Loading...
CC Minutes 1997 02 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Mason, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Kate Aanenson, and Bob Generous APPROVAL OF AGENDA; Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Berquist who added two items under Council Presentations, the letter in the Administration Packet from Carver County Public Works to MnDot and the Inspection Report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Mancino: I'd like to read a letter addressed to our Public Safety Director, Scott Harr, on behalf of all City Council members. I would like to thank our Public Safety Department, and the Chanhassen Fire Department, for their efforts in assisting with the Chanhassen Bank robbery. This was a very dangerous situation and our Public Safety Department handled the incident very professionally and without anyone but the suspect being hurt. Thank you. I would also like to thank Eden Prairie, Chaska, Carver County, Minnesota State Patrol, BCA and FBI officials for their cooperation and assistance. I am so proud to be a resident of Chanhassen when I see the cooperation and relationship we have with these agencies in a time of need. Again, thanks to everyone involved for their help and thankfully no one was hurt. Sincerely, the Mayor and the City Council of Chanhassen. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: He Establish Dates for Board of Review and Equalization as amended to change May 27, 1997 to May 19, 1997. c. Approval of Bills. de City Council Minutes dated January 27, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 1997 e. Approval of Halla Settlement Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Item b. Establish 1997 Liquor License Fees was pulled from the agenda and will be discussed at the February 18, 1997 City Council work session. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 U.S. POSTAL CARRIER ANNEX, VERBAL UPDATE. Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. There's a letter in your packet from the Post Office explaining the progress that's been made and that Mr. Braslau has finished collecting his data, but he has not finished his report and he expects to have that report done this week. As soon as we have it in our hands, you will have it in yours. Mayor Mancino: So that should be, I'm sorry, the end of the week? Roger Knutson: Sometime this week they told us. They were thinking the middle of the week but by the end of the week. Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members to Mr. Knutson on this? Is there anyone in the chambers that would like to come up and to address the City Council on this? Have any questions or comments. Bill Kemble: I just have one quick question... Roger Knutson: It's my understanding, we've suggested, we've given him some options of the 25th, 26th and 27th, and that's in their budget and that shouldn't be an issue. Depending on his schedule, one of those dates. We'll let you know. Bill Kemble: Have they responded at all? Roger Knutson: No. No, they have not. Mayor Mancino: Bob, this went out on February 6th SO maybe in the next few days they will respond. But we have also asked, excuse me I'll tell you one other thing. We have not only asked for the meeting with the U.S. Postal Service but to have the sound consultant there too. Okay. Anyone else wishing to address the Council on this issue? Okay, thank you. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS, 20UTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY; LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HIGHWAY 5, THE HIGHLANDS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. Public Present: Name Address Steve Tornio Jon Noeldner 7476 Crocus Court 7511 Crocus Court City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Name Address Jennifer & Brian Monteith Mark Pryor Wren & Mark Feyereisen Cindy & Henry Wanserski Margi & Rick Manning Bill Anner Bonita Mihalko Douglas E. Domine David & Cinda Jensen Jeff Steinke Allan & Mary Jane Olson Ken & Joan Weis Joan & Kevin Joyce Virginia Bell Rick Sathre Lee Glover Richard Palmiter Dean Gregory Richard Harbar Dani & John Hennessy Jeff Stone JoAnn & Richard Neff Judi & Steve Selinger Nadia & Steve Janson 2159 Brinker Street 7541 Windmill Drive 7501 Windmill Drive 7521 Windmill Drive 7460 Windmill Drive 935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata 2198 Brinker Street 2149 Majestic Way 2173 Brinker Street 7481 Windmill Drive 7461 Windmill Drive 2101 Majestic Way 2043 Brinker Street 7476 Crocus Court 150 S. Broadway, Wayzata Plymouth Bloomington 2101 Majestic Way Richfield 7305 Galpin Blvd. 2103 Brinker Street 2150 Majestic Way 7480 Windmill Drive 2199 Brinker Street Mayor Mancino: Before we begin the staff report, let me say that what I just read I don't think are the specs that we're reviewing tonight. According to the staff report I read, the site plan review before us tonight is for 32 single family homes, 48 cottage homes, 16 single loaded townhomes, 48 villas in the northern 33 acres, and 16 single loaded townhomes and 108 villas in the southern 17 acres. I want to make sure that we're all on the same page. We're reviewing the same thing. Is that correct Mr. Generous? Bob Generous: Yes Madam Mayor. Mayor, Councilmembers, thank you. Also I should clarify, part of the original submittal we put the whole packet together, what would be required to bring the project forward and they had a total number of units. After discussion with the applicant we decided that it'd be more appropriate to bring this to you as a conceptual review of the project. Under the PUD conceptual review allows you to get a grasp of the entire project and provide the developer with some directions on how.., get consensus of the Council that yeah, we like this idea and these are the things that we need to address. And with that, so what the notice does is they do seek conceptual approval. Those are the approvals that would be required after preliminary steps to permit this type of project to go forward. Given the land use map amendment, the rezoning, the subdivision and the site plan for the multi-family dwellings. The applicant originally submitted a project that had a total of 293 dwelling units. This is divided into a townhouse section, a cottage home type section, and then single family detached housing. As part of the review at the Planning Commission stage, the applicant received some input and came back with the revised plan that you specify the request... Since then the applicant has reduced the total number of dwelling units to 258 units. What we've had them do is they pulled off, they've taken out the straight connection of the north/south road and moved the road to the left and they've reduced the number of single City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 family detached homes by 2 from their original submittal. They've transitioned additional detached housing.., area of cottage homes... And they reduced the area that the townhouse products were being proposed and... When we initially met with the applicant we requested that they bring a project in that.., total number of units on the site that would be permitted under the existing land use and for that we managed to calculate the northern 33 acres at 4 units per acre and the southerly 17 acres at 8 units an acre, which are the high end of low and medium density residential property .... I believe how they calculated what the medium density and the low density areas were and then in this proposal they drop it down to... Currently the site has a 92 unit twin home project that has preliminary plat approval. This preliminary plat is in effect until March of this year when it becomes void if it's not final platted. The issues that we have within this project were one, the protection of the Bluff Creek corridor which runs along the southwest comer of the site. Recently the City adopted the Bluff Creek study which recommended some design guidelines... What the applicant has worked out.., they would preserve all the existing trees along this section of the Bluff Creek and down to approximately where the ponding area, the future underpass for Arboretum Boulevard and Highway 5 when Arboretum Boulevard and Highway 5 come forward. Mayor Mancino: Is that on the medium density? Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Mancino: It's guided in the medium density? Bob Generous: The medium density is the 17 acres, right. So what in essence we've forced the developer to do to preserve this area is to develop this area to the north. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Which is also amended for the developer, okay. Bob Generous: In addition, we've looked at some possible design criteria that's basically the one thing would be to provide additional sight lines or a view shed within the corridor. Specifically from this point down into the Bluff Creek corridor... By realigning these areas, they get an east/west view corridor. The City will be providing a regional storm water pond to the east of this project and so you would get a vista across the top of that... The real issue in this development is the total number of units that would be proposed or approved with this project. Again staff started out by saying we'd use the 268 total number of units allowed them to slide the development around on the site to make it work a little better. To get some nice transitioning and to open up the and preserve the natural features of it. From there we're looking at, we believe that to make.., townhouse portion of the project, they should possibly remove the one structure and create a common open space for all the townhouse units around it. In addition we believe that while they're providing this open space area and they would.., putting a trail corridor in, that maybe they should eliminate these two units also so that... Staff believes that this project does do a lot to implement portions of our comprehensive plan and we are recommending conceptual approval of the project at this time. They are subject to the applicant addressing these conditions and issues outlined in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Generous at this time from Council members? Bob, I have a couple. Could you give me a little bit of context here. East of the lower 17 acres, which is guided for medium density. East of that what, the land use plan, that's also medium density? Bob Generous: Correct. City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it kind of parallels it and then it goes to high density, correct? Bob Generous: As you get closer to Lake Ann. Mayor Mancino: Lake Ann. And on the northern part of this parcel, the northern 33 which is guided low density, east of that is mostly low density also. Correct? Bob Generous: Correct. I think there's a jog in the medium density that comes up part way and is adjacent to that area. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that continues, that low density continues all the way over and above the high density? Bob Generous: Correct. I don't know if it shows up very well. Mayor Mancino: Just so we get some context of what's around us. And what's across the street too. Bob Generous: This is the medium density in the diagonal lines. This is the northerly 33 acres. This site is guided for either medium or low density immediately east of this low density area. This is medium density and then this site is Lake Ann Park. Mayor Mancino: Do you know that I don't have, this for 1995, mine doesn't shown that above the high density is medium density. On my land use map. Is that newer? Councilman Engel: You mean the piece just southwest of Lake Ann? Abutting Lake Ann? Mayor Mancino: Ah, okay. And then across the street from the said property is, to the west side of Galpin is single family low density, okay. And the adjacent property that is south of Bluff Creek is also medium density. In that little comer, on the real comer of Galpin and TH 5. Bob Generous: Well medium density, I believe it's commercial also. Or mixed density. Mayor Mancino: Okay, it could go either. Kate Aanenson: Either way. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, thank you. That gives me context. So you have basically put, allowed density transfer throughout the entire 50 acre parcel? I mean you have seen it that way instead of splitting it up as low density and medium density, you've just put it all together as medium density? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilman Berquist: In '95, did we approve the Lake Ann Highlands? That was for 92 townhouses, 184 townhomes. 184 units total. That was a preliminary plat approval, right? Bob Generous: 92, yeah. Councilman Berquist: The 92 pads. Okay. That's the only question. City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: And to clarify something you said, you said that preliminary plat becomes void in March of this year if it's not taken to final plat. The other option is the builder can extend the preliminary plat, correct? Kate Aanenson: Council has to approve the extension. Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but they can request. Bob Generous: They can request an extension. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: And this property has not been rezoned at all until final plat. Bob Generous: Correct. The way we structure it is at preliminary plat we do the first reading of any rezoning and at final plat we'll also include the second reading. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so nothing's been rezoned here. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council please? Rick Murray: Yes Madam Mayor, distinguished Councilmembers. My name is Rick Murray. I'm with Residential Development. This proposal is our proposal. With me this evening, my development team and consulting engineer, Rick Sathre, who's been helping in this city previously and the Vice President of Rottlund Homes, Tim Whitten and the Land Management Director, Richard Palmiter. As we go through our short presentation this evening, both Rick and Tim will have aspects of our concept which they'll be explaining to you. As you're aware this site does have a first reading of a preliminary plat for 92 units, twinhomes adjacent, or on the property that's adjacent to the property owners to the north and the property owner to the west. My involvement in this plan or plat was when they realized that that plan might not work out on this site and I was approached by the seller and was asked if this would be a site that I would be interested in working on in Chanhassen. My home has been in Chanhassen for the last 17 years. I developed several communities in Chanhassen. It was a very compatible and good working relationship and I appreciated it very much. In working with the staff, the evolution of the plan that we have before you this evening, I've also enjoyed that experience. Even in working with the neighbors, I've enjoyed that experience and their input has been helpful and I think you'll find it reflective in many of the changes that we've done to our concept. It was never our intent when I approached staff and approached the seller, of out stepping the bounds of your comprehensive land use plan. We were trying to fit into the comprehensive land use plan. When we originally drew the line across the property, somehow we figured that this property could accommodate 300 units under your comprehensive land use plan. We were somewhat surprised when we found that 292 didn't work under the plan, but adjusted it to 268 so it did fit the underlying land use plan. We've had a couple of meetings with the neighbors. We have realigned our central road through the site to better accommodate two things. One is the short cut that might be taken by people trying to transit either north or south along Galpin Lake Road and avoid the traffic light at the new Arboretum Boulevard, in fact they did want to short cut and I think our road alignment now according to our engineers definitely discourages any kind of short cut action. And the other intent there was to provide a better view, pedestrian or both pedestrian and vehicular view of the Bluff Creek corridor itself. We have, Rick will go into that sight line as he has some cross sections across the site that will help you better appreciate how this opens up to that area. Of the 51 issues that were pointed out in the staff report of January 15th, through our meetings with the staff and through meetings with neighbors, those issues have City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 been reduced I think to three. There remains some question about density. Although we are at the staff recommendation of 268. There remains some concern about a 964 contour around the Bluff Creek area, which Mr. Sathre will discuss. The 964 contour comes up the hill, oh probably 150 feet into the soybean field. In reading the Bluff Creek study, it recommends that all vegetation between 125 and 300 feet of the Bluff Creek be protected. We are protecting all the vegetation, existing vegetation within that corridor. We will protect it. I don't see the necessity of protecting 100 feet of a soybean field and that's where the 964 contour really doesn't fit our particular concept very well. The other issue that we'd like to work out with staff remains this central open space area in the villas. We've kind of designed and clustered our units so that our central open space would be between the housing types, i.e. the cluster homes and our villa homes. That will also be pointed out I think in our cross sections and our site plan. With that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sathre and he will go through our criteria for planned unit development and what we're requesting. Rick Sathre: I'm not sure for Council which is the best approach here. I have some big boards, some of which will be very unwieldy but we'll do our best. I'm Rick Sathre, oh excuse me. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Rick. Are the cameras catching that? Can everyone see where, oh we don't have any, nobody can see it. Rick Sathre: What would make sense? Mayor Mancino: Rick, can you push it back a little bit? Let's see. That would be fine. Is there anybody from this side would like to move and stand over here so you can see during the presentation? I'm sorry we, what did happen to the TV's? Did somebody come and take the TV's, excuse me? Will they be installed at a future time? Okay. Rick Sathre: I've been blacked out here too. Mayor Mancino: I know Hennessy's are here. Do you want to move over so you can see the presentation? Anyone else? Sorry to do this. You may have to share your chair with someone else. Rick Sathre: Now that everybody's over there that wants to see it, how about ifI put it over here. Mayor Mancino: Yes, good idea. Give everybody a few minutes to get settled. Rick Sathre: Okay, and I'll try to duck. Mayor Mancino: And for the rest of the people who are over there, I mean it won't be fun. Rick Sathre: My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with the firm Sathre-Berquist in Wayzata. We've done quite a bit of development work in Chanhassen through the years and I'm very pleased to be hired by Mr. Murray and Residential Development, Incorporated to work with him on this site. My initial discussion, I just want to cover two points right now. One of them is to talk about the site itself, and for that purpose I'm going to ask Lee to put an overhead up. We'll talk very briefly about the site characteristics. I think that's going to be upside down. This is a map, a 2 foot topographic map of the site. You can see a faint line up at the top of the site, top of the map is the border between the single family neighbors to the north and this 50 acre site. Off to the upper left is Galpin Lake Road, Boulevard. The Hennessy property is in the little cut-out there. Thank you Bob. And the creek corridor comes down and through the site and at the bottom is City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 existing two lane Highway 5. The site features. Through the center of the site that red and green squiggley line that you see going through the site is the ridge line of the property. The area that's north and east of that ridge, the arrow's point where the water goes. In general, the vast majority of the site drains off to the east to one of the branches of Bluff Creek. The south and west portion of the site drains southwesterly down to that part of Bluff Creek, or that branch of Bluff Creek that actually crosses through the site. You can see highlighted with the dark arrows that have the three dots in them, that's highlighted in blue, that's actually the channel of the creek and you'll see the green area and the black sculpted or scalloped edge, which is the existing tree line. We went out in the field with my survey crew and located where the canopy came to. The edge of the tree canopy so that we could show everyone where that drip line was. Rick Murray, I'm going to approach the overhead for a second to show you the 964 contour. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Sathre: I have to put on my glasses because I've got my old eyes. The 964 contour, I'm going to trace it and I probably should do it with a color. Kate, can I borrow something. How about a red line. I don't know, I guess that's about...we get away from the creek at that point. We've chosen in our planning to use the drip line of the trees as an important line of demarcation as opposed to the 964 or any other contour just because in some places you get out into the field. You get out in that soybean field but we know the trees are important so we're, as we go into the site plan we'll talk about how we've sited units versus that tree line. I'd like another graphic now. The second part of what I wanted to speak about initially is the PUD and why should this site be processed as a PUD. What is it about this site? What is it about the City that makes a PUD makes sense? Well number one, our goals are to stay in touch with your comprehensive plan. We don't want to put more units on this site than make sense with the plan. We're not trying to push the envelope. Number two, from a community standpoint. Arboretum Boulevard is going to cross through this site. The new frontage road for TH 5 will cross through this site soon and it's at the very south edge of the property. If you allow us to do a PUD, we're transferring, we wish to transfer the density internal to the site and give the City the right-of-way for that road. So there's a give and take. There's an opportunity for a dedicated right-of-way as opposed to a purchased one. Number three, from a community goal standpoint. Our site plan, our concept has very little public street. We have Windmill Curve, an east/west street and Highland Boulevard, a north/south street which would form the spine of the development. The rest of the roadway, all of the rest of the roadway system is private. It would be homeowners association, owned and maintained so the public works department would not have to do that. It would greatly reduce the burden on the public works people. From a neighborhood standpoint, why a PUD? Well number one, compatibility. We can work with our own internal transitions. I guess I'll talk about both neighborhood issues at once. If we can use the PUD to slide density around, we can pull it back away from the neighborhood, back away from everybody and put it in the middle of the site. And if you use the standard subdivision ordinance, rules, that flexibility is gone. It's, you get more like the plat that was approved preliminarily before with the twinhome neighborhood. The structure of the standard ordinance doesn't allow density transfer. It only allows minimum standards. So we think that a PUD makes a lot of sense from a neighborhood standpoint so we can pull density away from the neighbors. The land itself. The creek corridor, the Bluff Creek corridor in the southwest part of the site, in the PUD we can move the density out of the corridor, away from the corridor and put it where it's better suited, which is in that farm field area. Number two. We're working with the landform. We're not doing a grid sort of plat. The graphic I showed you about the ridge line and the contours of the land, we're working with the landform. That's another benefit of a PUD. We're not stuck in some sort of a grid. Third, a perpetuation of the long views. I've got some cross sections I can show you. We're going a long way with this PUD concept to allow every single person that would live in this neighborhood and every single person that drives through it, or near it, to enjoy the common features of it that would otherwise be platted in individual City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 lots. And lastly, under the land categories, the shared access. The shared vistas. Each and every person in this community would have, in this neighborhood, would have access to all the common homeowners association open space, which is the creek corridor area and the centrally located open space areas. So the flexibility that the PUD affords allows us to do these things. Mayor Mancino: Rick, may I ask you a question about that? If you could clarify it. You're asking, not just for a PUD. I mean we have a couple PUD's. We have the single family detached residential PUD, which is very specific. And we have a single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is more of a medium density. So you're asking for the single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is a medium or high density PUD, correct? Rick Sathre: Well Your Honor, I think the staff has suggested that we would perhaps be zoned PUD-R. But I think they're also suggesting, and we concur that that zoning, under the PUD, is site specific. It's plan specific. It's not open ended so that once the Council establishes the number of units that might be built on this site, that would be a contract basically between the developer and the City. So it's not an open ended. Mayor Mancino: So this does not follow any of our, this doesn't follow any of our ordinances? Kate Aanenson: What it would require is a comprehensive plan change, and that's the heart of the discussion. Whether or not the Council is changing the comprehensive plan. You cannot do the smaller lots, the smaller than 11,000 or the twinhomes under the low density. What we're saying is if you take the total number of units, and as Mr. Sathre indicated, you'd give it PUD-R. Mayor Mancino: Which means it's medium density. Kate Aanenson: Yes, overall medium... Mayor Mancino: Overall medium. I just wanted to make sure. And our medium density for PUD allows minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet. Kate Aanenson: Right, but as Bob indicated earlier, when you give this the second reading, whatever the final say is as far as an approved plan, that's what the total number of units. Mayor Mancino: So you're saying, you're asking us to change it so it could go down to 3,600 square feet? So it doesn't follow any of our. Kate Aanenson: This is what's before you tonight. We're not talking about re-writing the PUD. We're saying approve this plan based on a concept. Mayor Mancino: And this plan is not based on any existing ordinance that we have on PUD's? Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. Mayor Mancino: And which one? Kate Aanenson: We're changing it up to a medium which does allow that flexibility of cluster zoning. City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Kate Aanenson: Bob Generous: minimum. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: We're taking it out, we're re-guiding it from a low density, which doesn't allow flexibility to get it to a medium. Mayor Mancino: But as we do that, the minimum lot size in a cluster home PUD is 5,000 square feet. You're still under the low density. That paragraph of the ordinance has 5,000 and then the next sentence says there's no Mayor Mancino: However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan is what the next. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what we're saying. It's not going to exceed that, whatever you decide that final number would be, that's what the zoning would be. Mayor Mancino: Okay, because we would be amending the comprehensive plan. Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what the discussion is about. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Rick Sathre: Your Honor. The real point and the reason that the staff has discussed amending the comp plan, we're pulling density away from the neighborhood to the north. We're pushing density out of the creek corridor. We're putting in dense, or as a result of that, the density ends up in the middle. Well, that density is in effect straddling the line between the 33 acre low density area and the 17 acre medium density area. Rather than respecting this line, we'll pulling densities. Mayor Mancino: We're putting them altogether in the pot. Rick Sathre: Yes. We're pushing it into the middle. Mayor Mancino: And how small are those lots? What's the smallest lot size? Rick Sathre: Well the way that Rottlund would prefer to plat the lots, the lot line is only 4 or 5 feet outside the unit wall. The land is owned in common so how many square feet would be shared? I'm not sure how we would calculate that right now. Mayor Mancino: Well the cottage homes are 47 x 120. Is that 5,600 it's about the smallest lot size? Rick Sathre: If they were platted that way. The way they actually would prefer to plat it is go 4 or 5 feet outside the structure wall. Plat this very small lot and have the rest of the land in a commonly owned open space. Mayor Mancino: Yes, I understand. 10 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Rick Sathre: So the actual real lot could be very small. Mayor Mancino: And then to have common space. Rick Sathre: Right. But they'd have over 5,000 square feet of perceived lot area. I would like to sit down for a minute and ask Tim Whitten, from Rottlund, to address a few issues and then I'll be back. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Tim Whitten: Good evening. Mayor and members of the Council. Again, I'm Tim Whitten, Vice President of the Rottlund Company. Also Richard Palmiter is here with our land development department, and if you have any questions as we go through the presentation, we can both try to answer those. First, I'd like to talk a little bit about the marketplace that we're going after with the products that we're proposing. We have really, excluding the single family to the north, as mentioned by Rick, is the cottage homes in the middle band. And then our villas and villa townhomes on the southern portion of the site. And our cottages are targeted towards the empty nester and retiree market. So we're going after an alternative type of buyer than is probably more traditional for Chanhassen being the single family home. And we're finding this as an opportunity in a lot of the communities around the Twin Cities because there are a lot of people who have lived in their communities for 20-30 years raising their children and then they're finding, they're looking for an alternative life style, and in many cases they have to leave their community to find that alternative life style. So Chanhassen isn't alone in this particular market that is needed. And also in the villas and villa townhomes, we are targeting towards the young professional, singles and couples. And they are, typically the people that grew up in Chanhassen, either have jobs in Chanhassen and are looking for home ownership opportunities in a price range they can afford. So those clearly are our two targeted markets. We're using the site plan, and the PUD concept as a tool to be able to try to create those opportunities that we wouldn't otherwise have under current ordinances. And in a theme as far as planning the concept, we're clustering them together and trying to build a theme. We're doing more and more mixed use developments where we'll take a number of different products and different markets and bring them together in one community. And so we're clustering these together and then linking them together with the trails, so obviously we have this group as a cluster oftownhomes, row type townhomes.., walkout conditions here, slab on grade... And then we have more of... Then we have the two clusters of the detached along with the single family. And connecting these with trails and open space. The other advantage, obviously clustering them together is to create that variety throughout the development. If we did everything as one unit type and did it kind of anomogous throughout the site, we wouldn't get a lot of the opportunities. As we go down Highlands Boulevard, coming from Highway 5, or soon to be improved Highway 5, we get the exposure of the creek on one side of the pond, and trees. You have a villa type townhome here. You have only this much exposure into the villas from Highway 5, which we can work with the City as far as how to landscape that portion of it. We get different views of the types of townhomes here, with the villas. You will get into more of a... type where you create an open space, which we're promoting as a common gathering space within the site for all of those within the community to be able to experience. And also for those to use the trail from outside the community.., opportunity to have an activity here.., we have short range views and then we have the long range views, working all the way up to single family. That's an opportunity that we've been able to take advantage of with the PUD process. The other thing is to be able to maximize the potential of the site, or take advantage of the site in a sense of taking those total number of units and being able to put them in the right locations. And so that we don't raise the land costs and development costs. If we just took this and developed 50 less units on there, all the prices of all the product would have to go up. Land development doesn't really change much in price. The roads are basically in the same locations, and the land prices don't change. It gives us an opportunity to 11 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 take some of that savings, of being able to do this number of units and attribute it to a certain portion of the product. We are looking at a theme and taking advantage of the opportunity to cluster these together and we term it a New England village kind of a theme. And we take that from the architecture and the planning and the trails and the open space and we work that all the way through into the architecture, into the colors and materials and the landscaping and the monuments, and take that just as far through the process as we can so we can create something that's a little bit more special than just a number of sections oftownhomes or single family homes. And with that I'd like to talk a little bit about the product themselves. First I'll talk about the cottage homes targeted for empty nesters. In the middle of the site. Here we have, actually the site plan shows one building pad size... With that though we really have a number of different unit types. And we are showing a sample...give you a sense in a larger scale of what we're proposing. As Rick was mentioning the lot sizes. If you equated it to a lot size, our minimum would be like you say, 47 foot wide by about 120 foot deep. You have a number of different varieties of sizes. That's pretty much our minimum. What he's referring to is the townhome.., that we would really only have a lot size.., but that's a preferred situation for us. It doesn't have to be that way. It certainly could be divided into lots, if that's something that's more desirable. This is again targeted for empty nesters so we're looking at slab on grade. That's what they're looking for. We have developed this.., last year to respond to that marketplace. One of the things that was good for us was more variety in product. More of an opportunity to be able to adapt to the different wants and wishes of the different buyers.., care of this through a more conventional row of townhomes of 4 units or 6 units, you don't have that kind of flexibility. It allows us to give different elevations and different color schemes. Different things that we wouldn't have available are also. And this terrain, as Rick has mentioned, there's a rolling hills on the site. This allows us, by detaching the product, to be able to kind of move with the site a little bit better than the larger building. We've taken advantage of that by turning it to the street at about a 30 degree angle. What that allows us to do is create more private spaces. So as opposed to being more general spaces for everybody, or very private, or semi private. It allows us to create more private spaces in here, but this is an area that is really dedicated to this unit. And then that's their front door and then their rear door, with the rear back yard.., is also very private so as opposed to having them lined up and having zero lot lines.., we're able to concentrate those areas into certain criteria. It also allows us to create the most.., somewhere between 12 and 15 feet between the buildings. That... next to each other in more of a soldier fashion... This allows us to break up the garage doors and have some side load opportunities and to give a little bit different view as you go down the street. ... which are 3 bedroom units and 2 bedroom. In this location they vary in size from about 1,400 square feet up to about 1,700 square feet. We are proposing to develop a new type of product, a version of this, which is a walkout. To give them a basement so that we can adapt more of the site.., so you can have more walkouts. That allows us to spread that square footage and maybe move it up to about 2,500 square feet of finished space in a unit. It also creates more variety as far as the views from the exterior that you get. A lot more undulation as far as the exterior elevation and what not. The price range we're proposing is in the range of $140,000.00 for our 2 bedroom and going up to about $200,000.00. That's been our experience. And since we have first introduced this product, we have found that the buyers are looking for a little bit more diversity on the exteriors and so forth and we are proposing more variety on the exteriors. And I can give you a sample of that. This is some of the type of exteriors that we can say are half graded and we're adding to that. We would have somewhere between 3 to 4 unit types with that. We would have 2 to 3 elevations per unit. And you would have the variety of whether it was a walkout or wasn't a walkout. Whether it was a side loaded garage or a front loading garage. And we have virtually been able to create a scenario where you could get a different, something different to each of these units you know up to 80 units. Some of the images that we've created are, this would be more of the front porch for the 2 bedroom unit and then creating the image of a side entry for the 3 bedroom unit. We are proposing a color palette of five colors, and with that if you add that to the mix of the numbers.., and all the different elevation options and you have as much diversity as we possibly can offer. It's trying to be a balance between, or offer the 12 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 advantages of single family along with the advantages oftownhomes. Where you still get the association to maintain the exteriors. We're proposing these will be vinyl exteriors with brick accents and the landscaping is maintained and all the exteriors of the buildings and properties are maintained by an association .... villa product, we have really two product types that we have introduced and I can talk about it briefly here. We have the cluster units which are 12 and 8 unit clusters, which are back to back. Similar to what we have in Mission Hills, if you're familiar with that. And through staff's comments and so forth we have introduced the row townhomes to be able to take advantage of some of the grades.., and maybe soften some of the edges and create some more variety. So you really have slab on grade and walkout conditions so we have a number of different building types in this group. Again it's targeted for empty nesters. We have made some, or proposing some differences to what we have offered in Mission Hills. And again trying to kind of take off of that New England village theme so that we can take some of the elements of architecture that we're introducing in the cottage homes and bring it into the product as far as the type of siding type of architecture. We're introducing picket fences and then we would coordinate the colors of the brick and the siding and so forth and make them be a compliment to what we're proposing for the cottage homes. These are all two story and in some cases walkouts. We have two car garages and then some single car garages. Our square footages range from 1,128 square feet to about 1,300 square feet for the villa type, which are back to back and they range from under $100,000.00 to about $120,000.00. And there are differences. We have 2 bedroom units and 2 bedrooms with a loft. The villa townhomes, the more row type townhomes shown here will be larger and they would go from about 1,250 square feet for the smallest unit and go up to about, close to 2,000 square feet. And they would range in price of about $110 to $150,000.00. They also have an association to maintain the property. One thing I didn't mention on the cottage homes is typically our experience is that we have. 1 to .2 children per unit which is somewhere between 1 child per 10 to 20 units. That hold trues pretty much for our villa homes too. This is something that is a moving target as far as the numbers or percentages. We're looking at that as far as what our averages are with most of the developments that we have in the Twin Cities. Also, from our experience and from our traffic consultant, that these types of buyers, in the cottages average about 4 trips a day. In the villa homes it's about 6 trips a day and that compares to a single family that averages about 10 trips a day. One of the things that we're taking advantage of the theme...try to incorporate some of those ideas into the other portions of the site as far as our entrance monuments. We have the main entrance monuments and secondary entrance monuments shown here. We'd like to work with the City as far as what kind of potential we could do with the open space and kind of the village square. Where that should be located is one issue that's still being discussed and whether it should be centrally located in here, in this portion of the site or whether that should be in addition to the open space here or combine. We're more than willing to work with the City regarding that. Also, as far as what's in those areas. A gazebo might be something that just kind of gives the point of destination. Something for people to kind of have a point of reference, and that's something that we're willing to talk about and work with the City. Some of the, our feelings as far as a compliment to the community as far as how the PUD affects the plan, or how to take advantage of that PUD planning concept, is just the fact that we are connecting to the existing trails. And that can connect through a walkway going across TH 5 to the new park and to the school. Connecting up to the north. Potentially connecting out to the east. To invite and expand the open space. To give this the open space an opportunity for everybody to experience as they're walking through the trail system, along with the creek and bluff and existing tree area. Obviously Rick mentioned that the advantage of the PUD as far as a single family, being able to offer that up there and yet still keep our densities so we can save some of the development costs and put it towards the attached townhomes down to the south. To be able to offer a development that has landscaping that's controlled by an association. This entire area, as far as the cottages and the villas are maintained by an association with an irrigation system. You wouldn't get that in normal developments and that's something that's an advantage here. Architectural review committees, as far as the association to maintain the exterior. You're not going to get purple and orange units in this 13 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 development. You're going to be able to maintain those color palettes that we agreed to through this process. To create some of the variety of views. We can work with the City as far as how we work with the view coming from Highway 5. And with that, as far as views, as kind of a segue into that, Rick has got some sections that he has cut through different portions of the site that can kind of show you how some of those views have been created. Thank you. Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again... We've got three cross sections shown, and the staff can't see them. The yellow one is called AA, the orange one is called BB, and the pink one is called CC. This board I'm going to throw up here as BB and CC. We'll look at BB on top first, which is, it goes from the cottage homes down through the kind of open space areas, through these slab on grade walkouts villa units and down into the creek corridor. Let you get a feel for special relationships. Here's a cottage home. Garage floor, 1002. Walking out at 994. Sliding down through the open space. Not really sliding but there is a long gradual slope down the sidewalk, across the Highlands Boulevard, and then through the large open space, the central open space area. We've got a slope down near the road and then the open space area and slab on grade home. Two story home down, the road was at 984 and we went 1002, 984. Now this unit's down at 972 ½. When we cross the street we have a walkout down to 963 and then a slope down into the creek corridor. The creek at that point is about 940. So we slope down from 1002 down to 940 on this orange cross section. The pink cross section, across the road, I love that one too because everybody that drives up and down Highlands Boulevard would go by this big open space. And what they'd see, we haven't shown the landscaping that would come back onto that slope because we're not to that stage of the proposal really but the villa unit up on the plateau, up at 975. Highlands Boulevard at 966.5, so about 8 feet lower. Slope down to the pond at 949. That would sit down about 17 feet below the road, and then the slope continues down to the creek, again at 937 or so. So there's a tiering affect of the cross sectional dropping as you go across the site. Mayor Mancino: Did you pick the less dense sections? Rick Sathre: Well you'll see a better picture of cutting through on the yellow one. Good question though. We wanted you to see the special relationship where next to the open space. But now this big monster board, and we're going to use both easels for. Can everyone see it? This end of the board is the top of AA. It starts up in Windmill Run, about Lot 3, Block 3, and I'm not sure who's home that is but. The elevations up there are in the 990's. The house would be about 997. Through the backyard areas you come into our northern single family lots. The ground is a little lower in between our first home which sits about 6 feet lower than the home in Windmill Run. Across the street the home would be about the same elevation but it could walk out back to our ponding site. Central pond that's between the single family and the cottage homes. Across the pond we've got a cottage home that's a walkout in the back. And the highest point of the site is found at this location. Another walkout unit across the street, down toward the, this unit walks out toward the pond. These units walk out towards the spine of open space and then this unit is shown here, and we've gone down from 1003 at the cottage home down to 982, so we've dropped down 20 feet more or less to the villa. And then there's a plateauing or a general flatness through, down to where we cross the road here at 978. Then we drop down across through the pond and out to Arboretum Boulevard and the Highway 5 area. I think what's important about this, number one is you can see the spaces, the special relationship. This cross section is drawn at 1 inch equals 20 feet, both vertically and horizontally. So it's true to life, and the buildings are true to life. These are the Rottlund buildings. And the other thing to recognize I think is that the sight lines from the northern part of the site are blocked by this, the hill form that's in the middle of the property. But not when you drive down the road. I don't know how helpful this will be but we'll take this monster down and put that away unless there's other questions. Highlands Boulevard, another thing that I really am excited about, about the project is, this has been an 14 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 evolutionary process frankly. The road now, as it sneaks down through the site and you get down to Arboretum Boulevard, there is some roll to the road. You go up and down some and from the central open space area, you'll be able to see, as you round that curve in the road, this curve in the road, you get the long view down and across Highway 5 out to all the open space that's south of the highway. Or as you're talking down the sidewalk, now this is the eye height of somebody that's 5 feet tall and they'll be able to look right down the road, over the Highway, over Arboretum Boulevard to the long views. So there's lots of nice features to this site topographically. There's lots of exciting opportunities. Lee, would you put that... This board, nobody will be able to see this little chart so maybe you can focus on it on there. I wanted to talk about density transition. And neighborhood densities. The staff I believe has mentioned that we got, or the 268 units on 50 acres. The overall density is 5.36 units per acre. But within that area, within that site we have different densities in different parts of the site. This chart, both on this map, the Council's got it I believe as well. The single family neighborhood on the north, there's 12.6 acres up there with 32 homesites. 2.54 units per acre, you know right in the middle of the low density guide plan range. Mayor Mancino: Rick, is that gross or net? Rick Sathre: That's gross. That includes the street. That's a gross density. There's about 2 ½ acres of road in that portion of the site. Mayor Mancino: So translate that. Can you calculate quickly? Rick Sathre: Oooh. We'd have about, we'd have 32 units on about 10 acres net. So it'd be about 3.2 I suppose if you pulled out all the road right-of-way. Cottage home neighborhood, which is mostly private streets, which is in the central portion, in this portion. The cottage home neighborhood area. Again, totally lying within the low density portion of the guiding. It's 48 units on 12.3 acres for a density of 3.9 units per acre. So again it's, we're not pushing the envelope, I don't believe, in that, up to 4 units per acre. The villa, with the townhomes, the walkout and the larger buildings, the 8's and 12's, those are clumped together for density purposes. Villa homes of different types are 7.52 units per acre. Again that's a gross number. There's about, well in the upper density range or in the comp plan higher density area there's a little under one acre of roadway in Highlands Boulevard. So what you'll see when you look at those numbers, the 2.54, 3.90 and the 7.52 is this progression from the 2 plus density that's in Windmill Run, gross or net, it's something over 2 units per acre. You see the transitioning as we move away from the single family neighborhood. And I think the other thing that's important to note is that, that where the line between low density and medium density in the guide plan is somewhere in here. The 33 acres and the 17 acres. It's only in this segment of the villa area, right there, that's over that 4 unit per acre number. Okay. And that's because we're density transferring away from the periphery. We're pushing it into the middle so we get over that, the 4 units per acre number in here. So we're in compliance basically everywhere except right there. So doing the PUD allows us to put the density where it makes sense, we think. So the comp plan hopefully would help the City to establish what the maximum density on the site should be, and then we want to use the flexibility of the PUD to push the density internal to the PUD to make the best sense of it. And now I'm going to ask Rick to come up and close. Rick Murray: Thanks for bearing with us. We are pretty proud of our concept. We spent a lot of time working with the staff and with the community and hopefully coming up with something that works for the community and uses the site in an effective and efficient manner. As has been pointed out this evening, we are requesting the land use plan amendment. The amendment is not structured or targeted towards densities as much as it's targeted to be able to use the sites in a manner that allows the community the two principle areas that you focused on in this community. Bluff Creek corridor is being kept intact, just the way it is 15 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 today and will be kept intact just the way it is today with the exception of the pond and the trail that the City will install on the south and west side. Actually I think the trail, from what the Parks people told me, will be off of our property on the west, or southwest comer. Other than that, that Bluff Creek area will be intact. It does provide the City with the access point for the underpass that will allow pedestrians underneath TH 5 over to the city park area to the south. That will be the land that you acquire for the head of that underpass. It will allow a pond sizing of which will hold the storm water capacity from Arboretum Boulevard when Arboretum Boulevard is constructed. And it will give you the right-of-way for the Arboretum Boulevard. It also provides the connections, as everyone's explained, both pedestrian and vehicular, to provide efficient access and use of the land. We're not requesting the land use amendment to accommodate density as we see it. When we designed this concept and designed this plan, we were trying to be sensitive to the land use plan's requirements for densities. That's, from our perspective, been somewhat of a moving target. We adjusted it when we found out that we weren't there from the staff report in January 15th and in the staff report this evening it sounds like we still might not be there. But our intent is to get a plan that works well on the site. We've been through this. We like the prospects of the marketplace and we think it efficiently and effectively uses the land. We would request that you give this consideration this evening and pass on the concept and the PUD so that we can continue on the process. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Rick. An excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Do any Council members have any questions for the applicant? For Mr. Murray at this time. Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple quick ones if you wouldn't mind. Sometimes my questions get a little, perhaps too involved so I mean if you're not comfortable answering them, feel free. Given the site and give the location, Mr. Whitten referred to land costs and development costs. What currently is the cost of the land and what are you, given the 268 unit configuration, what's your anticipated cost to develop that site? Rick Murray: Just off the top of my head? Councilman Berquist: I suspect you've done the... Rick Murray: The cost of the land is simple, Councilman Berquist. The cost of the land is 2 million dollars. Councilman Berquist: How much? Rick Murray: Two million dollars. Councilman Berquist: So $40,000.00 an acre would be an accurate division? Rick Murray: $40,000.00 an acre. The other part of your question however is a little more difficult. I could certainly get that answer to you. I'd like Mr. Sathre to investigate it a little bit further. We have some rough numbers, but they're typically broken out by different unit styles and I can't remember them off the top of my head. I'm doing three other projects like this. Typically they would be in the range of, oh total development cost would be $15,000.00-$16,000.00, in a broad brush. Councilman Engel: Per acre? 16 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Rick Murray: Per unit. That's just, that's a real, I mean I'm quite.., a lot of stuff there. Councilman Berquist: Close enough. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Not right now thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I know there are many of you here tonight that would like to address the City Council. I certainly welcome you to do so. Please come to the podium. State your name and address, and should you have any questions, please direct them to me and I will refer them to the proper Councilmember or to staff. Doug Domine: Good evening Mayor Mancino and Councilmembers. If you can just bear with us a moment. We are providing some handouts for each one of the Council members and getting set up for our overhead presentation so if you'd just bear with us a moment I'd appreciate it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Doug Domine: Good evening. My name is Doug Domine and I reside at 2149 Majestic Way, which is in the Royal Oaks subdivision. And my purpose tonight really is to introduce five homeowners in the Royal Oak and Windmill subdivision that represent several of the residents that have some concerns regarding this project. These individuals are going to present, in sequence, a series of brief presentations to highlight these specific issues. Before we begin I'd like to state, we are not opposed to a quality development in the Highlands area, that we're discussing this evening, and we do appreciate the involvement of the developer and his staff and of city government in helping us and being responsive to us through this lengthy process. What we are concerned about, Madam Mayor and Council members, is that Chanhassen should work very closely with our comp plan in conjunction with the Livable Communities Act. We think that's a void in this argument that's been presented this evening. Particularly with regards to issues of compression, density and transition. And our first presenter tonight, I'd like to introduce Jenny Bell from the neighborhood who will cover some of the issues, and we'll move as I indicated, very quickly through this. Thank you. Jenny. Virginia Bell: Thank you. Good evening Mayor Mancino and members of the City Council. My name is Virginia Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court, which is in the Windmill Run development. I live on the northern side of that. I urge you tonight, members of the Council and Mayor, to not approve the conceptual plan that has been put in front of you, and I urge that for primarily one reason and that is because it does violate the comprehensive plan. I feel that it violates the comprehensive plan in a significant way and for that reason the Council should not approve the concept. As I look at the comprehensive plan it exists as a statement of our values and our vision. It's a covenant. A land use covenant between the City and it's residents. I think what is being asked here tonight is to approve a concept that involves essentially breaking that covenant between the City and it's residents and I urge you not to do that. I'd like to take a moment and look at some portions of the comprehensive plan because I feel they're central to what we're talking about tonight. This is a statement that's taken out of the comprehensive plan. And it states, Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. I think this is important because it states that the comp plan envisions a diversity of housing but within the context of a community of primarily 17 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 single family homes and low density. And as you well know and we've talked about it, there's also a definition of low density in the comprehensive plan and I think it's important just to take a minute to focus on it because it is central I think to what we're talking about. I think there are four key concepts here in the definition of low density. First of all the predominant type of development within this category is single family detached housing. Secondly, densities are to be calculated on a net, not a gross basis, and we've heard some density calculations in the developer's presentation. Some of those I believe are gross and we need to recalculate those into net densities. The net densities are to be 1.2 to 4 units per acre and there's an average density that's quoted there of 1.7. As you know there's also a medium density category land use which goes up to 8 units per acre, and the comp plan says that that's the category that is reserved for or is to be set aside for townhouses, twin homes and that sort of thing. If we look at the comp plan itself and look at what this area is guided for. The 50 acres under consideration. As you heard in the developers presentation and some of you brought out, the top two-thirds of the proposed development is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density and Cinda, if you could find that map and we can just put that up. Cinda, if you could just point out where the 50 acres that we're talking about again is what's Cinda's pointing out on that map and the top two-thirds of that is low density, guided for low density. IfI might borrow your map here. As I think we saw when the developer was making it's presentation, this low density area is everything above a line approximately along this private road here. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Say that again please? Virginia Bell: The low density area is approximately above the private road that we see. As you can see we've mapped it out here. This is the developer's proposal with the comprehensive plan overlaid on it so you can see where the low density line runs through the development. And you can see that a substantial number of the townhouses are above the low density line, as are all of the cottage homes. Now we've gone through and calculated the densities in this area ourselves and we've calculated them on a net density basis. And that's a little small. IfI could direct your attention back over here to the developer's map. Our calculations show that the net density of the cottage homes is in the range of something approximating 4.2 to 4.3 per acres. And again we are working with net, trying to work with net density numbers which is what the comprehensive plan calls for. So all of the cottage homes are above the density levels called for in the comprehensive plan. All of the. Obviously the townhomes with densities according to the developer in the range of 7.5. I don't remember exactly what his number was but again I think he was using a gross density number so if we use a net density, we're going to be even up higher. Those numbers, those densities of all of these townhomes which are in the low density area, are up close to 8 units per acre. So at the very top, if not above the medium density limits here in the low density housing area. Mayor Mancino: Virginia, did you take into account the open space that's allotted for there? The green area. Virginia Bell: Yes we did. Yes we did. If we look at all of the area in the proposed development that's above the low density line. In other words, all the area that's supposed to be developed low density, other than the single family homes, and we take all of that area and calculate the density, that density is approximately 5.6 units per acre, and again we're trying to calculate that on a net basis. The bottom line is, this is an area that is guided for low density and what is being placed on here is medium density and, when we get to the townhouses down at the bottom, high density. And that is contrary, directly contrary to the comprehensive plan. In addition the comprehensive plan envisions this low density area as being primarily single family housing, and what we see being placed on here is primarily townhouse housing. Cottage homes, set out as a variation oftownhomes and the villa townhomes. The proposed development is also I think inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons that I think Mayor Mancino was 18 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 referring to, or referencing with respect to the PUD ordinance. What is being placed on this land is a multi- family PUD. And if we look at our city ordinances, a multi-family PUD is reserved for land that is guided under the comprehensive plan as low density. And Cinda if you could find that section, we have taken part of the ordinance and blown it up for you so that you can see how that reads. This is out of the Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-508. Generally, single family attached, cluster, zero lot line and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed or designated for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen comprehensive plan. And what these are, are cluster zero lot line dwelling types. Obviously these are zero lot line housing types as well. So these types of units are not supposed to be put on areas that are guided as low density under the comprehensive plan. There are a couple other places in the ordinances where this concept is also expressed. In other words, no multi-family PUD on a low density area. And Cinda I believe it's 2505, if you could find that. The Section about density transfers. This is Section 20-505, Section C(3) out of the Chanhassen Code. And what it says is density transfer in single family detached areas will be evaluated. And the second sentence says, density transfer eligible for multi- family areas are not permitted to be applied to single family areas. And we just saw how the low density area is designated as the single family area and the medium to high, the multi-family area so there can't, according to the Code, you can't be transferring densities between areas that are low density and areas that are medium to high density. So the plan that we see in front of us is inconsistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and the City's PUD ordinances for at least three very significant reasons. First of all it's putting the medium and high density onto the area guided for low density. And secondly, it is placing on that low density area predominantly multi-family housing, not single family housing. And thirdly, and very importantly, it is using and placing on a low density area a multi-family PUD which the Code sections say are not supposed to be put on a low density area. I want to emphasize that I, and many of the other homeowners in our area, do not object to the diversity of housing concept and recognize that the area at the bottom of the proposed development is guided for medium density and there are going to be some medium density housing down there. So as a concept we are not objecting to this portion. On a conceptual basis. What we object to is the introduction of the medium and high density housing on the low density area. We object to that because when we moved into the area, we moved into a low density area which we understood, and what the comp plan very clearly provides, was going to be part of a larger, low density neighborhood. By placing multi-family housing and medium and high density in what we understood to be an extension of our neighborhood, you're changing the character of our neighborhood, and you are beginning to overwhelm the single family housing in the low density area with multi-family housing. That changes the character of the neighborhood. It changes what we were buying into when we moved to Chanhassen and were guided by the comprehensive plan. As many of you who were here when we objected, and discussed the previous development that was going to go on this, many of us were told about the comprehensive plan by planning staff. And planning staff discussed the fact that this was going to be low density and single family housing. So most of us moved in with the expectation that this would be low density. I think the residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks relied upon the comprehensive plan and the Council should not be changing that comprehensive plan. In a sense you shouldn't be breaking that covenant with the residents. The land use covenant. I think this has implications, not only for the residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks, but it has implications for our whole community. If we begin to change the comprehensive plan, break that covenant with the residents here, it can be broken anywhere. What purpose is there for a comprehensive plan if it can simply be amended and changed simply because the developer wants to add more units and to make his plan fit. I also think that this is a very visible area. One of the things that we saw in the developer's presentation was the height up here where the cottage homes are. That's a very visible area and this is a very busy intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. What people are going to see as they drive through are those cottage homes, and later you'll see some pictures of what those cottage homes look like in place, and they're row after row of garage. And so what you're going to see as you drive by and look up 19 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 on that knoll, is that row after row of garage. I don't know if that's the kind of impression that we want to leave as people drive through the city of Chanhassen. I think this is also precedent setting for our community because it's a PUD, and because it's one of the first developments along the Bluff Creek corridor with the new Bluff Creek, as I understand it, requirements in place. As a PUD, as I read through the PUD ordinance, I understand that the PUD is supposed to be a trade off between the developer and the City. As I look at this, I don't see much of a trade off. There's supposed to be enhanced environmental sensitivity, high quality of development, provisions of public and private space and recreational space. There is some common space up there but for this entire development there is absolutely no recreational area. No totlot, that type of thing, and frankly there is very little open space for what we see here. I don't see an enhanced quality of development as compared to elsewhere in the City of Chanhassen. Nor enhanced environmental sensitivity. The developer said that the PUD was not being used to increase density. I think that's exactly what's going on here. The PUD is being used to increase density. Raise density from, it's supposed to be on a low density area, from a medium all the way up to a high density area at the edge along here. I think what a PUD, this PUD would result in, is a winning situation for the developer. A winning situation for the land speculator, and a losing situation for the residents of Chanhassen, and those of us in Windmill Run and Royal Oaks in particular. I want to add on a, just on a personal note that I think we live in a wonderful community and I think this is a wonderful neighborhood. There's a lot of diversity in our neighborhood. We have a lot of children. We have a lot of empty nesters. We have single family parents. Or excuse me, single parent families. We have a wide variety of people. It's a wonderful, wonderful neighborhood. It's a wonderful place to live. I think if you begin to overwhelm that neighborhood with multi-family housing, I think you're going to destroy the character of that neighborhood. You're going to destroy the feel and the character that that neighborhood has. I don't think you should be doing that. I want to point out one more thing, and that is as we saw on the land use plan, there is medium density planned for next to this. There is also either medium or low density above it. Beyond us is Prince's estate which isn't going to be developed. If you allow this PUD to go through with this level of multi-family housing, we are going to be an island of single family housing in a sea of multi- family housing. That's just not what we bought into and bargained for when we moved to Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Brian Monteith: Good evening. My name is Brian Monteith. I live at 2159 Brinker and I live there with my wife and two children and we, like a lot of the other neighbors that we live adjacent to, moved in with an understanding that there was going to be a different type of development put behind us. And basically what I've been asked to do is to come up here and set the stage for what I think is being proposed here and then put up a couple of numbers as it relates to what is really, set the stage for where we are and help to understand what is being proposed here, just from a numbers perspective. Also add to some other considerations that haven't yet been addressed but I promise to be brief. Basically what we have is today 66% of the land that is under consideration is being guided for low density and 34% is presently guided for medium density. So that is where we are today and then what we have is preliminary approval for this type of zoning since 1995. I'd also like to point out that the land itself is compressed. We understand that based on Bluff Creek and the Arboretum Boulevard that's going in there. We understand that certain sections of the development poses a development challenge because of that. Now what is being proposed here, Cinda the next chart, is 70% of the housing is being proposed as multi-family housing on a piece of land that is presently guided 66% of which for low density housing. What that means in number is 188 of 268 houses is going to be multi-family houses. That is not consistent with what it's presently guided for. And only 12% of the houses being proposed are going to be put in for what it's presently being guided for. So I think that's very, very substantial and very much in conflict from what a lot of good work went into 20 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 this comprehensive plan. The other reasons that I think are very key here are issues that have been brought up in that medium and high density zoning exists just to the east and I think that's very important consideration here. Why change something that is presently zoned for something that is, why change something where it's presently zoned when you have something directly adjacent to that which would be a better fit for a development like this from a density perspective. Although the developers tried and it's been a pleasure working with Mr. Murray to try and accommodate our concerns. I mean when I look at this plan, it's very much a stacked unit development. There's very little green space overall when you consider that there's 268 units and it also, it sets a precedent here that if we start changing things around, as it's already been described, we will set a precedent that will enable that to happen more and more in the future and I don't think that's a precedent to set at this point. We do feel as a development...transitions here. The transitions of being that most of the density is up near the middle of the plan is not acceptable to us as a neighborhood. It's very visible for us and overall I think the word that I'm trying to look for is, this is not just dense, it's very intense and that is something that I think we ought to deal with. The other thing that comes to mind is that this development plan really isolates the Hennessy home. I mean they have not even considered taking that into account as being part of the overall neighborhood and I think the developer could have been a lot more creative in how he worked in the transition of the Hennessy home as an overall part of the plan. Some major concerns that I also have, have to do with the overall traffic. I mean I come from the East. There are a lot of trails in the East. If you come here to Minnesota there's trails around but not particularly where we live and on any given summer day you'll have my children and my neighbor's children out in the street riding their bikes and such and that's where kids ought to be but with the way this development is proposed, even though the developer has worked with us to try and move the road a little bit, I think there will be an increase in traffic in our neighborhood and I believe that what that does is it puts my children in danger. And I think that that's something that really makes me angry because my children in danger, I don't think there's any reason to do that. As it relates to base level services and the school impact. I think if you go to Bluff Creek School on a given day, you'll see one thing that's common throughout and that's that the classes are very full. Even if you added you know 10 to 15 kids, which would be consistent with what I think the gentleman from Rottlund said, even though I think the number of children would be significantly more, I think that will put an undue burden on the schools there and I don't see any new construction going on in new schools as we sit here today. So in a nutshell I think this development is much too dense. I'm not against the concept in spirit, other than the fact that it is very, very dense and I think that is the major thrust of our objections as it relates to this plan. Thank you very much. What I'd like to do now is introduce another neighbor of mine, David Jensen who will take you through the density numbers. David Jensen: Hi, my name is David Jensen. I live at 2173 Brinker Street. Our back yard is facing this development. I'm here to walk you through the density numbers, which don't show up really well there but you have them in your packets I believe and I'll do my best. Again, one of the big issues we have is all the density numbers that we hear coming from the developer have been gross numbers. And so looking at the plan and everything, everything that we're seeing pretty much is based on that acreage. So to just go through the numbers here, starting on the left. There's 33 acres zoned for low density currently, or planned for low density and 17 acres gross for medium density. As I understand the City's plans and everything, net acreage is supposed to be gross acreage minus right-of-ways and wetland areas and so forth. Talking with city planners, we had heard at one point that 6.9 acres of this property that's being developed was right-of-way acreage and there's another 6,000 square feet of wetland. So based on our numbers, we came up with, rounding that off to 7 acres. We broke that up as putting 5 acres up in the top 33 acre parcel and 2 acres in the bottom 17 acre parcel. And taking that acreage off of the gross acreage gave us 28 acres net in the low density development, and 15 acres net in the medium density development. Now going by the comprehensive plan, looking at the minimum plan, or zone for the low density, they're talking 1.2 units per 21 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 acre. Taking the 1.2 and multiplying it by the 28 acres net, that gave us total units there at 33.6 units. In the medium density they're talking the minimum there is 4 units per acre. Taking the 4 units per acre, multiplying it by the 15 acres, that gave us 60 units. So going by the comprehensive plan minimum, we came up with 94 acres being developed on those 50 acres. The next column there, we're looking at the comprehensive plan as guided. This essentially is what the comprehensive plan felt would be the averages for the certain developments and that's based on gross acreage. In looking through the plan they have averaged 1.7 units per acre gross for low density, and 4.6 units per acre gross for medium density. Again, taking those and multiplying those by the gross acreage, 1.7 units times 33 gross acres came up with 56 units on the low density. The 4.6 units times the 17 gross acres came up with 78 units on the medium density. Adding those together, we come up with 134 units on the total development. The next set of columns, this next set of numbers is a Livable Communities Act. Livable Communities Act essentially asks the communities to come up with a plan on how they plan on developing the land that they had in their areas and what kind of densities would be put on there. In talking to the city planners, it says in the plan that the City of Chanhassen submitted, they expected 1.8 units per acre to be developed on the low density and the number that we also got for the medium density from Kate was, we'd have to push that all the way up to 8 units per acre just to make up what we've lost in the past at medium density developments. Taking those numbers out and multiplying them by the acreage again, this is again net acreage. We come up with 50 units on the single family, low density acreage and 120 units on the medium density and summing those up is still only 170 units on the entire development, and that's going by the Livable Communities Act. The next column is the comprehensive plan maximum. This is the maximum units that could be developed there according to the comprehensive plan. There they're saying 1.2 to 4 units per acre net on the low density zoned parcel, and taking the 4 units, which was the maximum and multiplying it by the 28 net acres, we come up with the number of 112 units on the low density development. Medium density, the maximum there is supposed to be 8 units per acre times the 15 net acres, comes up with 120 units. Summing those up we have a maximum that could go in there of about 232 units on these 50 acres. And the fourth column or last column there is essentially the developer's calculations. They took the zone numbers, 1.2 to 4 units per acre and they multiplied those by the gross acreage instead of the net acreage. So taking 4 units per acre times the gross acreage, you come up with 132 units. Taking 8 units per acre times the gross acreage again in medium density you end up with 120 units. Adding that together gives you the 268 units. Now we have some charts here also to give you a little visual of what these numbers really look like. Again, the first bar on the left is the comp plan minimum of 94 units per acre, or I mean 94 in the development. The second bar is a comp plan average of 134 units on the development. The third one again, the LCA, the Livable Communities Act goal is 170 units on the development. The fourth bar is the maximum according to the comp plan and that's 232 units on the acreage. And the last bar there is the RDI plan which they have 268 units that they're trying to put in there. We have one more chart and that is looking at the density. Instead of just total number of units, we're looking at density here too. And we added one bar here. This is essentially, the second bar here, the WRRO, that's Windmill Run, Royal Oaks average. So the comp plan minimum has it at 2.2 units per the development. Our current developed area, we're at 2.3 units. The next, the comp plan average, we're at 3.1. Going by the LCA goals puts it up to 4. The comp plan maximum is 5.4 units per acre and again the RDI plan, they have at 6.2 units per acre. In just looking at the chart you can see, they might want to call it a transition but it's a mighty steep transition if you ask me. That's it for may little act here. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to introduce Joan Joyce who has... Mayor Mancino: Is there a back-up? Did somebody check these numbers for you? David Jensen: Check the numbers for me? Mayor Mancino: Just kidding. 22 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street. My back yard abuts this development, proposed development. I would like to take a look at RDI's Plan #3 and go through to explain some of the features that we feel definitely don't measure up to what a good development would be. It does not comply with the PUD ordinances. I would like to point that out. We feel that it is insensitive to the Bluff Creek watershed. We feel that it's going to be a very congested look from Highway 5 and it does require the City to amend it's comprehensive plan. First of all I'd like to start with, do you want to put up the comprehensive plan and show the designation of where that line goes across. I think we've seen this a couple of times before so I'll be brief. But I did want to point out how much of this development is not in sync with the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. To start with, I'd like to look at the villas and discuss the compression of the villas with regard to the Bluff Creek watershed area and the Highland Road. What we're dealing with here is, because of the Bluff Creek and the road, we end up taking a number of 12 plexes and various other combinations and compressing them down into a much smaller area. Therefore creating what is going to appear as a high density area from the Highway 5 corridor. According to Section 20-505, referring to buffers in the city code, it states that buffer yards are, we believe, by the way I'm jumping ahead of myself but because of the compression, we believe because of the compression here, that this land is intensely used and that's been referred to before. So going back to the city code with regards to land use for intensely used purposes, the code, the ordinance reads, buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with lower density uses. In these areas a 50 foot buffer yard is to be required where the interface occurs along the public street, and a 100 foot buffer yard is required when the interface occurs on internal lot lines, and I don't see any suggestion of buffer areas in the villas. A buffering of the villas at all. Now I'd like to move on to the cottage homes and discuss Section 20-508. That refers to the lot size. There is a minimum lot size required of 5,000 square feet. RDI's plans are proposed at 3,200 square feet. We also think that there is something to be said about the view of what these cottages are going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. Particularly the southeast comer, as you're coming up. You will see the villas and then behind the villas you will see the cottage homes up on the top of the knoll, and that will be visible. I believe the top of the knoll is 1013 feet. So that is something, I've been out there with my children sledding and you can see for miles around. Perhaps right now we might want to pull up the slides of what these cottage homes look like. We find that these cottage homes are very much a repetitive look. They're bland in color. There isn't a lot of distinction from one cottage home to the other. Basically what one would end up seeing is row after row after row after row of garage and similar structures with regard to roof lines. In addition to the fact that you can see on the upper left picture there appears to be a space between two cottage homes, 4 trees in there. Just complete, I see no green space. I don't see, I can't even imagine what that would look like from the Highway 5 corridor. Now I'd like to go back to the overhead for the, thank you Cinda. I'd like to also look at the single family lots on this area. According to Section 20-506 in the PUD ordinances, that refers to single family detached houses. There is a minimum lot size requirement of 11,000 square feet with an average lot size being 15,000 square feet. RDI's proposal here has 12 lots that are approximately 9,000 square feet. It also states within the ordinance that there is a minimum width requirement at the building setback of 90 feet, and they have stated that the width of the lot is 70 feet on the northern side of the road that continues from the Windmill Run neighborhood, and also a 65 foot width on the southern side of that road. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about green space for this plan. As you can see, there isn't too much to talk about. Maybe we ought to progress to the next slide. We go back to the overhead of the RDI's plan #3. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, we need to stick with that. One other thing I wanted to mention before I move onto a conceptual plan that we've put together, is I just really, really feel for the neighbors, our neighbors to the south of us, John and Dani Hennessy. They have sat through I don't know how many meetings watching proposals being put forth to the City Council and I'm just amazed that they can sit in their seats and be so pleasantly quiet knowing full well how much they've been ignored. They've lived here for a 23 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 number of years. They're on a 2 acre lot. I have yet to see a development, or a proposal that incorporates them as a single family detached house, and once again I think that's something that we really need to consider here. They've been a member of, residents of Chanhassen for quite a number of years from what I understand. I would like to move on now to a conceptual plan of our own that we've put together. We do not claim to be developers and so we've tried to make it simple. I'm sure there are things in here that you would find are not appropriate, but once again we are not developers. We wanted to show you what something would look like reflecting a density that we feel is a little bit more appropriate for this area. And this plan that we're going to show you incorporates a number of things and I'd just briefly like to go over those. Cinda, would you like to put the smaller slide up for that? Okay. This is the plan. It abides by the comprehensive plan. It abides by the Livable Communities Act. Goals. It provides diversity of housing. It offers small cluster of housing types, therefore creating a neighborhood atmosphere. It provides trails, green space and proper transitions, and it's a much better view from the Highway 5 corridor. Now let's put the overhead up that designates low density. High density. Thank you. We looked at this and tried to come up with again something that we thought would follow the comprehensive plan with regard to density. And in a minute we'll take a bigger look, a closer look at this overall conceptual plan that we have, but as you can see, what this does is provide a little bit better scale with regard to a single family neighborhood and how it relates to higher density areas according to the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. This comprehensive plan I think provides a lot of opportunities for transition between housing types. There's a much more gradual transition from one type of housing to another. First of all, I'd like to go over these, what we have here with regards to how many single family homes and how we came up with that configuration. We looked at the Livable Communities Act and we realized that there were some goals set forth that the City wanted to guide by. So we took those figures which are 1.8 for low density and 8 for medium density and we calculated them out according to the net density that we reflected in an earlier chart. The net density for the low, or the net density for the upper portion of the area is 28 acres and we multiplied that by 1.8 to come up with 50 single family detached homes. In the lower portion, the 17 acres to the south. We took off the 2 acres to come up with 15 acres and we multiplied that by 8 which is the maximum allowed in a medium density area and we came up with 120 units. We have included those 120 units to be the cottage homes and the villas. We have grouped those together because under the PUD ordinances those are considered to be of the same housing type. We feel that, actually what I'd like to do is, okay. Cinda, do you have the overhead that states how many cottage. We had 17 cottage homes in this conceptual plan. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that. I wanted to break down the higher density units between villas and cottage homes and I don't happen to have those figures in front of me but I can go through that because I think I know them pretty well. I'm sorry for the delay. Okay. You do have these in your packet? Mayor Mancino: What page number are you on? Joan Joyce: It is the page that is directly, the next page after the large conceptual plan. It's called conceptual plan and it starts out with the 49. Right after our conceptual plan. Councilman Engel: There you go. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Joan Joyce: The way this lays out here, we have 49 is what we ended up doing. We put in 49 single family detached homes on 28 lots. 17 cottage homes. Then we put in 8 fourplex villas, which amounts to 32 more units. And those are the villas, right there. Thank you Cinda. Right along the Bluff Creek corridor. We put in sixplex and they're half the larger units. Then we put in 3 eightplex units to come up with 24 units 24 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 and we put in three 12-plex units. We believe that this is a much better distribution of density. There's variety in here. There's more green space. Again the lower right hand portion of the villas lends itself to future development to the east, which is also designated as medium density. So I think that follows very well and I think it's a very logical thought out plan. Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Joyce, can I ask you one question. On your densities, you used for your low density guide the exact same density that your neighborhoods are, the 2.3. Joan Joyce: No, we used the 1.8, which is what the Livable Communities Act goal is guided for, and in doing so we took that density, which is ending up to be a lower density, and pushed it together up to the northern portion to allow for a little bit more green space. Those lots are drawn to be equal to the lots in our, in the Windmill Run development. They are of equal size or smaller but predominantly they follow the PUD plan. Now again I'm not a developer so I can't. Mayor Mancino: I just wanted to know what density, net density you were basing it on. Joan Joyce: We did base it on the Livable Communities Act. Mayor Mancino: So it's a lower net density than in your neighborhood, okay. Joan Joyce: We also thought that it was appropriate to put in a trail system through the area, and that runs north of the cottage homes. Through the temporary pond. We think that's a very logical place. We also put in four areas of common space throughout the development and those again provides a little bit of buffer between the housing types. We put in two cul-de-sacs in the single family detached housing area up to the north. And we put in three cul-de-sacs being smaller, more like turn around cul-de-sacs for the cottage homes. And then we put a center island down in the middle there. Again, I think all of this, or they're small aesthetic features that contribute to a higher quality plan for this area. Another thing that we wanted to do, we think again it makes sense, is to incorporate the Hennessy property and so we changed several of those to single family lots and then again there's the possibility of them to turn their driveways so that it comes off the cul-de-sac. And one thing we did not do in this plan was we did not alter the roads. We left them where they are. Although there are concerns with residents in our neighborhood with regard to that road going through, that is a concern of ours and we would like to look at that further down the line. Right now our biggest concern was to, our biggest effort here, we wanted to show you some idea of what a more appropriate density would be in that area. Are there any questions at all? Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Councilmembers? Thank you, none. Joan Joyce: Thank you. Now Kevin Joyce would like to come up and say a few things. Kevin Joyce: And just a few things. Very quickly. Kevin Joyce, 2043 Brinker Street. My job is to summarize our presentation, which is actually a very easy chore to do because I think it was very well organized by our group. However I'll admit that I'm a little worried about some of my fellow neighbors, particularly after this weekend. When we were putting together this presentation Friday I overhead my wife and other neighbors citing by memory various City Code sections to be included in our presentation so I think some of my fellow presenters know more about the Chanhassen City Code than should be considered mentally healthy for the normal person at this point. I think they did a great job. I commend all of them. Basically what I'd like to do is distill this down into two fundamental issues. And the first issue is the economics or the price of the subject property and the second issue is the goals our city has 25 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 committed for diversity in housing. It boils down to a very simple equation. The price of the property. The higher the price, the more density is necessary to achieve diverse types of housing. With that said this project is requesting the following compromises in order for the project to go forward. It's basically asking the neighbors to compromise their expectations of 2/3 of the property to the south of us being a continuation of our neighborhood as presented to them by the City when they invested in their homes. They're certainly asking you to compromise on the comprehensive plan to inflate the densities to allow for this project. It's asking to compromise the Highway 5 corridor study, which I know some Councilmembers are intimately familiar with. I think you all had higher expectations than some of these 12-plexes, very similar to the Dell Road, Highway 5 thing that are suggested in this plan. We're also compromising the PUD ordinance, which Jenny covered. The plan certainly addresses housing diversity. But in practicality compromises the other seven aspects of the PUD ordinance which gives benefit to the City of Chanhassen. So there's a lot of compromises from our neighborhood. A lot of compromises asked for the City. What have we got on the other side of the equation? Certainly the single family aspect of the plan is a feature that I think our group is very happy with, and it helps move this project towards something. The change in the road connection from the original plan also shows that the developer's listening to our concerns, and that's important. But the density remains unchanged from the original plan. There's 268 units, we've discussed. 188 we consider high density, which actually are high density. I think there's a telling point. 268 units are probably the benchmark on whether this project is fiscally feasible for RDI. It goes back to the basic equation. We've got all sorts of compromises over here to wedge this density into this plot of land. What about the cost of the property? What about the seller? Is the City willing to request all these compromises. The zoning contortions, the PUD interpretations, so the seller gets a premium price he's asking for this site? Now no one is here faulting the owner in getting the most money he can for his property. However we do fault, find fault rather in asking us to compromise our neighborhood with artificially high densities. Also asking the City to amend it's land use plan so the seller gets his price. The idea of this PUD I think is intriguing, but the concept with the related density levels just doesn't work. And considering all the related factors, particularly the economic factor, I don't think it fits here. As we saw, there are other parcels of land in Chanhassen. The land right adjacent to us that was shown to the east, that's guided for this kind of project, could accommodate this project, then it would certainly fit in there. So in closing, I think we like certain aspects of this project. I think we're a group that's reasonable. We like to work with developers. You know in good faith. But personally my concern, what I think the neighborhood is suggesting here is the density over shadows all the other good aspects of this project. We just can't get away from where the high density is in the guided portions of the low density. So unless we see something basically radically different or certainly a lot lower densities, I would ask that you turn down this request. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council? Rick. Oh, go ahead John. John Hennessy: Good evening Mayor, Councilmen. My name is John Hennessy. My wife Dani and I live at 7305 Galpin Boulevard. We wrote a letter to the Council and I would like to summarize our main points for the record. The property in question is guided by the land use plan for certain densities. We do not feel that the circumstances are such that either the benefit to the City is so outstanding or that the quality of the project is so innovative and exciting that there's enough compelling reasons to amend the comprehensive plan. The only example I can think of where the City has amended the comp plan is for Villages on the Pond. And that project meets both the City benefit and the excitement innovation criteria, in our opinion. We are not against a PUD or two PUD's for this property as long as all of the guidelines are adhered to. In our case the issue of sensitivity of transition is a major concern. Our two story detached home will not blend at all with zero lot line detached single level cottage townhouses. Homes and lots of a similar nature 26 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 to the ones in Windmill Run, the neighborhood to the north, would be more appropriate adjoining our property and in keeping with the requirements for a PUD sensitive transition. We have lived in our home on Galpin for 15 years and I would have to say we're pretty darn happy right where we are. We would ask the Council not to make us the island in the sea of density, but a part of the neighborhood that looks like it belongs there. Lastly we'd ask that you give a little extra consideration to the area along the Highway 5 corridor. This is the gateway to Chanhassen and any development visible from the highway should reflect on the pride we have in our city. Thank you. Rick Murray: I have several comments this evening. I'll only respond probably to two of them. First of all, we learned about the net density calculations with the staff report and then some further information later this afternoon. The amount of right-of-way and wetlands on the site is 4.42 acres total. Not the 7 as reflected in the charts that you're looking at. It does have a significant impact on the 232 units on that chart. It would allow approximately 245 units on a net density basis. It's always been our plan to meet your comprehensive plan. If you'll check staff reports and discussions that we've had with staff, 268 units weren't our magic number. We responded to that number and staff with recommendation. We think the 268 units fit well on the site. We think it provides a level of opportunity of housing, which are life cycle housing in Chanhassen and we can provide that on this site. We do have to accommodate the costs aspects on our subdivision and our project. If the focus, and it seems to have been this evening, is on density and the net is the issue, we'll adhere to that. It is going to have an impact on the affordability of our housing. Unfortunately in this world it's very seldom that you get everything that you are after in one particular parcel. We wanted to provide a substantial amount of this property as affordable housing. Provide that kind of opportunity in Chanhassen because in Chanhassen there is a gap. Predominantly single family houses. We saw that on the screen tonight. We have predominantly single family houses in our housing stock in this community. We have had ever since I started developing here. We need to focus a little bit on getting some diversity in opportunities which this community has done in the last couple of years and I see it transitioning it towards and I applaud that effort because there are some communities in the metropolitan area that aren't making that kind of step forward. And that's all I'll say about that. The next issue, I want to bring back our cross section because the Highway 5 corridor has been mentioned a couple times this evening. And from Highway 5, there are going to be two units. Two buildings. These two and possibly part of that one that you will see from Highway 5. The rest of it, because of the terrain differential, will be hidden. Granted part of them will be hidden by those first two buildings. But when you're driving down... you're driving down Highway 5 and you're looking across.., looking back up into the site, you're going to see the end of that building... Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry Rick, are we traveling west to east or east to west? Where are we looking from? Oh I see. Rick Murray: Okay, let's travel from east to west. You're looking back up into the site. Councilman Engel: Right to left on your long map is bottom to top on your yellow line? Rick Murray: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Say that one more time. Rick Murray: From, I was talking about, there's a visual aspect right here on Highway 5 looking back into the site. 27 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Okay, I was just trying to figure out where the pond was. Rick Murray: As you travel Highway 5 you're going to get... Councilman Engel: Where the pink line intersects the yellow line. Rick Murray: ... changes the point of view or image as you travel the highway. Looking this way, at these two units, it pretty much shelters everything because it is such a plateau that's behind it and it's above, well above the level of the highway. As you're traveling west to east, you're looking back across that expanse which covers the creek, and back through this way. You'll see predominantly the end of the buildings... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason has a question. Councilman Mason: Rick, what about is the, what's the difference in elevation between Highway 5 and that first home, give or take? Rick Murray: 950 or 31 feet. Councilman Mason: Okay. Rick Murray: It's 31 feet higher... Councilman Mason: Right, understood. Right, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Murray from Councilmembers? Thank you. Anyone else? That's it for tonight? Councilman Mason: It's only been 2 hours. Mayor Mancino: I'll bring that back to Council. Yeah, Mr. Hennessy. John Hennessy: I've driven this road for quite a few years and as I come... I can see the homes up in Windmill Run quite vividly. All of this will be visible from Highway 5... Mayor Mancino: I know that too. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? This is it. Okay, seeing none. Let me bring this back to Council. First before we start with comments, do any Councilmembers have any questions of staff? Mr. Murray. Any calculations? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Bob and Kate, are you ready? If you took the first cul-de-sac as you come in, adjacent to the Hennessy's there. Okay. And shorten that cul-de-sac and put four single family lots around it, okay. Reducing the density there from 6 units to 4 units. And if I'm counting everything right beyond that, where the line is on the comprehensive plan, basically where this proposal sits is within 2 to 3 units of meeting the net density requirements on the north portion. Kate Aanenson: No. We still shifted some of the villas are still villas in some of that area, which is making it higher. 28 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: Well the villas are but I'm just saying the overall density of, the net density of the 33 acres is 124 units, right? Mayor Mancino: No, 144. At 4.83 units per acre. The northerly 33 acres. Kate Aanenson: ... what you're looking at, the chart that they put up showing the low density... Councilman Senn: No, what I'm saying is if you take the 33 acres and decide on a net density acreage of around 31 acres times 4 units, that's 124 units, right? Okay. So effectively, under the comp plan, there'd be an allowance of about 124 units on the 33 acres. Mayor Mancino: On the 317 Councilman Senn: That's what I'm asking, okay. Okay, so basically, give or take a unit or two. Mayor Mancino: How'd you get to 317 How you'd get to 317 Councilman Senn: I'm using net. I'm using 33 to 31 acres. Took 2 acres out and 31 times 4, okay? Mayor Mancino: But is 2 acres correct? Yeah, that's what. Rick Sathre: Net's essentially 3.2 acres. Councilman Senn: So out of the 33 acres? Not the 17 now? Rick Sathre: No. There's 3.2 acres in the northern 33... Mayor Mancino: But what about wetlands or retention ponds? Councilman Senn: So then you're roughly at 30 acres? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Senn: So roughly 120 units, okay? Okay. And if you take the 120 units, I mean with that changeover by the Hennessy's, it seems to me you're within a half a dozen units at best of meeting the coverage requirements on the north 33 acres. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, you'd have to take out 24 units because right now those 33 acres contain 144 units. 32 single family, 48 cottages, 16 single loaded townhouses, and 48 villas. The northern 33 and that's on page 4 of the staff report. So to get it down to 120, you'd need to delete 24 units. According to staff report. Is that correct? Okay. It's at the top, paragraph on page 4. Because I've highlighted it too. Councilman Senn: So you've got 20 units. Boy, then I'm still confused because I'm not seeing that. I mean you've got 48 single family units, right? Rick Murray: 48 cottages. 29 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: 32 single family. Bob Generous: And then 48 cottages, 32 row townhouses and. Mayor Mancino: 48 villas. Bob Generous: 16 row townhouses and 48 villa units. On the northern 33 acres right now. For a total of 144 units. Mayor Mancino: With a net density of 4.83. Kate Aanenson: So you were figuring 30 at 4 units an acre, that's 120 so they've got to make up the 24 units. Councilman Senn: So 24 units off. Of the north portion. Okay. And the south portion, what's the differential there? Mayor Mancino: The south portion, the net density is 8.4. We're very, very close to the net medium density of the comprehensive plan. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Mancino: So that does follow, so the concern obviously is for the northern. Kate Aanenson: Maybe up to 5 units on the south or something like that. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, do you want me to. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean if somebody else has a question, go ahead. I'm just trying to. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else that has a question at this point? Otherwise I'll start asking for comments. Is there any Councilmember that would like to start with their comments? Councilman Mason: Sure. Why not? I'll even keep it fairly brief. That I'm aware of, the comp plan has been amended four times, I'd say in the last 3 years. Less than that, 2 years. Autumn Ridge, Villages on the Pond, the Highway 5 corridor study and the Bluff Creek study. So it's not that it's never done. It does happen. Something I wrote down here, as the needs of the community change, so plans get amended. So I don't, and incidentally I'm not sure the comp plan should be amended right now but I just want everybody to know that it has been done and certainly as a government body sees fit, the option is there to do that. I basically am in agreement with what's being said by just about everybody tonight. I take a little exception to part of the report that you folks did about the quote, about single family. And yes, we are primarily a low density community. I don't think we can ignore the changing times and the different and the diverse peoples that want to move into these communities. We cannot ignore that. And we have to deal with it and one way to make a community more diverse, to make a community more affordable, is clearly to play around with density issues. I think you folks know that. That can't be anything new. So I'm a little concerned about that. It seems to me the north end of this plan we're fairly close. I share Mr. Hennessy's concerns about the homes next to his area. Councilman Senn was poking around with that cul-de-sac and the plan was similar with what you folks had with single family homes. That certainly looks a whole lot 30 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 better to me than what's there now. I think with the, having said that the comp plan's been amended four times in the last couple of years, I know the whole comp plan is up for review, when Kate or Bob? Kate Aanenson: We're doing it this year. Councilman Mason: Yeah, doing it this year. This may not be the most prudent time to amend that plan right now. Having said that, I suspect that the comp plan wouldn't change a whole lot for this area anyway. As I think we're close here, I think as I mentioned to the neighbors yesterday, I'm not as concerned in that area about density as they are. I think with the, particularly if that one cul-de-sac gets changed into four homes instead of the six there, there's quite a buffer of single family homes. I've got to believe with some maneuvering around, and perhaps even increasing the densities some on the southern end of this, we've got a workable plan. Conceptually my view, and I'm certainly only speaking for myself right now, is the concept is doable. I'm not convinced that the comp plan should be amended right now. And I'll let it go at that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I don't know ifI can be brief but I'll sure try. I moved here 5 years ago and one of the, in fact the only question I can remember asking my realtor at the time was, what's that berm running across the back of that open space going to be and I was in Chanhassen Hills Estates, I believe is what that neighborhood's called, and the guy said that's going to be the proposed Highway 212. But don't worry about it, it's been on the books for 20 years. For most people your house is probably going to be your biggest investment. For most people. So you probably take a little extra care, especially if it's your first home you're building, and I just said why don't we go over the hill and look at those homes. You end up paying a lot more for the land and the house but I didn't have to deal with that every night wondering when they were going to come back and prove me a bad gambler so I didn't buy there. And I did it because I was basing my decision on what the City was telling me, and the County was telling me they were going to do with that land. So if they had come back just last year when the debate was going on about where they're going to put 212, or if they're going to put 212 somewhere and they decided well, we decided we're going to put it north now just by your house. I would have had a little problem with that because I built and paid more based on what they told me. I had an expectation. So I think from that standpoint I totally understand the neighbors in Windmill Run having a problem with the zoning being changed from where it was when they planned to build there. If they had known it, I would bet there are several that probably would have just looked elsewhere in Chanhassen. There was a lot of places to look. For me as well as anybody else. And you make a change or else you make a bet. It's up to you. With that said Mr. Murray, I believe in Wild West capitalism. You make as much money as you can with your assets. That land's your asset. By my calculations, you get time to run your numbers up here. My mind's not as sharp as prior to having my children but doing the math by hand and Steve's dime store calculator, you're going to have about six and a quarter million invested in that land. That's using the $85,000.00 per acre development cost, which comes from $15,000.00 a unit, that you figured it would take to develop it. Divide it by 50 units times 268, or divide that 50 acres times 268 units. You've got $40,000.00 an acre in your acquisition cost. Add that up, it comes to about 6 and a quarter million. Using the same numbers for your 268 units broken into 32 single family, 48 cottages, and 188 villa units, with the average price for the range shown in the staff report, you can turn about $32 ½ million in total sales revenue, give or take a million. All right. Now the neighbors numbers bring it down to 170 units and applying the same per unit costs, roughly, brings about $23 million in revenue on the same property. I'm not a developer either. Just playing with the numbers. I'm sure you can correct me here. I know there's some hidden costs and there's some carrying costs on land. I'm well aware of that. But I think there's room to move here. Hold on, let 31 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 me finish then go ahead. They're not saying no development. They came up with a plan I think, I don't mind it either but as a, if I faced with a decision today, and I've got to say we either change the zoning or we don't, if there's neighbors against it, based on the fact that it was zoned something else when they built, then I'm against changing the plan. But I believe in self determination as well. If you can come to an agreement with the neighbors and I don't see four rows of neighbors there but maybe only one row. I can be pragmatic about it and I can say the neighborhood wants the change and they like that development. I can go for it under those circumstances. And I know my math's not perfect but you've got to do something when you're up here listening for 2 hours. Mayor Mancino: Mr. Murray, wait until we're all, I'm sorry. Wait until we're done. Thank you. Councilman Engel: That's all I can think of. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead and keep going. I'm still figuring. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel: Use Steve's calculator. Councilman Senn: I don't have one, that's why it's taking me longer. Councilman Berquist: It's Don's. Do you want to borrow it? Councilman Senn: Not from what Engel says. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: As with everything else, I scribble furiously and try to make sense of it later. There's a number of things that I really like about this and I, while people were talking I told Nancy this reminds me of the Super Bowl because both teams have done a tremendous job of preparation. They've both done a tremendous job of presentation. I don't look at it as a competition. I hope that there will never be in this forum a winner take all sort of result but it's really been wonderful to watch. So I applaud you, Rick and your team as the developer and I applaud you Kevin, and your team as the neighbors. It's been great. The comp plan was finished in, it's never finished. The comp plan was implemented in 1991 and to my way of looking at it, unless there is a very compelling reason to amend it, I'm not willing to amend it on the strength of one Council meeting and one presentation by a developer or a neighborhood. When Mr. Murray first called me, and I think we traded phone calls a couple of times and we finally touched base one day, and he walked me through this verbally over the telephone and told me from a conceptual point of view what it was that they were attempting to achieve. I liked it. I liked the aspect oftransitioning into higher densities as we moved south in the project. I liked the idea of mix of housing styles. I liked the idea of an interconnecting road with the Windmill Run area, but an interconnecting road that provided a minimum amount of likelihood of shortcutting and traffic increase. I felt from a public safety point of view, from a school bus cost point of view, from a snowplowing point of view and from all the other points of view that you look at when you're talking about building infrastructure, I thought that an interconnecting roadway was something that I would like to see done, but I'd also like to minimize the effect on the existing neighborhood, and I believe that that plan moves in that direction. Let's see here. Regarding the right-of- 32 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 way, to give them some specifics. Regarding the right-of-way dedication, and unless I missed my guess, and I very possibly do, the right-of-way dedication that would take place for the southern alignment of Arboretum Boulevard would take place as a result of development regardless. I mean it's not, if the property were to become developed, were to be developed, we as a city have the right, if you will, to say that property is there. We've chosen this alignment for our road and we'd like it deeded over. So I don't look at that necessarily as a give and take sort of a situation. I'm concerned about the Hennessy's. While John was up here talking I wanted to interject a little bit of humor and say, I'll let him eat pizza but I thought that probably wasn't the appropriate time and I'm not sure this was. Councilman Mason: You mean very little humor. Councilman Berquist: Very little humor. Very little humor. The Virginia Bell talked about comprehensive plans being covenants. And I think that that's a very appropriate description. I think a comprehensive plan is a covenant. But it cannot be cast in stone or in concrete. It has to be something that we believe in is right but it also has to be used as an evolutionary sort of a device that allows us to make changes and benefits the entire community. Frankly I like the direction that this development is headed in, but as it currently stands I do not have a good feeling for the benefit to the entire community. I don't know that I could honestly feel in my heart that it does that. We also have other medium density to the east. If we allow it to happen, the entire Highway 5 corridor to the northern side could become a picket fence if you will, of medium density housing and I really would rather that didn't happen. Does it make sense to approve a land use amendment without defining the acceptability of a particular or without defining project acceptability? I'm not certain that it does. The fear that I have is that if in fact this is not blessed, that you'll say well we couldn't make it work and you'll go away. Honestly, the numbers that I ran and that Mark ran while people were talking, support a land cost significant, well. I don't think I should get into that. I think I'm done. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead, throw a big number out. Mayor Mancino: Unless you want me to go ahead and you can end up. Councilman Senn: I don't care. I can probably do it at this point. I don't know, I guess I'm more torn. I mean I appreciate really where the neighbors are coming from in terms of what you'd like to see. In evaluating the developer's plan though I like the plan. I like the concept. Okay. I'm not going to say it doesn't need tweaking, because it does. I think it needs some tweaking around Hennessy's there and I think it needs a little more tweaking in the north, which I'm going to say at least in my mind can let it tweak in the south a little bit too. The reason is, my fear in this whole thing is, if we draw lines and just kind of say everything's got to happen according to this line, what you're going to get is somebody coming back with a plan that everything north of that line is going to meet 4 units per acre, which I don't think if what you want to see either. But I'll tell you one thing you're not going to get. You're not going to get all single family detached homes north of that line. And I think that's what you'd like to see, but it's not economically feasible. So effectively, unless you take this tweak it and work with it to get it where you need to get it, my fear is what you're going to see ultimately come back is something that meets this magical 4 units per acre north of that line. And then you're also going to get something coming back south of that line that's going to meet that magical number of 8 units per acre, which we would probably bend on for affordable housing, as we have in the past. In fact our ordinances allow us to even bend further on that as a result of that. And to me to draw that kind of a line and take that kind of approach is not the right way 33 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 to deal with this piece of ground. I think this concept is the way to deal with this piece of ground where you start up by the neighborhood with the single family homes and increase the densities as you move to the south. I think what's got to happen from there though is the tweaking needs to be done and we need to get the units more in line with what we need from a net density standpoint to stay within our ordinance requirements and I don't think that's out of the realm here and I don't think that's a reason to trash this plan so to speak. You know the developer's got to decide whether, you know given that's economically feasible or not. That's a decision only the developer can make for himself. But I don't want, I mean I don't want to see people leave here tonight kind of with a yeah or nay on a concept approval that's going to lead everybody to believe that oh well, we're going to get all single family houses above the north line and we're going to get high density below and we're just going to keep standing pat on our position until we achieve that. I don't think that's going to happen. And if it does happen, I think well no I'm certain, that won't happen. I think what may happen is a worse situation where you're going to get this magic line, 4 units here and 8 units there. And I think again, that would just be a real kind of travesty for this piece of ground. Steve, I don't share you comments at all as it relates to Arboretum Boulevard. We've never dealt on that basis and I don't think we should start dealing on it now. They're already furnishing quite a bit on the project so I don't think we should be in the business of requiring people to also furnish major roadways going through their property with no compensation for takings. That why we created condemnation and takings in the first place. To be fair to both sides. Mayor Mancino: Except for that isn't true on the north side of Highway 5. Councilman Senn: Huh? Mayor Mancino: On the north side of Highway 5, the frontage roads. Councilman Senn: Yeah. Yeah, just relating to the frontage roads basically. So you know I guess from my standpoint, I mean I would like to provide the direction from nobody's standpoint other than mine that this concept's fine. The concept just needs to keep being tweaked and I think we know what the issues are now as it relates to net density, which if I'm hearing the developer correctly, I don't think they even understood until they walked in here tonight. And out of all fairness that needs to kind of go to the next step now and I think see where this can go and conceptually again I think this is really on the right track. Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll make my comments. I have attended various meetings on this proposal, including the Planning Commission session, the Park and Rec Commission meeting. I've spoken with the developer Mr. Murray and have met with various neighbors and have also read your letters. I have visited the Rottlund cottage home development in Plymouth and I'm very aware of their Mission Hills development. You might say I've had some time to process this proposal. After listening to your presentations and studying our comprehensive plan and city ordinances this past week and weekend, I'm very clear about answering the core question, whether we should say yes to request for land use plan amendment from residential low density to residential medium density for the northern 33 acres. Our comprehensive plan is what guides this community. We spent hundreds of hours creating this plan. Making sure that it reflects our community's values. It is who we are and it guides where we are going. While studying it this weekend, and wondering to myself whether a 1991 document is still relevant and valid today, I reviewed a section called housing availability, under the Housing Section of the plan. Policy number 8 and let me read it. This is on page, excuse me, this is on page 22. Policy number 8. The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. We thought about this in 1991. Chanhassen is committed to providing housing alternatives, which I am very much so. The future land use plan is evidence of this commitment. Land designated for future 34 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 single family units, 1990 through the year 2000, will accommodate approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate approximately 1,500 units. We've already planned for alternative housing. It's in our comprehensive plan. It is in our land use plan. That's why we have medium, zoning for medium density housing. That's why we have high density housing. I think that our comprehensive plan has looked ahead for the land that's in the MUSA line and that we are very well planned. So for me, I would like to, or I would not be in favor of amending our comprehensive plan to call for medium density in the northern 33 acres. I am certainly fine with the concept plan in the southern 17 acres. But I would like to see the northern 33 acres stay within the low density or low density PUD residential housing. Is there a motion? I think we've done good planning. I think we've put it out there. We have agreement from the community on it and if we do want to change it, we need to go back and decide this as a community and it needs to be done community wide. Right now the Planning Commission in 1997 will be reviewing our PUD ordinance to decide whether that needs to be revised, and hopefully residents will come out and we'll have due process so that they can make comments about our PUD ordinance. And that will also happen for our comprehensive plan changes that we'll be making this year. Otherwise this is it. Don Ashworth: Mayor? I think Roger Knutson has two points that he would like you to consider. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: A couple of possibilities you may want to consider. Well actually there are three. First, you can obviously approve it as is or with conditions. Second, you could table, you have several, even zeroing in on one issue essentially. There are several issues here. Planned unit development, land use plan amendments and what not. You could table this entire matter. Send it back to the developer to adjust what you've said here tonight and bring something else back. Or if you decide to turn it down, then I would recommend that you direct our office, in conjunction with the staff, to prepare Findings consistent with denial and bring that back to you. Not actually deny it tonight but direct us to prepare Findings consistent with denial and then bring that back. Those are the three options as I see it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Senn: I'll move number two. Mayor Mancino: Ah Rick, that's what I was going to ask you. Have you heard enough comments from us tonight? Councilman Senn: Hey Rick, you don't have to answer that. Mayor Mancino: To give you concrete direction. Rick Murray: I absolutely have direction Madam Mayor. And I appreciate working with the neighbors. I think the evolution of this plan has brought it from totally unacceptable to places where gee, there are some light at the end of the tunnel here and hopefully that's where we're going. I appreciate Roger's comment because I'm trying to get out of my seat. Let's see if there's some time, give us some time to work on this a little bit. Our goal here is to get something that works for the whole community and the neighbors and the project. Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist's numbers, we think you forgot the cost of the construction of the home. You've got my land development costs pretty close and I'm sitting here 35 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 scratching my head and saying, you know $28 million bucks. That's about right. What's wrong here? Then the gentleman from Rottlund taps me on the shoulder and says, we haven't built our units yet Rick so. Councilman Engel: I agree. I agree with that. Like I said, I've got those kids now. Do you get money back when you sell those homes though? Rick Murray: No. Councilman Engel: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Can we, I'd like to take a minute and make sure that you did hear direction and staff did too so that we're very clear about what we want to see. Rick Murray: I'm very clear about what you want to see. Mayor Mancino: Oh well then, would you let me know what it is you heard us say. Rick Murray: I heard the comments from the Council to be, that you would rather see me stay within the land use guide plan as it exists today without amending it. We will take a very hard look at trying to do that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: I think Councilman Senn was attempting to get there but there's some land uses here that you might not end up with this product. I don't know if it's compatible with your, I mean that's the problem that bothers me because the market that we're attempting to get to might not be compatible with those land uses. For instance the cottage homes may disappear. We might end up with twins. We might end up with the same product that the neighbors have backing up to them in their present preliminary plat. Because that's what's acceptable in this particular zoning district. That's the kind of adjustments that we'll have to look into. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. That you're going to be looking at. Rick Murray: Sure. We attempted to do that transition and it's just not working out the way we were attempting to do it so. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: My comment on the, my sense of what I'm hearing from Council right now is that, I don't, I'll only speak for myself. I don't want to give up affordable housing on this. That's my feeling, and I said at this time I'm not convinced a comp plan change is necessary. Mayor Mancino: But the affordable housing comes in, if I'm not mistaken, in those lower 17 acres is really where the affordable housing... Rick Murray: It's all part of the whole. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But that's where you're picking up most of the $80 to $120,000.00. 36 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Rick Murray: Depending on where they're ending up. Councilman Mason: I mean I would like to see this tweaked. I would like to see this worked out. I'm hoping and assuming that this will get tabled tonight for that to happen, but I have some other concerns. My only concern is not just the comp plan here. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel: I want to add one thing Nancy. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: He's correct. I don't have the cost of the homes in those numbers. I just wanted you guys to be aware of that. Who cares? It can't be much. Councilman Senn: That's the cheapest part of developing in Chanhassen you know. Mayor Mancino: Any other changes that you listened to? Rick Murray: There's a great concern for Mr. Hennessy's property. We had taken a look at doing two things with that piece of property, one of which is surrounding it with single family, like a couple of the gentlemen were suggesting. And another was trying to incorporate it into our project, or part of our project. With, quite frankly the extension of this line, the 964 onto his property, doesn't leave me anything to develop so it's really not a possibility. There would be three cluster homes on his site. It's better off at this point in time, from what I can see, being a single family home on a 2 acre site with a nice back yard. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: To make this a cul-de-sac, single family homes, they're going to be coming around the comer with single family homes so their building area is surrounded, it's not a huge hassle. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Rick Murray: There was concern with open space, and we have addressed that. it will probably be addressed in somehow getting from 268 down to 200 and what, do we know what our number is yet? 2417 245? 247? Mayor Mancino: 240 to 245. Rick Murray: Wherever that number is in that adjustment, I'm sure we'll find some space for open space. I still would like to keep the open space central, and it will probably stay central. I'd like to keep it in conjunction with our community trail that's coming off of Highlands Boulevard as opposed to spreading it out and putting a little bit down. I'd like to keep it together so it stays as large as it can. Let's see. Did I miss any yet? Mayor Mancino: I think that there was some consensus on the lower medium density to see the density rise in that density. We would be open to that. In the lower 17. Little higher. 37 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Rick Murray: To use that area for our transfers as opposed to letting it creep above? In some aspects Mr. Senn's comment, I agree with Mr. Senn's comment. To have a straight line across there with the way the site lays, might not be appropriate. This line comes across here somewhere like this. Some of this should stay exactly the way it is and you saw that in the neighbor's plans as well as ours. Some of this maybe we could.., and consequently drop some units from that side of the site. We'll attempt to do that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that we would be open not to see a hard, fast line. Give a little bit in topography there. Rick Murray: What I would like very much to see is the ability to use some fashion of the attached. Those started out as twinhomes. Now they're detached twins because it's a lifestyle that we were trying to approach. I'd like to see some fashion of that incorporated in this plan. Or the ability to do the. Mayor Mancino: The detached single. Rick Murray: To do the detached townhomes or the cottage homes. Mayor Mancino: Oh, the cottage homes, yes. Rick Murray: The problem with your ordinance as it's written now Madam Mayor is, that's not an acceptable use. Kate Aanenson: You have to change the land use to accommodate that. That's how we got to this point. Rick Murray: That's how we kind of arrived here. If that was the only change, and we limited that change to include this kind of, because those units are only 3.9, 4.1. I'm getting my numbers gross and net. Mayor Mancino: Oh, I can't believe it. Rick Murray: Whatever that number is, they're really close. And it's the lifestyle that I'd like to offer on this site because it's going to be very, very attractive. It's going to have the walkouts on the one side. And slab homes on the other. A great variety and diversity. Mayor Mancino: I understand. Rick Murray: If that could be incorporated somehow in our direction, it would help us and our configuration of the site plan. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: You know Rick, I think you heard Mike leave the door open. You know again I'm going to say I would strongly support a guide plan amendment to transition that property versus a like across it that's going to say 4 units an acre and 8 here. The other three have to speak for themselves but I think that's the way this property has to be developed. I think what you've got to do is just tweak your densities. Rick Murray: I agree. 38 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: Load the south more. Rick Murray: I totally understand Mark and I heard the comments. I've been doing this for 20 years and I always count so. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: If one does amend the comp plan, I assume that we make the amendment very specific to that certain situation, i.e. it would not be amended because of density but it would be amended because of housing style. Councilman Engel: Can we just amend that as part of a PUD? For example you were talking about, you can't do that? Roger Knutson: You need a guide plan amendment. Rick Murray: But it could be Roger, it could be very specific to... Roger Knutson: Sure. Mayor Mancino: Very, very, very, specific. Very, yes. Roger Knutson: Not transportable anywhere else. Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion. Has the motion been made to table it? Mayor Mancino: No, but I just wanted to make sure before we made the motion that there's clear communication and comments that we wanted. Because I would not like to send him out of here. Mr. Joyce has a comment. Kevin Joyce: Just a thought. When we did this back...townhomes. I can't remember the name. Kate Aanenson: Town and Country Homes. Kevin Joyce: Town and Country. We met with the developer before, we had this thing tabled and we had a real successful meeting with the developer. He saw some of the concerns from the original meeting and we were able to kind of work out some negotiations. I don't know if the rest of...possible to do that but we certainly hate to lose the single family aspect of this. Mayor Mancino: I think that's a good idea. Kevin Joyce: So I think that, I think you know we're reasonable people and I think we'd like to meet with him before this came back again. Mayor Mancino: That could be part of the tabling. Thank you Kevin. 39 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: I've seen that plan too. I like this plan. I think it will be good in Chanhassen. I just don't want it when you've got this kind of opposition to it but I've seen that twin family home plan too. I'd like to see the two of you get together with that old plan and this one and see if you can merge them and come up with something that you're not going to have any disagreement on and we can pass it. I like it as a concept. It's good. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please? Councilman Senn: I'd move number two again. Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Number two is to table I believe. Mayor Mancino: All those in favor to table this request. And that's. Councilman Senn: Table this request so the developer can go back and work with the neighborhood and staff to tweak the plan and come back again. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the request for The Highlands at the Northeast Corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 by Residential Development lnc. so the developer and neighbors can get together and meet regarding the proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DECISION AMENDING THE JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CREATING THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION~ COLLEENDOCKENDORF. Colleen Dockendorf: Thank you and I should state my name as Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge in Chanhassen, representing Southwest Metro Transit this evening. Just briefly, the Suburban Transit Association is about two years old. It was the organization that was responsible for getting the legislation passed last year for the local levy authority which gives the cities the option to levy transit taxes as opposed to regionally through the Met Council. Chan's contribution to the Association is approximately $2,600.00 this year, which is reimbursed by Southwest Metro through the transit levy. The fee mostly goes towards the retainer of Messerli & Kramer, which is our lobbyist. If you want to go into the legislative agenda set for this year, I'd be happy to but the matter really at hand is what Sharmin's put in her report. I don't have any issues with the changes that were requested to the agreement. It just makes it logistically difficult because ten other cities have already signed the agreement and what would need to happen is I would bring these proposed changes back to the STA Board. They would have to pass there and then it would have to go back to all 11 cities for ratification. And I'd be happy to do that if you could prove to me that the changes were substantive enough to do so. I think one of the points that Councilman Senn probably added that the development of transportation and mass transit programs add that clause or that a few words be added to the agreement, is that it's nowhere in the agreement. And it was a good idea. It probably should be. However, the agreement is between three cities, or excuse me. Through all the opt out communities and it pertains only to transportation usages. It's policed, for lack of a better word, by your Representative to the STA, which you're going to appoint later on this afternoon. Excuse me, this evening. I'm mixed up. And so there's enough control to know that Messerli & Kramer is not going to be out lobbying for whatever, other than transit issues. The other change that was made was on page 7. The top, Section 10.2. Or 10.3, excuse me. Saying a proposed budget shall be formulated by the Board and submitted to the parties and that was desired to be changed to the cities for review and comment. The parties are the cities. 40 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 That's the definition of parties in the agreement. So that's, I don't think that clarifies the agreement any more. So again I'd be happy to answer any questions or concerns about you. My purpose this evening is to say, you know I'd be happy to forward these changes and next year on the go around when we talk about the agreement, this year it's just difficult given the timing. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Questions from Council members for Ms. Dockendorf. Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: Colleen, did you say that the ten others have already approved this? Colleen Dockendorf: Yes they have. Councilman Mason: And you're saying that this comes up on a yearly basis, right? Colleen Dockendorf: The changes, the amendments were made specifically because we needed some changes to dates. However, every year you agree to participate so you are re-ratifying every year, yes. Councilman Mason: Okay. What I believe I heard you say was that because of logistics involved, you're reticent to try and get everyone to go back and agree to these changes now but that you would be willing to do that next year when it goes around again. Colleen Dockendorf: Absolutely. Councilman Mason: Those are all the questions I have at this point. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Nobody, out of the other ten cities nobody made mention of the fact that the by-laws don't address the, or the cooperative agreement doesn't address the issues at hand? Transportation and mass transit. Colleen Dockendorf: Not that I'm aware of. They all were signed so I don't know if they were questioned or not. Councilman Berquist: And we all signed copies of this with the stricken language and the inserted new language? Or is there a new document being prepared that deletes the stricken items? Colleen Dockendorf: I believe that the signed ones had the stricken language. So there isn't a clean copy to be signed. That's my understanding. Councilman Berquist: Well all right, thank you. Colleen Dockendorf: Is anybody interested in the ten other cities? Who they might be. Mayor Mancino: Sure. Colleen Dockendorf: Chaska, Eden Prairie, of course. Members of the Southwest Metro. Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley, Rosemount, Savage, Prior Lake, Shakopee and Plymouth. 41 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Colleen, I'm assuming that in 10.3 where we wanted to have submitted to the cities to review and comment on. That I understand parties is the city. On or before the August 1st, SO that our representative will bring back to us, the City Council, the proposed budget. We will have time to review and comment with our representative and she or he will bring it back to the association and voting on it. Colleen Dockendorf: Correct. Right. Mayor Mancino: And how much time is there between the August 1st and the organizational meeting? Colleen Dockendorf: The organizational meeting was by January 15th. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that it is your intent to give us all, the cities, the parties, time to do that? A couple months, whatever, okay. Colleen Dockendorf: Absolutely. I do have a copy of the '97 budget if you are interested in seeing that. Because I don't believe that was done this year. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, comments. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I think the changes need to be made. Next year versus this year, you know I guess if everybody's already signed it, it isn't that big of a deal but I just don't want to see this fall through the cracks. I mean we have financial responsibility for it, yet under this agreement we have no financial control. And in my mind if we're going to have financial responsibility, we should have financial controls. And I don't care whether it's this organization or any other one. So I guess if we can be assured that it won't fall through the cracks, it will happen anyway for this year and be changed on relationship to the language for next year. That will probably work too. Mayor Mancino: One second. When you say we don't have any financial control. It does mean that our representative does need to report back to us the budget for next year, and we do then have a control over whether saying yea or nay to the budget. Councilman Senn: We have one vote, yes. Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Yes, which is not financial control over the budget. Nor do they have to wait for our comment to adopt the budget. Mayor Mancino: I would assume you have to wait for our comment to adopt the budget. Councilman Senn: Not under this agreement, they do not have to. The Board acts independently. There's nothing in here that says that has to go back to the City. Colleen Dockendorf: It says that it's submitted to the parties. The parties are a city. Councilman Senn: Submitted, right. It means it's mailed to us. There's no requirement that they wait and get any kind of comment or anything back from the city or any such thing like that. 42 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Colleen Dockendorf: That would be a matter of practice of each individual organization. That would be up to Southwest Metro to make sure that that gets done. Roger Knutson: Mayor? IfI could just point out one thing though about what's wrong. As I just heard, you're supposed to submit your budget to them by August 1 for comment? Colleen Dockendorf: Yes. Roger Knutson: If you didn't like the budget, then by September 15th you could notify them that you're withdrawing. Then you're out December 31st. So you have that sort of control. If you don't like it, you get to leave. Mayor Mancino: Take your marbles and go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Roger. Colleen Dockendorf: I'll make sure that these changes get submitted for next year. Councilman Mason: I would like to move request for reconsideration of the City Council's decision amending Joint Cooperative Agreement creating STA Association. With the caveat that if they're not put in place next year we'll be going through this all over again. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to make a motion to reconsider the City Council decision amending the Joint Cooperative Agreement creating Suburban Transit Association. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn: Now, can we act on reconsideration tonight or does that have to be next meeting? Mayor Mancino: It was on the agenda. Roger Knutson: Normally it's a matter of, I believe your practice is, if it's a matter of public concern and there's neighborhood groups involved or something, you normally would not act on it tonight. But as far as I know this does not fall in that category, in which case you can act on it. Councilman Senn: So we need a motion now to basically adopt it as submitted then, correct? Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion please to adopt it as submitted. Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Berquist: So seconded. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Joint Cooperative Agreement creating the Suburban Transit Association as submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 43 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Colleen Dockendorf: Thank you. Any need for me to stick around for the appointments? Any questions? Great, thanks. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND AN 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE, LOCATED AT 1455 PARK ROAD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This project is located in the industrial park. It's a conditional use... As you recall, back in November the City Council approved... We did have a couple of petitions, requests, applications pending which drove the staff to actually make the amendments to allow the accommodations for telecommunication so it'd be in compliance with the Federal law. This application we felt was in a good site, located in the industrial park. It is 150 feet high. The ordinance does require co-location requirements and at the time it went to the Planning Commission we did not have a letter. To date we have received a letter from the applicant stating that they do have the ability to provide an additional user on this site, and it's certainly our desire to reduce the number of poles. Just to give you a better frame of reference of where this is. Adjacent to the railroad tracks and south of that is guided industrial and then further south of that is part of Lake Susan which has a portion of it high density residential so it is a significant ways from any homes at this time and in the future they'll be in excess of 500 feet. But everyone within 500 feet was notified. And as I've indicated, we did ask, at the Planning Commission there was one no vote... Had concern about what the visibility would be... Mayor Mancino: No, this had unanimous approval. It's the other one. Kate Aanenson: They didn't want to see traffic... So here is the building itself and the pole.., at the end of the parking lot there. We also did request an additional landscaping plan. One of the other issues... chainlink fence. One of the issues brought up was the barbwire on top. This is what the chainlink look like. It will not have barbwire on the top. That was taken off and it will be capped along the top. With that they had a structure inside. On the other side I showed you landscaping. The housing for the equipment. That looks like this. Only for security reasons and safety they are requesting that it be chainlink and.., chainlink fence is a conditional use in the industrial. We do have another situation such as like the National Weather Service... With that, we are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and there's 6 conditions. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Kate. Are there any questions for staff? I have a few. Does our new ordinance have a height limit on the towers? Can they only be. Kate Aanenson: 150. Mayor Mancino: 150. And does it have a directional antenna limit, because this staff report said that they're going to put up 6 but they may be putting up 12. Is there any limit on? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And will there be any lighting on the ground around the chainlink fence? Kate Aanenson: No. Not to my understanding. We put that in the staff report... It was the galvanized steel again to blend into the skyline .... talked about at the Planning Commission, that's what we picked for the pedestrian bridge and actually that blends disappears better than anything else... 44 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Are the BST's, are these cabinet structures painted? Will they eventually rust? Is there going to be a maintenance problems at any of these? I mean I know the monopole is galvanized but what about the rest? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure... Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll wait until you come up. Just a sec, thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to address the City Council at this time? Please come up. State your name, address. Terrie Thurmer: My name's Terrie Thurmer. I'm with Steven Bendstream and Associates. We're a telecommunications consulting firm that's currently under contract with Sprint, PCS. Just wanted to state that we are in agreement with all the conditions recommended by staff and by the Planning Commission. Most of the conditions are complied with right now and we're pretty much ready to submit a building permit I think. I'm available for any questions. The BTS units, as the Mayor asked, will not rust. It's self contained, low maintenance. All the equipment is there for low maintenance purposes. If there's any other questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Mayor Mancino: Any questions from councilmembers? Councilman Berquist: Is telescoping, this pole if it fails, does it, if it fails, how does it fail? Terrie Thurmer: It falls like this. You mean the monopole itself? Yeah, it's built in sections so if it fails, which is very unlikely, it does fall like this or like this. It doesn't go like this. One third of the height of the tower to the ground. Mayor Mancino: It's hinged. Councilman Berquist: Hinged? Mayor Mancino: Well if it falls like that, that's got to be a hinge doesn't it? Any other questions from Council members? Thank you. Councilman Senn: I have a question for staff though. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn has a question for staff. Councilman Senn: When this came before us, and at least the people that spoke before us at that time in relationship to the change in the ordinance, these were always described effectively as being a pole and a small building. Kate Aanenson: That's one option to do it. The City Manager asked the same question. Why couldn't we put this on Pillsbury? There are opportunities, if you look at where they sit. These all require leasing agreements and when you're looking at a large corporation, a lot of times it will be complex. That certainly was an option for them to pursue. If you can't put them on buildings... If there's something blocking the way. They try to get in an area, and it has to be 150 feet in order to get...to get to the Highway 5... So there might be something in front of the Pillsbury building blocking it and be just as tall. 45 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 And then you get into the lease structuring and liability and it gets pretty complicated.., when you add the attorneys into all that. Councilman Senn: Oh Roger loves that. Kate Aanenson: Well we put it on...but it's just a little bit more complex, but certainly that's an opportunity and we looked at that on the Villages. We see that as an option. We saw pictures of putting them on a church steeple and stuff like that. Right now we just don't have a lot of opportunities where we have buildings of such a height to get the right site lines. Mayor Mancino: But staff will encourage that? Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. Councilman Senn: But also when we talked about it being free standing, okay and at least the people again presenting that night described the free standing situation as a pole similar to this but an accessory building which was going to hold the equipment. Now I'm seeing these coming in with panels and equipment all over the place and it's not in a building. Now that's not what we were led to believe when we talked about changing the ordinance. Kate Aanenson: I think there was only one person that represented that said that they'd... Councilman Senn: There were two here that night. Kate Aanenson: No, but I think there was only one that said they... Most of them are on the outside. Councilman Senn: I didn't say inside the tower. I said inside an accessory structure. Kate Aanenson: Oh, you're talking about, well depending on the size. There's one that needed. Mayor Mancino: Like the one on Lyman and Galpin? Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I'm just going back to what the guys, the two guys that were here that night said. You know we asked them what are these going to look like and that's what they said. Kate Aanenson: No, I think there was only one that said they needed one that's a larger size. Councilman Senn: Well, but they went through their presentation and they showed the samples of them on buildings and off buildings and again they showed a free standing tower and the accessory structure. Mayor Mancino: But your concern is the clutter in the landscape there? Councilman Senn: Well I guess, yeah I mean how big does this get? How much of that do we end up having you know around? I mean should it be in an accessory structure or should it just be part of the landscape? I mean I don't know. I mean again I was just surprised to see it this way. Kate Aanenson: I think we looked at the size and what it was and to make it into a structure, I guess we didn't feel, certainly with a conditional use you can attach conditions that you think are reasonable but we 46 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 felt with the chainlink and the landscaping we were screening it. We tried making it bigger or look like a woodframe structure or brick structure of that size, I guess we didn't feel that that was necessary but you certainly could attach any conditions you felt were reasonable. Mayor Mancino: Or a different fencing. Not a structure but be more of a decorative fence that would. Councilman Senn: Well to be honest with you, with this one it doesn't concern me as much but I'll tell you with the other one we're going to consider tonight, it does and I think there's going to be other sites that it does likewise. Kate Aanenson: And I think that was part of the discussion Mark. Depending on where it was and how it felt... Councilman Senn: Well I just want to make sure we don't get into one of these problems where, because we say this one's okay that we now say they're all okay that way. Roger. Mayor Mancino: Roger, yes. Would we be getting into any problems? Roger Knutson: I think the short answer is no. I'll go into detail if you want. Mayor Mancino: No. Councilman Mason? Councilman Mason: No. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel, any comments? Councilman Berquist? Councilman Berquist: No. Mayor Mancino: I don't have any either. May I have a motion please? Councilman Mason: Move conditional use permit and site plan review for a 150 foot telecommunications tower and a 8 foot chainlink fence. Mayor Mancino: A second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit #96-5 for a 150 foot telecommunication tower and an 8 foot chainlink fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan and conditional use permit agreement and submit financial guarantees to guarantee the improvements. 2. The tower shall comply with requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The tower shall have a galvanized finish. 47 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 4. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. 6. The fence shall be of a chain link material only (no barbed wire), and have a finished/capped top. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, 80 WEST 78TM STREET. Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, Councilmembers. The applicant, APT is requesting a conditional use permit for a 135 foot tower. As part of the original proposal and when we presented it to the Planning Commission they did not have their intent to co-locate and since then they have provided the City with a letter to that so that's one of the conditions that was originally proposed that's already fallen out. Actually all of the conditions have been complied with. We've left, we're recommending that two of them remain in because it's part of the construction review on this... The applicant has agreed to relocate the site approximately 50 feet to the west. You can see on the overhead picture. This will help to... behind the office building on West 78th Street and also keep it out of the existing vegetation... It is a monopole design. It is per city ordinance. They do have sufficient space for co-location. We have an application for the property next door for another telecommunication tower at, I believe it's at 76 feet or at 78 feet. And we have the two companies negotiating right now to see if they can work out a lease agreement and... The applicant is proposing as part of their landscaping plan... (There was a tape change during the staff presentation.) Councilman Berquist: Can this site support a structure? Mayor Mancino: The soils? Councilman Senn: Can I help add to your question? Stay out of the easement and leave the wetland alone. Bob Generous: The relocation... Councilman Berquist: Okay. Let's assume for the moment the negotiations fail. With the other user. Are we talking about...this is Chanhassen Office Building here, right? Bob Generous: Right. Councilman Berquist: And next door is Lotus. And someone else is looking at that site and now we've got one proposed for... Now let's assume that they don't come to agreement. At that time it comes to us and we say, work it out? We have that ability? 48 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Bob Generous: Yes, they have to be reasonable, and that's determined by City Council. Roger Knutson: Reasonable efforts have to... whether reasonable efforts were made. For example, if someone wants a million dollars to locate on their tower, it's not reasonable to turn down that... Councilman Berquist: And yet we're approving this. We're telling these folks that yes, they can go ahead and put it up and now they're going to be in the cat bird seat, so to speak. In the negotiations with the other party. Roger Knutson: Whoever goes first has the advantage. But my experience has been, and I've had some, is that today this company goes first. Tomorrow they'll be looking to the other company to go on their tower. These things are sprouting up all over. And we're seeing a fair amount of cooperation... If you're unreasonable to me today, I'll be unreasonable to you tomorrow. Kate Aanenson: Can I make an additional comment on that? In reviewing the application, staff really felt this was a better site, and if we had a choice between this and the other co-location.., we felt this was better as far as what's around it and visibility... Mayor Mancino: But even though we have residential north of this... ? Kate Aanenson: Yeah... Bob Generous: You have the transmission lines in the background so it sort of blends in... Councilman Senn: Bob, one question that I was just curious on. I didn't see anything here about public notification like I saw in the other one. Were people notified on this within 500 feet because? Bob Generous: Yes they were and I just forgot to attach it. Councilman Senn: So everybody in the apartments and stuff were notified? Bob Generous: Well the owners. The property owners. Councilman Berquist: Do you want to continue or can I throw one in? Councilman Senn: Go ahead. I've got a couple more but go ahead. Councilman Berquist: In the Planning Commission report they talk about areas of the city where we're deficient in our coverage and those areas require towers. What other areas are we looking at that are deficient? Particularly abutting residential areas. Do we know? Kate Aanenson: No. Right now it's generally Highway 5. That's where the greatest volume of traffic is right now and people in their cars. We know that the eastern end of the city is... public safety. Councilman Senn: ... because of the high voltage lines. That's why there's a problem. Mayor Mancino: Because they become transceivers or what? 49 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Senn: Yeah, they interfere with cellular communication. You drive back and forth underneath them and you'll just cut in and out all the time. Councilman Berquist: Plus the cows don't give as much milk. So we don't have any other dead areas abutting residential areas that, dead zones that are abutting residential areas? Mayor Mancino: Well they can't put one in abutting residential areas. Bob Generous: They can put one in a residential area. Kate Aanenson: Yes they can. On public property. Mayor Mancino: But not in neighborhood parks. Councilman Senn: Your issue in here that you raised over the drainage and utility easement. Why would you allow them to go into the drainage and utility easement under any circumstances? Bob Generous: Just for grading purposes... Councilman Senn: Okay, so that would be for construction purposes only? Bob Generous: Yeah, temporary. Councilman Senn: Temporary? Bob Generous: But they advised me that they won't, they've relocated it so they don't even go into that. Councilman Senn: I know Highway 5's a problem but I think this location sucks. Councilman Berquist: Well at least it's behind that building. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council? Michelle Johnson: Hi, my name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecomm, located at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19 in Bloomington and since you've recently enacted an ordinance, I'm sure you're very familiar with the technology and so due to the lateness of the hour I'll cut my presentation short and just try to address the concerns that have been brought up. I'd like to show, I have a transparency. This shows the revised site plan that we prepared in response to the suggestions of staff and of the Planning Commission. As you can see, it shows what was shown by Mr. Generous in the drawing to the original site plan. That the site has been moved over so it's behind the building. It's been reconfigured so that it doesn't encroach upon the easement. We are willing to enter into an encroachment agreement if necessary but we don't believe that that's going to be necessary the way that it is situated now. Also the 8 foot fence, the barbwire has been removed from that. It's just an 8 foot chain link fence and around the perimeter of that would be the service berry bushes that were... And I understand from a picture standpoint it's hard to imagine what this actually looks like so we've created a photo montage to kind of show you. Took pictures of the area and then computer added the monopole so you can see... There's two different view points to 50 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 show you and I also have a before and after picture of what it would look like. I don't know how well you can see it from there but, I'll wait until you all have one. Councilman Berquist: May I ask you a quick question Michelle? Michelle Johnson: Sure. Councilman Berquist: And I don't know what the radius of these things are. I'm certainly not a technological wizard by any shape of the imagination. I know that not very far from there, probably a quarter mile as the crow flies, perhaps a third of a mile. There's a water tower in the city of Eden Prairie. Michelle Johnson: I know that we're locating on at least one tower in the city of Eden Prairie. I'm not sure which one you're talking about. If that's the one that we're located on. Councilman Berquist: No, it's actually on Dell, it's right off of Dell Road and Twilight Trail. Is it Twilight Trail? Yeah. Twilight Trail. East of Dell Road. Michelle Johnson: As part of our process we do look at all existing structures within generally a half mile radius of the site. Sometimes ordinances require more. I'm not sure offhand what your ordinance requires but we do look at existing structures to try to co-locate on those first because it's a lot cheaper obviously for the company to be able to do that rather than to build it's own tower. And having chosen this site, although I personally am not familiar with that water tower, I'm sure our engineers did look at that. As you can see from the picture, it is, I mean obviously it is noticeable. We're not trying to pretend that this is an invisible tower that no one is going to see. But these both are taken from across Highway 5 looking towards the site and with the existing poles, utility poles here, we believe that helps to limit the affect, the visual impact of this tower. Position behind the building as it is, you can't see the equipment or the base of the tower or the fence, anything from the road. Also being as it is at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101, most people won't be looking at the scenery there so that is also a bonus that the people on the road are supposed to be looking at the road and not looking up in the air. As was mentioned by your staff, it is an area where it has been recognized that it is deficient from a cellular perspective. We are a different technology than cellular but obviously we want to provide the best quality service possible to our customers so we don't want to have any holes. We don't want to lose any holes at all. It's become a lot more of a concern for residents of Chanhassen as well. If you have been reading the papers recently and heard about the woman stuck in her car in South Dakota or the snowmobilers who go into the lake and are able to call for help on their cellular phone. And as cell phones become more popular, as an emergency situation, we don't want someone to be using our phone. Have a need for it in an emergency and be located in a hole where they're not able to call for help. So we want to provide the best quality coverage that we can. The radio frequency engineers have been very technical in locating on their grid exactly where the towers need to be placed. They look at the topography of the land, the population density, the expected use levels in a particular area, and as I mentioned before, whenever possible they look at the location of existing structures that they could co-locate on. So there aren't a lot of structures in Chanhassen that are tall enough, and that's why we need to build a new tower here. As was mentioned by Mr. Generous, we are willing to co- locate and we have had extensive discussions with U.S. West New Vector, which I believe is the other applicant that was across the street, and expect that if our tower is approved, we will be having that co- locator on our tower soon after that. Councilman Berquist: Let me ask you another question. We have a church being built in the city of Chanhassen that's when done will be probably 300 yards off of Highway 5. It's on the south side of 51 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Highway 5 and then it's actually adjacent to, it's right across Highway 5 from what's now our downtown area. And again, as the crow flies it's not more than 500 or 600 yards. Wouldn't a structure like that be preferable to, or would it be possible to put the antenna on a structure like that rather than erecting a pole? I mean if in fact the position of this thing is being dictated by, number one by height and number two by what's a dead zone. If something's being built that would accommodate your antenna, would it not make sense to put it there? You just don't know about it yet. Michelle Johnson: Right. We're not sure about that. We're not sure how tall the top of the church is going to be. Whether or not it would structurally be capable of supporting our antennas. Whether or not the church would be willing to lease us that space. There's a lot of different factors that have to be taken into consideration. We also have a time factor that we as a business need to consider. That we need to get our system up and running by spring of '97 in order to comply with our FCC license and so we can't wait indefinitely. We're not sure about that. We looked at the area. We believe this is the best spot. We believe that it is not going to cause a substantial detrimental affect on the city in any way. That it's in a commercial, highway business district. That it blends very well into that. That there are not a lot of residents who are going to feel any substantial impact on that, and that we are able to co-locate with another user to eliminate at least one tower that could be possibly going up in the city. Usually also, in the church, considering the co-location aspect, usually if it's located let's say on the spire of the church, that can only support one structurally, if it can even support that and so you still have the issue of another tower coming in. Councilman Berquist: But during construction at least you have the beauty of trying to design something that could support it but, okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to make any comments on this, from the audience? Okay. Comments from commissioners. I'm sorry, Council members. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I don't know. I don't like the location. I don't like it abutting residential, and I don't know. I guess I've made my feelings well known about what we've already made that side of town look like and I really hate to add to it at this point. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Councilman Mason: I'm basically opposed to towers like this anyway so, and it doesn't sound, that's all I'll say. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: I'd like to see you take two weeks and come back to the next Council meeting. I know that you've got to be competitive and get this stuff by the spring, according to what you just said. I think there's still plenty of time to do that but I'd like you to come back and let me know why you can't use that Eden Prairie water tower. It doesn't sound to me, I'm not convinced that that's been fully explored, number one. And number two, Steve's request to check with St. Hubert's new church or another church on the south side of TH 5 to see if you can use their steeple, which I think as someone said, is another option many people are using. Check those two out first. I'd like to see you do that before we come to a decision on this. But I agree with these guys, we could do a little better on the north side of TH 5 just east of our downtown. 52 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well, I mean I appreciate what Mark said. The other aspect of this is that as we go east on TH 5, the next building is Lotus Lawn and Garden, which is a very small building. It would stick out, be very noticeable. The next building east of that is Redmond Products, and I know that every land lease is a negotiated deal but Redmond Products I believe has a higher elevation. Significantly higher elevation than this building. I believe it abuts the same railroad track. I believe the woodedness of the area behind it is much denser than the area behind this. And east of that is Automated Building Product. And that thing has some, that site has some elevation. It may not be able to hide it as well but it would seem to me, I'm sorry what was your last name? Michelle Johnson: Johnson. Councilman Berquist: Miss Johnson. It would seem to me that given the locations that are potentially available along this corridor, this is the one that sticks out the worst so. Mayor Mancino: I must admit I agree with the other Council members. As much as we have a new ordinance, this really adds to the visually clutter here so I would like to see you look at other locations east of this and come back to us. May I have a motion please. Councilman Berquist: What do we want to do? Do we want to table for resubmittal or do we want to deny it? Roger Knutson: To table would be appropriate. Councilman Berquist: I move tabling for the applicant to re-examine locations and come back to us. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 135 foot telecommunications tower at 80 West 78th Street by American Portable Telecom. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Mancino: Next item on the agenda is City Council appointments. I would like to have Council members volunteer for each commission or appointment and then we'll make one motion approving all appointments. First appointment is for Southwest Metro Transit. May I have a volunteer from a Council member. Councilman Engel: I will volunteer for the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Mayor Mancino: Second appointment is for the Suburban Transit Authority. Is there a volunteer? Councilman Senn: What did we talk about that? That we wanted that to be the same or not? Councilman Mason: Yes, we did. 53 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: We did? Councilman Mason: Yes, you said you'd do it. Councilman Engel: I guess I will stick to my word and volunteer for that as well. Mayor Mancino: Okay, for Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Councilman Berquist: Me. Me. Councilman Senn: With that kind of enthusiasm, I think he should be the alternate too. Mayor Mancino: Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Steve you'd like to volunteer. I would like to volunteer to be the second there. Park Task Force. Councilman Berquist: Well I'm already there. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so you'll stay on there. Community leaders. District 112. I will volunteer. Councilman Berquist: I will show up. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And please, everyone is included. Every Council member. May I have a motion for those appointments please. Councilman Berquist: I would move. Councilman Senn: What's the last one there though? Mayor Mancino: Southwest Transportation Coalition. We still haven't, I'm sorry I don't know. Mr. Ashworth, if we have to apply for that. Councilman Senn: We don't have appointing authority according to the By-laws. Their Board does. Don Ashworth: So did you say that Todd was going to check that? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Todd was going to check that. Councilman Senn: Okay, so that one we're leaving open? Mayor Mancino: So that one we're leaving open and we can wait until our next City Council meeting. So may I please have a motion. Councilman Berquist: I would move Southwest Metro Transit, Engel. Suburban Transit Authority, Engel. Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Berquist/Mancino. Park Task Force, Berquist. Community Leaders, District 112, Mancino. Mayor Mancino: May I have a second please? 54 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to make the following City Council appointments: Southwest Metro Transit Suburban Transit Authority Board of Adjustments and Appeals Park Task Force Community Leaders, District 112 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Engel Councilman Engel Councilman Berquist, Mayor Mancino as alternate Councilman Berquist Mayor Mancino Mayor Mancino: Next is Planning Commission appointments. May I have a motion to fill the unexpired term of me as a Planning Commissioner. That term will expire April of 1999. Councilman Senn: I would move that we appoint, let's see this is yours now? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, so it'd be Allyson Brooks. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Allyson Brooks to the unexpired vacancy of Nancy Mancino on the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: May I have another motion to fill two Planning Commissioner vacancies from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000? Councilman Senn: I'd move to reappoint Allison Blackowiak and LuAnn Sidney. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Allison Blackowiak and LuAnn Sidney to the Planning Commission for terms from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Last on the agenda is Mr. Berquist's request to review a couple items in the Administrative Section. 55 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Councilman Berquist: A couple items in the Admin Packet. The first thing we talked about a little bit at the work session and Don, you said you talked to Charles and he doesn't know anything about this memo from Tracy Swanson, Carver County Commissioner. Don Ashworth: No, what I'd like to do is give you an update next Tuesday night. I think it can be very short. Councilman Berquist: Okay. As far as you know we're still on for bid '98, construct '99? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Berquist: Okay. The other item was relative to the building construction review that was submitted on the 4th of February. It was comparing '95 and '96 permit, building permit activity. Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Berquist: And we saw a 30% decline in building permit activity. $25 million net valuation decrease and by my calculations, crude as they are, that would translate into roughly a 1,000 a month inspection. And that's very rough but I can imagine it's an appreciable number regardless of what it really is. What are we projecting for '97? I'd be curious to know how many inspections were done in '96 versus '95 and then has the inspection force remains the same? Has it changed? Are we going to be pro-active in our staffing levels or are we going to be reactive? Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that? We did projections last year for building permits.., shared with the Planning Commission last week. Mayor Mancino: Actually I've got them. Kate Aanenson: It went out in your packet. The reason why we're down is directly related to the housing stock that we have. If you look at the year before we actually were up significantly higher had to do with the type of housing product. What we've got now is a lot of the detached.., upper ended price that are moving very, very slow. If you look back last year... We're bringing on next year, we're estimating about 300 units next year. We are waiting for Autumn Ridge to come on line. North Bay. All those we expect to move a lot faster because they're a different price range... Councilman Berquist: Autumn Ridge is the one out on Galpin? Kate Aanenson: TH 5 and Galpin, right. Councilman Berquist: And North Bay is 70. Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Councilman Berquist: North Bay is 70 units. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Autumn Ridge is...a little over 100 units there. 56 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: But that's just new housing. I mean we have gone up in the numbers for additions which means, which also needs building permits. Kate Aanenson: I can, I put those in the last time... Councilman Berquist: Well you know, and I don't want to make a big issue of this at all, but ifI take the simple classifications and obviously garages need less inspections than commercial/industrial. You know garages we saw 61% in-between '95, percent increase between '95 and '96. Other areas we saw dramatic decreases. So the net result is that we have less inspections, less.., significantly less inspections. So I won't belabor it but. Councilman Senn: But I mean, how accurate were, I mean I understand you're doing that now for next year. How accurate were we in our projections? Kate Aanenson: Well actually we didn't realize that the price of the single family kept going on. Even though they come on at a certain price, they kept going up so we were off on the fact that it peaked out. And if you talk to one of the builders, the 300 plus is moving very slow and that's what we've got a lot of stock on right now. 300 plus. 400 plus. Mayor Mancino: New houses or older homes? Kate Aanenson: New. Mayor Mancino: New ones. Okay. Kate Aanenson: So we don't have anything.., in that price point and that will have a direct relationship in how fast things are moving. I guess we didn't, we have plenty of units. We have a couple hundred lots out there so we over estimated based on the fact that that market niche is saturated and it's slowing down. Another reason why we're looking at some of the diversity. Councilman Senn: You know I agree with Steve's comments and I'd really like to see some follow-up on what we are doing. I mean I advocated very heavily two years ago when we were going crazy upwards, that we put on the additional staff since it's kind of a pay as you go deal. But we're also, we're going to put those staff on in such a fashion that we could easily adjust to these situations. I'd be curious as to whether we are adjusting or not. Mayor Mancino: Is that something Don you could have for us for our work session? Is to look at ~95-'967 Great. Don Ashworth: Yeah. We've been looking, I've been looking on the dollar side of that issue and so we will also look at the manpower side. Which is also the dollars, right. I was thinking primarily loss of revenue dollars as it deals with building permits. Mayor Mancino: Is that it? Councilman Berquist: That'd be all. 57 City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997 Mayor Mancino: adjourned. Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Okay, that's it for the agenda tonight. Nothing else. The meeting is over. It is Prepared by Nann Opheim 58