the City. This section of trail will be completed in combination with the trail the City is constructing to the north of the Highlands project. This is being done for two reasons: 1. To ensure that the trail still gets built in the event the Highlands project does not proceed. 2. To allow for continuity in the design, engineering, permitting and construction of this pedestrian trail segment. Staff believes the development is complementary and compatible with the Arboretum Village development and is recommending approval of the land use amendment to permit cluster development, rezoning to PUD-R, the preliminary plat with a variance to the Bluff Creek primary zone, the conditional use permit and site plan approval. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of the entire City Council. City Council may: 1. Grant approval of development, with or without modification of the conditions for: a. 18 units (as proposed by the developer with the revised primary zone boundary or as revised by the developer 3/4/04) by deleting condition number 1 of the preliminary plat (motion C), b. 17 units (approving three two-family units south of the private street) by specifying approval for 17 units and deleting condition 1 of the preliminary plat (motion C), or c. 15 units (maintaining the primary zone as recommended by staff) which would be approving the existing motion; or 2. Deny the development. If the plat is not approved, the City Council shall state the reasons for denial on the record, by adopting the Planning Commission's findings of fact. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2004 and on March 2, 2004, with a revised plan, dated February 3, 2004. The Planning Commission voled Mr. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager March 22, 2004 Highlands of Bluff Creek Page 4 5 in favor and 2 abstentions to deny the land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat with variance, conditional use permit and site plan review. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet for March 22, 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the five motions in the staff report based on the attached findings for approval: A. Land Use Amendment from Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density B. Conceptual and preliminary PUD approval. C. Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20-foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone D. Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District E. Site Plan ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 2, 2004. 2. (Approval) Findings of Fact 3. (Denial) Findings of Fact and Recommendation 4. Letter from Susan McAllister to Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04 01 - highlands of blurt' creek\executive smnmary highlands of bluff' creek.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: March 2, 2004 CC DATE: March 22, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 3, 2004 CASE#: 04-01 BY: RG, LH, TH, ML, JS, MS, ST STAFF REPORT Z PROPOSAL: Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outtots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek. LOCATION: 2930West 78th Street Northeast corner of West 78th Street and Trunk Highway 41 APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC 1851 Lake Drive West #550 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-0832 Susan McAllister 2930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density ACREAGE: 6.52 acres DENSITY: 2.76 units/acre gross; 3.18 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing an 18-unit townhouse project consisting of three two- unit structures and four three-unit structures. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a prelinfinary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 20 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a site plan for an 18-unit townhouse development, Highlands of Bluff Creek, consisting of three two-unit structures and four three-unit structures. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26-foot wide pavement standard. There would be one access point onto West 78th Street, located at the existing curb cut for the property. The request includes a land use map amendment to permit the density transfer within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, since the PUD ordinance currently does not permit density transfer in properties guided residential - low density; and a Planned Unit Development which permits the clustering of housing units; a subdivision with a variance request for the setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone; a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and site plan review for an 18-unit townhouse development. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on January 6, 2004 to present a plan, similar to the current plan. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the applicant to revise the plans to address the numerous conditions of the staff report, to investigate the possibility of relocating the storm water pond to the north side of the development, to size the pond appropriately, to review the retaining wall, to look at reducing or eliminating the retaining wall, to realign the sewer line and to include a trail connection. The applicant has greatly improved the plan; however, they are still proposing the encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone. Even though they are proposing the expansion of the primary zone (approximately 4,700 square feet) in exchange for the area being removed (approximately 4,000 square feet), staff is opposed to any encroachment into the primary zone. The applicant has prepared a preliminary alternative site plan which relocated the pond to the north side of the site. However, both staff and the applicant agree that that alternative is a less desirable design which would impact the Bluff Creek primary zone more. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission in August 2003 to present a concept plan for the property. The concept plan included 24 units in three and four-unit structures. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of some type of townhouse project for the site, but with fewer units. As part of the submittal process, staff requested that the applicant prepare a sketch plan (sketch 1) to establish the capacity of the site based on a twin home developmenl, ignoring the primary zone boundary, as outlined in the Bluff Creek Overlay District standards. The sketch plan established 18 units as the maximum potential development density of the site. However, such a plan does not assure that 18 units will be approved, since any proposed development would still need to comply with city code requirements. The applicant initially submitted a plan containing 19 units in three and four-unit structures (alternate plan 1). However, this plan ignored the primary zone boundary and proposed two access points onto West 78th Street. Staff rejected the plans. The next plan (alternate plan 2) shifted the development south on the site in recognition of the primary zone. However, alternate plan 2 did not incorporate two and three-unit structures similar to the development to the east. The applicant revised the plans to include two and three-unit buildings, Highlands of Bluff Creek, which is the proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 3 of 20 On the south and east sides of the development is Arboretum Village which consists of townhouses. To the north of West 78th Street, the townhouses are constructed as two, three and four-unit structures at a Net Density of 3.5 units per acre (137 units + 39 acres = 3.5). South of West 78th Street the townhouses consist of four, six and eight-unit structures at a Net Density of 8.7 units per acre (242 units + 27.8 acres = 8.7). The overall net density of the Arboretum Village development is 5.7 units per acre. The project abuts the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Approximately 30 percent of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone that includes the wooded area on the north side of the development which slopes down to the wetland complex north of the property. The proposed development encroaches into the primary zone by approximately 35 feet adjacent to Block 3 in exchange for expanding the primary zone by 40 feet in the area of the existing barn and corral. Additionally, the applicant has incorporated a planting plan within this area to help re- vegetate this area. However, the primary zone is intended to be preserved in its existing state and expanded and protected if possible. While staff supports the granting of a setback variance to permit a 20-foot setback rather than a 40-foot setback due to the site constraints even after reducing the pavement width, but expanding the pond, we do not support the encroachment into the primary zone itself. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi-parted, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment be approved contingent on final PUD development plan approval and Metropolitan Council approval, the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development be approved, the preliminary plat be approved with a variance to the Bluff Creek setback subject to modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions of approval, the conditional use permit be approved, and the site plan be approved. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a zoning ordinance amendment (ZOA #00-1) to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate district. On July 24, 2000, the City Council also approved the applicant's request for an interim use permit (IUP #00-2) to operate a petting farm. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 4 of 20 In May 2001, the City approved Arboretum Village, a planned unit development located directly south and east of the applicant's property. As part of this development, an outlot was created to preserve the natural features. This outlot is south of a wetland and includes the wetland buffer area. This outlot abuts the applicant's property on the north and east sides. In 2001, the city undertook utility expansion in the BC-7 and BC-8 sewer subdistricts. This utility improvement brought sanitary sewer and water service from Galpin Boulevard to the west side of Highway 41. As part of the Arboretum Village 2nd Addition, the developer extended sanitary sewer service to the easterly property line of the site. As part of a state project on TH 41 that con'esponded with the Arboretum Village development, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) required the southerly driveway access on the applicant's property to Highway 41 be closed and relocated for safety reasons to West 78th Street. On June 24, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for Miss Rosie's Farm and an amendment to Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system. On January 6, 2004, the project, Highlands of Bluff Creek, was tabled by the Planning Commission for additional refinement to the plan. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-R. The project consists of 18 townhouse units incorporated in three 2-unit structures and four 3-unit structures. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD in this instance is to permit density clustering for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for an internal transfer of density. 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. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and preserves the Bluff Creek corridor subject to the recommended modifications to the plan. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 5 of 20 The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse development consisting of two and three-unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall comply with the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses Two and three-unit townhouse structures. Accessory Use (on Outlot B only) Gazebo Maintenance Shed Picnic Shelter Project Identification Sign c. Setbacks The following building setbacks shall apply Retaining Wall School Bus Shelter Sidewalks Street, Private Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 6 of 20 West 78th Street 50 ft. TH 41 50 ft. Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 10 ft. East Development Property Line 30 ft. Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A) 20 ft., with the first 10 ft. as buffer ee ho Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development. 2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet. Building Materials and Design 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved material pallet. 3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent grading and construction is completed. 2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. Signage 1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on West 78th Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. 2. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos. Lighting Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 7 of 20 1. A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development for area lighting. 2. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. SUBDIVISION REVIEW The applicant is proposing an 18-lot subdivision with two outlots and a private street. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. The plans should be revised to show the Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lot 2, Block 2; Lots 1-3, Block 3; and Lots 1-3, Block 4 do not meet the required 40-foot setback and, in fact, several of the units encroach into the Primary Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved. Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 18-unit townhouse pads, a proposed private driveway ending with a partial hammerhead turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a four-foot retaining wall along the south side of the proposed storm pond. The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the drainage from the street, the front yards, the rear yards of Lots 7-18 and route the storm water to a proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly corner of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet control structure to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. The overflow water will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78th Street, ending at a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are needed. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 8 of 20 the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. Storm Water Management CBMH-6 should have a two-foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. Easements A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond. Erosion and Sediment Control Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy- duty mono-mono silt fence with 4-foot spacing of metal T-posts and I" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 9 of 20 Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water facility. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $11,802. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $22,944 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited fl)r water quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from off-site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. "['he applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 10 of 20 Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits t¥om the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast corner of the parcel. The watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30-foot wide public easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per-area basis. The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 proJect were based on the existing zoning for the site with one residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (18) than what the property had been assessed for, the additional 17 units (18-1=17) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8 project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $2,994. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ 2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City fox' maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District and MnDOT. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 11 of 20 STREETS The plan shows a full access off of West 78th Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is proposing a 26-foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer-head turnaround. The partial hammer-head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40-foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7-ton design per City code. Lot Tabulation: Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) L1 B 1 3,960 46 86 L2 B1 3,103 36 86 L3 B 1 3,960 46 86 L1 B2 3,914 39 86 L2 B2 3,903 38 86 LI B3 3,944 44 86 L2 B3 3,103 36 86 L3 B3 3,960 46 86 L1 B4 3,960 46 86 L2 B4 3, ! 03 36 86 L3 B4 3,960 46 86 L1 135 3,960 46 86 L2 B5 3,960 46 86 L1 B6 3,960 46 86 L2 B6 3,960 46 86 LI B7 3,960 46 86 L2 B7 3,103 36 86 L3 B7 3,960 46 86 Outlot A 74,561 # NA NA Outlot B 104,312 # NA NA TH 41 37,374 Total 284,007 # The outlot boundary shall be adjusted to correspond with the 13luff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary. The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 3.18 units per acre. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 12 of 20 PARKS AND RECREATION Staff has reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18-unit townhouse project (McAllister Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies within the park service area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open space, natural areas, a five-acre open space/park area at the north end of Century Boulevard and a trail system; however, a public playground or ball field is not located within walking distance. A private playground facility owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the McAllister property. A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system is included for this project. The nearest section of the trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78th Street. The applicant is providing a trail connection along Highway 41 from West 78th Street to the northern property line which shall connect to a trail completing the Bluff Creek headwaters trail loop being constructed by the city this year. T~ ,~ .... ~ .... shall be responsible for planning, engineering, legal and o~ other associated ~,o T~ ~ ~,;.;~= c..~ reimbursement from '% ~,.j o ,r.,, fund -vv ................................... v .........svec:-:ca.:ons .......... u ...... .... Cit~ _., 0r standards. The city has decided to include the trail segment from West78th Street to the north property line as part of the city project. This section of trail will be completed in combination with the trail the City is constructing to the north of the Highlands project. This is being done for two reasons: 1. To ensure that the trail still gets built in the event the Highlands project falls apart. 2. To allow for continuity in the design, engineering, permitting and construction of this pedestrian trail segment. It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building. LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the McAllister parcel are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage reqnired Proposed tree preservation 6.52 ac. 42% or 2.75 ac. 30% or 1.96 ac. 28% or 1.81 ac. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 13 of 20 The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted .15 ac. 1.2 .18 ac. or 7,841 SF 8 trees The developer will be required to plant 8 trees as a part of reforestation in addition to one tree per home according to city ordinance. One tree shall be added in the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 5. Buffer yard planting is required along West 78th Street, Highway 41 and the east property line. Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including additional landscaping in that area. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Buffer yard B* - South property line, 440', 9 overstory trees 13 overstory trees buffer width 20' 13 understory trees 23 understory trees 22 shrubs 12 shrubs Buffer yard B* - West property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 10 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 18 understory trees 13 shrubs 18 shrubs Buffer yard B* - East property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 2 overstory trees buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 13 understory trees 13 shrubs 16 shrubs Boulevard Trees - W. 75th St., 1 per 30' 15 overstory trees 13 overstory trees Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shurbs The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. The existing woods on the north side of the property consist of a large stand of maple-basswood forest, a type of native forest that is generally referred to as 'Big Woods.' It is of good quality; there is sufficient regeneration of trees, only minimal amounts of buckthom around the edges of the woods and minimally impacted by the existing use of the property. Staff recommends that these woods be preserved fully intact. The primary boundary line should run parallel to the edge of the woods. Preservation of this area would also help greatly in meeting canopy coverage requirements for the site and eliminate the need for reforestation plantings. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 14 of 20 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes a total of 18 townhouse units consisting of three two-unit structures and four three-unit structures. The proposal includes single-level townhomes with walkouts or basements. Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26-foot wide pavement. The site plan proposed preserving the majority of the trees within the northern portion of the property. Additionally, trees shall be preserved along Highway 41. The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be differentiated from one another. The applicant's narrative states that, "the use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi-paned, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council t,~ .... ~.. r,.,~;oo;~, adopt the following five motions and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: A. "The Planning r,.~;oo; .......... .~o t~ t~.~ City Council .........~ ...................................... re ..... of approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land Use Amendment. B. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council grants conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R." C. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council grants Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance (Variance #2003-19) to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03 and 02/03/04, subject to the following conditions. 1. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 of the preliminary plat shall be eliminated to comply with the 20-foot Bluff Creek primary zone setback requirement. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 15 of 20 2. The property line between Outlots A and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. 3. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78th Street. 4. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common elements of the development. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building, which shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said "aS !, including materials ~,4 ~-bo~ ~.,, excluding engineering, surveying, '---~ ,,,4 ,~ ~,~ ......... ;,,,,~ !/giN ,~s .................. costs. To be e e by ' wa~ant:es equal to~,~ excee~;n"~,s ;~"~' .... The developer does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shrubs. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings required. 8. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development contract. All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback fi-om the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 10. Roof drainage and sump pump systems for houses adjacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be directed to the draintile behind the street curb. 11. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space. 12. The plans shall be revised to show the actual Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 16 of 20 13. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 14. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review. 15. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once the site has been revegetated. 16. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. 17. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 18. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. 19. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per-area basis. 20. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance. 21. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 17 of 20 22. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 310l, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300 and 5301. 23. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access. 24. Add a street light at the access. 25. On a. b. C. d. e. the utility plan: Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. Remove/delete the last note. Call out water-main fittings. Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class. Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe. 26. On a. b. C. the grading plan: Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3-foot sump. 27. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 28. The partial hammer-head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshall. 29. The private street must be enclosed in a 40-foot wide private easement. The developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7-ton design. 30. CBMH-6 shall have a two-foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond. 3 l. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 32. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations. 33. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond. 34. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 18 of 20 35. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet installation and during home construction. 36. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. 37. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 38. These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 39. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 40. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $34,746. 41. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. D. "The Planning r,^~;o~; ........... ~ ........... ~ ............................... m' ..... of City Council appoves Conditional Use Permit #2003-l0 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development and Subdivision requirements for the property. All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved. 3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A). Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 19 of 20 E. "The Planning c,~oo: .......... ,~ ........... ~ ~c City Council approves Site Plan #2003-1 I, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. 3. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of plantings required for each of the buffer yards. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of boulevard trees required along West 78th Street. 5. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant shall plant six trees on the site to meet reforestation requirements. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 8. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. 9. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Highlands of Bluff Creek March 2, 2004 Page 20 of 20 ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 2/3/04 Reduced Copy Existing Conditions Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Reduced Copy Preliminary Utility Plan Reduced Copy Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Plan Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan Reduced Copy Preliminary Alternate Site Plan Picture Townhouse Structure Right Front Picture Townhouse Structure Left Front Picture Townhouse Rear Concept Plan Sketch 1 Alternate Plan 1 Alternate Plan 2 18. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Jan. 6, 2004 19. Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision 20. Letter from Aaron Mlynek to Robert Generous dated 12/22/03 21. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission dated 2/23/04 22. Letter from Brigid Gombold to Sharmeen AI-Jaff dated 01/13/04 23. Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2004 24. Affidavit of Mailing Notice CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MiNNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 2. 3. 4. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density uses. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with alt performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. o Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is a more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. c) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. 2 e) The proposed development is Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development preserves the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. I) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) d) e) g) h) i) J) k) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback wqriance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78th Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; 10. et al, b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of opcn space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and an'angement and amount of parking. The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 15-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 15-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 15 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback subject to the recommendations contained in the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: "~'~ ADDRESS: [~I L...-~-~ '~, L,,-)~'~- ~ 550 TELEPHONE (day time) c~~L. :3 ~ t. ~, 'i~ ?__ TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* ~ Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* "~ Subdivision* % ~ 15 .t.l9 __ TemporarY Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal __ Zoning Ordinance Amendment X __ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of t, he~proaerty must be included with the Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y=" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will .be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION · YES. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied b-~ all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A.determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the app. licant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the .City should contact regarding any matter pedaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I fudher .understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any auth°rization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120,days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. 1o3 Date Date APplication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant shoUld contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If nOt contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. West'wood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING · ENGINEERING ° SURVEYING 11' MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: CITYOFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2004 Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen Ed Hasek February 3, 2004 Plowshares - Highlands of Re: Bluff Creek Project No.: 20032566 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone: 952-937-5150 Fax: 952-937-5822 Toll free: 1~888-937-5150 E-maih wps~westvvoodps.com TWIN crrlES/IVlET~O ST. CLOUD BRAINERD On behalf of Plowshares Development LLC we are pleased to resubmit our application for the development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review, CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10 ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street. EXISTING CONDITIONS A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With the construction of West 78th Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 78th Street. The property lies within the HC-2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is currently within the BCOD primary zone. Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not unusual for a mature oak-maple-basswood woodland. Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny-Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to 10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along the west and south edges of the site as back-slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and West 78th Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation 1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits th 2 to 8 feet above 78 Street. Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard. The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6-unit structures) and east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the west, and Bluff Creek is located to the nodh. Designing the Futura Today_.since 1972 Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2004 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Since last meeting with the commission in early January we have met with City staff on several occasions at all levels to review the list of conditions attached to the staff comments on the previous application. The plan now reflects revisions to resolve issues as identified in those meetings. It was also agreed that a number of comments will still remain and will be addressed with our application for Final Plat. Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings will vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area. The site will be accessed by a single 26-foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5- foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). Each home will have a two-car garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the private street. A 6-foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 78th Street to link Century Trail to a new trail now included along Highway 41, and the Bluff Creek trail system. Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond designed to City standards located in the southeast corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to existing stubs in 78th Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities. Approximately 34% (.94 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads, driveways, homes, trail system, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement or dedication to the City. Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. A small area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 wilt also be preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices, and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any additional tree losses. As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow construction to 20 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands and slope on the site. Approximately 7,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and 2,600 s.f. of area will be added back. 8,700 s.f. of tree canopy will be reestablished within the primary zone with health native overstory tree species. Landscaping will be concentrated as screening along Highway 41 and West 78th Street, and as a buffer along the east property line. A street tree planting scheme has been added to the private street frontage, and foundation plantings will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front facade of each home. We have provided staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. While the development is proposed to be platted as townhomes with small lots around each home, the average area per unit for the proposed plan is 12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards. Designing the future today... MINNEAPOLIS ST. CLOUD Page 3 of 3 February 3, 2004 The proposed 2 and 3 unit buildings are consistent with surrounding development (2, 3, 4, and 6 unit buildings) in Arboretum Village, and provide a reasonable transition of land use and density adjacent to Highway 41. The inclusion of three unit buildings also provides an interior unit at a slightly different price point than the end units. The front entry/porch is recessed from the front of the building by 6 to 8 feet to break up the front facade, and a porch and deck at the rear of each home provides 10 feet of relief along the back wall of the structures. The use of various building materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection will provide a visual variety to the exterior of each building. Each building will vary from those abutting it, and no two abutting buildings will look the same. The requirements for storm water ponding, and associated requirements for floor elevations above anticipated water levels, dictates that the buildings on this site be kept relatively high. The pond is located along West 78th, preserving the greatest amount of tree canopy, and will outlet to the regional pond along Highway 5. STAFF REVIEW As previously mentioned, we have met with staff to address the list of conditions prepared for their last review, and have addressed those issues pertaining specifically to the preliminary application as directed. Also, and at the direction of City staff, we have prepared an Alternate Site Pan that considers the possibility of locating the pond to the north and within the BCOD (moving the housing south to the minimum 50-foot setback line). We have met with, or received review comments from all departments of staff, and find that there is both support and concern for each development alternative. Storm water wants to flow naturally to the north, but if the pond were to be constructed in the BCOD, an additional .25- acre of tree canopy and 6 surveyed significant trees would be lost, and a discharge pipe would have to be installed through the trees and north to Bluff Creek. Because this property is not under developer control a tree survey was not conducted in this area. Additional trees may need to be removed due to the installation of the storm water discharge pipe. We feel the best solution for the development of this property to be the plan as proposed with the creation of new woodlands and canopy in the BCOD. The plan as proposed also allows the greatest separation of homes from West 78th Street, and reduces the amount of infrastructure necessary to construct the project. We appreciate the opportunity that we have had in working with City planning, engineering, and other staff to bring this project forward again for your review. We have had occasion to meet with the various departments to identify and work through a number of issues, and have responded by continuing to refine and rework the development plans for this revised application. We are extremely excited about this project and look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen and it staff toward the successful completion of the Highlands of Bluff Creek. Designing the future today... MINNEAPOLIS ST. CLOUD / / / / / LU ~ LU / Z U~ (O GO CZ3 C~ © / / ~ u ? / ? / / ¢'~ / / , i / UJ (.) 0 t-- 0 (0 G') ZC I1 / / / ? 0 I,- Z 0 0 13: 0 0 Z CZ) CLD / / __ 679.94. / / / / / / / / ~c ! I / C OLITLOTA ~88. 79 ~ tion en ~ 5 SIDEWALK D k U EASE/WEN OVER ALL OF OUIZOT 0 2: ? ? / / / / \ \ \ 0 U ,hi [Insert List Name and Address of Local Government Unit Here]Ci _fY Of Chhnhhsseti, 7700 Ma~k~t B6ulevard, P.O. B6x 147, Chanhass~n, MN 55317 ' ' -' .... ~' Name' 6f Applicant? Genevieve Bolling, WegtW0od'Pi-6fesgi(3iiai Services, Inc. Application Type of Application (check one): ['--] Exemption Decision [5~ NO Loss Decision ~ Replacement Plan Decision [~] Banking Plan Decision [~] Wetland Type/Boundary Decision Date of Decision: August 1.2, 2003 Check One: ~~ [~] Approved with conditions [---] Denied List of Addressees: [Landowner] Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ]Members of Technical Evaluation Panel] Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources ]Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)] Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District [Department of Natural Resources Regional Office] Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 , Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 [Individual members of the public who requested a copy, smmmary only] (none) ~ Page I of 2 McAllister No Loss (April 2003) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard · P,O. Box 147 - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Name of Applicant: Project Location: Ms. Genevive Bolling Plowshares/McAllister Property, Chanhassen, MN 55317 (TI 16N R23W S9) Type of Application (check one): [] [] [] [] Exemption Decision No Loss Decision Replacement Plan Decision Banking Plan Decision Date of Decision: August 12, 2003 Findings and Conclusions The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information. The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Title: Water Resources Coordinator Oate: Dec.22, 2003 FO:FOAM No,1943 P. 273 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5 I01 Fax: 952-442-5497 _httD://wvw.cO.carver.mn.us/SWCDff, WCD nlallLMm! Mlsslon Statement:. To p/~ovkte leade~shl1) tn conservattan and teach stewardship of the $oti, water, crud r~ated resources th,vugh a balanced, coopeeatlve prOgram that protec~, re,etor~, and lntprove,~ those teaouree~. December 22, 2003 Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chaxthassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development Mr. Generous: Tha~ you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the SWCD office. Please review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control comments and recommendations. Storm Water Beginning March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing 1-acre or more or part of a contiguous development which will disturb more than 1-acre require a National Pollutant Discharge Elim~ation System (NPDES) permit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner / operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES permit prior to beginning construction activities. Any development disturbing more than 1-acre and creating more than 1-acre of impervious surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed storm water basin. For water quality purposes, it is recommended to construct the storm water basin as a two-cell basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow bas/u. The two ceil basin could consist of a berm constructed in the middle of the pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The berm would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would grow on the berm and provide minimal additional treatment as well. The overland flow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert the water into the first cell of the two-cell basin. In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All construction shall conform to. local rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". The consffuction must meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES permit). Additionally, the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive dra/nage. The AN EQII'AL OPPOR'I?IJ~IT¥ E~PLOYER Dec,22. 2003 IO'IlAM No.1943 P, 3/3 note "PositiVe drainage from the site must be provided at all time" should be amended to include verbiage pertaining to the sites' obligation to meet dewatering regulations according to NPDES. For flirt, her information check Part IV, Section D. 1 and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES Permit (MN RI 00001). Erosion Control 1.. Riprap and geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water basin. 2. No tempm'ary mulch or seeding was mentioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time frames. Sediment COntrol 1. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the stor~n water pond follow/rig the outlet installation and during home construction.' 2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet cont~:ol methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protec_tion cottld consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of~netal T-posts and I" rock armmd silt fertce material, After pavemertt, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets must include daily street scraping and as- needed street sweeping (i.e. weekly sweeping). If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office. Sincerely, Urban Conservation Technician Susan McAIlister February 23, 2004 Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong, Members of the City Council, Planning Commission Members, City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hand Delivered CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT In 1995 when I became a member of the Steering Committee for the BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Drat~ I was told by Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, that she didn't think there was any Primary Zone on my property then in the same breath she corrected herself by stating she thought just the upper comer of my property was in the Primary Zone. Magically, as years have passed now I find the city saying half of my property lies in the Primary Zone. How is it that 1 have become burdened for protection of such a large area of the Primary Zone? I felt my property was going to become a good target for allowing the Primary Zone to fall on half of my property because fi.om its conception in 1994 the city was already well aware that my intent was never to develop my site. I actually came up with a very nice way to keep it green and at the same time make the concept into a business, Miss Rosie's Farm®. So when the Bluff Creek Ordinance was at the public hearing stage even if I had wanted to oppose the amount of Primary Zone that ultimately ended up on my property, it would have been a futile effort on my part because of my well known intent to use the land for a farm and my passion for wanting to protect every tree on the site. Actually there had been more than one reference made regarding my land as being "ear marked" for a park when Pulte was in their development stage. I was actually given a heads up warning to be aware of this from someone inside city hall. In the city's mind they probably felt some comfort in assuming there was a good possibility that 1 would someday even donate my property to the city after I had quit using it as a petting farm. I now feel that when it would have come time to reapply for my interim use permit, the city would have made acquiring my land part of the trade off for my extension request. Unfortunately, last year as many of you are aware, I was a victim ora serious car accident that changed every aspect of my life within seconds. I was going to make a living by running a farm in the city but as a result of the accident I need to develop the property in order to realize its economic value. I have had to change the management of my land from being the passionate preservationist to becoming a developer - overnight. 1 can honestly say this has been the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I see my land as holding the potential of much needed value for me. I have worked hard for it and have personally sacrificed for it. I expect the city to allow me to get a fair market price for it. In 1999 when Pulte intended to develop the land around my farmstead I supported their development plan for the good of my community. I could have been a thom in your sides but I felt I needed to act responsibly. In fact, ! remember standing before you on December 5, 2000 at Pulte's Arboretum Village public hearing asking you to "allow development to happen in a big way", "to allow the developer and the city to have what we so much needed - housing". I ask that you allow the same precedence that was given Pulte to be applied to this plan. The rules were relaxed for Pulte and I am asking for the same fairness to be given to me by relaxing the Primary Zone to the North side of my property to be consistent with the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft of July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 1 !, Watershed Vision and Goals, ! lb. Collective Statement found on Page 8, 5th paragraph: Ali vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. This aligns with Kate's original statement to me that only the upper comer of my property has the Primary Zone on it. Secondly, to do what needs to be done by city staffand the developer to accommodate the allowable number of traits the city calculated in the official "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" conducted I believe in 1997. Which, according to my calculations with taking into consideration the "Final Plat is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to W. 78th ST.", ! come up with a figure of 22 or 23 units for my site. 2930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952-474-5099 Being a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Corridor since 1995, 1 believe the committee worked on the "vision" and how to achieve the vision for about one year. We were told the city had to acquire the Primary and Secondary Zone through dedication by means ora development plan each time pieces of the corridor were to be developed or through direct purchase by the city. It was never meant to be "a taking" because obviously you need to pay someone for taking their land. Referencing Bluff Creek Watershed Plan Draft, July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996, Article 11. Watershed Vision and Goals, 1 lb. Collective Statement Page 7, Paragraph 3; It states: "Private property ownership rights are recognized." So it came to pass that an ordinance needed to be created to acquire the land now to be known as the Primary Zone which prohibits development of any kind in that area, which consequently took away half of my land. What was given as very clear direction from The Steering Committee to the city, back and forth we went, many times over about this was that 300 feet from where the vegetation starts was to be The Primary Zone and 40 feet around the Primary Zone is the Secondary Zone. The committee was very specific about this more than anything else we talked about for a year. We were asked as landowners and citizens of the community to define the area of protection for the BluffCreek which we did, which was the due process steps for creating the ordinance to be known as The Bluff Creek Ordinance, Article 31, Chapter 20, Section 20-1551 to 20-1564. This placed only the North East comer tip of my property into the Primary Zone. Though you have kept much of the 11 b. Collective Statement, you specifically left out the directive of the 300 feet. This directive is found on Page 8 of the Bluff Creek Water Shed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft and Final Copy, December, 1996. "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." How the ordinance was written became a "bait and switch" tactic by the city. I was baited in the beginning, along with a lot of others and then the city switched things and the Secondary Zone magically became the entire Primary Zone, which ultimately took away half of my property. You are taking away the reasonable use of my property and you need to return it or compensate me for it. According to the Bluff Creek Ordinance, Section 3. Section 20-1, of the Chanhassen City Code - Cluster Development means a pattern of development that arranges the layout of buildings on a compact area of the site so as to reserve a portion of the site for common open space or green space that is protected in perpetuity. A portion is not defined as "almost half the site". It also speaks to the creation of suitable balance between the amount of open space and the development in general. It does not say total balance or half of it as being a balance; it only says suitable which says it is negotiable. It also says the Planning Director shall make a determination as to the "where" the areas are so it means it is arbitrary in the initial delineation by the Planning Director. Also, the ordinance states "The city intends that all development within the district meet certain criteria of judgment" which states in Section 20 - 1461 Intent. Paragraph (a) "The Comprehensive Plan which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, as amended from time to time",... So this speaks to negotiation of the roles again. Further, the ordinance states under Section 20 - 1464 Boundary Delineation, paragraph (b); The applicant may appeal the planning director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. Therefore, after all that has been said and done I, Susan McAllister, the land owner, am respectfully asking the city council to bring my property's North section back to the original intent of the steering committee's vision that is specifically "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." I believe this should be the Primary Zone which places the Primary Zone once again only on my upper North East comer of my property and allows a portion of the rest of the area in question to become the Secondary Zone which states in the Bluff Creek Ordinance Section 20 - 1461 Intent, paragraph (b)... and to the greatest extent possible, preserving significant resources and minimizing impacts in the Secondary Zone through cluster development... The ordinance does allow for development in the Secondary Zone through use of the density transfer mechanism. According to the city's narrative we are developing 6.52 acres with about 30% of the area in the Bluff Creek Zone at 2 units per acre, which equals 13.04 units, but the Single Family Residence Ordinance automatically allows for twin homes so 13.04 becomes 26.08 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. This is the city's own formula which then becomes 22.168 units rounded down to 22 units. This is the Ghost Plat Formula without the Primary Zone figured into the site. Bluff Creek Protection Area formula as follows: Using the city's "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" my net density is 6 units per acre. 6.5 acres less 30% for Primary Zone equals 4.55 developable acres, multiplied by 6 net units per acre equals 27.3 units, rounded down to 27 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. equals 22.95 units or 22/23 units. In order for the Bluff Creek Ordinance to be used properly and not become misused as just another mechanism for Eminent Domain without compensation, which it never was intended to be, it specifically allows for the same density that could be achieved through development of the entire site to now be transferred to a designated area. I therefore, expect the city to work proactively according to their own rules they put in place and allow me to have the 22 or 23 units that could be there without the ordinance yet through the use of density transfer. Please accept this letter as a matter of public record for the public hearing phase of the development of my property. I expect to address this with city council. Respectfully, Landowner CITY OF Bonestroo Rosene ,~ ~nderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects There is ~ cont/huous ~reenway a/on~ the o-ee]~ from the/V#nne$ota R/ver to Lake M~hnewashta ..... The creek corridor is more wild than domesticated. The design of an open space network has protected diverse wildlife habitats and cultural landscapes, such as farmland. In addition, there is adequate access to trails, parking, facilities and interpretive elements. There are numerous active areas for picnics to minimize pressure on native wild areas. The upper o'eek is accesszb/e for a var/et)/of uses znclud/ng a tray system on the upper and m/dd/e reaches, wl~h poss/b/e out-of-corridor connections to observat/on areaz .... A multiple use trail runs north from Pioneer Trail for biking, running and skiing. Side trails connect with neighborhoods. A community park in the upper reaches is contiguous to the trail system. There is a cross-country ski trail in the area and a bike trail north of Lyman Boulevard/Pioneer Trail. No motorized vehicles are allowed in the greenway. S/~n#icant enw~onmenta/ areas through the corndor wY/be/dent[#ed and pr/br/t[zed w/th a raflh~ system The spectacular lower creek has been preserved in ils natural state with a rustic, limited-use nature trail running its length. Upstream development is limited to preserve the lower creek. Areas once degraded have been restored and maximum protection against pollution caused by urbanization has been achieved. The restoration goals for the watershed' are realistic. In the lower creek, preservation of woods. stream quality, wetlands, wildlife and a nature sanctuary lets the sounds of nature, not cars, be heard. Habitats for the watershed's nat~ye animals and p/ants wYl be de#ned accord[n~ to theft- needs . The former fields and drained wetlands of the upper creek have been restored to the original big woods region vegetation. All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved. <------- Invasive non-native species such as purple loosestrife and buckthorn are eliminated. The creek supports fish and serves as a wildlife corridor supporting deer, fox, turkeys, beaver and coyote. The wildlife is thriving and circulating freely throughout the greenway. Water qua#tX is h/~h thlou~hout the watezshed .. The water quality is maintained and.protected through recharge, infiltration, grassed waterways and restored wetlands that absorb stormwater runoff. If needed, open water storage areas either in-stream or upland are developed and natural flood control is achieved through these restored wetlands as reservoirs in the upper valley. Bluff Cree~ Wdters~ed Noturol Resource~ Mo~ogeme~t PIo~ Minnesota Departmunt of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January l3,2004 Sharmeen A1-Jaff Planning Department, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: McAllister Parcel, Mn/DOT Review #P03-127 NE Quad of 78th Street and TH 41 Char~_hassen, Carver Co. Control Section 1008 RECEIVEi J/ N 1 6 2004 rrY OF CH^NHASS~N Dear Ms. A1-Jaff: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Additional information must be submitted to determine if a Mn/DOT Drainage permit will be required. Please submit before/after drainage area maps and before/after hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events verifying that all existing drainage patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will be perpetuated. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates (i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged from the site must not increase). Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651) 634-2075 of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Mn/DOT will be turning back jurisdiction of 78th Street to the city. However, the timing of this is not until later this year. Mn/DOT has been issuing access permits for this city street since it has been under our jurisdiction. Until the roadway is released to the city we will maintain this procedure. The developer will need to apply for an access permit from our Permit Office. Please contact Keith VanWanger in the Permit Office at (651) 582-1443 regarding access permits. The plan shows a 7% grade to the intersection at 78th Street in which there appears to be inadequate landing area. Mn/DOT does not have standards for approaches to city streets, but for the truck highway our standard is a 0.5% grade over 25 feet. We recommend that the city work with the developer to provide a safer intersection with 78th Street. · Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in An eaual onr)ortunitv emDlover complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future con-espondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other revie~v documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Sincerely, Brigid Gombold Senior Transportation Planner Copy: John Freemyer / Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Ed J. Hasek / Westwood Professional Servieces, Inc. Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY~ A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLOTS; AND A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT~ A2; LOCATED AT 2930 WEST 78TM STREET (NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TM STREETAND HIGHWAY 41); HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK; PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell Mike Ryan Todd Simning Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Brent Hiscox Susan McAllister Scott Bemas, Edina Realty Holly Huber 7632 Arboretum Village Circle 2595 Southern Court Plowshares Development Eden Prairie Plowshares Development 2930 West 78th Street 6800 France Avenue So 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the adjusted, maybe you already did and I missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff. What does that really mean? And I'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there? Okay. Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that the primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work from there. Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added to the overlay district, is that where the barn is sited? Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there. Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the barn, remove the barn and then attempt to reforest that. Generous: Vegetate, fight exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of my pet peeves here. I mean if you look at this report, it's a good report. But we've got way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this same picture here? I mean I don't see that happening, so what are we looking at? I mean are we really going to be looking at the final product here? I don't think we would be. Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd be simple and we'd see what the results are at best. Another way is to revise the plat. Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative. I don't know. We'll leave that up to them to resolve. Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already? Generous: We told them that this has been an issue. They wanted to come forward and see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries and would be reasonable. Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically. Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have a lot of questions. Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of just one of the motions. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: On the plat. Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive. Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a complete application. discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of questions until we actually get to that level of granularity. Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line, would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that correctly? If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something. Generous: It looks like they're showing them after... Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate? Generous: That's what it looks like, yes. Lillehaug: Alright. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have an appropriate easement for that sanitary line? East of the applicant's easterly property line. Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line? No. Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm sewer goes. Generous: In Arboretum Village. Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's appearing. Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the open space I think was granted as an easement to the city. Generous: And the city also owns that land... Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember too. Lillehaug: Alright. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page 6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40 feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct? Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance. Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure ! understand this correctly. Is that, it needs to be 40 feet from the primary line that is shown there? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that. Generous: No. Sacchet: We're into the primary right now. Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone. Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet. Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback. Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is making this a different circumstance from the other adjacent properties to that whole district? Why is this different from anything else here? Generous: Well too is the location of West 78th Street as it came into this project sort of dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West 78th Street. And then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that. Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback? Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor and it'd be pre-treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to preserve the tree line again and that has been... Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct? Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had for them. Their alternative, so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over that pipe, since they're already going to the woods. But they came up with this alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project. Lillehaug: So there's a trail, if I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not exhausting your questions. Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a connection down to the trail? Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone. At least to that extent. Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings. Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just as a non-doable but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it come off Century Trail because I think you mentioned that either the city owns that land to the east or there's some. Generous: The city owns it, yes. Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78th Street, if you went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 187 I'm just throwing this out. Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest. First off, the applicant doesn't own the land to the east. While the city has easements on it, it's not for roadway purposes. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you have an access off West 78tn Street but go buy land. I mean that's why I quickly put that idea to rest. There is an existing access that was planned for. We just built West 78th 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78th Street. We pushed them away from that idea also and said just use the one access so. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Slagle: So, and I'll ask it again. We might have an application in front of us that could result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No matter where it jets out to. Saam: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though Commissioner Slagle, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 78th Street. A rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable area. You know with the primary zone and everything. Slagle: And how was that received? Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask the applicant. That's another option. I kind of hear where you're going. You're looking at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the primary zone setback and those issues. Lillehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here. Slagle: You certainly may. Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However there's other jurisdictions that have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. Maybe MnDot shot them down, I don't know. So I'll just throw that out too because it is used by the Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pulte so, and MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so. Tjornhom: I have a few things. When they came before us in August. They didn't come before us. When they met with us about what. Sacchet: Work session. Tjornhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: They had multiple plans. Tjornhom: I can't believe... Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in front of us as a concept was 18 units, not cutting into the tree line...because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the recommendation we gave them. Lillehaug: This looks familiar. Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can see, it backs into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's too many units on that and ! don't know if you went any farther into looking at the primary zone boundaries. Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut into the northern tree line. I recall that very clearly. Tjornhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will be sold? Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale. Tjornhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's comprehensive plan for our city? Generous: It provides an alternate housing type. Tjornhom: Alright. Generous: So from that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at 3.18, it would be better. Tjornhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that correct? Is that what I was hearing? Do they over spill? I mean ! keep thinking you know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow? Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer from the yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no? Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the ponds are sized for hundred year floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though. Saam: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but. Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff Creek setback? Tjornhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that the units could be shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. Is that what I heard? Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Generous: That was one of the alternatives. Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see. Generous: Correct. That goes to council. Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different from what we've got, if we have to eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal, replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700 square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to revegetate that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand? Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal, but very similar to our overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation in the corridor, especially on farm properties. Papke: Thank you Bob. Sacchet: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this point? Generous: I did discuss it earlier today. Their base price would be approximately $300,000 per unit. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else has been touched on with the exception of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond, and so you get the same benefit. Claybaugh: Okay. And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at currently, and those units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that turn? If that road had to be reconfigured. Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing a proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm assuming they would submit something that abides by code. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries. On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they all of a sudden are further down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of those boundaries. Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, the city map. The GIS map which started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge on the property to the east also, so then that line would be contiguous. Sacchet: And then in addition, if we look, there is actually a couple of the units are drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately adjacent. They seem to certainly come all the way to, and also under the secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring to? Generous: Oh yes, and I think it's because they picked up the line off the map as opposed to the actual physical conditions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units are sitting to the road side? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those? Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building pad. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely not into the primary? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather significant retaining wall proposed to the east of this development. It actually says 9 foot height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there seems relatively fiat. I mean not totally flat but being from Switzerland this is definitely flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 foot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that please? Generous: I'd defer to our engineer. Sacchet: Or our engineering, alright. Matt. Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street. Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from? Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet. Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away from that retaining wall. Is that acceptable? Saam: We'll require barricades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no. Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78th Street. What are we talking about in that case? Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlot J that they preserved there, or that was here as part of their property. And then Outlot G was the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlot J to the developer and the city really doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are your eyes glossed over yet? I think mine are. Sacchet: Not totally. Todd Simning: Not totally? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not. The biggest reason it was decided not to put a trail system through there was strictly on the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at some point and there's most likely going to be a trail connection along side 41 going down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the comer of the radius of West 78th Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a possibility to actually put that road through there, so we actually did look at that at one time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and they shot us down completely. They were already taking Pulte's water on and they really wanted to preserve that for themselves and were not interested in working with us to allow our water to go there so that was one of the other reasons why we ended up with a pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were under the assumption that the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last 15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition but we had to stay further away from the primary because you guys had 10 feet and we thought we had to be 15 feet from the primary zone. So that was just more of a clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that. Okay, so let me start from the beginning of coming out here in August or September with you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28 lots and I had 24 lots. And you guys laughed at me and said don't bring the 32. Don't bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and one of the ideas that you guys had was mainly that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that you guys see right now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do with the ponding on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly putting it towards the east side, and what ended up happening was that we ended up putting it on the west side as an option when we looked at it for a couple different reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it was on the east side here, the overflow would actually go down over the, through the woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100 year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on 41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here as a pond or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional, roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it made sense to try to put the pond up here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers us a lot of natural amenities that we, as well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using that and wanting to keep the tree line and knowing that those would be our most valuable units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond. Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree line just slightly. We will go ahead and revegetate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of thing. But it will also allow us the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78th Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close to West 78th Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay, if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees and we'd be as far away from West 78th Street as possible, but in order to make everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly into the trees, it made more sense to us. And so that's why we came here today. I know you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible. If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 of 20, which is number 8 and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units. All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two unit buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff maybe to note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8,500 gross square feet so they would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 call it? Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right here for fire trucks to get in and what not, we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been within the rules and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over off of 101 and West 86th Street, which again was a very sensitive area, just strictly because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save trees and save the natural environment around us. And I'm open to any questions you guys might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich. Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be your target audience? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through. Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots. 32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock you. It shocked us on what our audience was. We had anything from 27-28 year old first time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised us. We had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told us. Slagle: Were there families with kids? Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our first phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with the children's issue is, this development is, correct me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city. In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children, and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay, 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to the north, to the Longacres area. I don't know what the plan is to go south to West 78t~ from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78th? Generous: To 82nd Street eventually. Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 as you come out of your development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78th. Todd Simning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and I don't think Bob's got this highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not highlighted fight now. Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this project proceed if 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated? Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a viable project for us to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for us to do anything. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a motion to table this until some of those things get resolved. Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical SO. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions from the applicant. Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-3 1/2. What's the square footage of the units Finished square footage. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep. Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over. And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond? Could you move the pond east off the lot? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the east. Would that generally fit within that? Saam: I guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done. Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that? Todd Simning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult just strictly because you end up having units right next door to it and if it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond sitting there. Feik: Alright, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you. Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe just try to finish off the last alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, if I understood you correctly, you were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to the north central part of the property where the barn currently is. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond, what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west side. Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the practability of putting it where the barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms. They're box elders. They're not the more significant trees on the property. If you know we looked at taking some of those out and locating the pond in the central area there, would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are there any other barriers to locating the pond there... 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: If I may, I just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Westwood Engineering here. Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked the property last weekend a little bit. I didn't actually go on the property but observed it from a distance and if you look at that barn area, it's not, there's big brash piles and so on. I mean it's not, it's the kind of area that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative. Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of this that was submitted to the city. Are we on the screen? Right, excellent...vegetation in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box elder. Significant tree is simply is a tree that... Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard. Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that we can certainly look at. Personally I think that if we were going to put the pond on the north side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a design standpoint and from simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, it seemed to us that it should be adjacent to the road so we can use existing infrastructure, ditches. Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this something we should be worried about or is this something that we can safely say you know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And if it does overflow, okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow right down to the marsh. Saam: Exactly. I guess from that perspective if it's sized for the 100 year, I mean we don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that. Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you. Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not if it was on the northwest comer of the property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going to run down into the swamp anyway. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Just takes a different path. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that context? Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit? Claybaugh: Sure. Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because they're at a certain price range, and I'm not knocking that but if you contrast that with what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, just with our units themselves, if you do go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys. Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with them in the same developments, which we have in several different occasions, we've outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, if you talk to our clients that we, that are living in our developments fight now, as well as who we're building with fight now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us. Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to the city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen? Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind of move up 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again from single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes. You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to come out and you just see more and more people that are starting to come out here. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 foot road? Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it was pretty narrow. I think it was like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better, okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street, which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways. Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park. Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your company to park. In this development, I think we're just getting that much better again where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it just provides a nicer element for the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us. We just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish. Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing and proposed. It needs to be maybe a 10 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on top of it. Do you have any concerns with that? Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues or problems there. We actually have one at the Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have our boulder walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. I mean there's some undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates the overall landscaping with the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any issues. Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th Street. If you're traveling east on West 78th, yOU know you have your, you do have your access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlot there. Is one of the other 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 concerns that you can't get the elevations to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail? Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out from the city earlier, that when we had to be so far from the comer here and we really didn't have anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far up and then all of a sudden you're right next to somebody else's units over here again. It's kind of like the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry from neighbors so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really we wanted to deal with our own property and that was a better way of going about it. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: One more quick question. To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also touched on it in our preliminary meeting when we were here, what 3-4 months ago. How doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated without having to cut into that northern tree line? Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks from West 78th Street with our pond, on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it. Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that? Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is, is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's up to you guys whether you want to say that I have good reason or not to do that. Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring that side down to... Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be there to accommodate what we have. Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that Todd Simning: For the layout that we have here, I think that we have exhausted what we could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table me, and give me that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't feel as though that was a great alternative. Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and structures with that line. Todd Simning: You just went right over my head. Ed, do you? Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again? Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's, I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now? Ed Hasek: I believe it currently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road and some of the things that were going on and I'd like to go through that really quickly with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to store water in that pond, the outlet elevation that we have on that is setting the elevation of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in the pond that's on the north side of the property right now. Just so you understand why things are as high as they are. One other reason why there was some comment about the elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start with, I had the end of the road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder wall. So that kind of sets the elevation. The pond sets the elevation of the units. The units set the elevation of the road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so. Sacchet: While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high wouldn't you? Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis. I believe that our first go around we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short. That's not a lot of dirt for a site like this. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch down points if the retention pond was put on the north side? Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may go down 2 or 3 feet. The road elevation. Claybaugh: That's substantial. Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage. Claybaugh: Right. Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road up in order to do that. The garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't. Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road elevation? Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not even that I don't think. Claybaugh: That's the extent of my comments. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Todd Simning: Thank you. Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment on this item, this is your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your name and address for the record please. Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court and seeing this proposal, it does seem like these guys are going to great efforts in many ways so it looks like a fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot of concerns about that and using some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte project and that, everything north of 78th Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium density. And the council at that time did recognize that everything north should be in that low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined as the Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters if you will of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there. I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very few forests and I hate to see, and I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary corridor but it's, I know it's a very healthy tree structure and I don't know if there's anything that the council here can take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those comments and I don't know if there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if anybody could speak to that. Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob? Since it is part of the development. Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78th Street. That came in at 3.5 units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that .... setback, that's a question. Old growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can remember. They're removing approximately, what is it? 27 percent. 33 percent of the existing canopy coverage on this site as part of the overall project. The percent that's in the primary zone, we'd like to get it to zero. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet of area. The total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot. One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want to preserve more? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future if they can work it out as part of the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site. Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees? Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent cover and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent. Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42? Sacchet: It's gone from 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made, I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying. They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we inventoried go from 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation, or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And I'll have some comments about that later on. Mike Ryan: And I'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this. It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but it always amazes me how these developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land. You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying to throw a wrench in it. It's just...it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that. Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about this? Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this. It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been hit by lightning and so I just wanted to make that clear. I do have some photographs of some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want to comment on this while we have a public hearing? This is your chance. Nope? Alright. I'll close the public heating and we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some things that bordered on comments already. How about we start on this side. We started mostly on this side so far. Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved to the north side in the existing barn location. ! think in the final analysis, whether there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to adjust that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that they've identified from the garage to the main structure. I think there's a number of positive benefits by doing that so to summarize I'd like to table tonight and that would be the direction that I would provide them with. Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is, meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some impact obviously but the lesser of two evils. Sacchet: Thanks. Papke: Yeah, just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at the trade off's here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples, which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the barn is might involve removing some box elders and some elm trees, which as the property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So for myself, I would be very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that could be a win/win scenario. Granted the applicant also voiced some concern that having the NURP pond along West 78th Street allows you to set those homes back away from 78th Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back. Move the homes a little bit closer to the street and having that be the trade off. So that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we were to move this forward, I don't think it would look much like what we're looking at today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with moving forward with this based upon the scope of the conditions. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do want to say that I think it's a nice development so I hope it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 remember right is connecting to trails. And if this was a neighborhood of single family homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased to see that. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to reiterate things here. I'm just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78th Street that is proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the south side of the road? I'm not opposed to either way. I just want to make sure that we get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow commissioners. Looking at their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have 20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, correct? Generous: That's what the ordinance says. Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking at a variance here and I want to make sure everyone's aware of that. I guess. Slagle: If I can, would that variance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it does. Lillehaug: It does. And then my question, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and ! don't, does someone have that answer for me? Because I don't. Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving the northern, what is it? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, we have to put it into the medium density context because in the Iow density we can't do this clustering thing. So by doing the clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I mean that's the benefit we're getting. Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, a single family and go into that primary zone and put a house? I'm just saying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary zone? Is there one? Generous: It hasn't been tested yet. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation? How far do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case. Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. The other thing is if you use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, they potentially could have gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet the setbacks. But then we wouldn't have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or reason that we're looking at making this work. Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean it's a great development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50 percent. Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for the 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen this reconfigured. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much as possible and not necessarily just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I think the number of units that are going to encroach on that are going to be mitigated as well. Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of things. Claybaugh: I mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate for ourselves if they've done due diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that they can. Whether that ends up being 20 feet, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the plan's reconfigured. Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20 but I think if they come back and shows us. Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, as a consensus decide to table, certainly I would hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions. Sacchet: Right. Ed Hasek: Point of clarification? Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at a path through the woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because there's a big difference between just a trail. Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly I think staff, whether it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense. Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification. Slagle: I hope you do. Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve? Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting a trail through the woods there. I think I would go with the applicant and say going out to 41 is adequate in my mind. Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes? Then it's my turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. I mean this thing is not solid enough from that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very fundamental impact. I mean if we say they cannot cut into the primary zone, all the discussion we had here, well where would the pond go? Do they lose units? Would the street be more narrow? And I think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the framework of this, it's an excellent project. I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that within that framework it's just going to get better. When you came in with the concept, it was in September was when it was, I think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then we thought that 18 units was probably going to be the balance so I don't have a problem with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look at the possibility that was suggesting in the pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. If you have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fantastic. And it shows that you're cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking at in terms of the caliper inches, if you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and ! do understand some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have been hit by lightning and what have you. However, just to balance that scale a little bit, and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more, there are 26 of them. And you're cutting 11 so there you're about a third. Closer to half. Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are actually 11 trees there that are 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's a difference in terms of value of box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing. You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half, so when we look at the real significant trees, I would conclude you're cutting a significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we can do about that so I'm not trying to make a case. Usually I try to find some trees and say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. The only thing I can say, there's a couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it gives, in my opinion additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a lot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the ponding and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the clustering. Obviously it has to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development. That's my comments with that. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make. Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I was just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it eliminating that hammerhead turn around. I'd like to at least point that out to possibly justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead was taken out would help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just between relocating the NURP pond and possibly justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to the east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's all the comments I have. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have a motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78th Street. Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 78th Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvene by 10:15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20~ ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? ! mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem 'as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: Them you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 19, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78th Street, Applicant Plowshares Development LLC and Susan McAllister - Planning Case No. 04-01, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. . Su. bscribed and sworn to befor~ me 200~. this ict'w~ day of ~[O-c[.tO.fI , ""- ' I ~,.~ Notary Publ~.~ g:\en g\tbrms\affidavit.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Highlands of Bluff Creek Planned Unit Development APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC Susan McAIlister PLANNING CASE #04-01 (aka 2003-3) LOCATION: 2930 West 78th Street NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in yOur area. The applicant, Plowshares Development, LLP/Susan McAIlister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18-unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78th Street (northeast corner of West 78th Street and Highway 41 ). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail b.qenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2003. 2930 West 78th Street Jlevard State Hw City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Concept Planned Unit Development #2003-3 Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) 2930 West 78th Street Highway 5 Arboretum Boule ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA 2828 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 ALLAN D FISCHER 7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 ALLEN K JR& JENNIFER R LARSON 7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 ALLEN M ODEGARD 2841 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 AMY E FISHER 2836 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 AMY I BOEHM 77O2 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY 815 NORTHWEST PKY SUITE 140 EAGAN MN 55121- BARBARA ANN MILLER 7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRANDON B WAGNER 7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 BRENDA C BROWN 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 BRIAN K MOE 7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M WHETSTINE 7636 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 BRYAN M FRITZ 2838 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038 CATHERINE A HOLTE 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 DALE C & KlM R HOWELL 7644 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH 2856 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 DARRYL E COSTELLO PO BOX 34 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034 DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE 7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 DEBBRA C HILL 7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 ERIK M JOHNSON PO BOX 545 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545 GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST 7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS 7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 HELEN R HUBER 2828 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON 2836 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 JANET K OPHEIM 7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 JASON & JENNIFER VEUM 7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 JENNIFER A VONESCHEN 7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOAN B DYGERT 2824 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ 2848 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 JOHN F ALTENBERND 7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 JOHN M WIGEN 7625 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER 2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 KEITH D TURNQUIST 7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KELLYA PEDERSON & JOHN H & JUDY A PEDERSON 7627 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 KELLY KAY SCHUFT 7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 KIMBERLY B KOZAR 7629 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON 2832 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C & BETH A RUDNICKI 2837 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M SCHMOLL 7617 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 LINDA LEE SIMON 7706 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 LISA A ALT 7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 MARY L JOHNSON 7633 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MATTHEW J NARDO 7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K WASHBURN 7613 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037 MICHAEL B HERMAN 2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423 MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST 7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE & CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE 2852 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 MOLLY J LYSFJORD 7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 NANCY A GALLAGHER 7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426 NANCY JEAN LARSON 7704 COACH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432 PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO 7632 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 PHILLIP A GROTHE 7628 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP 815 NORTHWEST PKY SUITE 140 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE BLDG MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118 ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS 2839 COACH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433 ROBERTA J RONBECK & .lOAN L RONBECK 2840 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 RYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN 7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D RAIN EY-PASS 2844 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 SHANNON M HOGAN 7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 SHAWN R KERRIGAN 7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 SHEiLA K DEWOLF 2830 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 SHIRLEY A FORS 2820 CENTURY TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420 STEVEN W RABY & MARY E FRASCZAK 7621 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 SUMIKA CHAI 7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 SUSAN MCALLISTER 2930 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501 THERESA A LINN 7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 THOMAS J SYLVESTER 7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 TRACY J DOHENY 7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421 VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES 2832 COACH LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434 VINH Q DO NGUYEN 7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425 WESLEY A DAHLSTROM 7637 CENTURY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419 WESTVVOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200 WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES 7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422 WILLIAM E HART 7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 (Approval) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On March 22, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, The City Council reviewed the minutes of the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing was conducted on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 2. 3. 4. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density uses. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and is consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the setback variance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development preserves the majority of desirable site characteristics and open space, and protects sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development is an efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on the site and the use of a private street. c) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. 2 e) The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development preserves the majority of the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report. b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) d) e) h) i) j) k) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78th Street lead to the need for a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site constraints. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; 5 10. et al, b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements; c) The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas; d) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, is incorporated herein. 6 (Denial) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat, Setback Variance and Site Plan Review. On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 2. 3. 4. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density uses. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A. Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: a) The proposed development does not adequately preserve desirable site characteristics and open space nor protect sensitive environmental features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands. b) The proposed development does not efficiently and effectively use the land, open space and public facilities. c) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e) The proposed development is Development which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f) The proposed development does not adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone. g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable housing. h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the clustering of buildings. i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. 6. Subdivision a) The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. b) The subdivision does not meet all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. c) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. d) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. f) The proposed subdivision will cause significant environmental damage. g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will dedicate all appropriate new easements. h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: (1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. (2) Lack of adequate roads. (3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. (4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 3 Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c) d) e) g) h) i) J) k) The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 4 1) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback variance. 8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance does not preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The site constraints of the primary zone and West 7gth Street lead to the need for a variance. An alternate development scenario may not require a variance. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with surrounding development. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) The proposed development is inconsistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; 10. et al, b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the site plan review requirements since it does not meet required setbacks; c) The proposed development does not preserve the site in its natural state to the extent practical; d) The proposed development does not create a harmonious relationship of building and open; e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; (2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; (3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and (4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, is incorporated herein. 6 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman Susan McAIlister March 15. 2004 Honorable Mayor Thomas Fnrlong. Members of thc Ci~x' Councd. Planning Commission Members. City of Chanhassen. 7700 Market Blvd.. Chanhasscn. MN 55317 Hand Delivered In my view thc following exhibits represent documents as to why my property should not have been consumed by approximately 50% of thc Primary Zone. In thct the Primary Zone should bc confined to no more than the 300' buffer as stated in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Mmiagcmcnt Plan. December 1996. After fi~rther rcvicxving the Primarx Zone issnc fur ~ny proposed development I have tbund thc folloxving information nccds to bc addressed. 'll~c Citx classified thc hcadxvatcrs of thc Bluff Creek shox~n as thc Upland Area as defined according to thc Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. Draft July 1996 pg 14 and final report. December It)c}6. pgs. 15-19 E ',dlibit A 111. B Region I - Uplands Lake Minncxvashta to Highway 5 · B. 1 Natural Rcsources- Wetlands: pg. 19 "Wetlands in the uplands arc generally of poor quality duc to drainage and invasion by rccd canary. Scattered pockets of xxctland containing nath'c vegetation such as sedges, cattail. green ash and ehn arc present: hoxvcxcr, these areas make up only a small portion of thc total xvctland areas." Exhibit B B. I Natural Resources- Forests: pg. 15 "Loxvland hardxvood forest is found along thc stream corridor xvith species such as boxcldcr and black xvilloxv dominant. These stands arc generally ofp_oor quality due to their small size and past logging and/or grazing activities. Exotic/aggressive shrub species such as buckthom and prickly ash arc thc common undcrstor3_ species." Exhibit C B. I Natural Resources - Wiidlit'c: pg. 19 "Appendices A and B list common and cudangcrcd mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles xvhich could occur in forest and x~ctland habitats of thc Bluff Creek Watershed Because most xvetland and upland forested communities arc of small size or m poor condition, onh' those species xvhich can tolerate higher lex els of human disturbances and that arc adapted as "edge species" arc likch, to be common. Common "edge species" in the uplands might include raccoon, red fox. xvhitc-tail deer and ring-necked pheasant. Other six'cics shoxvn in Appendices A and B arc probably present bnt uncommon in thc uplands." 2930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501 952-401-9521 pg. 2 Further. E, dlibit D V. Rccomlncndations, pg. 64. A. 1 Uplands "Recommendations in this segment tbcus on restoring xvctland communities and rc- establishing big xvoods tbrcst species on upland arcas. This scgmcnt of the BluffCreek Corridor and thc sitcs addrcsscd bcloxx arc shoxvn m Figurc t) on pagc 45. Thc corridor boundaries arc dcfincd by existing x~ctlands and rccommcndcd 300 foot buffer strips along either side of thc Bluff Crcck" Exhibit E Continuing V. Recommendations. pg. 65 Sitc la. - Shallo~v Marsh Rcstoration "Thc hydrology of this ~vctland has bccn altcrcd bv a ditch ~vhich exists in thc southcast portion of thc xxctland. Artificial basin dramagc has altcrcd thc hydrology aud causcd a shift of plant species tolerant of standing xxatcr or samratcd soil to reed canary grass, which groxvs best in seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie xvhich out competes nativc spccics folloxving disturbances from agricultural use. drainage, filling, siltation and othcrs. Its aggressiveness alloxvs thc formation of persistent monotypic stands of thc species. Wildlife values of thc ~vctland arc rcduccd from a loss in plant divcrsitv and coxer that other cmergents provide. The x~ ctland likclv cxistcd as a highcr quality cmcrgcnt marsh prior to thc drainage." Thc city gocs fi~rthcr in November 14. 2000 according to your narmtivc found in the Planning Commission rcport prcparcd for Pultc's Arboretum Villagc Dcvclopmcnt on pg. 14 by stating: Exhibit F · "Basin 3 is part ora x~ctland complcx that spans thc northcm cdgc of thc site. This complex is a portion of thc headwaters ~br Blnff Creek and is therefore x~ithm the Primary Zonc of thc Bluff Creek Oxcrlav District." Hoxxc~ ct. it continues to statc: "A 20-foot buffcr is proposed. Because the basin is an ag/urban xvetland, onlv a buffer xvith a 10-foot minimun~ axcragc xvidth is rcquircd Thc applicant may choosc to includc a ~vidcr bnffcr." This climinated thc Primary Zone m its cntirctv and only recognizes the buffer strip of 20 feet. Additionally. on pg. 31 under thc Novcmbcr 14. 2000 Planning Commission report, conditions rccommcnd approval subjcct to: Exhibit G Itcm 2 of Site Plan Rex ie~x #99-2 I. pg. 31 · "A 20-thor butter is proposcd tbr Basin 3. Bccausc thc basra is an ag/urban ~xctland. onlv a buffcr with a 10-foot minimum avcragc xxidth is required. Thc applicant may choose to include a buffcr xvidcr than thc rcquircd 1 ()-foot minimum avcragc." Exhibit H Thc Pulte's Planning Commission Rcport dated January 16. 2001 has refcrcnccd Basin 3 as folloxvs: Wetlands - Basin 3. pg. 14 · "Basin 3 is part ora xvctland complcx that spans thc northcrn edge of thc site. This complcx is a portion of thc headxvatcrs for Bluff Crcck and is thcrcfore xvithin thc Primary Zonc of thc Bluff Creek Ovcrlax District"..,." A 20-foot buff'ct is proposcd" Pg. 3 Exhibit In thc same 1 rcport on pg. 15 thc report statcs: "Prior to Dcccmbcr 14. 1992. principal structurcs xxcrc rcquircd to maintain a 75-foot sctback from thc xvctland boundary. This allox~cd propcrty owncrs to moxx to thc cdgc of'thc wetland as long as thc principal structurc did not encroach into thc sctback On December 14. 1992. the City adopted a wetland ordinance that rcduced thc setback rcquircmcnt, but added an additional rcquircmcnt: a buffcr strip. Rcquirmg a buffer strip with a dccrcascd sctback is more bcncficial than simply maintaining a 75-foot setback. Buffers provide acsthetic screening, xvildlifc habitat and vegctativc divcrsitv as xvcll as water quality benefits, xxhilc rcduccd sctbacks alloxx bcttcr usc of potentially buildablc arcas. In addition, wetland boundaries arc not linear. Thercforc. m somc situations, it may be morc bcneficial to thc City. thc property owner and thc health of thc xx ctland if thc buffcr width varics." ..." Acceptablc widths var3.' according to thc classification of the xvctland (Pristine. Natural, Ag/Urban or Utilizcd)." E.,&ibit J Furthcr the Bluff Crock Watcrshcd Natural Rcsourccs Plan. Dcccmbcr 1996 final rcport states on pagc 78-79: · "Transfi2rablc dcvclopmcnt rights can bc uscd as an inccntivc to protect grccn space in scnsitix c subwatcrsheds. Dcvclopmcnt rights of one parcel of land where groxxlh is not dcsircd are transfcrrcd to another parccl of land where groxxth is encouragcd at a higher density than would otherxxise bc possiblc.~' ls thc reason that mx property actually cndcd up with almost half of it delineated as thc Primary Zone because thc City in ali likelihood did '~car-mark" mx' sitc as thc last rcmaming opcn space to cvcntualh' bc jomcd with thc park land from Pultc's Arboretmn Villagc? I bclicvc it is obvious through mx doculnentation that thc city's justification for virtually climinating thc Primary Zone along Pultc's most Northeast side and rccognizmg only the buffcr strip was by simply following thc Wetland Ordmancc of Dcccmbcr 14. 1992. According to Pulte's approvcd dcx clopmcnt plan thc uppcr most Northeast section along thc wetland shoxx s that the city has alloxvcd instead thc Pmnarv Zone to bc stackcd to the upper North bordcr of mx' property, and may have accidcntallv stackcd some of it outo thc North half of my propcrty. More than anything, my documcntation also proves that thc Primary Zone is moveablc. At thc Planning Commission mccting. March 2. 2004. Commissioner Claybaugh stated, thc Primary Zone delineation "is part art as much as it is scicncc", and the "part art" is that I now find 1 hax c a $280,000 piece of art taking up thc North half of my propcrts.', that I can't even dust! I can't afford that kind ora loss. I am willing to rccognizc thc Primary Zonc to a dcgrcc in order to preserve an area along thc hcadxxatcrs. The documentation that my dcx clopcr and 1 haxc fimnshcd shoxvs the maximun~ Primary Zone is at most thc cxact arca ,as shown on thc GIS map of 300'. Dnc to thc poor quality Ag/Urban wctland, degraded wildlifc areas and dcgradcd plant spccics duc to past fanning practices, this area would sccm to not bc as important to prcscrvc as evcrx one is making it out to be. Before thc farm was purchased in 1983 solid wastc was dumped in the Northeast corner of my property's Primary Zone. Due to past MN/DOT practiccs thc convcnicnt location of my farm to a MN/DOT project allowed them to dump massive amounts of ROW muck along thc North cdgc of my property, now locatcd in thc Primary Zonc. Duc to past and present farm practiccs on this propcrty, thc area north of thc barn lying in thc Primary Zonc has manurc piles in it according to my sitc plan and xxould need to bc graded out ofthcrc. Therefore. this property is thc samc dcgradcd arca as thc Pulte's sitc along thc cdgcs of thc Bluff Crock headwaters known as Basin 3. Pg. 4 Unfortunately. 1 xvas just mo x~ccks axxav from opening my petting thrm. but ~nv l il-'c xvas changcd drastically duc to nix' mjurics, and 1 xvas ncvcr ablc to opcn it. I noxv nccd to deal xvith thc issues regarding mx' health. 1 haxc donc nothing to filrthcr thc complction of thc petting farm as of November 1. 2002. I thcrcfore havc officially lost nix' lntcrium Usc permit. Any ncxv fcnccs that have bccn addcd xvere not in compliance x~hatsocvcr xxith my Petting Farm's Site Plan. The fcnccs xxcrc only to tcmporarily hclp friends m nccd on a pcrsonal basis. Plcasc hclp thc dcx clopers in achicxing our goal of bcing trcatcd as thirlv as Pultc xvas x¥ith thc same basic density using the Bluff Crcck Ordinancc xxhich alloxYs us to fi~mish our documcntation xvhcrc xvt bclicxc thc actual Primary Zone is Iocatcd Lct's bcncfit both sides xvhich I bclicxc is thc ~'suitablc balance" that is stated in thc ordmancc. Plcasc alloxx us to mox c cxpcdicntly fom'ard according to thc first bullet item on pg. 80 of the Bluff Crock Watershed Natural Resourccs Management Plan: "Expcditc dcvelopmcnt submittal rcvicxv: Thc dcvclopmcnt rcvicxv proccss is likclv to proceed morc smoothly because site dcsigncrs have anticipatcd and taken into account many of thc conccrns that often bccomc timc-consumin~ issucs that arc costly to resolve." We havc xxastcd ahnost one vcar going around in circles. 1 fccl that 1 have providcd adcquatc reformation to thc dcvclopcr of this projcct and to the City in ordcr to havc thc Primary Zone movcd and morc units allox\ cd. Sinccrc~f~ Susan McAllistcr · Wetlands Wetlands in the uplands are generally of poor quality due to drainage and invasion by reed canary. Scattered pockets of wetland containing native vegetation such as sedges, cattail, green ash and elm are present; however-, these areas make up only a small portion of the total wetland area (See Figure 5). · Wildlife Appendices A and B list common and endangered mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles wtaich could occur in forest and wetland habitats of the Bluff Creek Watershed. Because most wetland and upland forested communities are of small size or in poor condition, only those species which can tolerate higher levels of human disturbance and that are adapted as "edge species" are likely to be comn]on. Common "edge species" in the uplands might include raccoon, red fox, white-tail deer and ring necked pheasant. Other species shown in Appendices A and B ar e probably p~esent but uncommon in the uplands. · Fisheries The uplands form the headwate~ s of Bluff Creek. Within this reach, much of the creek has been ditched The base flow is ephemeral, the gradient low and the flow ~s s~u~sh with silt deposition common in many areas of the c~eek Fish populations have not been studied in this ~each but a~ e likely n~argi~al due to poo~ habitat. · Runoff The natural p~ e development featu~ es ~ndicate that ~ unoff wa~ iow thtough the yea~ and minimal dt~ring the growing season. ~ore than Ill, ely, wetland b~o mass used most of the runoff draining into the wetlands at the peak of the growng season. Ovelfflows would only occu~ du~ing inffequenl stom-~ events (3 5 yea~ sto~ m events and ia~ ge~ ). · Water (~uantity The I~ Iplands section has a high wetlal~d 1o upial~d ratio; lt~el efo~ e. peal, flows along the creek wdl remain luw, even after tl~e vvate~ shed is fully developed. The t Iwy b crossing is the end point of the Uplands section. ~t~e estimated peak flow at Hwy 5 resulting flor~ a I O0-yea~ prec~pitat~ol~ event, is 67 els under fully developed conditions. This peak flow ~s Iow consider lng lhei land dl ain~ng kx t!nis point, ii,is Iow peak flow will help nna~ntain the flow ~eg~, ~e r~eeded to pr,_~ted the (]c~ ge se~t~oc below. Pioneer Trail. where the stream has carved a deep ravine, with an approximated bed slope of 60 feet per mile. · Soils Soils in the watershed are shown ~n Fi§ute 2. The soils along the stream can be d~vided into three distinct regional assocmons. The soils at the headwaters of Bluff Creek are predominantly hydric, marshy with peat and muck. seasonally saturated and ideal for wetland ve§etat~on growth. As the stream descends into the bluff, the dominant soils are Hayden loams of 12 to 40 percent slopes. These soils are extremely erodible. At the base of the bluff, the predominant soil type is marsh. · Regions ~-or the purpose of describing in more detail the watershed £hal acteristics and tine implications of tine Steering Committee's visioll. the Bluff C~ eel( Watershed has been subdivided ,-~to the following five regions (See F~gure 3): Region I Uplands Lake M,~ne,,vashta to t~lgf'r,.vay 5 Region 2 Mead~wtands t iighway 5 to I ymarl Boulevard Region 3 Iowlands l yn~an Bo~leva~d to P~onee~ ~rail Re~ion 4 (3or~e Pioneer i ra~l to Higl~way 2 12 Region 5 Semina~ y Fen E~sI of Bluff (.;~ eek/r~ortt~ of t ~ghway 2 12 B 1 Natural Lake Mi~newashta to tqighway 5 · Forest l.owland I~a~ dwood fo~ est is found ,dong ~1 ~e stl earn corridor witll speoes s~cl~ as boxelde~ a~d black w~liow dominar~t (See Rgure 4) These stands are generally of poo~ q~lalilv dt~e to tt~e, sn~all size past logging and/o, gr'az, ng activities. Exot~c/2~gg~ essive shrub species st,ch as bucktho~ n and p~ ickly asl~ are tl~t, com~o~ unde~ stc,~ y speoes, Several stands ot nlesic oaL forest rai~ln~ Il on/about two I0 acres ll~ s~ze a~ e alsts BI (ese[it. These stands al e don,natuct by nol!hei i1 ~ ed oak al id bt, oak and COIltd!l I dxc)llc SI~I t lb species i~ ~ the" understory. A mapl~ basswood/oak torest of app'ox,nately 40 att es i~ size ~s rotund o~ the (~amp Tanado,~' na p~ operlv aM~ ~g ti ~e sho~ eot [ al.e ~lnnewasl V, Recommelnddti0 ns This section recommends a series of F,r ojects and pr actices necessary to achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Commit:ee. V,A Nc~tt~rdl Re~o~,i~'cep Recommendations in this segment focus on r estonng wet'and commL:nities and re-establishing big woods forest speoes on upland areas. This segment of the Bluff Creek 'Corr~do~ and the stes addressed below are shown in Figure 9 on pa~e aS. The corrido~ boundaries are defined by existin~ wetlands and recornm~,_e_?e~d 300_._.?o~t L~uffer along either side of the Bluff Creek The followin~ plan of action ~ ecommended: · Site la Shallow Marsh Restoration This site is within an existing wetland located between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Avenue, -[ he plant corr~munlty is dominated by reed canary §tess with small amounts of nettle, wi lows. ievvelweed, ~h-~ and boxelder present, fiI, t! /';1~1 C' [,t;C' Wetland restoration' this basin will involve the ~ eestablishment a mixed emergen; n ~arsh wetland C~JliqrlqLinlt¥. l~1 ixed emergent marsh are t),pical~y dominated vanety of emergeni_~ Di~erent types of B:Jh-LisH commonly occur in the deepe~ po~on of the wetland and are dominants. co~mL~n~ty chan~es into a fl-uage of wet meadow grasses incJudin~ prau-le cord gr ass, spke rushes and a variety of sedges The hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which exists ~n the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage has alte~ ed the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows best ~n seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie which out competes native species following d~sturbances fi-om agricultural use, drainage, filling, siltation and others. Its a~ress~veness allows the formation of persistent monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents provide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent marsh prior to the drainage. Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a prescribed burn (when possible). This, combined with Ir, creased water levels, should remove reed canary grass, tt may not be p~ act<al to treat the enbre site with herbicide or to do a p~ esc~ ~bed bu~ n. The areas that will have s~atained water levels of I~_ inches should not need to be t~eated with he~ biode o~ burned because of reed canary g~ ass's intole~ ante tu sustained wat~ levels. Areas with less then t2 inches ot sustai~ed water levels will need to have some type of treatment to remove tt~e reed cana~ y ~rass. Restoratio~ of tl~e hyd~ ology co~ ~ld be accul ~ ~plishecl witl~ const~ ~ctlol~ ol a control st~ ucture at the wetlands o:~tlet, ~t~e following considerations need to be addressed befo~ e the control sln ictt, e is co/stl ucted; t. Flows Special (_o~slde~atlons r~eed to made to ins~,'e th~ (onh'~_,t structure discharge capacity w~ll be sufficient to I~a~dle tl,e exist~n~]. flows. 2. the control st~at~,e sl~o~ld ~ol allow bypass,,g. Conside~ potential conflicts vvitt~ adiacent lands 4. Create an app~ op~ late hydrolos~c re~,~e fo~ the ~esto~ ed wetl~nd If feasible a col ~tl ~1 st~ Llttul e wltl~ potem ~tial prefe~ red. It allows ma,nt~na~:ce on the o:~tlet and control st~ u,_tu~ e when needed and will help c,~nt~ ol plant stsc< essiom~ wate do,vi. Revegetatlol~ ot the site IYIdy ,gC(_[l~ ildturally ove~ tll]le. If q~ ,,Ll<el a[itl more dependable results are wanted then the al ea should be planted and Arboretum Village November 14. 2000 Page 14 Basin 2 Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north of Highway 5 near the middle of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. No wetland ilnpact is proposed in this basin; ho~vever, storm water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed a 1 O-foot buffer with a 40-foot setback fi'om the wetland bufl'er edge for this basin. Since this basin is a utilized wetland, neither a buffer nor a setback is required; however, the applicant may choose to include them. Basin 3 Basin 3 is part of a wetland complex that spails the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters tbr Bluff Creek and is theretbre within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has beene' farmed for many years, very little wetland buffer currently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20-foot buffer is proposed. Because the basin is an ag/urban wetland, only, a buffer with a 10-foot minimuna average Principal structures must maintain a 40-foot setback fi'om the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40-foot setback (Lots 16. ! 7, 18 and 19 of Phase 1, Outlot B: ~ court basketball in Phase 2, Outlot B: Lots 18 and 19 of Phase 2. Outlot C). If the applicant decreases the buft~r in these areas and still maintains a 10-t~ot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could meet the 40-foot setback requirem,:nt. Drainageway 1 Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that tloxvs no~h into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact tbr a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away l}om the area, thus preventing the drainageway fi'om becoming wetter. (The applicant should be advised that, while some drainage may be necessary, excessive drainage of the drainageway might cause additional wetland impact, which would require mitigation of wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.) Basin 4 Basin 4 is located in the extreme southwest corner of the site and is adjacent to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This wetland receives storm water from the intersection and also the southwest portion of the propert3. This wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails. No wetland fill or drainage is proposed it~ this basin: however, some storm water from the southwest portion of the site will be diverted :nfo the basin through the use of overlm~d drainage. Pretreammn! will be provided through the use of vegetated swales. Arboretum Village November 14. 2000 Page 31 "The Planning Colnnlission recommends approval of Site l'lan Review #99-21 - for 36 club homes, 73 manor homes. 82 coach homes. 160 Village homes and 32 rental townhouses subject to the following conditions: 1. The developlnent must comply with tile Arboretum Village Development Design Standards." The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4- to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins subject to the tbllowing :c"..ditions: 1. The applicant has proposed a 1 O-foot buftVer with a 40-1bo~ setback fi'om the wetland buffer edge for Basin 2. Since this basin is a utilized wetland, neither a buffer nor a setback is required: however, the applicant may choose to include 2. A 20-fool buffer is proposed for Basin 3. Because tile basin is an ag/urban wetlanct, only a buffer with a 10-foo! minimum average wi&h is rcquirecl. ~'he applicant may choose to include a buffer wider than t}~c ~'equircd 10-foot mi~:imtu': a,'crage,_ 3. Principnl structures must maintain n 40-foot setback fi'om the wetland buffer edge. Several proposed structures encroach into the 40-thor setback (Lols 16. 17. 18 and 19 of Phase 1. Outlot B: V2 com-i basketl;all in Phase 2. Ot~llot B: l.ots 18 and 19 of Phase 2. Oullot C). If the applicant decreases the bufl;er in these areas and still maintains a 10-1hot minimum average buffer around the basin, the structures could mec! lhe 40-foot setback requirement. To reduce potential impacts to Drainageway ! from t!~e l?:'~:nosed fill. tile applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing. This will act to drain excess storm water away from the area. thus preventing 'h.: drainagevvay fi'om becoming wetter. The applicant shot~td be advised that. while some drainage may be necessary. excessive drainage of tile drainagexvay might cause a0di'.i,:,m! wetland i lnpact, which would require mitigation of wet!ands at a 2:1 ratio. 5. Principal structures adjacent to Basin 5 mus~ be set back 40 feet from the edge of the buffer. Lot 19. Outlot B. Phase 1 do~s not meet this requirement. In order to make the most efficient and effective use of 131~d. slaffrecommends the fi'out yard setback on Lots 17 and I g. Outlot B. Phase I be reduced to 20 feet. This would allow the cul-de-sac to be moved 10 iket to the west and a 20-1'oot b,~fffer to be established between the edge of curb and tile edge of Basin 5. 7. The designation of the outJot in the northwestern most po,-tion of the property is not consistent between the p:'elimi~ary plat ("Outlot F") ?nd other plan sheets ("Outlot E"). Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 14 maple). These trees are either at the edge of the grading limits or within but close enough in elevation to merit an attempt at preservation through a change in grading plans or the use of retaining walls. Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the city to preserve any or all of these trees. In addition, staff recommends a walk-through on site to inspect silt/tree preservation fence prior to construction. Wetlands Nine ag/urban wetlands and one utilized wetland exist on-site. Wetlands comprise approximately 26.29 acres of the 120.93-acre proposed development. Basin 1 Basin I is an ag/urban wetland located just north of Highway 5 and west of Basin 6. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass. It receives water from the Highway 5 roadside ditch and from a pipe that discharges into the basin from the west. Surface water flows fi'om this basin through a ravine to Basin 6. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Basin 2 Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north of Highway 5 near the middle of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin; however, storm water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed a 1 O-foot buffer with a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for this basin~ Basin 3 Basin 3 is pm~t of a wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed cana~ grass and contains nettles, willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has been fa~ed for many years, very little wetland buffer c~ently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20-foot buffer is proposed. ..... vv ........... : ....... to include a .............. Princ al stmc~es must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 15 Prior to December 14, 1992, principal structures were required to maintain a 75-foot setback from the wetland boundary. This allowed property owners to mow to the edge of the wetland as long as the principal structure did not encroach into the setback. On December 14, 1992, the City adopted a wetland ordinance that reduced the setback requirement, but added an additional requirement: a buffer strip. Requiring a buffer strip with a decreased setback is more beneficial than simply maintaining a 75-foot setback. Buffers provide aesthetic screening, wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity as well as water quality benefits, while reduced setbacks allow better use of potentially buildable areas. In addition, wetland boundaries are not linear. Therefore, in some situations, it may be more beneficial to the CID', the propert3' owner and the health of the wetland if the buffer width varies. Recognizing this led the City to include acceptable ranges for buffer widths into the wetland ordinance. Acceptable widths vary according to the classification of the wetland (Pristine, Natural, Ag/Urban or Utilized). The following structures are proposed to encroach into the required 40-foot setback: Phase I: Phase II: Outlot A, ¼ Court Basketball Outlot B, Lots 7 and 9 Outlot B, Lots 16 and 17 Outlot C, Lot 19 Outlot C, Lot 19 Under the current proposal, the applicant would be required to apply for variances from the required setback for the above structures. Chanhassen City. Code states that ag/urban wetlands, like those on this site, must preserve a 0-20 toot wide buffer strip that maintains a minimum average width of 10 feet. Therefore, it is acceptable for the applicant to decrease the width of the proposed buffer in the seven locations listed above. If the applicant decreases the width of the buffer in the above areas (but does not eliminate the buffer in any area, thereby preserving buffer function), all but one of the proposed structures (Phase 1, Outlot B, Lot 17) would meet the required setback. The applicant should resolve the encroachment of the above structures into the wetland buffer setback. If the applicant chooses to decrease buffer width in any or all of the above areas, all plan sheets showing the proposed buffer and setbacks must reflect these changes. Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing This ..,;n itig ~;*; .... ~ .... *~-~; ..... * which ......~ .....:-~ .c .... ,l~Ao a* ~ °'l The ........................ v-~., ........ I I V.E Lo, nd bbe ,ar~cl Z0~iag Demo Sites: Plan and prepare typical demonstration proiects integrating native ecological features for all types of land uses. Implement BMPs, native ve§etat~on establishment and stormwater control and t~ eatment. The 9res can be used for education. inforrnation and incentive for others. The approact~ p~ esented in tills pla~ requires the cormnu~ty oF the Natural Features delineated by the p~ iman/and secondary con idors. Primary z'one: ]he p~u~a~y zone is the buffer zone with direct impacts affectin~ the creel(. Ideally'. the City will have fee title to these areas either by dedication and/o~ purchase of the land. Some flexible measui es should be ,ncorporated into this buffer zone (i.e. conservation zoning, conservation easements, public purchase, cluste~ developmenl, transfe~ of development rights and private dedication lo p~bliQ sin,la to the City's wetland buffer o~dir~ance. Density compensation can aJso be considered, as this scheme g~ ants a developer credit for additional density elsewhere c,n tt'.e site. Secol ida! y Zonc: I he sec,_gl ~da~ y zu~',e ii ~ h ides tmbitat a~ eas ti Idt at e valuable t~_; the delicate balance ot tire ecc:,syster n. a~d the~ efc~r e, limited developn ~ent is ~ ecomn~ended. ~<)n ~e~ val.~o~/ar ~as will be encouraged and e&~cation t,5 ttxz- Hopedy owners ~s a tnelp pr ese~ ve ti ~e habitat 13evelop~d ~t U~ tl,s zone ',,viii indt (eatures that reduce unpe~vicx ~s ar ~a and p, <,vide stewa~ dst,p of tl~e land. Walersi~ed based Zon, ig a, ,,.1 LA,stet I)evelopmel ~t ol C:,pe, ~ Space Design a e reco~ nr ne~ ~ded i~ ti le ah iff Creek Watershed. I~ Ins buu, k. b~!e Planning to~ I I~bal conditions similar t~, Bit ~fl C~ eel, Ware shed at~ ,~ ipe~ viotlsness betwee~t !0 and 20 pc~cd~t. Sir/ce 13 to 20 per~:c~t is r~ot p,~ssiblc to aclueve throughout the ,~atoslled. ti should fall uqo one of impe~vio~:s a~.,vcl foc,~d ,~ ~ts subwateishecJ. · Sensihvc Subwate~ sI~d ( I 10 pet<_c~t · Deg~ ading Subwale~ shed ( I I 25 per cent Non st~ppott,~g S~bvvatersl~ed (26 IOO [ !'a:'lS[el able development i i~[ its tail Dc ~sed dS all U icel itlve t, ~ pi 'steLe r of land where g~ owth is not desired a~ e transferred to anothe~ parcel of land where g~ owtlr ~s encou~ aged al a higher density than would oti~erwise be possible. It is recommended that the subwatersheds in the Bluff Creel< Watershed be reviewed and assigned a management category. The average imperwous cover across the undeveloped watershed should not be greater than 20 percent after development. The average impervious cove~ across the developed portion of the watershed can nol be changed at this point. Where the land has bee~ zoned in the watel shed. it is ~econ ~mended that any h~t~ ~re development rewew the managen ~ent protocol for imperviousness fo~ the subwatershed and conside~ open space design methods for development. Whe~ e the land has not been zoned in the watershed, it is recommended that any future development be requi~ed to follow tine management protocol fo~ H~pe~iousness and ~se open space design methods or slrean~ p~ otect~oa clustering. Well desig~ed and implenlented cluste~ developments can p~ ovlde mal~y ~mportant econon~c, envi~ onmental and con~rnunity b~nefits when compared to conventional s~bdivision designs. ] hose H-~ch~de: clea~ed cot ~w~ ~I~.~ iai s~ ~bdivisk ~ lb ~]all u ~(~ ~as~ lutu: e ~ esitlen~ai p~ ~:,[)e~ ty vak ,,],:)n(ef~t~ates i~T~Ofl ,,vl~;~e ~t ~ ali be Ii/(jsl eflectiveb P~ovid~s ~ wide, I dl I~e Of feasible ~te, t,::, I,.:,~ ate s~c, rn (iteates lalget ~ll ba~ vvitdhlc i~abltal "slar~,.Js" Open space designs cain offer d~stinct and measurable economic advantages ove~ conventiop, al layouts in at least five d~fferent ways. include: These Expedite development submittal ~evlew: The development review process is likely to pI oceed more smoothly because site designers have antiopated and taken into account many of the concerns that often become time-consume% issues that are costly to resolve. Lower Costs: Open space design includes a reduction in infrastructure engineering and construction costs. [ot sizes are reduced an'J street arid utility runs sl~oqened. ~arketing and Sales Advantage; Developers and ~ ealtors ca~ cap~lahze on amenities that have been p~ eserved or provided w~thin the development. Value Appreciation: [he National Park Serwce has d~un~ented examples that demonsh ate I~ow homes ~n open space developme~ tend to app~ eciate faste~ titan in conventional subdivisions. Reduces Demand for New Public Parkland: The natural areas preserved a~d the rem ealional amenmes that are provided in com~nunities help to redt~ce the demand to~ publi~ open space. aa~ kldnd, play~ ~g fields, and olt~er a~ eas f(,~ a~t~ve a~ ~d Whe, e land has bue~ z~(:l n ~dust~ ial/~_c,n ~ ~_~al. ope~ space ddsig~ concepts call shll be setbacks, provi4, ~g i~'i, lu at i,:,l, design ~nethocls to~ pa~ king I(,1 ~ ~n,:ff. si la~ c, 1 parking and Ear Idscdl.~, 0