C Town & Co PUD/2005 MUSA
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone 952.227.1100
Fax 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone 952.227.1180
Fax 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone 952.227.1160
Fax 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone 952.227.1140
Fax 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone 952.227.1120
Fax 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone 952.227.1400
Fax 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 952.227.1130
Fax 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone 952.227.1300
Fax 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone 952.227.1125
Fax 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director
DATE:
June 27, 2005
SUBJ:
Town and Country/ 2005 MUSA update
Town and Country
Town and Country was given conceptual approval for the PUD in the fall of 2002. One
of the conditions of the conceptual approval was the preparation of the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR). This document was completed and approved by the City in
2004. Since that time the City has prepared a feasibility study for the infrastructure in the
area and completed multi-family design standards. Since the conceptual approval, Town
and County has acquired the Jeurissen/Johnson property (2.5 Acres) and it is now
included in the project.
On April 5, 2005, the Planning Commission discussed the "Liberty" plan in light of the
Bluff Creek Overlay District, the AUAR and the Multi-Family Design Standards on the
open discussion portion of the their agenda. On April 19, 2005, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the Liberty plan but tabled action because of
changes that needed to occur with the proposal. The major changes included the
removal of retaining wall, relocation of building in the primary zone of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District and driveway lengths of the "Majestic" product.
Town and Country's Liberty project is scheduled to appear before the Planning
Commission on July 19, 2005. Included in your packet is the proposed layout for
Liberty, a chart showing the project specifications including density, and the different
home plans.
2005 MUSA - Lower Bluff Creek
The City has ordered the design of the utilities and road for the Lower Bluff Creek Area.
The City Engineer, the representatives from the consulting firm Kimberly Horn and I
have met with the property owners in the Lower Bluff Creek area to review the utility and
road plan as well as assessments. These meetings were held on February 17, May 16
and June 22, 2005.
Both Paul Oehme and I have met with property owners/developers on numerous
occasions to review potential development plans and review designs for infrastructure
improvements. The meeting on June 22 is intended to review the final design and gain
concurrence on the overall improvements. Some of the public improvements are
development driven and will be installed with specific developments. Because of the
meeting with the property owners on Wednesday June 22, I will be prepared to discuss
with Council the latest development proposals as this is one of the items on the agenda.
Attachments
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a Charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks A great place to live, work, and play.
g:\plan\ka\city council\towncountry update-musa2005.doc
I
i
~
i
I
J
t
i
E_
"
r.
[
r
~
f
i
I
I
!
t
r
I
f
I
f
t
l'
I
t
,
I
I
I
I
f
f
r
VH
~Q.
ei
::tj .
E~~
o'
~
~
!--i
.;1
l
~
~N
'E":
=GI
!C
1ll.::J
...
~ .~.~
i
1
; ~
;H
i<
~
Z
~
u..eIl~
Oell~
;....~~
f-<XlJJ
_ZeIl
U~<
X=:l
U
'"
~
lJ)
c:~S-g~
_OO~O.J
.. -.::: co: "1:l co: e
:c.::!f;oJOJ~..c::~"--
>.{J)~~~~~
.... ~ :> ~ (": ~
U ~ t E: ;; '5
0.. > Z
. .
<:
I
; ~
I
I
!
I
!
!
-
;
............-
\I)
~
....I
<
~
LU
D
Zl-l
LU~
~~~
>-<~
I-J:a:
l-lZI-
1..><
J:~
I..>D
Z
<
....I
~
a:
<
~
<
u."
G
:;(:.(
~~
n
~~
~i?
'.0
~g
~
~
;:; <t
~ '~
<!'J)
DD
< <
00
~~
a a
00
7"-"
~ <.
<:;;:
os
[~~~i
~~~~~
~HH;
~&~~ci\L
5€~j0~
I
f
i
[
E'
I
,
~.
t
I
J
f
f
1
~.
I
1
I
~
!
r
r
{
I
I
f
II~I.
~_..U..~ ~
· . .! c:: -
! . E.-i.
.! 'i' e f gEe
o ~ Il. ~ Il.C-c
~ ~
. II
20(1)........
'1' .!! <XI I! '"
I.... '.0 Ua)
5 .. c.....
:t:aif~lft
2&.,.:1"'<.
;tilif..~ii~
.. -' g~ g.1O
I .~..f
_:l_"St > c
=01!W ~~
~~3~~~~
"
~ ".
~Jfr
"
~
"itk
..... ..i~ -
....,....;,....'..i".t:...
'...i"'-';. .... "
.t\:.. #'
..~ .; "~ f: ,'j-
j'
.' ~;.i...;"
..." ~:. '~..'
~~~, .'",
~
~~.' "1',,-
. \ ':.t:
....
W;~,
,
i
I
r
r.
t
[
f
I-
I
t
[
1
l
I
f:
1-
t~
l
,
,
I
!
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
~
J
t
~.
t
.
f
!
!
I
[
,
,
!
i
,
!
[
?
;
~
[
r
r
f
i
!
,
~.
t
.~":'1:: ,; .
}Tp/torttinlty .
Chanhassen Minnesota
June 12,2005
To: City Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff for the City of Chanhassen
Re: 2005 MUS A Expansion Improvements
Comments:
We as well as the other land owners of the properties included in the 2005 MUSA have a lot of pride in ownership of
our properties and have owned them for many years. We recognize that over time the use of land needs to change to be
put to highest and best use for the benefit of the community. Today we are in that position with respect to our proper-
ties. Attached is a letter I wrote to Paul Oehme, the Director of Pubic Works/ City Engineer, in July 2004 outlining
my families outlook with respect to future development in Chanhassen which would include our property.
The following is our current vision for the area with the following goals: to design and create an active mixed use
neighborhood for people to live work and play; to design the neighborhood in a pedestrian friendly manner where the
pedestrian comes first, to design appropriate product at the density desired to maintain a feeling of openness within each
subdivision, work with the City of Chanhassen to provide appropriate public spaces within the development and to
design the infrastructure around the neighborhood, not the neighborhood around the infrastructure. Such a development
would have features similar to Centennial Lakes in Edina, including ponds, fountains, walkways and perhaps an indoor
park.
The development of this land should be done patiently to assure the property is not iust developed but that it is put to
its highest use that will make the community as well as the current owners proud. There are no other blocks of land this
close in to downtown Minneapolis the size of this parcel, providing the City of Chanhassen the opportunity few other
cities have. That being to create a "Signature Development" with a strong tax base to go along with it. Allowing
development for the sake of developing would be short sighted, in the long run extra days, weeks, or months in the
planning stage and taking time to attract premium development is time well spent.
Why it is special?
The property is actually an infill development (property that is surrounded by developed verses on the edge of town
development which is now Waconia and Watertown).
Let's look at just what this property has to offer:
* Approximately 250 buildable acres of undeveloped land, one of the largest remaining undeveloped parcels this
close to downtown Minneapolis
* Riley Creek Park overlay district including approximately 200 acres of pristine park land and future
hiking/biking trails,
* Two access points to the new State Highway 212, making it within four to five minutes to Interstate 494 (there
are no other such intersections in the Twin Cities this close in with this much available land and development
potential),
* Two major private golf courses and one public golf course within one mile (Hazeltine National, Bearpath and
Bluff Creek);
* Three large regional parks including Carver County Park, the University of Minneaota Arboretum and Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park in addition to city parks;
* Convenience; developed central business districts within one mile include Byerlys, Rainbow and Cub Foods gro-
cery stores, two Target stores, a Home Depot store, about a dozen banks, numerous health care providers, over a
dozen churches of varying denominations, a new Carver County Regional Library, and the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater,
* And three recreational lakes within five miles (Lakes Riley, Minnewashta and Minntonka).
Community Development Cycle
As a city develops it generally starts with lower cost affordable housing and acre estates because land prices are less
expensive than inner ring communities. As the area continues to develop a community can draw higher quality com-
mercial property and more expensive mid-range homes. As the community reaches maturity higher end homes tend to
complete the cities development as land prices have continued to rise and completed infrastructure (parks, shopping,
entertainment etc.) makes the area very desirable. The last parcels tend to draw the highest quality development and
highest tax base for a community because there is enough population to support them. The type of development for this
site should take advantage of these assets, providing exceptional living conditions and expand commerce in the City
and its tax base.
What is a Signature Development?
A Signature Development is typically a unique mixed use neighborhood that incorporates design and natural features
like parks and ponds. Most are joint public/private ventures that include public spaces. The neighborhood sets it self
off from others because of its detailed planning and is widely recognized by name alone. It becomes a symbol for the
community, a great place to go to and a neighborhood the city can be proud to tie its name to. Recently built signature
neighborhoods include Centennial Lakes in Edina and Excelsior Grand in St. Louis Park. Both are mixed use develop-
ments. At Centennial Lakes the open space for the park is maintained by transfering some of the density vertically with
multistory condominiums.
Centennial Lakes, Edina
Excelsior Grand, St Louis Park
What will it take to make this a "Signature Development" ?
It starts with a City deciding it wants such a development and patience. The City will need to state publicly the area is
a special parcel to the City, it seeks a mixed use PUD and it will be patient and particular to draw a special premium
development to the area. Such an approach in conjunction with the visible construction of new Hwy. 212 will draw
larger developers with the capital to do a larger more desirable project.
This approach will produce a win-win for the City and current land owners. The City will have a great development
that is Gateway to the City from new Hwy. 212 with a significant tax base and the owners can be proud the property is
truly being put to its highest and best use for generations to come as well as be amply compensated for being patient in
seeing the land develop.
Summary
We believe the City of Chanhassen is at the mature level of development. As a result acceptance of projects can and
should be more selective and favor higher valued development normal in mature communities that bring with them a
higher tax base. Since no plans have been approved at this point, we request the City of Chanhassen pause and redirect
the course of planning for this area to be a future Signature Neighborhood. We are currently working with the Fox
family and Jeff and Terri Fox in this direction. Together we represent approximately 110 acres of buildable land.
Others could very well be interested if the City supported it.
Sincerely,
Richard A Dorsey
Land Owner
1551 Lyman Blvd
952.831. 720
July 29, 2004
To: Paul Oehme
City of Chanhassen
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Re: 2005 MUSA Expansion Improvements
City Of Chanhassen Project No. 04-05
Comments to present to City Council
Dear Paul:
Be prepared, be flexible but be on standby with respect to installation of services until more guidelines and
plans are developed.
Land holders of the "Project Area" have been commendable land stewards over the years. Great efforts
have been made by them to keep the land in this area from being chopped up. Those efforts now provide
the City ofChanhassen a highly coveted opportunity to create a 'Signature Development' within its city
limits such as Centennial Lakes in Edina. Amenities which will draw the finest of development are in place
(parks, schools, shopping, golf courses, lakes, and convenient highway access).
I commend the City for looking at this area as a "whole" as it is the first step in developing a Signature
Development. I believe the next step is to further develop the vision of the concept for the community and
develop general conceptual ideas of how the area might look when completed.
Example: Is the type of housing the same as other medium density tract developments but more tightly
packed to accommodate the transfer of density from wood and wet lands (10-12 units per buildable acre, 5-
7 overall)? Or should that density only be made available if the project is more vertical so within the
neighborhood it still feels open and not just on the edges. Should that development go even more vertical
beyond 3-4 story apartments and condos to include 6-10 story buildings leaving the feel ofthe
neighborhood even more open a la Centennial Lakes in Edina. Should design encourage a more pedestrian
friendly neighborhood with smaller roads through the development to discourage any cut through traffic. (
I favor a more vertical, pedestrian friendly neighborhood).
Information has been gathered in the AUAR Study and is being gathered from residents of the area. Now
that information needs to be structured using the guidance the City can provide, (for example forcing
vertical growth to the desired degree by setting green space and maximum coverage requirements within the
buildable area as well as within the gross land area of individual projects, and what woodlands and/or
wetlands will be required to be preserved).
The information necessary to economically locate services within the developable area so as to not handicap
the potential of the undeveloped and unplanned areas do not yet exist. Improvements specific to the
developable area should be kept conceptual at this time and until more development plans close to the
current service connections come forward. A development distant from hookups for services should not
create an urgent need to develop adjacent properties prematurely nor should it handicap the other
undeveloped land by routing utilities through those neighboring land to get access to it. In addition roads
and services should not be planned into the project area (cross any properties) without the caveat that they
may be altered as other plans come forward.
To maximize the long term value to the City (i.e. maintain maximum tax base) I believe the diagonal road
across the project area should be designed to accommodate only residential traffic local to the development
and should be pedestrian friendly, narrow, and non-intimidating. Any and all commercial development
should be designed into the developable area to directly egress to collectors on the edges of the project area
so as to maximize the quality of life for those who reside in the project area (the diagonal road should not
be the egress point to office or industrial property). Ultimately the tax value of the residential neighborhood
will be reduced if it is chopped up with another major road with traffic which could be redirected at the
design stage.
In summary:
I believe maximum flexibility for all parts of the project area must be maintained.
I am not in favor of development leap frogging (ultimately increases the land cost and financial
burden for middle properties).
I favor more vertical development (over 3-4 stories so as to not appear to sprawl and provides
more open space).
I favor the diagonal road design be kept as flexible as possible and not installed until more
development plans encompassing a greater portion of the area are approved.
I favor the diagonal road be non intimidating to cross (narrow, pedestrian friendly), the right of
way may be wider to accommodate center island and sidewalks but road itself be designed primarily as 2
lanes for only local neighborhood residential traffic not industrial or cut through traffic (if you build it
bigger they will come).
I favor the city maintaining higher residential densities but establishing guidelines as soon as
possible specifYing greater open space within each development not just open around it, (maximum density
and density transfer only available if it is a more vertical development, so the development doesn't feel
crowded).
I favor any improvements to the collector roads around the project area planning to be enlarged as
a result of the need for access to the new HWY 312 to be shared equally with the whole community as
everyone will use and benefit from them.
Sincerely,
Rick Dorsey
Property owner on Lyman Blvd
952-831-7204 (phone)
June 12,2005
To: City Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff for the City of Chanhassen
Re: Comments Regarding a plan proposed by Town and Country Homes for property on Audubon:
We believe the 2005 MUSA development area should be a signature/premium development for the community. It
should be a mixed use PUD neighborhood including a variety of "custom" move up type neighborhoods of multifamily
homes. The development would embed residential and commercial property in a way that blend together in a more
open park like setting. The development would be designed to include product incorporating vertical structures to give
it increased density without feeling crowded. It would maintain open green space within the neighborhoods not just on
its edges where it abuts park land. It would provide public space within the neighborhoods of appropriate size to the
neighborhood being developed. It would have connectivity through design including trails, land use and housing
styles. It would serve the community by providing an upscale neighborhood for current residences looking to move
from single family homes as well as new residences to the area. It would be multi-generational with respect to hous-
ing, services, and recreation. As long term owners of our land we want this area to be something to be proud of, a
neighborhood you or I would very much like to live in and not just another average development.
What does good development mean to us?
It is based on planning. Identifying what uses for the land are in the best interest of the community for the next hun-
dred years or more. Then laying out neighborhoods and connecting them with infrastructure. When its done it means
the development should feel good to live, work and play in, it means the product mix of homes and business property
should be arranged so there is still plenty of open space within the project and not just on the edges. This can be
accomplished with lower density development of more expensive properties or by designing at least some product that
is vertical (multi-story) if higher density is to be used. Every property should feel some openness with adequate dis-
tance between buildings (i.e. green space) and be easily accessible by the owner and guests. Good development adds
value to a community and provides a higher tax base in the future when compared with a lessor quality development.
We believe the City started on a good path in looking at the whole area as a development project by initiating the
AUAR study for the area. As owners in the project area we felt it was important for all involved to gather information
together, to assure one project wasn't built at the expense of its neighbors. In short to identify what infrastructure
might be needed and to assure appropriate infrastructure would be put in place so it would not negatively impact prop-
erties without development plans. The City agreed it was not in its best interest or fair to citizens owning land in the
area to run infrastructure across properties which didn't have a development plan in place (limiting their development
options) or impose assessments that forced development prematurely. "This area would be development driven.". The
end of the line developments would not push those properties at the source points for road, sewer and water.
Area Wide Issues Need To Be Resolved Before Moving Forward
Unfortunately, one property (Town and Country) is ahead of the curve having been working on its plan for two years
and is pushing for approval of their project. This project happens to be the furthest from existing infrastructure, mean-
ing roads and utilities will have to cross many other properties, and it is also pushing to maximize density with its plan.
At this point in time there have been no other properties in the 2005 MUSA area with even concept plans submitted
much less a plan approved by the planning commission. Therefore, moving forward with the Town and Country plan
at this time, when it is dependent on infrastructure that is dependent on other properties having time to put plans
together to put that infrastructure in place, is inappropriate.
We also believe that the infrastructure (roads sewer and water) should not go in until the other properties north and east
of the Town and Country proposal have plans approved by the City Council. These owners should not be handi-
capped with planning a development around infrastructure running across their properties, because others were in ftrst
with their plan. Nor should they have to prematurely shoulder the expense of accruing interest on those assessments
which would only add to the cost of their developments.
Our Assessment of the Proposed Plan by Town and Country
We acknowledge we don't have complete information on their plan but this is our assessment of the plan as we know
it.
As a neighboring property in the 2005 MUS A area it is our opinion the current plan being proposed by Town and
Country does not provide for a good development for this area at this stage of the City of Chanhassen's development.
And should not be approved without significant change. The development does not add value to the community in that
the product is inappropriate for the density proposed per net buildable acre. Further, the developer has shown no con-
cern for the neighboring property owners in planning their development. There has been no communication with
neighboring property owners on how the properties might tie together with respect to use and connectivity (at least not
with properties to the east that are impacted by their plan). They are first ones in with a plan and are going to do what
they do, if approved, and set the stage for the rest of the neighborhood which from our perspective is not in the best
interests of the City of Chanhassen.
The type of product is not appropriate for the density being proposed. The density on net buildable acres appears to
approach the 8-9 units per acre. While the City will allow density transfer we believe the type of product needs to
change to accomplish this. The buildings are positioned too closely together and too linear. There is no feeling of
openness within the development (see attached pictures of a similar development in Eden Prairie). Each building
should have a front, back and side yard providing the same green space within the development as though it didn't have
a density transfer. If any residents had young children or grandchildren there is no place near their unit to run, kick a
ball or play catch except in the street. In the winter snow removal and storage may be difficult. The percentage of
hard surface (road and rooftops) is concentrated and may create problems like flooding during spring thaw and after
heavy rains. The urban design with the units very close to the street makes sense if there was a commercial or urban
area around it (like close to downtown or within a mixed use neighborhood). This is not the case here.
Pictures 1-4 of a new development in Eden Priaire very similar to one being proposed by Town And Country
123
Note: Very tight living environment, if someone parks in the alley as seen here it makes it very difficult for others to
get in and out of garages. The decks are very close, there are potential noise and privacy issues, there is no space for
kids to run or playas seen here an adult playing ball with a child on the sidewalk (below left), and there is too much
hard surface in the area built on leaving little ground for water absorbtion after a rain.
456
Notice space right around unit in pictures 1-4, there is no yard, play spaces are too far away for a quick game of catch
etc., the sidewalk or streets are the only options close to home. The last two pictures (5-6) are examples of dense
developments with more open space in other communities. The increased density through the transfer of density from
the Bluff Creek Overlay takes this away, unless the density is reduced or some of product on the site stacks units in
taller buildings such a apartments, coops or condominiums.
Traffic and Road Issues
The potential traffic from this development will also have a negative and detrimental impact on the properties to be
developed to the east of it, particularly with respect to the proposed east/west collector. As designed the majority of
traffic from this project will cut through the properties to the east on the neighborhood east/west road to access the
new Hwy. 212 at Powers Blvd. Projected traffic generatedfrom this development, in conjunction with through traf-
fic from Chaska neighborhoods will produce more traffic through the eastern properties than is now on Co. Rd
18/I~man Blvd. and higher then the year 2010 projections for Pioneer Trail (Co. Rd. 1) and Audubon Rd (Co. Rd
17) (based on information in the AUAR Study for the area, figure 22, this road would carry 11600 cars per day at
the east end). With the limited depth of development on either side of the east/west road as proposed the high traffic
will turn potentially desirable neighborhood lots with higher tax bases to less desirable lots with lower tax bases. This
level of traffic through a neighborhood is unacceptable and since nothing has been built there is time to look at other
options.
If higher density is to be developed in the 2005 MUSA area it would make more sense to have it on the east edge of
the 2005 MUSA development area closer to the new highway 212 access. Lower density development along Audubon
Rd would reduce the effect the cut through traffic would have on future surrounding residences in the area. The other
alternative is to develop this area with its other guided use, industrial, and direct traffic to existing County roads around
the edges of the development area rather than through the middle of the neighborhood. It is now, the planning stage of
development that such issues need to be addressed. We ask you to shelve the Town and County project at this time and
continue to work with property owners to investigate other design options for moving traffic through the area that
won't have negative impacts on other future developments and their property values i.e. the City's future tax base.
Richard A Dorsey
Land Owner and Representa . ve
1551 Lyman Blvd.
Chanhassen
952.831. 7204 Phone