The URL can be used to link to this page

8.Villages on the Ponds: Conceptual PUD.CITY OF 1 4t, CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 18, 1995 Q' November 15,1995 ..Nomw CC DATE: November 27, 1995 ' CASE #: 95 -2 PUD By: BG ' STAFF REPORT Z a U Q PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a mixed used development consisting of commercial, office, and residential uses, Villages on the Ponds LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services Attn: Brad Johnson P. O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP and RSF ►VA ACREAGE: gross: 66 acres DENSITY: 100 residential units INTENSITY Commercial - 247,000 square feet; Office - 203,600 square feet ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BH, Highway 5 S - RSF E - BN and PUD W - IOP, Rosemount WATER AND SEWER: Available to site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Lowland hardwood forest, wetlands, steep slopes, significant elevation change. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Highway 5 Recommended Changes: Office/Industrial and Institutional north of Great Plains Boulevard; High Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul -de -sac; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard; Medium Density Residential and Office west of Highway 101 2000 Land Use Plan: Commercial north of Lake Drive East extension; Medium Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul -de -sac and west of Highway 101; Office north of Great Plains Boulevard and south of Lake Drive East; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard; Parks /Open Space south of creek mm mmim r.I mn m MnI �M YO 110 u .D Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 , Revised November 22, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY Conceptual planned unit development f r ' p p o a mixed land use development consisting of commercial, office, and single and multi - family residential. The project ' is known as Villages on the Ponds. "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to ' create a retail - office- residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in ' village scale and traditional character, using both on and off - street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right -of- ' way similar to a small downtown area Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000 - ' 20,000 square feet on 3 - 4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas of the parcels, maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. ' The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density ' development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. , The applicant is proposing an environmentally sensitive development of the site that will retain major hardwoods, preserve steep slopes, and protect and enhance wetland areas. This will be ' accomplished through limitations on building pads, providing underground parking, and vertical development of the structures. Due to the scope of the project, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be ' completed for this project. (The project scored a ratio of 2.5; scores in excess of 1.0 require mandatory EAW.) The project is just below the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact ' Statement (score of 0.96 with a mandatory EIS for scores in excess of 1.0). Staff believes that there are numerous potential benefits for mixed use projects. A mixed use , development would be unique to the city and would provide a focal point on the fringe of the downtown area and additional vitality to the community. The village concept provides a pedestrian friendly environment and the provision of transit services. Staff believes that it is ' ' Villages on the Ponds ' October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 3 ' critical to incorporate a residential component as part of this development. Should it be infeasible to locate the multi - family along the eastern property line due to site constraints or ' design limitations, the city may wish to relocate the residential units within the commercial village area, either as upper story residential units or as distinct structures, or exchange the office locations for the residential location. Any residential development site should be located east of Highway 101 and south of East Lake Drive to permit access from the residential development to the commercial development without requiring individuals to cross collector roadways. ' Staff also concurs with the applicant's assertion that additional commercial area is required for the community. The comprehensive plan did not prohibit commercial development outside the existing central business area; rather, it stated that fringe development would be minimized until ' the central business district was largely completed. The comprehensive plan goal is to provide a mixture of development assuring a high quality of life and reliable tax base. Based on staff review of other communities, it appears that the comprehensive plan has an insufficient amount ' of commercial land at the current rate of approximately 2 percent of the land area (272 acres). "The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future" (Land Use Element page 24). A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3 and 5 percent ' commercial land area at buildout which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial land. While there is no definitive amount of commercial land that should be located in a community, based on staff's review of available literature, a target of approximately five percent commercial land may be a reasonable amount The Community Builders Handbook "Recent Land Use Trends in Forty-Eight Large American Cities" and "Bringing Land -Use Ratios into the 4 90s "). ' d Currently, approximately there exists a roximatel 18 acres of vacant commercial land within the downtown ' area. Of this land, approximately five acres is slated for development in the near future (Medical/Professional building and Crossroads 3rd Addition). In addition, there is approximately six acres of land that could be redeveloped. In 1991, the city had a supply of 118 acres of vacant ' commercial land within the Municipal Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. This 118 acres was anticipated to be adequate commercial land to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995. As can be seen, this land will be rapidly exhausted if current development trends continue. ' In order for the city to provide a full range of shopping opportunities for Chanhassen residents, additional retail space should fill niches that are not currently available in the community. Some ' examples are apparel and accessory stores, specialty stores, upscale restaurants, and personal services. In addition, within commercial areas, office users can be located. ' The applicant held a neighborhood meeting with residents on Wednesday, November 1, 1995. The neighbors are strongly opposed to "for rent' ' housing adjacent to their homes. The applicant further believes that the neighbors would be opposed to any rental housing within the Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 4 development, see attached memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8, 1995, and the applicants are, therefore, looking to propose moderately priced for sale townhouses at a lower density within the development rather than apartments. While this type of residential development may fulfill portions of the city's affordable housing goal, staff is concerned that the revised proposal will have serious negative impacts to the preservation of environmental features on the site that could be accommodated through the use of a single building pad as outlined in the residential section of the original proposal. Vacant areas of medium density land are available elsewhere in the community. But there are very few areas where high density residential development could be done. Additionally, the multi - family within this development is strategically located adjacent to an office and commercial area. Staff believes that it will be somewhat easier to develop affordable for sale housing and very difficult to have rental housing built. Staff therefore believes that without a commitment to the provision of rental housing within the Villages proposal, then there is not sufficient benefit to the community to warrant the granting of a PUD for this project. Staff is recommending that the concept be approved with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report. Site Characteristics The site has rolling terrain with elevation changes from 967 in the north to 879 in the south. There are several areas of steep slopes exceeding 10 percent that are located throughout the property. The site is covered by lowland hardwood forest species. Areas of mature trees are interspersed with young trees and open fields. Wetlands are located throughout the site with a creek connecting Lake Susan with Rice Marsh Lake running across the southern quarter of the parcel. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 66 acres from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are four components to the PUD: commercial, office, multi- family and single- family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. ' Villages on the Ponds ' October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 5 ' Section 20 -501. Intent ' Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower ' development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: ' 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. ' Findin The applicant has expressed the desire to develop the site in an environmentally sensitive manner to protect slopes, existing vegetation, and wetlands. They propose to ' accomplish this through the limitation on the size and location of building pads on site, through the use of vertical development of sites, and through the use of underground ' parking to fulfill part of the required parking requirements as well as through shared parking within the site and provision of transit opportunities. ' The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail ' system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in the PUD. ' 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding The applicant is proposing a true mixed use development incorporating commercial, office, and residential opportunities. There is significant potential for ' preservation of natural features on the site including wetland, slopes, and woodlands. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 6 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding The proposed development provides a gateway to the downtown area from southern Chanhassen. As such, special sensitivity will be required of the development including incorporating the natural features of the site with urban scale development. Transitions will be provided through the preservation of natural areas to the east and south of the parcel. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding The proposed development is consistent with parts of the comprehensive plan as well as inconsistent with part of the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan amendment adding commercial uses to the site and providing office development in residentially guided areas will be required for this development to be approved. 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. A 7. Finding. The applicant is proposing the incorporation of an extensive trail system within the development. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in the PUD. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding The applicant has expressed an interest in providing housing "affordable to the average two- income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park occupants." Staff will work with the applicant to clarify and define the affordable housing opportunities. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding The clustering of development, the mixing of uses, and the use of shared parking provide energy conservation. J 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. ' F� Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 7 Finding The applicant is proposing the construction of Lake Drive East through the project. This facilitates traffic movement envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that the applicant realign the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east -west ridge on the northern portion of the project. This realignment can help in the preservation of this sloped area. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees, topographical features) • Sensitive development in transitional areas • More efficient use of land • Development of a high quality project, unique to the community and the region • A planned, unified mixed use project GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes: "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail - office - residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character, using both on and off - street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right -of- way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000 - 20,000 square feet of 3 - 4 story buildings. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 8 of the parcels, maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. The low density development consists of detached and attached units. STREETS The applicant has relocated proposed Lake Drive East within the development in accordance to staff's recommendations. This alignment will provide continuity of the east -west frontage road concept as shown in the City's comprehensive plan. The plans also propose two other access points to Trunk Highway 101. These access points will require both City and MnDOT approval. Staff believes that the northerly access road would be restricted to a right - in/right -out only given the existing roadway geometrics and the close proximity to Trunk Highway 5. The southerly access point (south loop road) will be subject to further review at the preliminary plat review process. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet traffic demands for this development. Staff also recommends that the applicant should have a traffic study prepared to document and provide data justifying the access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required for this type of land use. The public streets in this development will be required to be built in accordance with the City's industrial standards (36 feet wide face -to -face with concrete curb and gutter). Lake Drive East will be required to be built in accordance to State Aid standards as well. The right -of -way requirement for the public streets will be 60 feet. Lake Drive East, given its State Aid status, will require an 80 -foot wide right -of -way to facilitate boulevard landscaping, trails and walks. The applicant's narrative requested that on- street parking be permitted along Lake Drive East and the south loop street. Staff strongly recommends against this from a traffic safety standpoint. Lake Drive East will be a heavily traveled street to service this site as well as act as a frontage road. On- street parking only encourages pedestrian crossing at unsafe points as well as increasing unnecessary traffic turning movements. Parking should be prohibited on both Lake Drive East and the south loop street. n r 1 1 Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 9 UTILITIES ' The Lake Ann Interceptor southernmost end of the site. site. 0 0 trunk sanitary sewer is available to be connected to at the The developer will need to extend the sanitary sewer to serve the The City's comprehensive water plan recommends a 20 -inch trunk watermain be extended through this property along Lake Drive East in order to provide sufficient flow through the City's water trunk distribution system. A connection point to an existing 20 -inch watermain is located at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. The trunk water system should be extended westerly through the development following the Lake Drive road alignment and connect into the trunk watermain along Trunk Highway 101. This trunk waterline may be installed under a private development contract by the developer with the City crediting the oversizing costs against the trunk area assessments for the properties or this work could also be petitioned as a public improvement project which, depending on timing, may be able to be completed under the current Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32A. The City's Fire Marshal will need to review the fire hydrant locations throughout this development. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The developer will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. The City's Surface Water Management Plan requires that all storm drainage from this site incorporate the City's water quality and quantity measures. The City's Surface Water Management Plan has designated water quality and quantity ponds on the site. The applicant should take these ponding areas into account with the development plans. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City has a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a general planning tool for development. The SWMP serves as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources.. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 10 development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post developed drainage areas along with water quantity and water quality runoff calculations for pre - developed and post - developed conditions for a 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm. The applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post- developed conditions. Water Ouali ty The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Water quality fees per acre were calculated from the average cost per acre for 10, 35, and 50 acre developments. The following table shows these values: Land Use Water Quality Rates $ /Acre Single Family 800 Duplex 871 Townhome 1,530 School, Church 1,494 Apartment 1,640 Industrial 2,507 Commercial 5,909 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. i ' Villages on the Ponds ' October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 11 Water Ouand ' The SWMP has established a connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff ' storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands), public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developer's ' contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The following table is the fee structure for water quantity connection charges: Land Use Water Quantity Rate ($ /acre) Single Family/Low Density $1,980 Medium Density $2,975 High Density Commercial/Industrial/ Business $4,360 Parks /Open Space $1,190 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. I WETLAND REGULATIONS ' The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland ' alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, and the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. ' In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban ' wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 12 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control is high priority during the construction period. Staff requires an erosion control plan that meet the City's best management practices. Maintenance and upkeep of the erosion control system will be enforced. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park & Recreation Commission met on September 26, 1995. They recommended that no development take place south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 1995. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit staff to provide additional information regarding the city's need for additional commercial space and to permit the applicant to meet with adjoining property owners to address their concerns, specifically regarding the proposed high density residential (rental) housing being proposed on the east side of the project. On November 15, 1995, the Planning Commission again held a public hearing to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission vote 6 for 0 against with 1 abstention, to recommend to the City Council conceptual approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development. As it relates to the residential development on the eastern part of the project, the Planning Commission concurred with the neighbors and is recommending that medium density residential, in the form of townhouses, be developed in this area. However, the Planning Commission was also concerned that the density that is being lost in this area be made up within the project. To this end, staff reiterates its recommendation that alternate housing could be provided within the commercial village by relocating the residential units within the commercial village area, either as upper story residential units or as distinct structures, or exchange the office locations for the residential location. In addition, the displaced office square footages could be located as second and third stories within the commercial area. The Planning Commission also would not limit the location of the residential development to the east side of Highway 101. A second issue that the Planning Commission directed staff to address was the benefits and criteria that the city should use in designating additional commercial land. While there is no magic formula for determining the amount of commercial land that is appropriate for a community, the appropriate amount of commercial or industrial land for Chanhassen is a function of the community's vision, its needs, the ability to transition between uses, infrastructure availability, and the trade area. 0 ' Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 13 Currently, the city has approximately 2 percent of its land area guided for commercial uses. An additional 8 percent of the land area is guided for office and industrial uses. From a tax standpoint, non - residential development and land constitute approximately 15 percent of the total valuation in the city. Within Carver County, the 1995 valuation and taxes are distributed as ' follows: VALUATION ' TYPE VALUE PERCENT Residential $789,043,100 86% Apartments $ 11,117,000 1% Commercial $118,836,600 13% TOTAL $918,996,700 100% ' TAXES TYPE TAXES PERCENT ' Residential $12,524,126 69% Apartments $ 356,325 2% Commercial $ 5,282,228 29% ' TOTAL $18,162,679 100 Chanhassen's land use goal is to "achieve a mixture of development of mixture [sic] which will ' assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base." A specific policy states: "Recognizing that some uses pay their way in terms of the property taxes they generate and some uses do not. Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being." ' As can be seen by the above valuation and tax distribution, this mixture has not been reached. While the city is moving in a positive direction to achieve a reliable and mixed tax base and this ' gap will continue to be reduced based on vacant commercial and industrial land, we still remain overly dependent on residential development for taxes. The specific benefits that may accrue to the community through the expansion of commercial uses within the Ward property include expansion of the non - residential tax base, provision of additional commercial and service opportunities for Chanhassen residents, especially those south ' of Highway 5, creation of a unique development entity (mixed use development) within the community, provision of opportunities for complementary commercial development for the downtown area, and maintenance of the downtown area as the commercial heart of the ' community. I n 0 Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 14 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council grants conceptual approval of PUD #92 -1 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD. 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. 3. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses. _ 4. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. 5. The applicant shall investigate realigning the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east -west ridge on the northern portion of the project. 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. 10. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East will require an 80 -foot wide right -of -way and the southerly loop street a 60 -foot wide right-of- way. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 15 11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and approval. 12. The applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. 13. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 15. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 16. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. 17. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 18. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minim average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 19. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 20. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. t 1] 1 t w 11 Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 16 21. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development. 22. Staff shall define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other reports, but specifically the advantages to the community by doing so. 23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report. 24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density (4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Images of the Villages on the Ponds 3. PAS Memo, August 1992 4. Towle Real Estate Report 1995, pp. 23 - 29 5. Memo from Fred Hoisington to Kate Aanenson dated September 27, 1995 6. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10% 7. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Vegetation 8. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Wetlands 9. Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen, MN 10. The Community Builders Handbook 1973, pp. 130 - 131 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 12. Rescheduling Notice Dated September 29, 1995 13. Letter from John and Brenda Lud to Robert Generous and Chanhassen Planning Commission dated October 16, 1995 14. Citizen's Concern about the Ward Property Development 15. Aerial Topography of Eastern Edge of the Ward Property 16. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/18/95 17. Memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated November 8, 1995 18. Vacant and Redevelopment Commercial Properties Location Map 19. Letter from Fred Hoisington to Bob Generous dated November 2, 1995 20. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List for 11/15/95 Public Hearing 21. Land Use Acreages 22. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/15/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Ward Fam i I y Attn: Brad Johnson ' ADDRESS: PO Box 235 ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 L_ TELEPHONE (Day time) 937 -4538 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. X Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost " ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 750 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8 1 /2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. "` Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract -1 PROJECT NAME The Villages / Ward Property ( LOCATION Highway 5 at Market B l v d . I LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached I PRESENT ZONING 10P /RSF I REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Undeveloped PUD I REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Retail /Offi /Residential I REASON FOR THIS REQUEST First phase of a planned community This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of 1 ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best I of my knowledge. Z -61 1A ez 1l I S gnature of Applic nt Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the 1 meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Ll The Villages / Ward Property The Ward ro ert lies at the southeast quadrant f p p y q t o the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101 or Market Boulevard. The property consists of approximately 67 acres and is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of mature trees and scattered stands of younger trees. There are three larger wetlands and one small wetland located on the property. Rosemount Engineering lies to the west and large estate lots to the east. North is Highway 5 and downtown Chanhassen. To the immediate south is undeveloped land with new residential development further to the south. Existing circulation and proposed circulation consists of the new Highway 101 /Market Boulevard alignment which runs north -to -south through the property. East /west circulation consists of the frontage road system or Lake Drive as proposed by the City's Guide Plan. One additional roadway is proposed to provide internal access to the various parcels and links Market Boulevard to Lake Drive extended. The proposed circulation system also proposes to provide public access to the large residential lots lying to the east. The proposed land use for the Ward property consists of three general uses. To the north it is proposed to provide an extension of the Chanhassen downtown. The intent would be to locate buildings up close to the roadways with parking located internal to the site. The desire is to create an urban downtown image with possible parallel parking on the street system. The existing Chanhassen downtown is complete, with either finished development or proposals and /or construction currently underway to fully develop all possible retail ' parcels. The downtown needs to expand and provide the residents of Chanhassen a broader cross section of retailing opportunities. South of the retail land uses, it is proposed to provide opportunities for general or professional office use and support services. These parcels are located along Market Boulevard and adjacent to Rosemount Engineering. Along the eastern property line and at the southern end of the property, residential uses are provided. The large residential parcel located along the eastern edge is proposed at a higher density which would be developed as two buildings to reduce the site development impacts. The residential parcels to the south are proposed to be utilized as basic single family or twin homes. Part of the overall proposal is an extensive trail /sidewalk system which includes maintaining the northerly wetlands as a feature by locating buildings which would take advantage of the amenities and vistas. The southerly wetland, which is part of a more extensive wetland system, would remain in its existing condition along with the existing trail system. Approximately 10 -12 percent of the property would remain as open space and basically undisturbed. The anticipated schedule would be that major portions of the roadway and infrastructure would begin in the Spring of 1996 with development of some of the parcels beginning late summer and fall of 1996. 1 01/04/89 01:38 4744204 TABLOID MEDIA INC PAGE 02 1 EXHIBIT A TRACT I 1 Beginning at the Northeast corner of Outlot I, "CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK ", according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Carver county, Minnesota; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Outlot I and the Easterly line of Outlot J, said CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK" and the extension of said easterly line of said outlot J to its intersection with the shoreline of Lake Susan; thence Easterly and Southerly along said shoreline to its intersection with the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 13 Township 116N, Range 1 23W; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 2 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 101; thence Northerly along the said center line of said S.T.H. No. ' 101 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. - No. 5; thence Westerly along the center line of S.T.H. No 5 to its intersection with the East line of said Outlot I extended Northerly= thence Southerly along the East line of said Outlot I ' extended Northerly to the point of beginning. TRACT I2 All that part of the following described premises, viz: i "Government Lot 2 and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest of Section 13', Township 116N, Range 23N, Carver County,' Minnesota, containing 77.50 acres, more or less, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, and known as the Emil Klein Farm ", not included within the premises as described in TRACT I above. Ll 1 IMRGES...Of Th e Villages on the ponds 1 •Y [ (J i' 4 y W �4 r �A � . s %l - t JUM PROPER'T'Y General Concept Plan The Ward property consists of approximately 73 acres located along Trunk Highway 5 between the old and new State Highway 101. The site is gently rolling with heavy vegetation consisting of young trees. The only old stand of trees is located along Lake Susan at the old farmstead. The remaining vegetation consists of young trees which have "volunteered" over the past few years. Of the total site approximately 20% is either wetlands or water. The general concept for the property is a mixed-use with an attractive "country village" look from all internal roadways and from Highway 5. The uses anticipated are hotels, restaurants, retail, small and medium offices buildings, residential and open space. For the look the concept we have drawn from the success of such areas as Monterey and Carmel,'California; Freeport, Main (a New England community concept) and for local relevance, from the success of 50th & France, which we hope to duplicate with the "Country Village" attraction. The roadway network is designed so that old 101 will be realigned and will become a part of the internal street system, a system which will provide on- street parking, access to major parking areas, a perimeter road around the "Village Center ", as well as access throughout the balance of the site. The'street system will easily provide access and accommodate traffic from the industrial area to the west and from to-be-developed Legion Site to the east, without creating a thoroughfare through the site. The street system has been developed with a view toward providing a pedestrian- friendly atmosphere. Highway 5 and 101, both 4 lanes at -this point, will handle the major north -south and east -west vehicular traffic. The Village Center will provide a variety of retail, service retail; small offices, restaurants, lodging opportunities and possibly even a small church. The "Village" site plan concept envisions buildings located along the wetlands and along the internal street system, with primary parking on the "inside" of the sites. Segments of the site are anticipated to be used for larger but low -rise offices of no more three stores, oriented toward the lake and the major wetland. The residential usage will consist of clustered single family along Lake Susan and a medium density product along the easterly property line. A concerted effort will be targeted toward the preservation of the Marsh Lake and Lake Susan vistas. n LI 1 Over 20% of the site will remain as open space offering the opportunity of extending the trail system throughout the site and providing direct linkage to the trail along Lake Susan, Marsh Lake and into the balance of downtown Chanhassen. The concept plan anticipates the following development intensities: Estimated Annual Percent Real Estate Taxes Use # Acres of Site # S.F. Taxes /S.f. to be Generated Retail 23.5 32% 275,000 $3.00 $825,000 Office 14.1 19% 200,000 3.50 700,000 Multi -Res. 7.4 16% 60 units 180,000 S.F. -Res 4.0 / 6 units 24,000 Streets /Open 33% Totals _- - 100% .,.; $1,729,000 It is anticipated that the first phase of development will be undertaken in the Fall of 1996. RECEIVED - r - - S E r 08 1 A�ST 1992 11F A )C Y ()r UhtAimrimz3SEN AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATIC Bringing Land -Use Ratios Into the '90s By Christopher Harris Every municipality is responsible for guiding future growth. The challenge is creating an appropriate mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses in the community. One pivotal factor in this process is a solid understanding of the current pattern of land uses within municipal boundaries. Knowing what uses exist and what services are needed to provide for those uses can determine the type and location of development that a municipality should plan for. This PAS Memo is a summary of a 1992 survey of land -use ratios in 66 municipalities. The American Planning Association undertook this study in response to a large number of requests that the Planning Advisory Service receives for an update a 1983 study. Part of this demand is driven by the growing number of states that are mandating cities and counties to do comprehensive planning. These mandated plans must include an inventory of existing land uses. Even in cities where planning is not required, there has been a significant number of comprehensive plan updates in the last few years. Some of these communities may be redoing their plan for the first time since the 701 era of planning in the 1950s and 1960s. Land -use trends and settlement patterns have changed significantly since that time, causing noticeable changes in the land -use mix and a need for updated ratios. Who Uses Land -Use Ratios Land -use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories of land as a percentage of the total amount of land in a community. After a land -use survey, the results are mapped or entered into a computer and total land acreage for each category is tallied. Because the ratios are derived from acreage totals, they do not represent the spatial patterns of cities. Spatial arrangements of land uses typically are portrayed on a land - use map. Planners who understand both their land -use ratios and land -use map will have the most insight into what forces brought the city to its current form and where it may be heading in the future. Land -use ratios are most useful to planners and developers involved in comprehensive planning and long -range development, because these data are necessary in determining what mix of land uses should be encouraged in future decades. Also, developers building neotraditional towns, planned communities, and large -scale mixed -use developments on vacant land find ratios from other communities to be a good basis for land -use allocation. It is interesting to note that the ratios from the planned community of Columbia, Maryland, which was built in the early 1960s, nearly match all of the ratio averages from the 1992 survey. Current Data are Important Development patterns change over time —even within a decade —and land -use ratios need to be updated to reflect those changes accurately. This study will serve as an update to several surveys of land -use ratios done in preceding decades. The first major study was done by Harland Bartholomew and Jack Wood in 1955. They surveyed ratios over a 20 -year span and published their results in Land Uses In American Cities. Those ratios were used in a large number of the federally funded 701 comprehensive plans. A second study, by Eisner and Associates, examined ratios compiled between 1939 to 1985. The usefulness of this data for comprehensive planning purposes is compromised by the fact that the researchers analyzed ratios over a 46 -year span. Too many development trends altered land -use ratios over that period. Eisner's ranges include both pre- and post -World War II residential settlement patterns, which are vastly different. Yet another survey of 22 large American cities was done in 1973. The results of that study were printed in Urban Land Policies and Land -use Control Measures (Vol. VI, Northern America). . Finally, the most recent comprehensive look at these ratios was a 1983 survey by Gregory Longhini and Mike Sutton. Published by the APA, it quantified land -use ratios from 46 1 large and 22 small cities (See PAS Memo May 1983). Most of the land -use ratios in that survey were compiled between 1978 and 1982. Methodology Approximately a third of the information presented here was discovered by reviewing many recent comprehensive plans in the APA library. Most of the data for small cities were collected this way. The other two -thirds of the data, particularly for large cities, were collected through telephone interviews. Selection of cities for the study was based on two variables: date of their land -use survey and their geographic location. Although some of the ratios used date back seven years, the majority of the data were collected since 1989. Almost every region in the country is represented. Land -use ratios are calculated as a percentage of the developed land within communities. Therefore, agricultural and vacant lands were not figured in. This results in a more accurate representation of the breakdown of land uses in the urbanized portion of each city. One problem with the data is that nearly every city responded with different land -use categories. Tucson, Arizona, breaks its developed land into 21 categories. Baltimore responded with only five categories. For this study, the data have been reorganized into the following four land -use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses. Public uses are further broken into three subcategories: parks and recreation, institutional, and transportation and utilities. Limiting the categories was necessary to reduce the discrepancies between uses as defined by each city and, for comparative purposes, to use categories that resemble those found in APA's 1983 study. Details of Each Category The residential category includes single - family detached units, two- or more family attached units, apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes. Noted in the table is the percentage of single - family detached housing as a percentage of the entire developed city. The commercial category includes all types of trade and services. The retail portion includes uses such as strip malls, small and large scale shopping centers, and wholesaling outlets. Also included are office buildings and business parks that have financial or administrative functions. Other general commercial uses are restaurants, grocery stores, and repair businesses. The industrial category includes both heavy and light industry. These uses are characterized as construction, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, resource extraction, and, in some instances, high technology research. The public use category is the cumulative percentage of institutional uses, parks and recreation, and transportation and utility facilities. Institutional uses are those owned by the local, state, or federal government, such as schools, hospitals, and police, and fire stations. Churches, synagogues, and fraternal organizations, which are quasi - public facilities, also are included in the institutional category. The second public use category is parks and recreation, comprising private or publicly owned areas used by citizens in the community. A public area could be a municipal golf Christopher Harris is an APA research associate. course; a privately owned area might be an amusement park. Transportation and utilities is the last public use distinction. This includes rights -of -way, streets, alleys, airports, rail, transportation terminals, communication, pump stations, power stations, water facilities, and other similar uses. Although the categories in this study were selected to reduce discrepancies, the task of fitting each city's land -use ratios into these two tables was still extremely difficult. To repeat: these are only generalizations. Unfortunately, the manipulation needed to reorganize some of the cities' ratios has weakened the results slightly. For example, a small percentage of the communities did not calculate the acreage of streets and right -of -ways. Sometimes transportation is completely ignored and other times only utilities, bus terminals, airports and the like are calculated as all of the transportation uses. In these cases, this category's ratio is typically under five percent. Other inconsistencies arise because specific uses are handled very differently among communities, according to different rationales. For example, a recreational facility such as a miniature golf course or a driving range is certainly a recreational use. But, by some definitions, it is also a business use; after all, it is earning a profit. Although the definition of recreational uses in this study includes for -profit uses, some cities include these uses in the commercial category. Some cities consider railroads to be a transportation use, as does this study, while others consider them an industrial use. - Mixed -use developments create yet another problem. For the purposes of this study, these percentages are figured into whichever use dominates the development, particularly commercial, residential, or industrial. For example, small structures, such as an apartment over a retail shop, will most likely be categorized according to the use occupying the ground level —that is, commercial. Although mixed -use developments are not included as a category in this study, more cities are beginning to include them in their ratios. Tampa, Florida; Bellevue, Washington; and Frisco, Colorado, responded to this survey with mixed - use ratios. In two of the three cases, the percentages were minuscule. Tampa, Florida, has multiple mixed -use categories such as suburban mixed -use, which covers 13 percent of the total developed land. The process of recalculating data to serve the purpose of this study is the last major methodological problem. A majority of the ratios for each city had to be recalculated in order to eliminate the percentages of land that is either vacant, agricultural, or non - improved open space such as forest land. This, combined with rounding the ratios, is the reason some of the percentages do not equal 100 percent. Residential Uses Since the first study of land -use ratios in 1955, residential uses have occupied the most land in small and large cities. In 1955, 40 percent and 42 percent of the land in central and satellite cities, respectively, was used for residential purposes. In the 1973 study of large cities, 40 percent of land was residential. The boom in suburban growth in the 1950s and 1960s increased these percentages significantly. The effects were evident in the 1983 study, where residential land increased to 48 percent of a city's developed land for both large and small cities. The residential densities in large u • • Land -Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000 City or town Population Residential (single - family) Comm'1 Ind'1 Public Inst'l Parks Right of way _ Aiken, S.C. 20,000 - 65%(60 9% 1% 25% 9% 16% NA Ambler, Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9 Asheville, N.C. 62,000 69 (62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA , Bellevue, Wash. 88,000 65 (57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA Carlsbad, Calif. 51,000 57 (40) 5 9 29 3 17 9 Carrollton, Tex. 33,000 39 (34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA Columbia, Md. 78,000 43(32). 20 (combined) 37 NA NA NA Costa Mesa, Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA Elgin, Ili. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32 El Monte, Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7 Evanston, 111. 72,000 45 (30) 7 4 44 10 8 26 Fishkill, N.Y. 15,000. 24 (20) 4 1 70 25 33 12 Frisco, Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA Galveston, Tex. 62,000 25 (21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA Highland Park, Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19 Hoffman Estates, Ill. 45,000 46 (37) 10 2 41 3 15 23 La Verne, Calif. 27,000 67 (58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA Lynnwood, Wash. 29,000 56 (46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA Manassas, Va. 22,000 52 (41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA Midway, Ky. 1,400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14 Montpelier, Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15 Mount Prospect, Ill. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA , Northbrook, I11. 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19 Oak Creek, Wis. 20,000 37 (27) 8 12 43 6 23 14 - Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52 (43) 7 6 35 14 9 12 Prescott, Ariz. 26,000 74 (50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA Pompano Beach, Fla. 67,000 44 (25) 10 17 39 4 17 8 Redding, Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA St. Peters, Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA Sedona, Ariz. 7,300 74 (71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA , Skokie, 111. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32 Versailles, Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14 Wakefield, Mass. 24,000 54 (52) 5 3 38 8 6 24 West Hollywood, Calif. 36,000 42 (8) 22 3 33 3 1 29 Ratio Averages 52%(41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA C 1 r�2.. -- ��o Soo �7 �� I , R 1 70 How Land -Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years Year of survey Residential (single- family) Comm'l Ind'1 Public Inst'l Parks 1992 52%(41 10% 7% 31% NA NA , 1983 48 7 8 37 13 5 1955 42(36) 2 8 48 11 4 Land -Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Over 100,000 City or town Population Residential >; (single - family) Comm'l ` ` Ind'I Public Inst'l Parks Right of way Albuquerque, N.M. 385,000 57%(47 15% 5% 23% 11% 8% 4% Amherst, N.Y. 112,000 43 (40) 7 2 48 12 12 24 ' Atlanta 437,000 54 5 9 32 11 (combined) 21 Aurora, Colo. 232,000 44 21 17 18 " NA NA NA Austin, Tex. 345,000 48 (43) 7 5 38 7 5 26 Baltimore 787,000 42 27 6 25 16 (combined) 9 Charlotte, N.C. 395,000 61 10 6 24 21 (combined) 2 Cleveland 506,000 35 5 15 45 6 7 32 Dallas 1,007,000 58 (50) 8 12 22 5 8 9 Detroit 1,028,000 43 (33) 5 9 44 13 (combined) 31 ' E1 Paso 485,000 42 (36) 6 10 42 15 5 22 Evansville, Ind. 129,000 57 24 5 14 NA 8 6 Fort Worth 448,000 50 (45) 7 12 31 6 13 12 Hartford, Conn. 136,000 32 11 4 53 16 16 21 Honolulu 432,000 30 34 15 12 6 6 NA Indianapolis 742,000 55 (48) 7 10 28 28 (combined) NA Lansing, Mich. 127,000 60 6 10 24 11 13 NA Lexington, Ky. 214,000 58 8 8 25 18 (combined) 7 Long Beach, Calif. 440,000 48 (32) 12 22 18 6 6 6 Madison, Wis. 191,000 39 8 4 49 7 12 30 Norfolk, Va. 266,000 44 (33) 9 4 43 27 6 10 Omaha 336,000 38 5 4 53 20 (combined) 33 Peoria, Ill. 113,000 52 8 6 34 7 21 6 Reno, Nev. 101,000 36 (25) 8 5 51 25 21 5 ' St. Paul 270,000 37 4 14 45 7 12 26 Salt Lake City 163,000 25 (20) 7 9 59 7 7 45 Santa Clarita, Calif. 121,000 70 (59) 6 14 10 5 5 NA Tampa, Fla. 834,000 44 (30) 15 26 15 10 5 NA Tempe, Ariz. 133,000 41 (30) 8 10 41 11 16 24 ' Topeka, Kan. 122,000 50 10 6 34 21 13 NA Tucson, Ariz. 419,000 52 (39) 10 5 33 8 5 20 Youngstown, Ohio 104,000 60 9 8 23 8 13 2 Ratio Averages 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA How Land -Use Ratios Have Changed in Large Cities Over the Years Year of survey Residential (single - family) Comm'1 Ind'1 Public Inst'l Parks Right of way 1992 48% (38 %) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA ' 1983 48 (39) 9 12 31 NA NA NA 1973 40 10 5 45 19 (combined) 26 1955 40(32) 3 6 51 11 7 33 Eisner & Associates Studies, 1939 -1985 Use Range of Percentages Residential 35 -39% Commercial 4.8 -5 Industrial 10-11 Streets 20 -26 Open Space, Schools, Parks 10 -18 western cities are typically lower than large eastern cities. For example the residential ratio in Long Beach, California, is 79 percent. In Pittsburgh, it is only 28 percent, according to the 1983 survey. Suburban sprawl also explains the residential ratio increase in small towns from 42 percent in 1955 to 52 percent in 1992. An increased level of automobile ownership led to the creation of the bedroom community. Employment, culture, and goods and services were not necessarily needed in these communities as long as the nearby major city offered them. Therefore, residential uses predominate the developed land. These high ratios of residential land should begin to decline due to a combination of many economic, demographic, and regulatory trends that are decreasing demand for single - family detached homes. The 20- percent- down conventional mortgage is no longer affordable for the average U.S. household. According to U.S. Housing Markets (January 29, 1990), a household needs an average down payment of 28 percent. The cost of the average home from 1988 to 1990 increased 8.4 percent, or $11,000, while the average income of a household has increased only 4.8 percent. Quickly rising land cost is another major factor contributing to the inconsistency between housing cost and income, according to an article in Building Sciences (November 1987). Land costs are now one - quarter of the cost of a single - family home. Thirty years ago, that figure was only 10 percent. Demographic changes are reducing demand for single - family homes as well. Couples are purchasing houses at an older age and having fewer children. Builder magazine reported in January 1992 that the percentage of home buyers who are first -time buyers has dropped significantly from 47.7 percent to 34.6 percent in 1990. Furthermore, the 1990 Census indicates that household size declined from 3.33 persons in 1960 to 2.62 persons in 1989. Ultimately, this means less space will be required for each family. In fact, surveys conducted recently by the National Apartment Association have noted an increase in apartment living. Zoning trends have become an issue as well. Recent environmental protection regulations encourage development patterns such as cluster and planned unit developments. Also, courts are ruling against five -acre estate lot sizes and other large minimum lot size zoning when the effect is to exclude certain income groups. Breakdown by Housing Type Although this study provides general land -use ratio percentages for residential land as a whole, some communities may be interested in the housing stock breakdown within the residential category. Cities that offer breakdowns within the residential category tended to do it in two different ways: number of families per unit (e.g. single - family and multifamily) or the number of units per acre. As expected, single - family housing is by far the largest portion of any city's housing stock. This type consumes an average of 73 percent of the total housing stock in the 12 cities for which this information was available. The averages for multifamily and mobile homes are 14 percent and 3 percent, respectively. The data range for multifamily housing was from 8 percent to 41 percent of land used for housing. The range for mobile homes was much smaller: one -half of 1 percent to 7 percent. Commercial Uses Since the 1950s and 1960s, commercial uses, which include office and retail, have occupied an increasing amount of acreage in both large and small cities. The land -use ratios in 1955 were 3.32 percent for the central cities and 2.54 percent for the satellite cities. By 1992, these averages increased significantly, to 10 percent. The biggest factor in this large percentage increase is parking. Parking has become a major regulatory concern over the last few decades, as both large and small cities have become dominated by cars. An entire parking lot is considered a commercial use. Many uses require parking that effectively doubles the acreage of commercial land. Unlike in large cities, where suburban office migration has caused commercial land -use ratios to plateau at 10 percent, this ratio continues to climb in smaller cities. The Land Use Institute estimated in 1986 that 57.3 percent of the country's total office market was located outside major downtowns. This was an increase of nearly 10 percent from 1981. Height restrictions and a strong bias toward low density development exist in these areas, so buildings cover more acres. Also contributing to the higher commercial ratio is the rise of average square footage allowed per office worker, according to a 1991 Price Waterhouse Study. Between 1942 and 1979, the average work space increased from 110 square feet to 199 square feet. In 1988, only nine years later, that average had crept up to 342 square feet. Currently, trends between office and retail development differ greatly. The construction of office buildings has decreased considerably in most cities since the late 1980s due to high vacancy rates. But according to Real Estate Perspectives magazine, retail overbuilding continued at a rate nearly double its absorption rate well into the recession in 1990. The common types of retail development —strip centers and regional malls— consume large amounts of land. Given that these development styles are being used in small and large cities alike, the commercial ratios in both sizes of cities can be expected to increase. Industrial Districts In large cities, the amount of land used by industrial firms peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and has recently been declining. In 1955, the average industrial land -use ratio was 6.4 percent. The 1983 survey indicated an industrial land -use ratio of 12 percent, while this current study shows a ratio of only 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas, the industrial land -use ratio has remained within a third of a percentage point since 1955, at around 7.5 percent. The trend most affecting industrial land allocation is the 1 1 1 17 I country's economic shift from manufacturing and other heavy industry to a service industry. This may be causing what Coldwell Banker identified in 1990 as the highest ever national vacancy rate (6.9 percent) of industrial buildings larger than 100,000 square feet. This shift has led to the conversion of many industrial buildings into residential loft or commercial office space, thus decreasing the industrial ratio. Differentiating between industrial and commercial uses has also become more difficult. For example, many light manufacturers also have service centers, showrooms, and warehouses on the premises. Therefore, when ratios are calculated, they are categorized as heavy commercial uses, not industrial uses. As the ratios from the three studies show, economic restructuring has not affected the land -use ratios in suburban areas nearly as much as large cities, because heavy manufacturing never was a dominant force there. Parks and Recreational Uses The following analysis is based primarily on improved parks and open spaces that are maintained by public park districts or municipalities. Historically, the rule of thumb for calculating the number of acres of park land needed in a community is one acre of land per 100 residents. However, for the past 40 years many communities have fallen well short. In the 1955 study, the percentage of park and recreation land for central and satellite cities was 7 percent and 4.4 percent of developed land, respectively. Eleven small communities from the 1983 survey list an average percentage of only 4 percent. These data are difficult to compare, in part because, in many communities, parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields on school property, as well as vacant lots, are calculated into the institutional ratios rather than the parks and recreation ratio. This makes the ratios appear as though less land is available for parks and recreation than really exists. The explosive growth in single - family homes also had an interesting effect on the use of public parks. Most suburban homeowners have their own private front and back yards. This explains, in part, why suburbs will typically have a lower percentage of land in the parks category. Manassas, Virginia, an outlying suburb of Washington, D.C., has only 1 percent of its land as parks while in St. Paul, Minnesota, this use covers 12 percent of the developed land. Institutional Uses The percentage of land occupied by institutional uses has increased slightly in the last 50 years. The Bartholomew study indicated that central and satellite cities had about 10 percent of their land devoted to institutional uses. The 1983 survey showed that the ratio of institutional uses in small towns was 13 percent. No averages were calculated for this study. However, the data do not differ drastically from the earlier studies. Large cities typically will have higher institutional land - use ratios. Uses such as hospitals, churches, schools, and government buildings are all directly related to the population; as the number of people grow, so will the acreage of these institutional lands. Other institutional uses are not so clear cut: state capitol grounds, museums, civic centers, and colleges and universities are all uses that serve a regional market and are therefore more common in large cities. An example is Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, where institutional uses cover only 3.4 percent of developed land. In El Paso, Texas, the percentage is 17 percent. El Paso is a county seat and therefore must offer the entire spectrum of institutional uses to the region. Transportation and Utility Uses Transportation and utility uses have consistently covered the second highest amount of acreage in a city since these data were recorded. As evident from the data set, many cities do not include streets and right -of -way in their acreage. These cities therefore have disproportionately low transportation land -use ratios. Because of this discrepancy, averages for this category are not listed. The amount of land devoted to right -of -way increases as a city's single - family housing stock increases. But because many cities calculate streets into institutional and recreational uses, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint transportation land -use ratio trends. For the purpose of this analysis, it is understood that streets and right -of -way constitute most of the transportation uses and utilities category. The utilities and communication uses are usually a very tiny portion. For example, only one -half of a percent of developed land in Austin, Texas, is occupied by utility uses. There are two major current planning issues that may affect future street and right -of -way ratios: the recently adopted Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) and neotraditional town planning. ISTEA marks the first time that the federal government plans to tackle congestion problems head -on by improving the management of existing transportation systems and coordinating transportation planning with land -use planning. Until now, the solution has been to increase road capacity. Successful implementation of high- occupancy vehicle lanes, bus lanes, ridesharing, encouraging the use of alternate modes of travel, and coordinated land -use and transportation policies, could mean that right -of -way and transportation use ratios will hold steady even if population increases. Words of Caution It is not recommended that these ratios be used as urban land -use models. Any city predicting its future land -use requirements solely on the ratios of other cites could be seriously misguided. Every city has different factors affecting its land -use distribution. Instead of considering these numbers rules of thumb, consider them examples of land -use ratios that exist in cities today. Look closely at what factors affect your own city's land use before comparing your ratios to these data. The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Service, a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Israel Stollman, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director. The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago. Research and writing by Research Department staff: Marya Morris, Editor. Production by Publications Department staff: Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Dennis McClendon, Design Director. Copyright ©1992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50 -70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. 4 Market Overview All of the reported statistical successes of the Mall of America after its second full year of operation are impressive. The 35 to 40 million visitors, $650 to $700 million in total dollars spent, and even an estimated 6% of its cus- tomer base made up of tourists coming from outside the United States, are impressive fig- ures. The problem is that despite all of the optimistic news being reported by Mall of America officials on its success and the posi- tive influence it has on the Twin Cities econ- omy, the true impact on the local retail mar- ket is very difficult to measure. One aspect of the Mall of America's impact is very evident; it has focused the attention of almost every expanding retailer in the United States on the Twin Cities market. Before the - Mall of America opened in 1992, the Twin Cities metro area was considered an under - retailed market with a strong economic base. Approximately two and one -half years later, six Circuit City's, three Sport- MerM's marts, two Computer City's, two Comp USAs, eight Barnes and Nobles, four Filene's Basements along with a handful of other smaller retailers have sprouted throughout the metro area. Some of these retailers, particularly Circuit City, Sportmart and Barnes and Noble, are contin- uing to look for new sites in the Twin Cities. As some retailers may attest, the Twin Cities metro area may no longer be under retailed. Consider the closing of four Carson Pirie Scott locations, two in 1993, two in 1994. The remaining eight Carsons stores will be closed in 1995. In addition, Filene's Basement is closing four of its five locations in the Twin Cities in 1995, (leaving only the Mall of America store). Heavy competition by numerous competitors have forced these closings. Retail Still, the Twin Cities metro area is con- sidered an attractive market to national chains. Several retailers are planning to enter the market in 1995, including Office Depot, Home Place, Media Play and Petsmart. Daytons has purchased the eight closing Carsons stores and will open new Mervyn's stores in seven, and expand its Daytons Department store in one. All of these retail- ers are entering markets where competing stores are already established. Development of new restaurants is increasing throughout the Twin Cities as well. The desirability of community center space still runs high, and is reflected in both the new construction which took place in 1994, and the proposed new developments for 1995. Two new com- munity centers were developed in late 1994 along the I -494 strip and one community center added a second phase in Woodbury. In addition, nine pro- posed community cen- ters could break ground in 1995. For other retail center types, the pace of development is modest with four neighborhood centers (30,000 sq. ft. or larg- er) proposed in the Twin Cities, and a pro- posed regional center in Maple Grove. Despite all of the growth in discount - oriented retail in the suburbs, some urban retail centers have not fared as well. Sears announced the closing of its 1909 flagship store in Minneapolis, due to poor ' performance in recent years. Owners of Spruce Tree Center in St. Paul, Riverplace in Minneapolis and Gaviidae I in downtown Minneapolis are downsiz- ing the retail portion of their centers and converting to more office space which is in higher demand in their respective locations. N.' The retail investment market is �+� active with 11 transactions in 1994. ��. Well anchored centers are in high !� ); Redo 'v 1 ! ��0 r .. demand. This is reflected in the increasing sale prices. Sale prices per sq. ft. in 1994 ranged from $8.36 for the Skywood Mall, to $103.31 for the Southporte Centre. (See Page 27 for a list of transactions). The downtown Minneapolis retail market is relatively healthy with good occupancy in both Gaviidae Centers, City Center and the Crystal Court. Approximately 28 retailers came to downtown Minneapolis in 1994. Many were skyway related, but some notable retailers include Barnes and Noble, Aveda and the Thomas James Gallery. The downtown St. Paul retail market is losing ground and is mainly servicing downtown workers. Overall, the Twin Cities retail market improved over the past year, reporting an annual net absorption of approximately 575,000 sq. ft., and a decline in the vacancy rate by 0.8 percentage points to 8.0 %. The cur- rent vacancy rate for all multi- tenant retail space is the lowest level since 1989, which is impressive consider- ing approximately 10 million sq. ft. has been added to the multi- tenant retail base over the past six years. In addition, an estimated three to four million sq. ft. of free standing, "big box" retail space has been devel- oped over the same time period. Neighborhood Centers The neighborhood center retail market in the Twin Cities is showing continued signs of improvement. For the third consecutive year, it has reported strong absorption levels and decreasing vacancy rates. Part of this tightening in the market can be attributed to a lack of recent devel- opment. Still, the current vacancy rate of 8.9% is the lowest level since 1987 and the market has steadily tightened from the peak vacancy level of 13.3% in 1992. In the past three years, the neighborhood cen- ter market has absorbed over 1 mil- lion sq. ft.. The general improvement in the market has stimulated new growth Community Center Development Accounted for 60% of total retail center development over the past decade 0 W Real Esw Company 2,250,000 •2,012,43S 2,000,000 1- Proposed 1995 - 3,000,000+ W 1,750,000 W 1,500,000 Q 1,250,000 977,598 1,000,000 657,185 to 750,000 445,149 521,286 559,000 500,000 3811 185,326 130,256 98,258 250,000 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 9 community centers containg over 2 million sq.ft. came on tine in 1990 as four neighborhood retail center developments are currently pro- posed or under construction. Carlson Real Estate is constructing the 56,000 sq. ft. Rosemount Market Square anchored by a Jubilee gro- cery store near the intersection of County Road 42 and Chippendale Avenue in Rosemount. T.F. James is currently develop- ing a retail complex in Chanhassen near Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street. Phase One is complete and anchored by Byerly's. Also proposed is a 7,000 sq. ft. Kinko's Copy Center and 35,000 sq. ft. of shopping space. A new center of approximately 60,000 sq. ft. is proposed in Minnetonka. This center will proba- bly be anchored by a Circuit City and an Office Depot. Approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of free standing retail tenant buildings are planned for construction in out - lots at the Roseville Crossings Park Place Plaza, proposed Community Center, St. Louis Park Center at County Road C and Snelling Avenue in Roseville. The Spruce Tree Center located in the Midway area of St. Paul was purchased in 1994 and now is being marketed almost entirely as office space. This center has been removed from our survey. Neighborhood center owners have been attempting to control operating costs in recent years by reducing amounts of common areas in centers and reconfiguring centers with interior mall space. The aver- age CAM cost for neighborhood space for first quarter 1995 equaled $1.56 per sq. ft., a 9.3% reduction from 1994. It is also 17.9% lower than the average level in 1992. Community Centers Community centers and power centers have been the dominant development story in the Twin Cities over the past five years. Approximately 18 centers contain- ing over 4 million sq. ft. have been developed over the past five years. This equates to an approximate 51% increase in the total community cen- ter universe of the Twin Cities. The tendency towards the community, or power center, style of development is due to the value, convenience and volume- oriented retailers emerging in the market in recent years. In 1994, two new community centers were developed, and one community center's second phase was completed. The Robert C. Muir Company completed the second phase of its Woodbury Village Center at the Northeast quadrant of Valley Creek Road and I -494. This second phase totaled 117,000 sq. ft. and is anchored by Best Buy. CSM Corporation completed the first phase of the Shops of Lyndale at the Northeast quadrant of I -35W and I-494 in Richfield. This first phase includes Best Buy, Sportmart and Comp USA, and totals 128,000 sq. ft.. Phase two is planned to contain approximately VACANCY AND ABSORPTION MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA • FIRST QUARTER 1993 - 1995 Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption ANOKA COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 20 1,616,786 182,792 11.3% 174,595 1994 20 1,564,102 160,841 10.3% (30,733) 1995 20 1,590,384 119,571 7.5% 67,552 Community 1993 7 1,314,448 85,498 6.5% 29,878 1994 7 1,305,263 80,869 6.2% (4,556) 1995 7 1,296,940 156,646 12.1% (84,100) Regional 1993 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 4,000 1994 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 1995 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 Specialty N/A Total 1993 28 3,742,234 284,290 7.6% 208,473 1994 28 3,680,365 257,710 7.0% (35,289) 1995 28 3,698,324 292,217 7.9% (16,548) DAKOTA COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 37 2,328,280 310,962 13.4% 167,465 1994 37 2,310,912 267,912 11.6% 25,682 1995 37 2,325,912 269,922 11.6% 12,990 Community 1993 13 2,521,812 260,100 10.3% (56,418) 1994 13 2,516,565 232,328 9.2% 22,525 1995 13 2,513,812 184,160 7.3% 45,415 Regional 1993 2 1,600,000 46,000 2.9% 32,000 1994 2 1,714,343 25,000 1.5% 135,343 1995 2 1,664,343 56,000 3.4% (31,000) Specialty N/A Total 1993 52 6,450,092 617,062 9.6% 143,047 1994 52 6,541,820 525,240 B.0% 183,550 1995 52 6,504,067 510,082 7.8% 27,405 MINNEAPOLIS Neighborhood 1993 7 381,141 23,166 6.1% 1,162 1994 7 381,141 24,966 6.6% (1,800) 1995 8 438,141 22,907 5.2% 59,059 Community 1993 2 311,938 39,082 12.5% 37,070 1994 2 311,938 55,073 17.7% (15,991) 1995 2 311,938 38,700 12.4% 16,373 Regional 1993 3 796,516 313,000 39.3% (156,945) 1994 3 802,875 49,000 6.1% 270,359 1995 3 804,645 68,000 8.5% (17,230) Specialty 1993 6 787,544 187,941 23.9% 108,594 1994 6 787,544 267,117 33.9% (79,176) 1995 5 701,946 257,500 36.7% 3,817 Total 1993 18 2,277,139 563,189 24.7% (10,119) 1994 18 2,283,498 396,156 17.3% 173,392 1995 18 2,256,670 387,107 17.2% 62,019 © Towle Real Estate Company 100,000 sq. ft. of multi - tenant retail with Petsmart as a potential anchor. Homart completed the Circuit City Center located at the Northwest quadrant of France Avenue and I -494 in Bloomington. This center totals 136,150 sq. ft. and is anchored by Circuit City, Home Place and Office Depot. It also has a remaining bay of 26,000 sq. ft. available. In looking ahead to 1995, the total amount of proposed communi- ty center development is staggering with approximately 13 centers potentially breaking ground. Of these proposals, nine centers with a proposed 3,000,000 sq. ft. are consid- ered probable to happen in 1995. (See Proposed Community Centers chart on page 28). , The significant number of new retailers entering the Twin Cities market, and the additional competi- tion they bring with them, increases the potential for shake out of retail tenants and increased vacancies in community centers. The recent clos- ing of four Filene's Basement stores and the sale of the Carson's stores to Mervyn's are examples of that. However, the vacancies from Filene's leaving the market were quickly absorbed by existing retail- ers (Marshall's and Linens N' Things) looking for good locations. This quick absorption of anchor spaces may not be repeated as quick- ly in the future if the Twin Cities retail market reaches a saturation level and national attention on the local market wains. Regional Centers Little change occurred in the regional center market over the past year with approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of absorption and a decline in vacancy rate of 1.7 percentage points to 5.2 %. No new space was added in 1994. The Mall of America, which has been dominating the retail news in the Twin Cities market over the past several years, has reportedly had a successful second full year in opera- tion meeting and /or exceeding expectations so far. Its occupancy level has reportedly reached 95 %, Westwind Plaza, Minnetonka Study - Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net Market Sector Date Centers leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption NORTHEAST Neighborhood 1993 29 1,962,033 337,543 17.2% 42,942 1994 29 2,061,740 304,972 14.8% 132,278 1995 29 2,036,425 239,475 11.8% 40,182 Community 1993 6 1,229,803 104,000 8.5% 57,866 1994 6 1,229,803 33,046 2.7% 70,954 1995 6 1,229,803 83,600 6.8% (50,554) Regional 1993 4 2,859,625 250,071 8.7% 131,471 1994 4 2,879,625 211,057 7.3% 59,014 1995 4 2,843,477 111,210 7.4% (36,301) Specialty N/A Total 1993 39 6,051,461 691,614 11.4% 232,279 1994 39 6,171,168 549,075 8.9% 262,246 1995 39 6,109,705 534,285 8.7% (46,673) NORTHWEST Neighborhood 1993 19 1,488,663 155,650 10.5% 22,544 1994 20 1,508,239 197,089 13.1% (44,174) 1995 20 1,494,704 182,855 12.2% 5,407 Community 1993 7 1,350,842 33,580 2.5% 13,945 1994 7 1,351,096 90,685 6.7% (56,851) 1995 7 1,489,021 114,463 7.7% 114,147 Regional 1993 1 925,000 10,000 1.1% 17,750 1994 1 925,000 25,000 2.7% (15,000) 1995 1 925,000 20,000 2.2% 5,000 Specialty N/A Total 1993 27 3,764,505 199,230 5.3% 54,239 1994 28 3,784,335 312,774 8.3% (116,025) 1995 28 3,908,725 317,318 8.1% 124,554 SOUTHWEST Neighborhood 1993 28 1,801,473 84,348 4.7% 145,030 1994 28 1,800,654 99,657 5.5% (16,128) 1995 11 1,787,465 64,137 3.6% 22,331 Community 1993 5 804,826 74,364 9.2% (5,424) 1994 5 805,066 34,989 4.3% 39,615 1995 7 1,075,386 69,626 6.5% 235,683 Regional 1993 4 5,550,221 362,560 6.5% 2,447,639 1994 4 5,550,221 475,560 8.6% (113,000) 1995 4 5,350,522 200,560 3.7% 75,301 Specialty 1993 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% 0 1994 1 417,784 62,200 14.9% 13,001 1995 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% (13,001) Total 1993 38 8,574,304 596,473 7.0% 2,587,245 1994 38 8,573,715 672,406 7.8% (76,511) 1995 39 8,631,157 409,524 4.7% 320,314 ST. PAUL Neighborhood 1993 10 620,195 110,232 17.8% 45,946 1994 11 617,759 73,906 12.0% 33,890 1995 10 534,214 52,324 9.8% (4,063) Community 1993 4 823,929 123,245 15.0% 29,200 1994 4 882,935 100,880 11.4% 81,371 1995 4 891,929 76,288 8.6% 33,586 Regional 1993 2 363,000 181,000 49.9% (121,000) 1994 2 363,062 180,000 49.6% 1,062 1995 2 359,150 145,344 40.5% 30,744 Specialty 1993 5 261,535 27,048 10.3% 3,022 1994 5 262,650 22,580 8.6% 5,583 1995 5 262,650 25,976 9.9% (3,396) Total 1993 11 2,068,659 441,525 21.3% (42,832) 1994 22 2,116,406 377,366 17.7% 121,906 1995 21 2,047,943 299,932 14.6% 56,871 0 Towle Real Estate Company these proposals, nine centers with a proposed 3,000,000 sq. ft. are consid- ered probable to happen in 1995. (See Proposed Community Centers chart on page 28). , The significant number of new retailers entering the Twin Cities market, and the additional competi- tion they bring with them, increases the potential for shake out of retail tenants and increased vacancies in community centers. The recent clos- ing of four Filene's Basement stores and the sale of the Carson's stores to Mervyn's are examples of that. However, the vacancies from Filene's leaving the market were quickly absorbed by existing retail- ers (Marshall's and Linens N' Things) looking for good locations. This quick absorption of anchor spaces may not be repeated as quick- ly in the future if the Twin Cities retail market reaches a saturation level and national attention on the local market wains. Regional Centers Little change occurred in the regional center market over the past year with approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of absorption and a decline in vacancy rate of 1.7 percentage points to 5.2 %. No new space was added in 1994. The Mall of America, which has been dominating the retail news in the Twin Cities market over the past several years, has reportedly had a successful second full year in opera- tion meeting and /or exceeding expectations so far. Its occupancy level has reportedly reached 95 %, Westwind Plaza, Minnetonka and its impact on the local hotel market has been very positive. Of the tenants located in the Mall of America, the restaurant and enter- tainment oriented businesses appear to be doing best. While three of the four anchor tenants reportedly are satisfied with sales, Bloomingdales is rumored to be looking for a replace- ment anchor to sublease its space. A new regional shopping center development has become a possibil- ity in Maple Grove. Two sites have been named as potential regional mall locations. The first proposed site is a 100 -acre site located at the southeast quadrant of I -94 and the planned Highway 610. Rouse Company, which owns Ridgedale Center, would be the developer of this site. The second site is at the northwest quadrant of I -694 and Highway 169. This site consists of 2,000 total acres of gravel mining land held by a consortium of owners. Potential anchors for a new regional center include Daytons, Sears, Macy's and Nordstrom's. Each pro- posal is only in the talking stages, and either would likely take three or more years to complete. Carson Pirie Scott's vacated anchor space at Knollwood Mall in St. Louis Park has been demolished and a new Kohl's Department store is being developed in its place. RETAIL CENTERS SOLD IN 1994 MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA Price Sale Property Name Per sq. h. Date Souihporle Centre S103.31 1/94 Wed*d Plaza $85.35 11/94 Mapleridge $80.62 10/94 Knollwood Village S57.00 9/94 Birch. Run Station $46.98 4/94 Town And Country Square $21.46 7/94 Century Hills Shopping Dr. $17.91 2/94 Valley Creek Mall $17.16 9/94 . Falcon Crossing S10.31 7/94 St Anthony Main IV $8.95 5/94 Skywood Mall S8.36 2/94 © Towle Real Estate Company Kohl's is also adding new stores in Eden Prairie Center, Maple Grove, Southtown Center, Eagan, and is expanding its store at Maplewood Mall. Owners of Brookdale Shopping Center are still attempting to sell, and the operating covenants with the center's anchor tenants expiring in 1995 will remove the major obsta- cles hindering a sale. New owner- ship of this aging regional mall would likely bring a renovation. Har Mar Mall in Roseville has signed Barnes and Noble as a 44,000 sq. ft. anchor. This center's owners, Bradley Real Estate Trust, recently completed a $1 million renovation and repositioning of the center. Though claiming its first two years of operation a success, the Mall of America is appealing its assessed market value of $378 mil- lion. The largest and costliest real estate development (approximate $700 million development cost) in Minnesota will also be its largest property tax dispute. Other regional Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net Market Sector Date (enters leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption WASHINGTON COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 7 466,065 72,782 15.6% (11,4680 1994 7 466,065 61,832 13.3% 10,950 1995 7 466,065 45,664 9.8% 16,168 Community 1993 9 1,808,509 130,247 7.2% 649,800 1994 10 1,892,052 176,209 9.3% 37,581 1995 11 2,006,452 226,506 11.3% 64,103 Regional N/A Specialty N/A Total 1993 16 2,274,574 203,029 8.9% 638,332 1994 17 1,358,117 238,041 10.1% 48,531 1995 18 2,472,517 272,170 11.0% 80,271 WEST Neighborhood 1993 30 1,668,588 91,196 5.5% 53,022 1994 31 1,734,416 91,503 5.3% 65,521 1995 31 1,677,732 100,052 6.0% (31,583) Community 1993 7 1,063,548 38,839 3.7% (4,276) 1994 7 1,063,548 68,711 6.5% (29,872) 1995 7 1,063,548 67,757 6.4% 954 Regional 1993 2 1,654,000 32,425 2.0% (11,699) 1994 2 1,670,000 32,300 1.9% 16,125 1995 2 1,670,000 32,000 1.9% 300 Specialty N/A Total 1993 39 4,386,136 162,460 3.7% 37,047 1994 40 4,467,964 192,514 4.3% 51,774 1995 40 4,411,280 199,809 4.5% (30,329) METROPOLITAN TOTAL Neighborhood 1993 187 12,333,224 1,368,671 11.1% 641,238 1994 190 12,445,028 1,282,678 10.3% 175,486 1995 189 12,351,042 1,096,907 8.9% 188,043 Community 1993 60 11,229,655 888,955 7.9% 751,641 1994 61 11,358,266 872,790 7.7% 144,116 1995 64 11,878,829 1,017,746 8.6% 375,607 Regional 1993 19 14,559,362 1,211,056 8.3% 2,343,216 1994 19 14,716,126 1,013,917 6.9% 353,903 1995 19 14,428,137 749,114 5.2% 26,814 Specialty 1993 12 1,466,863 290,190 19.8% 111,616 1994 12 1,467,978 351,897 24.0% (60,591) 1995 11 1,382,380 358,677 25.9% (12,580) Total 1993 278 39,589,104 3,758,871 9.5% 3,847,711 1994 282 39,987,398 3,521,282 8.8% 613,573 1995 283 40,040,388 3,222,444 8.0% 577,884 © Towle Real Estate Company Kohl's is also adding new stores in Eden Prairie Center, Maple Grove, Southtown Center, Eagan, and is expanding its store at Maplewood Mall. Owners of Brookdale Shopping Center are still attempting to sell, and the operating covenants with the center's anchor tenants expiring in 1995 will remove the major obsta- cles hindering a sale. New owner- ship of this aging regional mall would likely bring a renovation. Har Mar Mall in Roseville has signed Barnes and Noble as a 44,000 sq. ft. anchor. This center's owners, Bradley Real Estate Trust, recently completed a $1 million renovation and repositioning of the center. Though claiming its first two years of operation a success, the Mall of America is appealing its assessed market value of $378 mil- lion. The largest and costliest real estate development (approximate $700 million development cost) in Minnesota will also be its largest property tax dispute. Other regional E malls are appealing there property tax levels as well. Rosedale Center won the first round of its case in 1994, but the decision was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Southdale Center is also disputing. its assessed value. It will most likely take months, or even years, to resolve these cases. Specialty Centers Specialty centers in the Twin Cities metro area are gradually becoming a thing of the past as more existing centers reposition space. Specialty centers are typically asso- ciated with upscale retail, which has struggled in recent years. Riverplace in Minneapolis closed its Mississippi Live entertainment com- plex and is now renovating its space for office use. The Conservatory in downtown Minneapolis was pur- chased in 1994 and will likely be repositioned in 1995 due to histori- cally poor performance. Other cen- ters which have repositioned special- ty space in recent years include Bonaventure in Minnetonka, and Pavilion Place in Roseville. After removing Riverplace from our survey, 11 centers containing approximately 1.4 million sq. ft. of specialty retail space exist in the Twin Cities metro area. Of these remaining specialty centers, only the Galleria in Edina has historically PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTERS (1995 AND MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA Possible Size Center Development Name City Anchor(s) (sq. ft.) Type 1996) Breaking Ground Probable In Centre Pointe Roseville Office Depot 400,000 ( 1995 Fontana Square Vadnais Heights Target 260,000 C 1995 Hartford Place Eden Prairie Mervyn's, Office Depot 165,000 C 1995 Maple Grove Power Center Maple Grove Kohl's, Gander Mountain 260,000 C 1995 Midway Marketplace St. Paul KMart, Wards 485,000 C 1995 Northtown Village Blaine Sportmart, Media Play 175,000 C 1995 Park Place Plaza St. Louis Park Rainbow 420,000 C 1995 Roseville Crossings Roseville TBA 31,369 N 1995 Shops of Tyndale II Richfield Petsmart 100,000 C 1995 Tomarak Village Woodbury Cub Foods 750,000 C 1995 Eagan Promenade Eagan Home Depot, Byerly's, Mervyn's 416,000 C 1996 Inver Grove Center Inver Grove Heights TBA 300,000 C 1996 Maplewood Power Center Maplewood Cub Foods 215,000 C 1996 Ryan Center Brooklyn Park Home Depot 400,000 C 1996 The Quarry Minneapolis Rainbow 430,000 C 1996 Total proposed retail space = 4,807,369 sq. h. Center Types: C = Community Center N = Neighborhood Center © Towle Real Estate Company performed well. The current vacan- cy rate for specialty centers equals 25.9 %, and negative annual absorption was reported for first quarter 1995. Upscale retailers had a rough year in 1994. Established retailers such as Sims Clothiers and Mark Cross closed their doors. Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus added clearance areas to their Minneapolis stores. Market Outlook The primary story for the Minneapolis /St. Paul retail market in 1995 will be development. The hot property type in 1995 will once again be community centers, with over 4.8 million sq. ft. currently proposed throughout the Twin Cities. The potential exists for a repeat of 1990 when over 2 million sq. ft. of multi - tenant retail space came on line. This was the largest retail develop- ment year in the past decade, excluding the completion of the Mall of America in 1992. The mass entrance of national retailers into the Twin Cities market will continue in 1995. Possible new retailers entering our market over the next twelve months include Home Depot, Home Quarters, Pacific Linen, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Lil' Things, Kidsource and Today's Man. , The majority of today's growing retailers are "category killers ". Extreme price- sensitive competition will continue to grow in the retail market, possibly forcing out weaker retailers. The national "category Maple Grove Power Center, proposed Community Center, Maple Grove killer" chains have strong buying power, and operate on higher volume sales and lower profit mar- gins. Local retailers will continue to struggle in 1995. Competition between larger "category killer" retailers will also be fierce. Price wars between retail giants such as Best Buy and Circuit City, Comp USA and Computer City, and Office Max and Office Depot, may cause retail center casu- alties. Best Buy won its latest war in the Twin Cities with Highland Superstores, which was forced out of the market in 1991. While retail development con- tinues to focus on the second and third -tier suburbs such as Woodbury, Maple Grove and Eden Prairie, redevelopment of inner -ring suburbs and urban locations should happen in 1995. The proposed Midway Marketplace development located along University Avenue in St. Paul would redevelop the old Montgomery Wards site. This development proposal has been hampered by environmental con- cerns but should break ground in 1995. The Quarry site in Minneapolis, near Johnson Avenue 35% 30% Z 25% w 20% W IL 15% 10% 5% 0 Specialty � Regional RENT AND EXPENSES MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL METRO AREA - FIRST QUARTER 1995 © Towle Real Estate Company and I -35W, is a redevelopment pro- posal of aging industrial and com- mercial buildings into a modern community retail facility. Ryan Companies is planning to redevelop the former Honeywell site in St. Louis Park. Proposals for redevel- opment of the Sears Tower site on Lake Street in Minneapolis may sur- face in 1995 as well. Older centers will continue to renovate and remodel space in order to stay competitive by minimizing common areas and upgrading exteri- ors. Older existing retail centers' largest competing advantage over newer centers is rental levels. Controlling rising operating expens- es is critical in order to maintain healthy effective rental rates, and hold value. A growing disparity in property values between newer, national -ten- ant anchored centers and older tra- ditional strip centers anchored by local and regional tenants will occur in 1995. Demand by investors and lenders for prime retail property is growing, pushing capitalization rates down. Specialty retailing should con- tinue to succeed in isolated urban areas such as the 50th and France area and Grand Avenue in St. Paul, as well as unique suburban locations such as Downtown Wayzata. Look for more specialty shopping centers to rethink tenant mixes and uses in 1995, minimizing their concentration of upscale retailers. Plans for a new regional mall in Maple Grove should become more concrete in 1995. The two proposals for this development are still in very preliminary stages. This project most likely will not break ground until 1996, if at all. Look for stronger absorption of retail space over the next twelve months due to more retailers enter- ing and expanding in the Twin Cities. Vacancy rates will most likely rise with the potential for heavy retail construction in 1995. © Towle Real Estate Company ..:,_ Neighborhood � Community TOWLE REAL ESTATE 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Median Net Rent Center Type low High Net Rent Range Avg. CAM Avg. Taxes Community $10.00 S14.00 $5.00 - $25.00 $1.85 $2.86 Neighborhood $8.00 S11.00 S1.50 - $20.00 $1.56 S2.52 Specialty $12.00 523.50 $10.00 - $50.00 $6.30 $4.67 Regional S15.00 $35.00 S5.00 - S65.00 $6.57 S6.70 © Towle Real Estate Company and I -35W, is a redevelopment pro- posal of aging industrial and com- mercial buildings into a modern community retail facility. Ryan Companies is planning to redevelop the former Honeywell site in St. Louis Park. Proposals for redevel- opment of the Sears Tower site on Lake Street in Minneapolis may sur- face in 1995 as well. Older centers will continue to renovate and remodel space in order to stay competitive by minimizing common areas and upgrading exteri- ors. Older existing retail centers' largest competing advantage over newer centers is rental levels. Controlling rising operating expens- es is critical in order to maintain healthy effective rental rates, and hold value. A growing disparity in property values between newer, national -ten- ant anchored centers and older tra- ditional strip centers anchored by local and regional tenants will occur in 1995. Demand by investors and lenders for prime retail property is growing, pushing capitalization rates down. Specialty retailing should con- tinue to succeed in isolated urban areas such as the 50th and France area and Grand Avenue in St. Paul, as well as unique suburban locations such as Downtown Wayzata. Look for more specialty shopping centers to rethink tenant mixes and uses in 1995, minimizing their concentration of upscale retailers. Plans for a new regional mall in Maple Grove should become more concrete in 1995. The two proposals for this development are still in very preliminary stages. This project most likely will not break ground until 1996, if at all. Look for stronger absorption of retail space over the next twelve months due to more retailers enter- ing and expanding in the Twin Cities. Vacancy rates will most likely rise with the potential for heavy retail construction in 1995. © Towle Real Estate Company ..:,_ Neighborhood � Community TOWLE REAL ESTATE 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 I Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. I H K 3i I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director From: Fred Hoisington, AICP, HKGi Date: September 27, 1995 Subject: Ward Property, Villages on the Ponds INTRODUCTION Because of the complicated nature of this very large Planned Unit Development (PUD), Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was asked to review the Villages on the Pond development proposal for 73 acres of land located south of Highway 5 and on either side of Trunk Highway 101. The plan was reviewed by HKGi considering its relationship to downtown Chanhassen, the degree to which it fits the natural environment, the degree to which the plan meets application requirements, its ' consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, codes and ordinances and how the project might benefit the City, thus warranting the use of PUD as the appropriate application process. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The 73 acre parcel which is the subject of consideration is owned by the Wards. It extends from STH 5 to just south of Riley Creek. The site has approximately 70 feet of topographic change and includes both wetlands and trees. Much of the ' vegetation consists of young trees though there are some excellent stands of upland hardwoods generally located south and westerly on the site. The site is also partially within the statutory shoreland area of Lake Susan. ' The PUD is proposed to be mixed -use includin g retail, office and residential. It is intended to have a Village or 'New Urbanism" motif with generally smaller ' buildings setting near the street line and parking at the side or rear of structures, thus, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and a stronger and more appealing connection with the street. ' The Village center (Parcel 1 is intended to have larger g ) two buildings, comprising 40,000 square feet. A restaurant and motel are intended to occupy Parcel 2. The plan calls for 247,000 square feet of retail floor area, 203,600 square feet of office floor area and 100 dwelling units. The plan also proposes open space in the vicinity of Riley ' Creek and protection of the wooded and associated wetlands located just south of Highway 5. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835 -9960 Fax (612) 835 -3160 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Generally, the proposed roadway alignments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The land use is not, thus, requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the project is to move forward. While the plan addresses access, it does not restrict access to Highway 101 to insure proper spacing. Areas of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan include the substitution of retail development for office and industrial, the substitution of office for multi- family westerly of Great Plains Boulevard, an increase in residential density along the east side of the PUD and residential development in areas designated on the Comprehensive Plan for public open space. Proposed building heights also exceed zoning allowances. The PUD proposes anchors that are not architecturally in keeping with the Village Concept though it intends to have smaller buildings elsewhere which connote the Village Concept. These larger buildings are intended to be the traffic generators for Villages on the Ponds. The PUD in no way limits the use that can be made of commercial /retail sites. Virtually any use including free - standing fast food restaurants would be possible given the loose land use descriptions. The Plan calls for the elimination of existing Great Plains Boulevard though it fails to discuss how that vacation may be phased to accommodate site development. While the Plan attempts to provide access for the existing residences that are currently served by a private drive just to the east of the PUD, it does so in a manner which will be detrimental to the existing land form while providing relatively little access benefit to the residential area. The Plan proposes a rather significant intensity of office use in an area that has considerable relief and proposes residential "development on the hill near the south boundary of the PUD which has slopes approaching 20 percent. This means that the hill, which was intended to be preserved as an open space element, would need to be destroyed to accommodate eight residential units. Unwanted access to the highway will also be necessary to serve these unintended residences. The Plan proposes a bridge across the existing wetland to accommodate the extension of Lake Drive East, a bridge which is not defined by the Plan as to its character and /or impact on the wetland. The Plan does not address required wetland setbacks per the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance nor does it address the intensity of use allowed by the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. The site may, in fact, contain wetlands that are not shown on the Site Analysis Wetlands Map. While the use of PUD is intended to provide some flexibility in these matters, the Plan fails to address the City's ever present concerns for shoreland management, wetland protection and stormwater management. Some land consuming, pretreatment of stormwater will be required. This need is not addressed in the concept plan. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 2 Lam' �J n L [l r-, L 7i u The application is deficient in a number of ways. It does not meet the following PUD District and Shoreland Ordinance requirements: 1. It does not demonstrate how it will preserve desirable site characteristics (trees, open space, wetlands, Riley Creek, Lake Susan or scenic views). It fails to protect the desired open space and the hill located near the south boundary of the PUD. It also does not illustrate a mass grading concept for land that will need to be substantially altered to accommodate the intensity of development proposed. 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described above. 4. It does not provide open space that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. 6. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. 7. It does not stage and establish a time schedule for development. 8. It does not stage the construction of roadways considering the changes in roadway configuration that are proposed for the PUD. 9. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village Concept " 10. It defines no benefits that will accrue to the City as a result of approving the PUD other than an architectural style that is depicted photographically. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We very much like the Village Concept because it will have a distinct flavor that is unlike anything else that exists in the southwest corridor except perhaps the 50th and France commercial area. It has great potential to create a much more people friendly environment due to its compact nature and human scale. On the other hand, its very core will not be consistent with the Village Concept suggesting that the theme will be in jeopardy from the beginning. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 3 This is a very large and complicated PUD that has significant potential implications for the City of Chanhassen and downtown in particular in that it is intended to accommodate a great deal of competing retail space. The site contains wetlands, steep slopes and is partially situated within a shoreland area. We, therefore, do not believe a proposal that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan should have such frail documentation. Since the Plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City is in a position to require sufficient documentation to provide assurances that such project can and will be built, will be of sufficient benefit to the City to warrant the use of PUD, will not be detrimental to downtown and will be compatible with the natural environment and established land use patterns. These assurances have not yet been provided and in our opinion the City should not risk a change in public policy which could result in the duplication of things already existing in Chanhassen. Our concern is whether or not the Village Concept is viable for the City of Chanhassen given the immediate intent to violate it. Because so little information has been submitted to date, it is our opinion that the application is incomplete and, therefore, cannot be processed by the City. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, would require an amendment for the project to move forward. It does not demonstrate that it is consistent either with the natural environment or downtown Chanhassen and it provides insufficient description of the concept and how it would be applied to the Ward property. Of significant concern is how such a development can be approved and full assurances provided that it will be built as proposed. What if the concept is not marketable but the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the site to be developed commercially? What will have been gained by a change in public policy which would eliminate the potential for industrial and office and merely replace guided uses with duplicative retail development? The only way we can see this working, once the application is complete, will be to approve the PUD in concept but reguide and rezone only those parts which are defined as Phase I. In the event the concept fails to be viable, the changes in zoning and guide plan would revert to their current designations. Another major concern is the absence of benefit to the City of Chanhassen for using PUD. What does it get for providing increased flexibility to the developer? One thing that might be considered, assuming the City is happy with the treatment of wetlands, slopes, vegetation, etc., is the incorporation of a public transit element. An integrated park and ride lot or transit hub could provide significant benefit to the City warranting the use of PUD. The proponent will need to discuss viable concepts with Southwest Metro Transit Commission for providing such facilities. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 4 I I F7 L ! J i HKGi recommends that the application not be processed until such time as the application is fully complete. It should be understood that we are not asking for detail beyond that which the concept stage is intended to require. We must be able to determine from the information provided whether we agree with the land use proposed and how it will impact and /or benefit or be sensitive to the site, the neighborhood and the community. The information provided does not facilitate these understandings. In summary, the application is deficient in the following ways: 1. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not describe the benefits that will accrue to the City for amending the Comprehensive Plan. 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It does not demonstrate that added retail is justified or how it will impact downtown Chanhassen. 4. The proposed large anchor buildings are not consistent with the purported Village Concept. ' S. The Plan does not restrict land uses either by type or character. Guidelines describing the relationship between sites, buildings, parking and streets are only vaguely discussed. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the ' City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village Concept." ' 6. The Plan provides no rationale for increases in building height or density. 7. The Plan fails to restrict direct driveway access to Highway 101 to minimize ' traffic conflicts. 8. The Plan does not address the types, character and proposed treatment of ' vegetation on the site. 9. The Plan does not illustrate and /or discuss possible grading impacts. ' 10. The Plan does not address hasin either f land u p g e o d se or roadway ' improvements. 11. The Plan does not address stormwater management and the probable impact ' this may have on site development. 12. The Plan does not address the treatment or role of wetlands in the Plan ' concept. I City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 5 13. The Plan fails to illustrate how a development of such intensity is intended to protect the site's rich natural characteristics. 14. The Plan destroys some of the most important natural resources of the site (most notably the hill on the far south end of the Ward parcel). 15. The site may contain wetlands that are not shown on the proponents wetlands map. Some cursory investigation of the presence of other wetlands should be done as part of the concept stage. 16. The Plan is not consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study which discourages big box type developments. 17. The Plan does not address the benefits that may accrue to the City for using PUD. Though discussed with proponents, it does not address an integrated park and ride lot or transit hub which could provide significant benefit to the City warranting the use of PUD. 18. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 6 1 1 1� J ";5,500 S r � , 1, e ie • ••.•• +." 0 Retail h/ •••tt, e _Retail C13D 7;' , -I '. • 3.2 Ae r- `�' 33,500 S.F. Retail CBD I; • 1 , Ac' • 7.4 ' k Il' I • i. ` • R -12. r Il S4, 74 000 S.F. tta e 7.4 Ac. ANENT s0ADWAY 1J •I I()I, .. �e\ \:� E SLMENf • 90 .. �.:..,. • s _ II A/111 I e . I ' e r . • • t i \ ` f.0 Ac. r flo. SY MP S t O `.- - _ • EAS s -. e� f'Itc / wj 5,400 `�• � T'- � PEDMAI flOADWAY - !•- m 1 EASEME I' 4 ,O S pace 1 4 fEM t L ALICE �\l Kesidential I . I Ac. . csident 2 Units -+r 2,5 AC. li Units sus�ro Open Space �` I ✓` Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10 % Ward 7= T o 50 10o 200 Feet NortA Property IMPA P OAF VIA /�� O'S ®R NA Wi Ward 0 so 100 7= T 200 Feet � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � _ I � £A A t \ � S it e A n a lysis - Wetlands Ward 7_ *T* Pran prty VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Chanhassen, MN Crry RECHA H SSEN ACT 1995 C k iANhlHJatIV rtruyiy��yU utPT t TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Proposed Amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2. Villages on the Ponds, the PUD 3. Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits From the Use of the PUD Concept 4. Compliance with PUD Standards 5. General Concept Plan Requirements Amending the Comprehensive Plan ■ Forward ■ 1991 Plan ■ 1995 Amendment ■ Planning Commission Minutes ■ Comments ■ Summary ■ Exhibits FORWARD The application submitted by Lotus Realty Services, Inc., on behalf of the owners, John H., Mary E, Austin T. and William J. Ward, is for approval of a Planned Unit Development on what is commonly called "The Ward Property ". We are also applying for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A brief narrative accompanied our formal application. A more complete description of the concept of the PUD as well as reasons for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented for review as a part of the Concept Approval process. More detailed plans will be presented as a part of the Preliminary and Final Approval stages of the ' process. In addition, documents supporting Subdivision review will also be submitted. in conjunction with the Preliminary and Final Approval PUD review, as required by City Code. t In order for the development to go forward there must first (or simultaneously) be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this first section of our submission relates to the proposed amendment to the Comp Plan. When the Comprehensive Plan for the use of land in the City of Chanhassen was amended this summer as a part of an exercise surrounding the use of land along Highway 5, we had already had discussion with the Planning Commission about our current proposal. While they had concluded their deliberations on the Amendment to the Plan, the Council had not. We determined not to bring our proposal to the attention of the Council in an attempt to modify the proposed amendment because our proposed PUD would have required an amendment to the Comp Plan as it existed prior to the 1995 amendment as well. Because the plan was amended so recently, there is some confusion among participants in the process as to what actually was put in place relating to the Ward Property. The earlier plan and the proposed land use plan prepared as a part of the study of the Highway 101 corridor are very similar in land use designation. Both have commercial, office and residential use designations in approximately the same areas and both provided for some open space designation. The recent amendment not only changed the land use designation, it eliminated any land designated as open space. (A listing of the above three plans /studies' proposed land use as they effect the Ward Parcel and the uses proposed by the PUD on a parcel by parcel basis is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit A.) Be LJ I In support of our request for land designation as set forth on our proposed PUD we will first provide an historical review of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, some information from the Highway 101 Corridor Study, pertinent portions of the Highway 5 Corridor Study Report and briefly discuss the January, 1994 Planning Commission minutes reflecting their consideration of the 1995 amendment.. In subsequent sections we will review some of the reasons why our plan meets the intent of prior plans and studies, how it provides for the needs of the community and why the most recent amendment is inconsistent with those needs. 1991 Comprehensive Plan I The stated overall goal is to "Achieve a mixture of development (typo omitted) which will assure a high qualify of life and a reliable tax base. " Among the policies listed are these: "Chanhassen will continue to encourage the location of commercial uses in the central business district Commercial development outside the central business district and its fringe ' will be minimized until development of the central business district and fringe are largely completed " At the time the City's 1991 Comp Plan was adopted, the projected population estimates being used and as provided by the Metropolitan Council's demographers were 15,000 folks in 2000 and 17,500 folks in 2005. Today we have surpassed the year 2000 number and we are approaching the 2005 projection. I The Narrative section of the 1991 Comp Plan had this to say about Chanhassen's Commercial land: "Chanhassen currently has a supply of 118 acres of vacant commercial land within the ' present MUSA line. This supply, most of which is located within the downtown area or in close proximity to the downtown area is adequate to accommodate Chanhassen's growth ' through 1995. After 1995, commercial land demand in Chanhassen is more difficult to predict If the economy remains strong and housing starts remain at or near current levels, the demand for commercial property and particularly the demand by large scale users may intensify. The completion of 212 to TH 101 which is scheduled for completion by 1997 will also contribute to commercial demand " "This comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future. That expansion needs to be programmed consistent with the City's long - standing goal of developing the downtown area as the primary commercial focus. The future land use element of the comprehensive plan needs to accommodate the "germination" of the downtown area while accommodating future large -scale commercial users. " -3- At a second section entitled Commercial in the narrative section, the Plan goes on to say: "The City has maintained a long standard(sic) policy of directing commercial development into the Central Business District. Chanhassen is rather unique among suburban communities in that it has historically had and maintained an active downtown business community. In recent years, there has been substantial public and private investment in furthering development in this area and there is no desire on the part of the City to see that effort diminished by the construction of commercial centers oriented to highways outside the business district Consequently, it is anticipated that the overwhelming majority of new commercial development will occur in and around the Central Business District, primarily north along Highway 5, but also in the newly developed area south of Highway S located along relocated Highway 101. (The Ward Property) Additional commercial development is anticipated in the mixed use area illustrated around the Highway 1011212 interchange A total of 129 acres in commercial designation is being proposed It is anticipated that this is sufficient to serve the needs of the community through the planning period " In the sections immediately following the above, these observations are a part of the Plan.: "Various types of office uses are accommodated in the commercial and industrial future land use categories. The plan designates a location along TH 101 as pure' off ce This site which totals approximately 11 acres was designated in a TH 101 corridor study in response to specific site characteristics including transportation access, topography and proximity to existing and planned residential areas. " The initial 1991 Plan, which recognized the need for substantially more industrial land, increased the available acreage from the then 95 acres to 520, making a total of 638 acres. Contrary to the 1995 amendment, the 1991 plan designated four areas: 1. "The logical extension of industrial uses west of the current terminus of the MUSA line, a short distance to the east branch of Bluff Creek... serviced primarily by Audubon Road to the east and Highway 5 to the north. 2. The south side of the intersection of Highway 5 and.41. 3. South of the railroad tracks between Audubon Road and Lyman Blvd. 4. The west side of Bluff Creek adjacent to Lyman Blvd.. F 1 1995 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study The Executive Summary at the front of the Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study completed earlier but dated August, 1995, states that: ' Suitable land uses within the corridor were established by the city's 1990 Comprehensive Guide Plan. To a large extent, these land uses were confirmed or merely refined by the Highway S Corridor planning process. The only major geographic area for which new recommendations were made is that identified on the 1990 Guide Plan map as the "1995 Study Area ". This area lies on the north side of Highway S between Galpin Boulevard on the east and TH 41 on the west It does not appear; therefore, that it was the intent of this Task Force that the major changes that were made by the 1995 amendment to the Guide Plan as they affect the Ward property would be ' made. Under the Goals and Policy section, relating to Land Use, the Study document says: Goal. The Highway S Corridor Plan defines a mixture of land uses that supports the concept of developing a diverse community according to the goals contained in the City Comprehensive Plan. Land use decisions should seek to develop and support an image of Chanhassen as a community with solid residential neighborhoods, a cohesive downtown, a diverse economy, and a strong social fabric, We believe our ro osed PUD meets this goal. P P 8 Policy: The Highway 5 plan should determine land use designations for the 1995 Study Area identified near the intersection of Highways S and 41, as well as for other undetermined (underlining added) parcels located within the corridor. The purpose of defining land uses is to promote more efficient planning in the corridor and assist property owners and residents in understanding what may occur in the future, It does not imply that these parcels will be ' brought within the MUSA line in any particular time frame, These decisions will be made by the City Council at some point in the future, It appears from the above that the emphasis was particularly on parcels outside of the MUSA line and other undetermined parcels. The Ward property was neither of these and it was outside the defined corridor study area. i� The concluding paragraph of the Purposes and Intent section says: in these provisions is intended to stifle creativity or artistic expression. Rather, the I Nothing P tY P provisions are intended to challenge design professionals to create extraordinary sites and buildings within a context that is unique to Chanhassen. I Chapter 4, entitled Land Use Within the Highway 5 Corridor, states that the objective of the task force was to ensure that the land use recommendations in the 1990 Comp Plan were still sound given the newly configured roadways; to refine or change those recommendations as needed and to make recommendations for the 1995 Study Area identified in the 1990 Plan. To that end and since there was a reconfigured roadway within the Ward Property, the Task Force listed potential ' uses and included three potential land use plans. The Task Force also reiterated at this section that the central business district should remain compact and well- defined. Retail uses are to be largely confined to this part of the city. Under the heading Retai/Commercial, the narrative , states: Specialty retail and neighborhood commercial may be appropriate; however, environmental constrains (e.g. significant wetland area) must be recognized and preserved intact. Residential. May be appropriate at south end of property. Office /Industrial: "Clean" industrial use (e.g. light assembly or high -tech) office, or institutional use (e.g., parochial school) appropriate but only on a small scale. The language of the summary recommending paragraph relating to the Ward property is not clear in that the terms "low density" and "medium density" are used to apply to something other than ' residential and we are used to using these terms to apply to single family, townhouses, etc. The recommendation reads: Low density, office, light industrial, or institutional uses adjacent to TH S, medium density south of Lake Drive, office or medium density west of Highway 101; residential possible in southern portion of the parcel. The intended recommendation of the Task Force is more clear in the three Site Development Concept plans which were included in the section. (Copies are at Exhibit B at the end of this section.) These plans propose three alternate routes for Lake Drive. In every case, the Task Force recommends some retail in the area between Highway 5 and each of the Lake Drive Alternatives tha proposed. Each scenario also includes some office, two include some institutional and one includes some High Tech Industrial (small footprint buildings), all at the Uner portion of the parcel. The plan which included the Lake Drive alignment which was ultimately selected by the Council indicates retail/institutional and office north of Lake Drive and Office/Retail and Office south of Lake Drive; however, the Council, on recommendation of the Planning Commission, changed the designated use to O/I, a use which incidentally was not included on the Task Force's alignment plan selected.. 1 to us from reviewing the Task Force Report that a careful stud of the Hi hwa It seems clear g p y g y 5 Corridor was undertaken which focused primarily on the 1995 Study Area and on the impact on land along Hwy. 5 by the creation of the frontage road system. The Ward Property initially did - 6- 1 i ' not appear to fall into either category in that the area of frontage roads studied in the report was defined as to the south side as that area between Audobon Road and Highway 41. Be that as it may, the alignment of the portion of Lake Drive which runs through the Ward Property was also included in the Task Force's deliberations. By definition, charge to the Task Force and therefore their mission, did not include the requirement of careful analysis of the economic impacts of the recommendations as a primary responsibility. Thus, while we believe a careful evaluation of the " impact on a reliable tax base" as well as other economic aspects needed to be considered in amending guide plan - -as it was in the ' preparation of the initial plan - -it was not a requisite of the Task Force. That responsibility must, however be recognized by the Council and to the extent requested to do so by the Council, should ' be dealt with by the Planning Commission as well. F7 Li Planning Commission Minutes ' We have read the minutes of that part of the Planning Commission dated January 14, 1994, which ' contains a discussion of the change in the Guide Plan as it relates to the Ward property. The discussion revealed opinions ranging from adamant support from one of the members for retail on the site to a fairly negative response to retail on the part of the chair. Other members expressed , an openness, concern for a degree control no matter what the use, the observation that there was no evidence available to support the need for retail (no compelling reason) and whether or not this area should be a part of Chanhassen's CBD, the need for a sense of community, and an apparently unanimous desire to avoid a 10 -acre type box store. In the end the group removed the commercial and office segment from the recommended use and appeared to approve the currently guided use on the basis of chair's proposal that "Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that ?" The Planning Commission's sensitivity to big box users and their skepticism as to the ability to avoid them, led to their decision. We understand why they took the action they did, and we are submitting a proposal which not only provides the opportunity to be a part of establishing ' development criteria and but also provides an assurance that the big box users will not be accommodated. I Comments Retail: 1 The research supporting the preparation of the 1991 Comp Plan and the conclusions drawn have proven to be very precise. The conclusion was that we had enough land for a period through 1995. By the end of this year, plans for nearly all of the remaining parcels in the existing downtown will have been considered for approved. In addition, plans will have been considered for the approval of a redevelopment of a major area of downtown. As the 1991 planners predicted, there were three large -scale commercial users, assuming market Square is included in the Target and Byerly's category. The City then as now intended that the commercial focus stay on our downtown and because they realized more space would b needed for the downtown area, they anticipated that the needed new commercial space would occur around the existing downtown on the north of Hwy. 5 and in the "area south of 5 located along relocated 101" Since the only expansion north of Hwy. 5 would have to through purchase and/or condemnation of improved parcels, it seems prudent that the planned for downtown expansion occur on the south of Hwy. 5 on the Ward property as we are proposing. The 1991 Plan anticipated that this area would provide a 5 year supply. The absorption rate for the past 4 years indicates that it will provide a 4 year supply. If, however, the Moretnson/American Legion site is added, there would then be a 5 year supply. Office/Industrial: The 1991 Study/Plan in its wisdom also recognized the need for pure office and designated a portion of the Ward property for that use. While our plan provides for commercial/retail on that specific site so that we can provide the critical mass needed for the project, our plan provides for that needed pure office space at locations immediately adjacent to the originally proposed site and immediately adjacent to Rosemount. This latter location, adjacent to Rosemount, will not require a change in the Comprehensive Plan in that the 1995 amendment provides for that use. The 1991 Plan did not suggest 0/1 immediately adjacent to the existing downtown because they ' recognized that area would be needed for Commercial. They did recognize the need for 0/1 and fisted four logical areas for the expansion of this use. We agree with their logic. -9- Summary It is our conclusion after reviewing all of the above documents and plans that, with the apparent exception of the action of the Planning Commission and Council with respect to the 1995 Amendment, there have been consistent conclusions by the various study commissions and by the City in developing its thoughtful Comprehensive Plan, that there will some day be a need for more retail and more office space and that need will, in logical fashion, be met by the use of the Ward Parcel. Much thought, study and analysis went into each of these conclusions. Even the Planning Commission with respect to the 1995 amendment appeared to be desirous of leaving the door open. Unfortunately the amendment to the Guide Plan as finally passed dealt with the entire Ward parcel, not just the portion that was included in the Highway 5 Corridor Study and therefore not just the portion of the Ward parcel that was considered by the Planning Commission in the meeting described above. Therefore, the City cannot employ the 25% provision assumed by the Planning Commission in approving the PUD being proposed and we are requesting an amendment. Based on all of the prior studied reasoning as to providing retail and office use on this property, we believe there is ample justification for a commitment to amend the Comp Plan in order to allow the Proposed PUD to go forward to further review at the Preliminary Approval stage. In addition there appears to be a further need to amend the Plan based on prior intent that there be some open space use designated in the southern portion of the Ward Parcel. In subsequent sections, and using, the last suggestion by the Planning Commission as a segue, we will attempt to provide additional justification and compelling reasons why the plan should be amended as well as why the PUD being proposed should be given Conceptual Approval . Subsequent sections will include: A. Description of the proposed PUD. B. Discussion on how the PUD meets the intent and needs recognized in prior plans and studies. C. Economical reasons for the need for additional retail and some exclusively office zoning. D. Advantages to the City of Chanhassen as a whole and the existing CBD District in particular in expanding retail/commercial to the Ward Property. 1 r] F, � EXHIBITS � ■ A. Parcel by Parcel Comparison of: � 1991 Comp Plan, HWY 101 Corridor, ' 1995 Amendment and Proposed PUD � ■ B. Site Development Concepts by 1995 � Task Force Parcel by parcel history and comparison of land uses as set forth in the 1991 Comp Plan, the Highway 101 Corridor Study, the 1995 Amendment to the Comp Plan and the proposed PUD. Parcel #1. Comp Plan Office Hwy 101 Office Amendment 01/1 (except small area on east: R Low) PUD CBD Parcel #'s 2 and 3. Comp Plan Commercial Hwy 101 Commercial/Office Amendment OM PUD CBD Parcel #4 Comp Plan NE 2/3: R -Med; W 1/3: Office) All three of these Hwy 101 R -Med. ) plans had a road going Amendment NE 2/3: R -Med; W 1/3: R -Low) through the parcel. PUD CBD Parcel #5. Comp Plan R -Low Hwy 101 SF; portion along south: OS Amendment N 1/2: 01/1; S 1/2: R -Low PUD Office Parcel #'s 6 and 7. Comp Plan R -Med Hwy 101 R -Med Amendment O/R -Med PUD O/IOP Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 Parcel # 8. Comp Plan East portion primarily road; NW 1/4: O; S 1/4: R -Low Hwy 101 East portion primarily road; NW: R -Med; S: SF Amendment East portion primarily road; W & S: R -Low PUD R -12 Parcel #9. Comp Plan R -Low Hwy 101 R -Low (SF) Amendment R -Low PUD R -12 Parcel #10. Comp Plan N 1/2: R -Med; S 1/2: OS Hwy 101 North edge: R -Med; Balance: OS Amendment O/R -Med PUD R -Low Parcel #11. Comp Plan OS Hwy 101 OS Amendment R -Low PUD R -Low Open Space Comp Plan Provided at lower portion of Project Hwy 101 Provided at lower portion of Project Amendment None provided PUD Provided at lower portion of Project, with portions designated as Parcels Nos. 10 and 11. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 /O SfudJ puA Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3 w 5 /995 �4me�dm�t WARD PRfflkVM CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Q ❑ / JUN MENDED AUGUST 6,1993 l u l " 0 1 00 xe BARTON- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. PRESERVE'WETLAND \ I p�VE WETLAND r 1 � • - :PLi�PEE - DRIVE WITH LAKE LAST DRIVE -� 'LAND USE ALTERNATIVES _ A. RETAIL s B. OFFICE N, C. HIGH TECH INDUST (SMALL FO BUILDINGS) PRESERVE PROMINENT VEGETATION w= 7.0 AC /._•... 10.0 AC PRESERVE SELECT ❑ TREE VEGETATION POTENTIAL PARCEL ACCESS LAND USE ALTERNATIVES A. OFFICE _ B. INSTITUTIONAL A. SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Exhibit B, Page 1 of 3 s� • `\ Rho f � ` 1 1 l \ ALIGN.ENTI4NMDRIVE " s WITH EAST LAKE DRIVE .. , 3 PRESERVE PR VEGETATION 0 B. SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Exhibit B, Page 2 of 3 El WARD PROPERTY CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTAv JUNE 9,1993 AMMENDED AUGUST 6,1993 e�iae BARTON- ASCIIMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. PRESERVE WETLAND PRESERVE SELECT ❑ TREE VEGETATION 2.6 AC g ` • • ' a LAlCr fMWF EAj OFFICE/ 111 VATU 0 AC) RETAIL ?►SAC ' WARD PROPERTY CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Luj . AMMENDED AUGUST 6,1993 BARTON- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. i I PROPOSED >rdCATION VOR LAKE.DRIV EAST POTENTIAL PARCEL ` ACCESS PRESERVE PR VEGETATION �— — PRESERVE WETLANDS • • J 2.0 AC e ❑ PRESERVE HIGH QUALITY TREES won BY SELECTIVE CUTTING RET IL 2.5 AC I PO I ENTIAL PARCEL ACCESS __ f �.,�.'.�, SSA PRESERVE TREE MASSING AND WETLANDS wv 7"*lX. • LAND USE ALTERNATIVES A. OFFICE B. INSTITUTIONAL 4.5 AC wX "'Arlo REMOVE OLD TH 101 C. SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Exhibit B, Page 3 of 3 VILLAGES ON THE I PONDS The PUD F' 71 L 7 � The PUD � ■Overview ■ Site � ■Development Scheme: ' ■Circulation ' ■ CBD /Retail Development ■Office Development � ■Residential � ■Open Space ' ■Surma ■ Exhibits r_ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Overview Villages on the Ponds is a proposed development for the Ward Property, a parcel consisting of approximately 67 acres, lying at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101, or Market Boulevard. The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail - office - residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and the expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character, using both on and off - street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character. The flexibility for fulfilling both the intent and the theme are most reasonably assured by a CBD underlying designation for a major portion of the site. For other portions we are requesting Office and a variety of residential densities as the underlying designation for this PUD zoning request. Site The property is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of trees, most of which are softwoods, consisting of poplar, aspen, ash and elm which have grownup over the last 10 years. Prior to that time, the upper areas were still farmed or grazed. The southern portion of the site consists of more steeply sloped terrain facing both Lake Susan and the wetlands associated with Rice Marsh Lake. On some of the more heavily sloped areas are hardwoods consisting of more mature maple and oak. More mature hardwoods are also found around the old farmstead which is on the westerly edge of the site and along the easterly property line. There are a number of wetlands located upon the Ward property. At the southern portion of the site is the major wetland at Rice Marsh Lake. At the northern portion of the site is a large wetland along with two smaller wetlands. Along Highway 101 is another small wetland at the center of the site. Our preliminary Wetlands Site Analysis which accompanies this submission reflects information obtained from the City and from physical observation. A Wetlands delineation study will be undertaken as a part of the Preliminary Plan stage. While the site contains a number of sensitive environmental areas, these areas also provide development opportunities that are highly desirable. These sensitive areas will require smaller building pads and more vertical development. Some sites will also require that some parking be located within or under the buildings. It is the overall intent that the "Ponds" development will retain the major hardwoods and steep slopes and ponds which give this site its intrinsic value. 1 1 F� u -1 -1- 1 7 ' The wetlands and ponds on the portion of the site that is to be developed are an integral part of the theme of the development, providing water views in the summer and skating in winter. The development will comply not only with the City's Shoreline Management. and Wetland Protection ' Ordinances, but will also be done in a way that enhances these natural amenities. It only makes economic sense to retain these elements which are highly desirable by today's developers and future retailers, user and/or residents. In addition the concept presented proposes to leave ' untouched a vast area at the south which includes additional wetlands.. For subsequent approval steps, exact delineation of the wetlands will be provided along with enhancement methods. It is the intent that all required setbacks associated not only with the natural wetlands and major bluff lines will be adhered to. Additionally, all facilities will be ' designed to provide pretreatment of stormwater run -off to protect the wetlands. Grading on the development parcels toward the southern portion of the site will be limited to small development pads and the access routes to them. 1 I►M DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Circulation Villages on the Ponds will utilize Highway 101 as its major access and major north -south circulation element. The extension of the Lake Drive frontage road system will be developed to provide the major east -west circulation element. One additional roadway is proposed to link Lake Drive to Highway 101 to provide access to various parcels and to provide an additional route into the existing downtown of Chanhassen. Access into the development parcels off Highway 101 will be provided at the intersections of Lake Drive and at the intersection of the new southern loop road. The major access to the retail parcels would be off Lake Drive and the south loop road. The development proposes that the buildings would be located adjacent to the roadway rights -of -way. Parking would be provided at the side and at the rear of buildings. To create a pedestrian - friendly retailing experience, we are requesting that on- street parking be allowed along both Lake Drive and the south loop street. Two additional roadways are illustrated on the concept plan. The large single family lots lying to the east of the Ward property are currently served by a long private drive. It is both the City's and the residents' desire to have a public roadway. Due to existing vegetation and topography, it appears that the only way to provide access to the majority of these adjacent parcels is with two cul -de -sacs. If the property owners can provide internal circulation, then only one cul -de -sac would be required, which would result in less disruption to the terrain. An integral part of the circulation is the trail system provided throughout the project and around many of the wetlands. This trail system would be integrated into an extension urban sidewalk system serving the retail parcels and would provide linkages to the City -wide system currently in place along Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. CBD/Retail Development As stated earlier the concept of the "Villages on the Ponds" is to develop a small intimate retail village. The retail village will be characterized by one and two -story buildings with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. The buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows and possibly chimneys. The structures will be primarily placed up close to the major roadways to create a small downtown village atmosphere. It is the intent that each building will contain a number of retail uses. Some buildings might contain a more major anchor, using say 20,000 square feet, but the architecture would be detailed such that the image is not of one large building or user, rather an image of multiple users. Where appropriate, buildings would be architecturally linked by roofs, canopies or low walls. 1 0 n �I Pedestrian- scaled lighting will be provided along with heavy landscaping and small intimate ' seating areas and focal points. The majority of this CBD area contains none of the major hardwoods. The ponds and wetlands ' associated with these areas would be retained and enhanced to provide pedestrian amenity and vistas into the area. There is one major ridge line which runs east -to -west through the largest parcel. This ridge would probably be eliminated but as the project begins further refinement, there ' may be opportunities to prove access into multi - storied buildings constructed into the ridge line. ' At this concept phase the various uses that are anticipated would include: Destination retail, specialty retail, apparel, outfitters, restaurants, household furnishings, domestics, office supply, small offfices -- insurance, investment, medical, including veterinary- -, lodging, convenience. ' Library, should the library wish to consider a second story location over the retail, for example. While the above list was developed for creating an example for this submission, we do not intend ' that it is inclusive, we do however intend not to provide for big box use or for grocery store use. ' The mix of uses is designed to allow a shared parking scheme which could include parking for transit usage. The intensity of the development will be further dictated by the parking requirements of the users, as well as the terrain and wetlands. The roadway system will also ' provide for convenient transit opportunities and parking. And the site will be further delineated in cooperation with Southwest Metro to provide for transit hub service by Southwest Metro. Because the plans for this service are in very early stages, it is only presumed that it will occur on ' or near the retail area, but it could also occur on or near the office areas. The retail development has been located on that portion of the site which has the least sensitive environment. Those wetlands within the retail area will be protected and enhanced. There are no significant stands of upland hardwood vegetation and the ridge line is a small linear hill with a ' 15 -20 foot rise running through the middle of the larger retail parcel. I Office Development ' While the retail area is located within an area where there are few natural amenities, the office parcels are located on land that contains the majority of the steeper slopes and major stands of hardwood vegetation. For that reason, it was decided to provide a land use which would not ' require large building pads and could provide vertical development. It is proposed that these office sites will each be developed as a single 3 -4 story building with some underground parking. Each site contains a small central area which is generally flat and developable. The perimeter of each of these sites will remain untouched, with the building and surface parking tucked within the surrounding major trees and steeper topography. All three of these sites provide development -4- opportunities for a very attractive office development, two of which will be located and designed to provide a dramatic entry to the CBD from the south along Hwy 101. Based on the anticipated intensity of development, the actual building pad would be in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 20,000 SF., (.3 -.5 Acre) on sites ranging from 4.0 to 6.6 acres. Potentially 25% of the parking requirement could be provided underground, leaving 75% of the parking requirement to be met by surface parking. In all cases both building pad and surface parking would require about 50% of each parcel. The same potential for a reduction in the maximum .30 FAR indicated by the accompanying site illustration, exists at the office sites. This FAR reflects maximum utilization. The terrain and natural amenities may dictate a lesser FAR. Thus, we believe that there is simply not another land use which would provide a greater opportunity to preserve the natural qualities of these parcels. Residential The concept plan proposes a multi - family residential parcel along the eastern property line. This parcel is located adjacent to developed (approximately a half dozen) large single family lots. The exiting Guide Plan suggests that this area be utilized for single family residential. This area also contains a number of hardwoods and steep slopes. Given the existing terrain, this area does not lend itself to typical single family development because of the vast amount of clearing and grading that is necessary for the roadways, driveways and building pads. For this reason, it is proposed to develop two multi - family residential buildings on this site. The northerly portion is proposed for a senior housing and the southerly portion for a 2 -3 story apartment with some underground parking as well as surface parking. This project would provide a moderate income level of rental housing. Both of these residential projects will have an architectural image similar to the retail villages, yet with greater residential flavor. Many of the reasons dictated by the terrain for the office usage on their sites are consistent with the reasons for multi- residential usage on these sites. The sites contain some rather steeply sloped terrain and associated hardwoods. By developing a multi - family project with underground parking, the majority of the site can remain undisturbed. In addition we will attempt to locate the building pads near the new roadways system, which will not only protect the terrain and hardwoods, but will also provide the greatest degree of privacy for the neighbors to the east as well as adding to the 'village' flavor of the project. There are two remaining parcels which are identified as potential residential use. These sites are at the southern portion of the Ward property and are on either side of Highway 101. The parcel on the west side of Highway 101 and on Lake Susan is proposed as one single family lot or possibly a twin home. As Highway 101 is relocated in the future, access to this lot would be provided by old 101 which would cul -de -sac at this lot. The residential parcel on the east side of Highway 101 is proposed as a very small multifamily project of 6 -8 townhouse units. This parcel contains a large hill covered by a variety of both -5- 0 �I ' upland hardwoods and lowland vegetation. This residential project would be tucked into the side of the hill and again would preserve the majority the existing terrain and vegetation. I Open Space ' The majority of the proposed open space consists of the wetlands and buffer area around Rice Marsh Lake. The open space also contains Riley Creek and the lands adjacent to the Creek. No improvements are proposed for these areas; however, existing zoning proposes that this area be used for single family development. ' NOTE: To assist in understanding the location of the various major parcels within the proposed PUD, a brief narrative of each and a numbered map is attached as an Exhibit to this section. !M Summary The proposed development will require an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic issues related to the request to change the Comprehensive Plan. These issues are the proposed land uses and the amount of retail use. The current Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as a combination of industrial, institutional, office and residential, whereas the Plan prior to the 1995 amendment recognized the need for additional retail and guided portions of the land accordingly. With the exception of offices, the guided uses are simply not compatible with the natural features of the site. The Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan proposes land uses which are land - consuming uses which require either larger horizontal building pads or single family, which are extremely difficult to develop on heavily sloped terrain. Grading would require the removal of large stands of vegetation and would destroy virtually all of the ridge lines. The proposed PUD complements the preservation of natural site features while providing a mix of uses complementary to the existing Chanhassen downtown area. The amount of retail use is a critical issue for Chanhassen and must be addressed and resolved The existing downtown area of Chanhassen is currently almost 100% filled with either existing developments or approved development projects. (See Exhibits at the end of this section relating to Currently Available Parcels and Absorption.) It was decided years ago that the Comprehensive Plan should recognize the desire to first fully develop downtown and then rethink the need for additional retail areas. In fact the Ward Parcel was designated as a retail area in the that Comp plan. Within the amended Comp Plan there is very limited opportunity to provide small areas of neighborhood retail and highway commercial areas at the transportation modes. Today the City of Chanhassen has roughly 1.5% of its land either presently zoned of guided for retail or commercial use. (See Exhibit at the end of this section.) Typically free - standing communities such as Chanhassen have approximately 7.8% of land devoted to retailing or commercial use. (Source: Urban Land Institute and American Planning Association.) The Ward property offers the only viable land available to expand the downtown of Chanhassen. The viability of existing downtown needs a critical mass or square footage that provides an opportunity to offer a sufficient variety of retailing opportunities such that the residents of Chanhassen will utilize the downtown. If the downtown provides only a limited amount of comparison shopping, the users simply keep turning over. The existing downtown area of Chanhassen simply does not provide sufficient square footage and opportunities for a wide variety of retailing opportunities which a City the size of Chanhasseds potential requires and/or will require. (See comments on Critical Mass as an Exhibit at the end of this section.) Villages on the Ponds is the only logical expansion to downtown. The center will provide a mix of retail and office uses and it integrates into the downtown area additional residential projects, which contribute to the viability of downtown. The proposed development respects the natural elements of the site and provides a development which will retain those natural aspects of the site which give it its intrinsic value. 0 0 � EXHIBITS 1 � ■ A. Parcels By Number and Map � ■ B. Currently Available Parcels ' ■ C. Absorption ■ D. Chanhassen Land Use by Type � ■ E. Critical Mass VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Parcel -by- Parcel Proposed Plan ' The size of this project and the variety of uses within it dictate that there must be a focal point - - -an area where the greatest amount of emphasis on design is placed. Retail use and retail -type buildings lend themselves best to this effort and we have therefore designated the retail , Parcel No. l area as the Village Center. This area will be the focal point of the project. The Village Center will encompass all of Parcel No. 1 and this parcel is the key to the success of , the development. Not only is it the focal point, its design sets the tone for the balance of the area to be developed. (The numbering of the parcels are for purposes of tracking the descriptions in this memo only.) Parcel No. 1: In order to assure the success of this village center retail sector, we have planned for a minimum ' of two retail anchors of approximately 20,000 SF each. This size is necessary to provide the type of destination traffic that will allow us to attract the smaller merchants and allow them to succeed. Particularly in parcel No. 1 and at every possible opportunity in Parcels 2, 3 and 4, it is our intent to orient the buildings toward the street, around the edge of the parcel, with parking both on the streets and behind the buildings, whenever possible in interior parking courtyards. This will not only enhance the appearance but will also provide easy pedestrian access. Specific design guidelines will be used for this area in addition to site plan criteria. This core area, for example, will have buildings only 1 and 2 stories high. Residents, employees, shoppers and visitors can conveniently walk to and from the village center and the sidsewalk/trail system will connect them with lake trails to the south and the CBD north of 5 as well. If there are to be apparel store in Chanhassen, they will locate here. The flavor of the majority of ' the businesses, however, will be dining, entertaining marketing and specialty stores. Parcel No. 2: The area closest to Number 1 and adjacent to the pond will be an extension of the core retail ' village. Although this site does not lend itself to the circular development as in No. 1, it has the added pond amenity and some buildings will be oriented to the pond, others toward the streets. At the northwest corner, and to be blended in with the rest of the parcel, we're planning two buildings, one a restaurant on the pond and the other a motel. Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 Parcel No. 3. �I I � L� This parcel will be planned to reflect the Village design look in uses which may include service retail, office, convenience, medical services, etc., taking advantage of the Village atmosphere, the pond and Highway #5. Parcel No. 4: Likewise, this site which can accommodate up to three smaller buildings clustered near the pond, will reflect the same design criteria. Parcels Nos. 5 and 6: These parcels each may accommodate more than one office building and design criteria will be established which captures the essence of the Villages. It is our intent to design those closest to Highway 101 for a dramatic impression on entering Chanhassen CB from the south. Parcel No. 7: This site will accommodate an extension of the design mode for offices on Parcels 6 and 7 and uses such as extended -stay lodging as well. New building construction will be located at the present site of the old farmstead with access from the north. Parcels Nos. 8 and 9: These parcels provide a buffer between the Villages and the existing residential neighbors. The roadway system also provides the neighbors with City Streets. Due to the need to maintain privacy for these neighbors by preserving tree stands, and therefore the need to avoid extensive disruption of the terrain, one apartment -type structure is planned for each. On No. 8, senior housing is anticipated and at No. 9 an apartment building, perhaps stepped and perhaps utilizing underground parking and based on 16 units per acre density will both utilize and protect the site to best advantage. I Parcels Nos. 10 and 11: ' These sites are lower density residential. The former will accommodate two nice single family lots or one two family structure. The latter lends itself to low density clustered homes in order to preserve the terrain and wonderful vistas in all directions. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 NS Uu - -I� y t� r. : G1 If ��'"' � � � • � X 11 ` ,.:l 1. fro j Iym rio : �r .L. �. � 111 `n V►■ , . - �� \►` / 1 iii 11 � I R11 11141 Mag Irl.i._ ,..■ .. r Or. RPN Mag JC7 i:iywjf �l iii NIF Wit ANN. mL - * 3� C t� �V�t��E m IE BEE NLL IP �I 11 .. tit as le is 41,118 - l"Vi 'a EMWRW JAB .. III /1 / /��■ � �. � /� ■ffin �� `I All P" `` PA 1 Absorption 1992 through 1995 Completed, Under Construction, Approved or to be Approved Project No. Sq. Ft. Market Square 88000 Americana Bank 6500 Medical Bldg, Phase 1 18000 Target 100000 Goodyear /Abra 12000 Hanus 1000 W. 79th Street 10000 Dinner Theatre Complex 12000 Colonial Plaza 9000 Town Square 4000 Market Square II 10000 Wendy's 2500 Byerly's and attached 80000 Kinko's 7000 Century Bank 5000 Boston Market 3000 Richfield Bank 5000 Hotel Expansion 12000 Perkins 5000 Taco Belle 1800 Market Square III 8000 Entertainment Complex 29000 W. 79th (HRA) 13700 Total 442500 Absorption per year (4 years) 110625 Villages on the Ponds: Commercial 247000 Office 203600 Total 450600 Number of Years' Supply 4.07 Exhibit C Lotus Realty Services V123H.WK4 1 CHANHASSEN USE OF LAND BY TYPE 1991 Comp Plan Public lndevelopable Other Developed 116 Universe SF MF Comm Ind Existing MUSA 5023 2617 43 117 432 Expanded MUSA 2780 467 0 lndevelopable Other Unaccounted Outside All MUSA 5524 1052 38 34 29 Total Developed 13327 4136 81 151 461 309 0 1294 1798 Undeveloped 1033 1294 1798 SF MF Comm Ind Existing MUSA Existing Est 5270 281 175 118 95 Expanded MUSA 1891 913 115 0.015 543 Outside All MUSA 0.078 14 Note: The "Other" category in the 1991 report contained a total of 260 acres designated as Ekankhar, Carlson and Carlson with the balance "V /A ". Total Undeveloped 1208 290 118 638 Total Developed and Undeveloped 5344 371 269 1099 Current Estimate Developed Expanded MUSA 122.8 736 Outside All MUSA 30.7 29 Totals 153.5 765 Park Public lndevelopable Other 375 116 Outside All MUSA 93 22.7 0 1322 917 Totals 1790 1033 Park Public lndevelopable Other Unaccounted 58 2099 463 113 211 291 147 40 540 1538 309 0 1294 1798 2099 1033 1294 1798 Developed Undeveloped Expanded MUSA 23.8 350 Outside All MUSA 22.7 0 Totals 46.5 350 Total Developed and Undeveloped 5270 360 200 1115 2099 1033 Comparison of 1991 Plan to Existing Estimate 1991 Plan 5344 371 269 1099 2099 1033 1294 % of Universe 0.401 0.028 0.020 0.082 0.157 0.078 0.097 Existing Est 5270 360 200 1115 2099 1033 1891 % of Universe 0.395 0.027 0.015 0.084 0.157 0.078 0.142 Note: The "Other" category in the 1991 report contained a total of 260 acres designated as Ekankhar, Carlson and Carlson with the balance "V /A ". Lotus Realty Services 1798 0.135 n/a 0.000 1359 0.102 V123G.WK4 Exhibit D Critical Mass Volumes of research have been compiled relating to the appropriate amount of retail, the critical mass. It is not our intent here to undertake to portray more than highlights and to relate them to Chanhassen's needs. Based on the commitment to directing commercial development to the downtown area, the 1990 planners perceived that the existing downtown would be filled by 1995 and that additional space would be needed. They designated the Ward property as the logical area for the needed expansion. We concur with their conclusions. The 1991 Plan lists 163 acres (although the appendix lists 15 1) acres as the current amount and goes on to say that they were adding 129 acres, for a total existing and planned of 280 to 292 acres. The current estimate of developed plus planned is 200 acres. The removal of the Ward parcel from the planned designation constitutes a major portion of this decrease since the Comp Plan was adopted. Thus, as of the 1990 projected total, the 292 acres represented 2.2% of Chanhassen's total acreage. As of 1995, the 200 acre estimate represents 1.5% of Chanhassen's total acreage. This is a dangerously low number, given the strong desire on the part of the community to maintain a viable downtown area. As is stated in our Submission, the Urban Land Institute and the American Planners Association both recommend 7.8% as the appropriate mass for free standing communities such as Chanhassen. It should be especially noted that this recommendation relates to free standing communities, it does not purport to be the recommended area for a regional center. The benefit to the community from a reasonable critical mass can best be explained by listing some of the negative things that happen without it. 1. For shopping other than destination, if there is little comparison shopping available, shoppers will go elsewhere both for value and for selection. A. That means that while destination retailers can survive, the specialty shops cannot. B. That means that there will be continual turnover as shops fail to survive. This is costly to owners and costly in City image. C. The final scenario is that after numerous turnovers, the space is leased at lower rates to less desirable users. D. The net result of all this is that there are lower property values and thus a lower tax d 1 C L J base. , Exhibit E. Page 1 of 2 ' 2. Due to the tremendous residential growth in the Southwest Area and with limited amount of available space for development, users will locate elsewhere in the SW Area. In our case they will leapfrog Chanhassen and locate in Chaska as it plans to continue its aggressive search and assist ' program, or to Victoria, as it is just beginning to awaken to the need for a balanced tax base, or to Waconia, which is also growing by leaps and bounds and has an open door policy toward commercial development. ' A. That means that our fledgling retail community will be faced with loss of traffic from competition outside Chanhassen. ' B. The results listed in items B through D above are then indicated. ' 3. The residential growth and the limited amount of space available in the downtown area will also put immense pressure on parcels of land outside the CBD area within Chanhassen. ' A. That means that in addition to items B through D listed at item No. 1 above, there is the possibility of multiple business districts within Chanhassen, which we have so anxiously sought to avoid. i Exhibit E, Page 2 of 2 1 Advantages of Proposed � Development Over � Currently Guided � Designation and � Benefits From the Use of � the PUD Concept � 1 ' Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits of the Use of the PUD Concept ' To further summarize and to compare the potential uses as guided under the current plan with the uses proposed in our PUD, we submit that the PUD offers the following advantages to the community. 1. Incomparable opportunity for the preservation of natural resources throughout the site, particularly at the south and east edges, where most of the desirable treestands and steeply sloped ' terrain occurs. In addition, it will preserve the habitat areas at the south which would otherwise be destroyed if developed as single family as is guided by the Amended Plan. Further, we will be providing much - needed drainage for the site so that more 'inadvertently man-made ponds' will not ' occur. 2. The only opportunity for expansion of complementary, smaller -scale retail/commercial ' character uses to downtown, thus creating a viable, unified and well- conceived retail hub and tax base for the City, a vibrant, well - performing downtown, yet with a village image. Not only does the project improve the image, it prevents incurable damage to the appearance which would occur with industrial (large) pads, which the currently amended Plan permits. ' Just as importantly it will prevent further deterioration of the east end of the existing downtown including the area along West 78th Street east of Market Boulevard and all of West 79th Street. This area has, since the development of Market Square, Target and Byerly's, felt the effect of the ' shoppers' predisposition to shop that western area of West 78th Street. This project, which will be complementary to the look and feel of the proposed Entertainment Complex redevelopment, will provide a balance in activity and excitement at the east end of the downtown as well and will help to provide additional traffic and awareness of what will then be the midsection of the Chanhassen Central Business District. ' 3. An opportunity to provide a staging area, possibly transit hub area for Southwest Metro particularly for its reverse commute busing services, which will be of benefit for all of downtown and for employers located in Chanhassen. ' 4. An opportunity to achieve a eater degree of quality and compatibility than would be PP tY �' g q tY P Y ' available if any portion of the parcel were not developed under a PUD, but rather parcel by parcel under the Plan. This is true whether the parcel is fully developed over the next two to three years, over the next 4 - 5 years as anticipated, or over the next 10 years, should some downturn befall ' the economy. 5. More than 50% of this site lies outside of the Highway 5 Corridor overlay district which ' establishes certain design and site improvement standards. This PUD proposal provides the -1- opportunity for the imposition of quality design and improvement standards, while the present Guide plan would not, if the sites were not developed under a PUD. I 6. Satisfies the City's overall goal "to achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high ' quality of life and a reliable tax base" far better than the proposed guided zoning. (See the brief Tax Analysis as an exhibit at the end of this Section.) 6. Facilitates the extension of the Highway 101 improvement project, completes the frontage ' road system in a timely fashion and completes the project roadway system in an efficient manner. 7. Provides attractive and close -in linkages to the existing Trail system. I 8. Provides housing alternatives. I 9. Opportunity to coordinate plans for sewer and water with planning and installation of those services for the area to the south. , 10. Provides, as stated elsewhere, a more efficient use of land through clustering, minimal setbacks, vertical office and residential development, on street parking, underground parking and ' a minimum number of drive areas. 11. Provides a development that will be unique among those in other communities. 12. Creates an opportunity for the City and a neighborhood to obtain public utilities and public ' roadways. LI 1 � EXHIBITS 1 � ■ A. Tax Analysis Tax Impact by Use For comparison each Use is assumed to be located on approximately 1 acre of land. Use Taxes Generated Single Family Assumed 2.25 homes /Acre at $300,000 each. Assumes Homestead Credit has been Recaptured $18,689 After deduction has been made for the estimated per year cost of $3450 per child living in the homes, the net amount is 15,239 Residential at $3,000 /unit, R -12 36,000 Residential at $2800 /unit, R -16 44,800 O/1 Assumed 15,000 SF Building at $2.00 /SF 30,000 Retail Assumed 10,000 SF Building at $3.50 /SF 35,000 Office Assumed 12,500 SF Building at $4.00 /SF 50,000 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 1 Compliance With PUD � Standards Compliance with PUD Standards Chanhassen's Code states that PUD's offer enhanced flexibility in developing a site through the relaxation of zoning district standards and that the PUD zoning allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange, the city has the expectation that the development will result in significantly higher quality and a more sensitive development plan. PUD's are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including site slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. The site has nearly all of these amenities. We believe that our narrative description of the project and our stated commitment to the selected land uses and development techniques, demonstrate that our proposed uses will provide for a greater opportunity for compliance with the suggested requirement than would any alternative, including the alternatives provided for in the amended Comprehensive Plan. In fact, these features are intrinsic to the success and value of the project. Upon approval of the Concept Plan, more specific details will be provided along with the review of the Preliminary Plan. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. While the mixing of uses afforded by the proposed CBD, Office and multi- residential underlying designations will afford more efficient and effective use of land than is presently guided, the balance of this item is not relevant in that it refers to the assembling of a large piece of land. It is, however, relevant in that the overall PUD if approved at this time will avoid the potential as presently guided of having a multitude of small parcels developed over an undetermined period of time, thus negating the efficiency of providing public utilities and roads in a coordinated fashion as proposed under the PUD. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. We believe we have captured the essence of Chanhasseds hoped -for look and feel in our plans for creating a friendly, yet vibrant village feel, enhanced by the numerous ponds, reached conveniently by trails, automotive and public transportation. A village that is small town in character, yet urban in convenience and services. Specific site plans which will accompany the Preliminary Plan review proposal will provide examples of the effect of the intended close -to -the street placement of structures, landscaping that provides focal points within the project, that exploits the extraordinary views, that emphasizes the ponds,that creates cozy resting places and that leads the visitor to its destination. The building architecture will of necessity be limited to that which enhances and i J I C U -1- 1 ' furthers the intended village vernacular. It will not be in countermarch with any of the exiting downtown architecture but will be reflective of that which already falls into the village category and will provide a compatible complement to the proposed design of the Entertainment Complex, which will simultaneously with the Villages on the Ponds be visible to the Highway 5 traveler. Given that we already have in Chanhassen several buildings of high quality design, we do not presume to exceed all, but we will put in place design criteria that will exceed most. ' 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. We have met individually and as a group with the neighbors ' to the east and with whom we are cooperating in attempting to solve their concerns regarding a lack of public sewer and water and the lack of public roadway access. In addition we have proposed to them and will propose in our Preliminary Plan extensive berming at the east edge of ' the proposed commercial site which abuts those most northerly neighbors. In addition, the treestands along the entire easterly edge of the multifamily residential sites will be left intact. The proposed senior housing use does not present a potential of a great amount of activity that would ' be objectionable to the neighbors and we believe it to be a sensitive use. The multi - family proposal at the southerly area of these neighbors will be placed as close up to the loop street as possible, thus placing it several hundred feet away from the nearest neighbor and allowing for a great deal of undisturbed terrain and vegetation as a buffer. We feel that our proposal for office use adjacent to Rosemount and along Highway 101 is perhaps the most optimum use aesthetically and more compatible than medium density residential , the alternatively proposed guided use. As we have said with some emphasis elsewhere in this submission, we feel that our proposed use, particularly with the village look, when viewed from Highway 5 is far more to be desired than the potential loading dock images and large parking lots of large office - industrial. We do not ' understand how office industrial can be small enough to avoid these images. 5. Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Our proposal is not consistent with the currently amended plan and we are requesting an amendment which would allow compliance with this requirement. u 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Upon further amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, open space will be provided for as designated on our conceptual Site Plan. In addition our plan provides extensive trails as have been previously discussed. Because our plan allows extensive preservation of natural terrain and ponds within the parcels and also will provide for landscaping to enhance and add water and other natural features, much more of the development will have extensive private open and park -like areas. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.. As established above, with one small exception, we do not believe that this is an appropriate site for single family housing and the project is being proposed as primarily a commercial PUD, rather than a residential PUD as this paragraph is intended to primarily direct. However, we do intend to provide a small amount of medium density, a senior housing facility and rental housing -2- LI affordable to the average two - income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park occupants, a housing component which the City desires to have made available. I 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the , clustering of buildings and land uses. Energy conservation is commonplace in today's construction and we do not intend to deviate from that in our designs or sightings. One of the intended techniques used to achieve the village look will be the clustering of buildings and to the I extent appropriate, land uses 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. ' Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. The proposed roadway delineation has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department and their suggestions have been incorporated. Any subsequent modifications will be made only in consultation with ' that department. -3- H L� n 1 General Concept Plan � Requirements 11 F ] General Concept Plan Requirements The City Code provides "an opportunity for applicants to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial costs." Subjects applicable to this PUD concept plan are: 1. Overall gross and net density, which is superimposed on our preliminary site plan. 2. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways, which is a part of the preliminary site plan. General location and extent of public and common open space, which is set forth on the preliminary site plan. 4. General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. These are also indicated on the preliminary site plan as well as in the narrative description of the PUD. 5. Staging and time schedule for development. The advantage of staging when the use of a PUD is employed is of lesser importance with this development than in many other PUD proposals in that the staging of the improvement of the individual sites will be market driven and will not be speculative as is the case in most housing developments, for example. It is anticipated, however„ that a portion of the area closest to Highway 5 may see the first development and that the senior housing site may also be done in an early stage. Currently available prospects for development might dictate a staging of the construction of a portion of the roadway system without being disadvantageous to either the City or the balance of the project. In this case the first stage of roadway construction would be the extension of Lake Drive. It is anticipated that a portion of the loop street would either be completed simultaneously with Lake Drive or shortly thereafter, if staging is deemed appropriate. In that case disruption of traffic flow can be avoided by temporary continued us of the remaining portion of the present alignment of existing Great Plains Blvd. Similarly the improvement of the southern portion of TH 101 may for convenience as well as the practical recognition of the time involved for coordination with the various governmental units involved, be constructed during a later phase than the construction of Lake Drive. Although requirements of applicants at this Concept approval stage are limited to providing general information as to the above five items, because of the scope of this development, the distinctive character being proposed as well as the uniqueness of the site's topography, we have intentionally, and at the request of City staff as to some of the issues, gone beyond these subjects in the narrative which accompanies this submission. ing play and park areas and enforcing regulations, it is the traffic off the lawns. In lannin la possible to keep some of Planning Playgrounds it is always advisable to keep them as far removed from the street circulation as children to use the play areas more frequently if they M are removed from On the other hand, it is not desirable to have them too far away from the apart_ ments." Garbage and trash collection can be another maintenance nuisance problem in apartment projects. Garbage disposal is easily solved by the installation of ru ors Providing best quality appliances and' brass Plumbing by llec wall chute incinerators in high -rise buildings. Trash tion is another matter. Problems of trash collection to be considered are as follows: area to be coveted; lien necessary ce to do the job; the best type of epuipment to use for efficient colloc- distan the pick -up has to be carried to a truck. In the type of garden apartment layout where there are front and back public entrances, trash collections must be made from care Placed close to the rear entrance to serve several tenants. Then collections receptacles made by hand or mechanized trucks. In the newer row type of garden apartment design where private terraces or patios face a courtyard, private Park. o- swimming. Pool area, there is no "back entrance." In these cases me'nts must be provided, accessr 'ble fro entrance st f e , fi matter of service ftrash collection must be worked out in the planning stage of the development. The means for collection can set the layout of the building groups. S. Allocation of Land thq - -- - - .d1n, analysis to determine a Prop's economic and technical feasibility and appropriate land uses for the site plan is an important Prelimina des ing the street and block layout, numerous sketches and planner before the ultimate site fan is � be made by the land ie; h P �. In these preliminary designs, study of the Physical characteristics of the site; what parts of the site favor one treatment over another, what controls are superimposed b pecurw stances of access, adjacent uses, comprehensive area plans, and a� exist such as utility rights- of-way across the s t wh to density of type dwelling are to be accommodated, will determine the allocation of land use within the site. These determinations will ad' be devoted to streets, residential sites 1 area to similar elements within the develo When rough land s�1IIgc and such been made, sketches can be studied for relation of the site area to project Save roundings. By a series of rough sketches, the site layout can be adjusted P 1 »s treatment before getting into exact dimensi to its best engineering. aft Procne calculations, and aocnrate In general, area ALOCated to non reaidendd wry within thc, neighborhood tract should not rz percent; 20 streets ; lam percent is a norm for the area devoted to 10 percent in public open space, including schools and churches; and S single - famfain 161 - in street allocation depends on demity of development. For a subdivision of ily houses, 20 percent devoted to street rights -of -way approaches a maw for other th efficient an use of the site. of course, innovations in site design or introduction of housing types allocated to streets. single - family detached houses will alter the standard percentage of the total acreage 130 j�e �ry,man; �j u l LPA..""i 6.k o to pn-� r>Gr , 19 - 7 3 ne of them percent in commercial use.'•= In thinking about the site in terms of lot sues, their street layout, school and other public areas, the land use allocations be very will , close to the practical if residential use approximates 60 percent of the area with `P p art- the other 40 percent assigned to ancillary uses, including streets. As indicated, a 1 low percentage of the total area devoted to streets approaches the ideal, - -blem 182 For a shopping center as part of the development, allocation of area for that purpose depends not on an arbitrary "standard" but the , sink by on analysis of the market, the trade area, and other factors which set up justification for a shopping center. There may or may { Y be .)r commercial use justified. (See Section Throe.) Y not any ater. eyed; ` 'a Unfortunately, urban land use data are hard to obtain. At best we have generalities for approximate relationships as guides in preliminary planning studies. Also, the ' Alec proper alloca- tion of acreage for land uses within a project development area will differ from that in a complete city or metropolitan area. Studies of land use patterns for proportions of urban land devoted ' ublic to residential, commer- pal' industrial, road and highway, and other public uses, plus vacant land, are confined to several significant studies: Land Use and Property Taxation. acles in be Technical Bulletin 18 (out -of- print), Urban Land Institute. Land Uses in American Cities by Harland Bartholomew. Har- yard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1955. N A new may, Recent ' meIIt Land -Use Trendr in Forty-Eight Large American Cities by John H. Niedercorn and Edward F. R. Heade, the Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. Ming Pte' found the following land -use proportions in devel u°publish - commercial, .048; road and highwa land residential, .390; industrial, .109; The h Y, .257; other public, .197. The total developed lan is d .770; undeveloped, .230, of which .207 is vacant and .023 is under water, ' ge of In density of population to land use, the above stud found the followi y rela in persons per acre stated as a land-absorption coefficient ldin $ -- acres) brought into urban use la at the amount of lead (measured in by an increase in population or employment of one person: residential, .059; manufacturing employment, .034; commercial employment, .047; road and highway, •006; other public, .010; total developed, .091. As densities at which new develop. ment is occurring, and the following densities for land uses are offered for general estimating purposes, community-wide (persons per acre): residential, sign- 16.94; industrial, 29.41; commer- public, cial, 21.27; road and highway, 166.66; other blic, 100.00; total developed persons per acre. , 10.99 or about I1 ' land From Open Space in Lancaster County," Lancaster County Planning Commission, igns, April 1966, an estimate of the impact of 1,000 new inhabitants: 270 new famines, equals Pa, 200 Pre-school children; children; 300 school ch; and 500 adults. These one new residents requite: 90 90 acres of residential land ,aces saes of streets .ions 20 acres of public land :Y of 3 acres of service industry the 2 aces of retail stores ' ,a to such 128 acres Fifteen years from 1966, the 100,000 new people expected will require at least 12,000 acres of land or 19 sq. miles or 2% times the area of the present City of Lancaster. Housing, nave business, industry and roads take up more land than in the past. A new four -lane limited access highway with a 260 ft. r-o-w requires 13.5 acres of land per mile Highways alone, su_r- best growing commerce and ind necessary for Lancaster County. usiry within the next five years, will require 1,300 acres of land in rate Regarding the economics of new employment and population, the following is an excerpt from "How IBM Came to Rochester, Minnesota," in American ' City, Nov. 1960. "Careful studies available to us show that 100 new factory workers create jobs for 74 people in activities ood I to service such as gasoline stations and groceries. In general they will create a demand for four more retail establishments, create some $360,000 more retail sal d per :d S Year, and place about $270,000 on deposit in the banks. At the same time the munici ity has a little more than 50 new school children and its street system has to accommodate i Y o u ex house of for 100 factor workers. In all, the will n f 300 added a conditions that ffl ry Y Y people, including themselves, to support themselves i "Im and add to the vigor of the municipality." For land use designations in maser plan studies, ' -age see Standard Land Use Codi M antra!, ,! ual Standard System for Identifying and Coding Land Use Activities. Urban Ren Gen Admi _ tion and Bureau of Public Roads. Superintendent of Documents, US. Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Gov ernme n t l A Printing 131 ' 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, October 4, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Villages on the Ponds Developer: Lotus Realty Services Location: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blyd. Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi - family on approximately 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard, Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager September 21, 1995. 1 Steven Kokesh & Nancy Ecoff Albert & Jean Sinnen Richard & Linda Anderson 8201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mary S. Bernier Harvey & Rosemary Will Robert W. Armstrong, Jr. 8155 Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James & Kathryn Jacoby Joseph & Patricia Eickholt Mark & Lori Jesberg 8410 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Andrew Freseth & Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein , Lynda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' George, Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald & Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc: Attn: Controller 304 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55317 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road ' New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331 -9181 4 Chanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick Donald F. McCarville 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 James & Carol Udstuen Peter & Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu , 360 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' William & Debra Prigge Andrew & Jeannine Cone Brian Semke & Deborah Duetsch 390 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randy & Kimbra Green Michael & Prudence Busch Mark & Alexandra Lepage 8103 Marsh Drive 8113 Marsh Drive 8123 Marsh Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 f1 n & Mary Stutelberg 33 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Martin & Timaree Fajdetich 100 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 R aul & Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive C hanhassen, MN 55317 teven & Julie Lundeen 160 Marsh Drive C hanhassen, MN 55317 t andal & J Meyer 30 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Thomas & Jill Hansen 31 Sinnen Circle hanhassen, MN 55317 k ugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson 136 Dakota Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 t son White 8139 Dakota Lane I hanhassen, MN 55317 � hur & Jo Ann Mulligan O1 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 f Robert & Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin 8110 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Walt & Pamela Chapman 8140 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary & Debra Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Billy & Diane Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Rita Mohs 8138 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Blue Circle Investment 6125 Blue Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 David & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jay S. Anders 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darryl & Sandy Wrolson 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce & Cynthia Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Sharon Nicpon 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 John & Brenda Lund 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen NH Partnership 900 2nd Ave. N. 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 September 29, 1995 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to notify you that the following item has been rescheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 18, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers: - Conceptual planned unit development office, single and multi - family on appr Great Plains Blvd. and Market Bouleva .ixed land use development of commercial, y 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between ges on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. me. te Kokesh & Nancy Ecoff Albert & Jean Sinnen Richard & Linda Anderson 1 ven 201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane Mary S. Bernier Harvey & Rosemary Will Robert W. Armstrong, Jr. Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. JU 155 hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 l ames Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 & Kathryn Jacoby Joseph & Patricia Eickholt Mark & Lori Jesberg 8410 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. F hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 drew Freseth & Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein ynda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. 411 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 lFhanhassen, MN 55317 Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald & Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc. Attn: Controller § eorge, 04 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55317 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road M 827 ew Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331 -9181 k hanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick Donald F. McCarville 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane C hanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 L es & Carol Udstuen Peter & Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu X60 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane C hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 & Debra Prigge Andrew & Jeannine Cone Brian Semke & Deborah Duetsch f9 illiam 0 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randy & Kimbra Green Michael & Prudence Busch Mark & Alexandra Lepage 1103 Marsh Drive 8113 Marsh Drive 8123 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lon & Mary Stutelberg 8133 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Martin & Timaree Fajdetich 8100 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul & Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven & Julie Lundeen 8160 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randal & J Meyer 330 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Jill Hansen 331 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson 8136 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jason White 8139 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin 8110 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Walt & Pamela Chapman 8140 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary & Debra Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Billy & Diane Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Rita Mohs 8138 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Blue Circle Investment 6125 Blue Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 Jay S. Anders 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darryl & Sandy Wrolson 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce & Cynthia Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Sharon Nicpon 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 I� L Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' John & Brenda Lund 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Chanhassen NH Partnership 900 2nd Ave. N. 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Arthur & Jo Ann Mulligan David & Sharon Nickolay 8501 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 11 October 16, 1995 ' Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen Planning Commission ' PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Generous and Members of the Plannin g Commission: ' We are writing you in regard to the proposed development by Lotus Realty, Villages on the Ponds. At the forefront we would like to make clear that we are vehemently opposed ' to the location of any multiple unit housing in the 7.4 acre parcel currently zoned as residential. Our names appear on the petition signed by members of the Hidden Valley and Brookview communities. ' When we purchased our residence three years ago, we decided on a 2.3 acre lot bordering the Rice Marsh Lake wetlands. Our decision was made while standing on the deck and ' watching 8 -10 geese land in the wetlands adjacent to our property. We felt very proud that we found a home surrounded by such natural beauty and wonderful neighbors. We also knew that we purchased a lot adjacent to property that was zoned as residential as noted in our abstract. We were recently alerted by two of our neighbors that Lotus Realty has proposed locating multi - family housing on property which boarders our own. We understand that Lotus Realty held a "neighborhood meeting" for residents to voice their concerns about the proposed development. We were never contacted by Lotus although our property ' directly borders the area which will be affected by their project. How can we possibly provide early and timely input to the developer and city if we were never contacted? ' We're very concerned that this was a deliberate attempt by Lotus to bypass the current residents. ' While we will be saddened to see commercial development change the natural area we currently enjoy on our daily walks along the Rice Marsh / Lake Susan trail, we understand that this development will contribute to the economic success of Chanhassen. What we don't understand is how the city can consider a proposal to rezone a residential property to multi - family without concern to the effect on current residents and property values. CJ By rezoning this property the city would create conflict between land uses and users. The land that boarders the Rice Marsh and Lake Susan is ideal for large single family lots similar to those currently found on both the NW and SW edges of the Rice Marsh wetlands. To place multi- family housing in an area of the city dominated by large single family homes would show that the city of Chanhassen favors developers and special interest groups over the needs and concerns of current residents. The developer, in documents provided to the city, states that "the concept plan proposes a multi - family residential parcel along the eastern property line. The existing Guide Plan suggests that this area be utilized for single family residential. This area also contains a number of hardwoods and steep slopes. Given the existing terrain, this area does not lend itself to typical single family development..." The developer is taking the easiest route by proposing to the city, a place for senior and government subsidized housing. While courting the city with a "quick fix" the developer is neglecting the environmental and visual impact of their development to current residents. We have been very happy living in the city of Chanhassen and share pride in seeing our city grow and prosper. We look forward to the additional services that Lotus' proposed commercial development will offer present and future residents. However, we must ask that the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council refuse to rezone the 7.4 single family residential property to accommodate multi- family housing. The property in question will be highly marketable for several large single family lots consistent with the surrounding properties. Please take a stand against the illogical placement of these multiple family dwellings. Don't allow.them because they are convenient, meet a quota, or satisfy the needs of a commercial developer. Instead, please look after the interests of current residents in your community whose lives and property will be impacted forever by your decision. Respectfully, John and Brenda Lund 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 cc: Chanhassen City Council Lotus Realty Services Tj CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WARD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT �a /C I v u Page 1 Name Address Phone # '. nature Were you aware of this Do you have concerns Would you like more information proposed development ? about this development ? before this project moves forward ? 1 ) & 3 `I �/`7'£�f�`l ,k'ovv�fr (5 ZtKlZSN !)�L Z v7xs�w•�� A'LTRi4• ow�y yL 5 �c`S 2 ;l : Ct - y . it 'r ). �r,•.,?., 1p S `��S 3 5 y,' t✓� titi Ci , S f L I i 7 ; ; CV. c('3a J•3: _ -/ '�'ti v \(� t`.a $ iG 'l OA 9 /{ ` . c•. _ 9 . IA llv-- 10 <' IC v, `;S(�''�i'1��t5�� <;� 9 - l`;3 b:- -)N,:n 4 - l Z 11 I/ I k C r r.- L "� • !•; 12 L -i/ 7' v\.tnt.a. �. i�� U� 2s( (•• . �_ , tom_,. v 11' •'i 1. ley 13'1 15 ia[cZ ,( 3/a S >,t�r� ,d C�e 9 7, .7rc� I 16 31l - y f�� y .9 -0 19 3 M 0 e Q.S 18 1 - e� 19 ur A O - zz.? M 2wsk p elvc - 7 20 7 21 �v V '` 2 le, 24 2 9 35a 25 /5Y l /9 z o�6 7 71155 uE 26 9/ ?6 OA M 7A 9 -IF /117 E Yr 1 5 !% 27 L L,✓ g- es s 28 I .� 29 SCofil l eel ta.- 8 I k A unf° q 3 L f 30 - 3 31 g. R y , Iva �a /C I v u Page 1 CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WARD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT �f Page 3 .. Si gnature .. you have concerns Would you like more Information before this project moves forward 7 WON M , W=_4 Awaits AV • � E L� ENE�. / I way. �_� "`w��L i _ •_ .. _.I • �� 0 70 3 1 - W I A I - _. ��_,�� -.., � ■rte■ WE er, - & R M. r� — ice - KEM9 Flo" W�000 'T "TIMMIM ■ ME -■ �f Page 3 1 7A� • y f •.:x 947.3 A �; • $, ! � OW s y�Z•,�,�t>� F 's''t r° ' \�w� A�i �`Y��.r- _.�,.� •�c� � ,. < �S ,' , Y ; ` mot • �i/, �k4�' �. 352'8 f �' ,.+°' -,• � y ; y! ; , ` � Y x > a 911.0 x . fir• ` I AT rA C: 0 0 R 16JO � U C I Alp ap LOTUS REALTY SERVICES , November 8, 1995 , P_ TO: Bob Generous FROM: Vernelle Clayton RE: Villages on the Ponds , As we have briefly discussed and as promised at the Planning Commission meeting, we held ' another meeting with the neighbors. Incidentally, we discovered that for the mailing for our first neighborhood meeting, the secretarial service had omitted one page of a three -page list of names ' obtained from Carver County Abstract. That accounts for the low turnout and the fiustration on the part of several of the neighbors because they hadn't been notified. There were nearly 30 neighbors at the meeting and their primary concern was the prospect of the ' construction of a "For Rent" apartment complex proposed for the easterly edge of the site -- although, we believe they would have had objections to "For Rent" apartments virtually , anywhere on the site. A second concern they expressed was the configuration of the easterly portion of E. Lake Drive and traffic control signage its intersection with Old Highway 101. Having reviewed the alternatives available to the City n meeting requirements for compliance ' Y g q p with mandates relating to affordable housing, we had concluded that "For Sale" moderately -priced townhomes on the site would fulfill those requirements, although it would not provide as many ' units. We therefore told the neighbors that we would propose medium density R -8 with "For Sale" townhomes specified for the easterly residential portion, instead of R 12. They concurred , that they could support that level of density and the for sale concept. We will therefore propose that density change at the Public Hearing on the 15th. As to the questions they raised regarding the road, we told the neighbors that the issue of the exact location of the easterly portion of E. Lake Drive is an issue that will be addressed as wb ihdve forward toward the Preliminary Plan, working with both the Planning Department and the 1~ ngineering ' Department. 551 WEST 78TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ■ (612) 934 -4538 ■ FAX (612) 934 -5472 612- 835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 120 P02 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design November 2, 1995 Hoisington Kocgler Group Inc. Bob Generous, Planner City of Chanhassen P. a. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147 NOV 02 1 95 15:09 Re: Retail Critical Mass ' Dear Bob: 7 LI We have done a minimal amount of research to determine whether there is reliable information upon which to base an estimate of the number of square feet or acres of retail space that represents the critical mass for the City of Chanhassen. We've concluded that there is little or no reliable information and that the only way to determine to what degree the critical mass will be reached or exceeded is a detailed market analysis. After all, the measure of how much retail development a community can support is directly related to the number of people that live within the market area and the degree to which the area is continually upgraded so as to continue to attract a significant portion of the available market. It is important to note that the City of Chanhassen has far less commercial area designated in its comprehensive plan than most communities with a population of less than one hundred thousand. It is also important to note that downtown Chanhassen serves a substantial portion of western Eden Prairie, primarily because people find what they want in a setting that is much more appealing than traveling easterly to Eden Prairie Center. We have no idea how many people in western Eden Prairie are attracted to downtown Chanhassen but we believe the numbers are substantial. What this means, of course, is that the downtown Chanhassen market area is considerably larger than the City's actual population would suggest. It can support more retail development than "rules of thumb" (e.g. 5% commercial development) might suggest. We believe the Chanhassen downtown will remain very strong for many years primarily because it is in its infancy and the development it draws upon is highly affluent. Absent actual market analysis, our intuitive conclusion is that the market will support commercial development of a portion of the Ward property as proposed by Villages on the Ponds. In fact, we believe the retail/commercial development that will eventually be built in the City of Chanhassen, including Villages, will fall well short of the critical mass that can be supported by the tributary market area. Sincerely, Fred Hoisington, AICP President FLIYmlm Attachment M_1CHANHASU5- 52UiGBN 6RSL.WPD 7340 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Mifviesota 55439 (612) 835 -9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 612 -835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 120 P03 NOV 02 1 95 15:09 ' Mx. Michael Schroder October 23. 1993 ,+ CO Page 3 �Ioisingtan Koegler Group, Inc, �� p� are a. number of s aces %ithin each of the building areas that / ar��i�ecily visible to there P T direct visibility Avenue. For any neighborhood or convenience oriented retail shop, Y is viewed as critical because convenience- oriented businesses depend heavily on drive-by traffic to sheet revenue projections. The current orientation of these buildings suggests more of a professional office orientation with some medium size retailers who would take between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet of space. Many franchise retailers of all types have space requirements in this range, however they also have other requirements including visibility and accessibility from the main thoroughfare, access and turn lanes from the maw roadway, parking accessibility, etc. The manner in which the buildings are oriented is not unworkable, but from a developer /retailer viewpoint, these types of spaces would be much harder to lease. Again, there is the issue of controlling the tenant mix and creating a cohesive retail district with retailers why complement each other rather than coexist side by side with no interrelationships. ,Alternative Three (A) Alternative Thxee (A) also shows buildings that are pushed out to the street with parking oriented either to the side of or behi3ad buildings. At the south end of the corridor, an entrance to the area is created by pulling the buildings out to the street and interacting at a pedestrian level. Again, as redevelopment occurs, some of the existing retailers will relocate and others will prefer to remain and upgrade or expand their space. The average size of building footprints is expanded in this scenario with one building at 13,000 square feet and another at 20,400 square feet. Locating buildings within clusters would allow a developer to develop one block of the area (i.e. the east side or the west side of Lyndale between 76th and 77tH Streets) and be able to maintain control over the tenant mix. Building sizes of between 5,000 and 8,000 square feet will most likely attract one or two users, and could also attract tandem users such as the new Bruegger's Bagels/Dunn Bros, coffee pairings that are occurring throughout the Twin Cities in established retail areas, some of which have been redevelopment districts (St. Louis Park, Uptown, Roseville). Building designs in this scenario are primarily one- level, however, given the current tread for some categories of professional offices to locate in strip retail centers with enhanced visibility /accessibility, it is likely that a redevelopment of this area would include tenants who may have previously leased space in a more traditional office setting (chiropractor, optometrist, _tet�rnB;�Cc'fi ; 1 rici S viG�S, insurance, Vc.). Alternative Three (B) � URW This alternative also pulls b 'dings out to the street. Pedestrian access is incorporated between dings # ping and green space with the majority of parking located behind l� 1 1 r-, P �I 612 - 835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 120 PO4 NOV 02 1 95 15:10 6•' Mx. Michael Schroder L) ' S CUS ( Z 1 n ..- N October 23, 1995 Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. - Page 4 buildings. A. small amount of parking is shown adjacent to some buildings north of 76th Street. This concept incorporates two -story buildings, envisioning a combination of office and retail uses, Although this lass worked well in theory or in more urban retail/office districts, there continues to be difficulty focusing office uses to a second story of a building visually designed as retail space. In developing two-story buildings with a combination of uses, there needs to be a strong sense of cohesiveness between buildings and then a very definite organization of uses between retail on the first level and strictly office uses on the second level. Although rent levels are typically less on a second level, even specialty retailers locating on a second floor run a high risk of losing a substantial amount of their traffic, Entrance into an office space typically carries no sense of arrival ox ambiance. There is usually no merchandising that needs to take place to create an atmosphere for the consumer. Access to a second story for an office user usually incorporates a corridor and less visibility. Second story retailers must, almost categorically, be specialty retailers whose customers will seek them out. Even so, some visibility and window space for display to the street is still essential. In the two -story scenario, it is critical for the developer to enhance visibility and awareness of the tenants by incorporating additional signage or a building or center directory that will lead customers to various retailers. Although this type of development can be successful, it requires a strong retail mix, a strong leasing agent/broker. and ongoing effective management. Today's retail patterns have oriented nearly all retail uses to the vehicle and at eye level. It requires greater marketing expertise to circumvent the traditional retail venues. In this scenario, there would likely be a much greater potential for customers to visit several ' retailers and utilize pedestrian linkages to do so. This would be particularly true between the two blocks either side of Lyndale Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets, Although the buildings are ' separated by a green space, it draws the pedestrian between them and creates an easy flaw from one to the other. A savvy developer would be able to play on this design to his advantage, leasing to tenants that would encourage multiple stops from customers. 11 Neighborhood shopping centers that incorporate a grocery store are usually larger in size, 60,000 to 80,000 square feet.. This area does not lend itself to incorporating a grocery store, however there are a number of smaller, convenience retailers that would fit nicely and would complement the retail development already occurring to the south. Excluding development of a grocery store brings snWmunn strip center development down to about 30,000 to 40,400 square feet. There has also been some discussion of the potential to incorporate housing above retail uses to enhance the viability of redevelopment in this district. Although the size of buildings in this alternative (15,000 to 20,000 square foot footprint), in order to make housing viable above these buildings, several floors of housing would have to be constructed. Once you pass three floors, there are additional construction requirements and substantial additional costs associated with 612 - 835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 120 P05 NOV 02 '95 15:11 Mr. Michael Sebxoder � _ , 17 T Y October 23, 1995 Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc, f"� • ' °� ... page 5 �v mid -rise and high -rise construction. it is likely that at least a six- to eight -story building would be necessary to make the numbers 'work. At this building height, the building or buildings would need to be set back from the street (Alternative 3A) to maintain a more residential atmosphere. Additional housing could be a component of this redevelopment, but the building height would exceed two or three stories, ,Alternative Four Alternative Four shows "spot" redevelopment with some of the existing retailers expanding, some remaining "as is," and others potentially relocating to new buildings incorporated among the existing buildings. Although this alternative creates better linkages to parking and offers expansion opportunities for existing retailers who desire to renu in in the area and increase their space, this plan creates the "half way there" scenario from a redevelopment standpoint. It provides an interim plan for the existing retailers to have some of their wishes satisfied, but does not allow for the area to reach its fullest potential. Under this scenario, there will continue to be a lack of cohesiveness among retail uses and more opportunities for areas to remain under - utilized or for incompatible uses to occur. The spot redevelopment provides visual enhancements, but does not encourage the necessary critical mass to allow pedestrian linkages to reach their maximum level. This alternative virtually leaves the area as a hodge podge of uses with some streetscape improvements, There would be little encouragment for a developer to redevelop the area because there would continue to be too many uncontrollable factors, Unless the city would be willing to work with a developer to assist them in assembling parcels, there is little economic incentive for a developer to move ahead because the costs and the risks are too high. Without some control over the overall scheme of the development, it is likely that existing uses would change significantly in this area in the short -term. F I' J J F, L I� 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, November 15,1995 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Project: Villages on the Ponds Developer Lotus Realty Services Location: South of Hwy. 5 between Plains Blvd. and Market E Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your ' area. The applicant is requesting conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi - family on approximately 66 acres located ' south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard, Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. �J What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Steven Kokesh & Nancy Ecoff Albert & Jean Sinnen Richard & Linda Anderson 8201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Mary S. Bernier Harvey & Rosemary Will Robert W. Armstrong, Jr. 8155 Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' James & Kathryn Jacoby Joseph & Patricia Eickholt Mark & Lori Jesberg ' 8410 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Andrew Freseth & Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein Lynda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. ' 841.1 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' George, Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald & Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc. Attn: Controller 304 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55317 ' Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331 -9181 ' Chanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick Donald F. McCarville 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 ' James & Carol Udstuen Peter & Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu 360 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & Debra Prigge Andrew & Jeannine Cone Brian Semke & Deborah Duetsch 390 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Rand & Kimbra Green Y Michael & Prudence Busch Le Mark & Alexandra Lepage pg 8103 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 8113 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 8123 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 , . on & Mary Stutelberg 133 Marsh Drive 'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Martin & Timaree Fajdetich W 100 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 C aul & Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive C hanhassen, MN 55317 teven & Julie Lundeen 160 Marsh Drive C hanhassen, MN 55317 O fan dal & J Meyer 30 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Jill Hansen W- 31 Sinnen Circle hanhassen, MN 55317 t ugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson 8136 Dakota Lane C hanhassen, MN 55317 k 1 on White 39 Dakota Lane i hanhassen, MN 55317 15 hur & Jo Ann Mulligan 01 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin 8110 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Walt & Pamela Chapman 8140 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary & Debra Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Billy & Diane Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Rita Mohs 8138 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Blue Circle Investment 6125 Blue Circle Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 David & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jay S. Anders 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darryl & Sandy Wrolson 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bruce & Cynthia Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Sharon Nicpon 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 John & Brenda Lund 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen NH Partnership 900 2nd Ave. N. 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Land Use Acreages LAND USE ACRES PERCENT Dwelling DU /Acre %of Res Commercial 272.50 2% Estimate Office /Industrial 1,110.43 8% Office 13.48 0% Parks /Open Space 2,302.42 17% Public /Semi - public 1,056.79 8% Residential - Large Lot 1,523.95 11% 295 0.19 2% Residential - Low Density 4,334.86 33% 7,803 1.80 59% Residential - Medium Density 507.88 4% 3,047 6.00 23% Residential - High Density 210.39 2% 1 8.00 13% Mixed Use 82.63 1% 413 5.00 3% Study Area 1,145.98 9% Undevel 772.53 6 % TOTAL 13,333.84 13,241 AVERAGE DENSITY 1 1.99 Page 1 r = = = m m m = m = = = = = = m Im I = 1 I l u Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, SINGLE AND MULTI FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD_ AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Jill and Randy Meyer Angie Bealczyk Eric Johnson Bob Savard Steve Lundeen Rita Klauda Dave Kooumen Gary Disch Rick Hladky Debbie & Brian Semke Barry & Lisa Thompson Mark Honnold Pat Hamblin Greg Larson Ryan Johnson W.J. Ward Al Simmon Walt Chapman Mary Koonmen 7425 Frontier Trail 330 Sinnen Circle 310 Sinnen Circle 320 Sinnen Circle 8080 Marsh Drive 8160 Marsh Drive 8130 Marsh Drive 8153 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 8173 Marsh Drive 331 Hidden Lane 8000 Hidden Circle 8051 Hidden Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 8151 Grandview Road 8143 Marsh Drive 4510 Bruce, Minneapolis 8150 Grandview Road 8140 Marsh Drive 8153 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Bob I just have one. In your condition number 19, when you say the applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. Do you mean high density rental housing or, is that what you're talking about? Generous: High density, yes. Within this. However it could be, if they decided to disperse it, maybe it's medium density. That would work. Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So you just want rental housing. That's the purpose of Generous: Right. We're looking at that primary goal. Mancino: And it could be either medium or high? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mehl: Yeah Bob, assuming that the Planning Commission adopts this motion and approves it here tonight, what's the next step in the whole process? What do we get to see next? Or have we committed ourselves to anything at that point? How much flexibility is there from now on? Generous: Well the immediate next step would be that Council would also have to review it and agree that the direction we're providing as part of the conditions of approval are appropriate. From there then they would come back and actually do a preliminary plan for the project where we would develop more specific design parameters for the various sites on it. Get into more detail on the materials and building heights, setback, all of the more detailed information. Right now we're basically looking at the land use components. Are they appropriate? Is this what we'd like to see at the edge of the downtown area? Or for a continuation of the downtown. Aanenson: Let me just continue with one other thing that you were asking about and that is what is your commitment level. Let's say that the project comes back and the next levels articulated something that you just can't agree with. Too much tree loss. Something you thought was appropriate. There's too much grading. At that point then you certainly say that we thought this might be appropriate for this land use but we see it just doesn't work ... this is not binding. The conceptual approval and you certainly have the right to change based on what you see on the next level. Again they haven't gone through and filed the wetland surveys and all that. When that level comes back, it may change your direction a little bit. What they're trying to get is just some idea of what's... Mehl: So it just gives us, gives you the go ahead to create something, a little something more that we can take another look at. Aanenson: Correct. Mehl: Okay. 2 1 0 0 I I 0 J Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Meyer: What about the land use as it's laid out here? Are we saying retail's going to go where retail is on...? Aanenson: No. Again, if it comes back at the next level as they've articulated is not happy with the design that they're coming forward with, any of those kind of components. With any of the land uses. If you're not happy with the, if you can't resolve those issues, then you certainly have a right to change the land uses. Meyer: Okay. Mancino: But if you know right now that there's a land use that you don't believe is correct for that site, speak now. Please. Generous: We would provide that direction. Aanenson: It would be helpful. Mancino: It would be helpful for the developer. Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Brad Johnson: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. We represent the Ward family who owns this property and we would like to address a couple of the issues because, I think we missed the last ' meeting, the first half. We didn't get a chance to actually present our proposal so I'm going to ask, and to keep this brief because most people have seen it a couple times. But we would like to go through a couple of things and then, so I'm going to ask Jack Lynch from BRW just to quickly remind you of what we're trying to accomplish. Feel free to ask any questions. You'll note that because we've had some meetings with the neighbors, and I guess what I'm sort ... I'm the mediator in this particular thing a little bit. Our job is to try to bring a project that's good for the city and good for the landowners ... in this particular case meets some of the neighbors requirements. So we have, as part of our current proposal and this is in answer to your question. This is kind of an ongoing thing. All of these comments that we get and the things that you put in the final recommendation that moves up, we'll listen to. We have to and the Council's going to have their own ideas and then we're going to start all over again. And we're just trying, you know we're designing this sort of by committee. ' Initially. We've got an idea. The ideas changed based upon what you feel and also how the neighbors feel about the whole thing. And it's kind of a long process. It's really, at least 4 very valuable public hearings. These two and then the next two. After that we're probably come in real life sometime in November. Or not November, I'm sorry. March, April, May of next year. So that's kind of where we're at. So I want to ask Jack to do that. I'm going to 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 set it up. The one thing that he'll point out is that we have suggested, and this is more because I think it works for us, that we would go to an R8 designation in this area from a high density area and I'll get back to how we handle the rental situation in a minute but that would allow us to put in single family attached. For sale. Affordable housing underneath the $115,000.00 category which meets sort of one of this livable communities criteria. It doesn't necessarily meet the rental side of the criteria. We'll try to address that after Jack's gone through the whole package. Mancino: Thank you. Jack Lynch: I think to begin this is a parcel of about 65 acres. It's difficult from two standpoints. One you had studies on this for a number of years. You had at least 3 different studies that all recommend something a little bit different from your guide plan. The other difficult part about this site is, it's a sensitive site. It has a number of wetlands. It has a number of steep terrain. Sloped areas. And it has a number of pockets of good sized hardwoods. Typically the hardwood vegetation that occurs on steeply sloped terrain so we're trying to deal with that. The proposal is an extension of a downtown in a retail component of about 24 acres built in a style that's fairly typical with one and two story developments with peaked roofs. More as a residential feel than a commercial feel. "The buildings would be highly articulated architecturally. And we're trying to develop a new concept in retailing. One where the retail stores would be up close to the streets and you could actually park on the streets and walk into the retail stores. Instead of parking in huge parking lots. So it's a back to the old days of retailing where you could pull up in front of the store on a public street and park. So there's about 24 acres of retail on the northern portion. There's about 20 acres. 20 acres? 14 acres, I'm sorry, of office components. They occur typically on a more heavily terrained areas and more heavily vegetated parcels. The idea there is that we're going to have to go to a 2 and 3 story building. Small compact building sites. Typically cascading down the side of a slope. A portion of parking would be underground in small lots associated with the parcels. So it's a small building component. As Brad has already mentioned, we talked about another 11 or 12 acres of residential on the component along the eastern side and at this point down in the southern region of the property. There is about 25% of the property that will remain as open space for designated wetlands. I think as an overview, that's really it. I think the basic concept here that we're asking for is simply an inkle. That if we come back to you at the next level of approvals, and have generally followed these land use designations, and have accommodated the development in a sensitive manner and not destroying the intrinsic value of this site, that we are on the right track and that we will continue on through the approval process and ultimate development. So with that I think. Brad Johnson: Does anybody have any questions for Jack? 4 0 1 n Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 ' Mancino: I'll decide that. Thank you Brad. Brad Johnson: I'd like to just show some slides and sort of a vernacular of what we're trying ' to accomplish here, which I did not get here early enough last time to do it. Some of these you'll recognize. This is downtown Excelsior. Basically the concept of the Villages is the look. Now obviously we're not going to have old buildings and things like that but the idea ' is that, that's... accomplish certain traffic, handle certain traffic ... turns out that the retail in the communities I'm going to be showing you have provided ... to the street. One of the things that we're trying to do, I noticed with the latest plan for one of the city's projects, they're ' trying to pull things towards the street so we just don't have all parking lots. The problem is the consumer likes to park ... and not too many of us like to walk too far. And that affects the Ll process of retail so I'm just going to go through some slides and narrate them but this is the idea that we're under and we look at these because they're recognized to be successful. These are all successful retail areas. Many have had to go through redevelopment to be successful. Again a lot of two story type of buildings that we've been talking about. A lot of different kinds of architecture. In generally all have parking on the street. And it seems to be consistent throughout. Again this is Excelsior... cinema, you know. They've gat parking behind and this is the typical parking lot that I didn't know, and I've lived here for a long time. This is the back of downtown Excelsior, which means that you've got to have large parking lots even when you have the street. Now we wouldn't design it this way but in most of these communities, they've ended up having parking someplace other than just on the street so we're saying put them on the internal section of it and for those that want to run in and out, like I used to have to do when I was downtown, you would use that. This is downtown Wayzata. Very popular place and again, they've been able to attract some clothing stores. Quite a few clothing stores. The day I was there it was a nice, sunny day. I tried to make sure, very heavy traffic. This is a little indent where they've had to build a building with parking off street but it has a nice feeling to it. All of these are sort of viable. That happens to be an office building that's built there. We don't know what's across the street but it's called Lake Minnetonka so it has a good view. The average rents in there are $24.00 a square foot on the second and third floor. It's a very popular kind of thing and the first floor happens to be retail. More of Wayzata. There's a restaurant. Again, I didn't put the lake in here because we don't have the lake, you know but it's there. This possibly is more of Wayzata. I'm not sure. This is Como Avenue. I went in the earlier part of town because a lot of people say can these streets handle the traffic. The last two streets you've seen are State highways with traffic loads probably in the 10,000 - 15,000 cars per day category which makes these streets equal to or greater traffic than we currently have on 78th Street and almost as much as we have on Highway 12. Yet they've been able to maintain the look, as you can see. Now this type of architecture probably which is more, what we'd decide it was, Bavarian? Is not the kind of thing you'd probably use today but the concept is the same. It's interesting as you see all these photos you'll see that they're all sort of two story Bavarian Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 kind of things and they're in two or three different segments. This is a popular place over there. Again you've got parking out in front. This is a little indent corner which is very popular over there which is more pedestrian friendly. More of that. Again we have green space out in front of the building... Most of these places have parking in the back but nowhere to the degree that would make them really successful. Same thing, but this is Como Avenue. You guys can go over and look at it. These are just local things. Last couple of weeks, my son goes to Northwestern. It's known as a football school. And I was down there the last couple weeks and this is ... Glencoe. These are those streets. Again this is Green Bay Avenue. Traffic, Highway 5 caliber. Goes slow. If you'll note, very slow because I got caught on it but there's a lot of traffic. This is Saturday morning. This is not a day, on the way to the football game type of day. They've done a really nice job in downtown... coffee shop. One of the brand name ones that has moved back into the community. You'll notice that most of these have two story elements. Bob, some of these actually are rental apartments and they seem to be successful. Again, it may be more difficult to do that but they have been able to incorporate historically that type of housing there. This is back on Como Avenue on a nice day. This is more of Como I think. This is a little bit of Wayzata. The church there. That's a church, that little building. Another church on Como Avenue. No special parking you notice because the parking is there on Sundays. There's just parking in the area. This is a little townhouse project that's in Deerfield. I used to live a block away so I knew it was there so I went over and took some photographs. This is probably the type of townhouse project we're thinking of for sale. I'm not sure, these are probably $300,000.00 today but they're not much bigger than what we're building here in good old Minnesota for $115,000.00 but that's kind of an infill townhouse project that is appealing. I ran ... I'd say 50% of them are families with children and 50% aren't. You can usually tell if they've got a pumpkin. It's a very nice project. A place that's the type of thing that we might be able to incorporate into our thing and that's generally the idea that we're doing. The main thing I wanted to get across is that since I started this project, which started at Freeport, Maine. We got photographs there. The tendency is, in all of these projects, the key to that look and the key for the success of the real retail portion of that is the pedestrian friendliness and traffic on the streets. And if we were not allowed to have parking on the streets, then we'd have to re -visit the idea. And that's a very critical portion of this particular project. As I said, we've met with the neighbors. Now I'm going to hand out something because in general I don't think they have a lot of..with what we're dealing with. There is some traffic concerns about this corner up here and Bob has some concerns about this layout. Those are the kinds of things we can work out over the next period of time because they're concerned about the traffic on the street. I told them we want all the traffic right here. That's where the business is. There's a concern here of more transition that if we started here with single family large lots and went to higher density, we would go in and build a high rise apartment or some large monster apartment building that would not be part of their area so we said well, economically we come out better if we don't do rental. I mean we're much better off doing for sale. So we 2 0 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 ' said in this area we don't have a problem of doing what you just saw.. Some kind of an infill for sale kind of thing that'd be lower scale. It does affect the sizes we told you before. And then the balance of the site they are concerned that we'd be building massive buildings, which ' is not our goal. At the present time at least. I mean that would be, if you're... we'll come back and have to live up to what we say here and then, so by doing this as a PUD, we really make a commitment as to what this project will be. We make a commitment to go through ' this for a year with you guys, as I perceive it. I mean it's just very much of a commitment. Relative to the staff report, I gave a couple there but this is my comments on the staff report generally so they're in writing and I don't forget what we said. And again we're not ' disagreeing or agreeing in those cases with the staff. I gave away mine. Generally speaking, here they are. Thanks. Generally speaking there are just a few items in here that we prefer to say we've heard your recommendations. Some of these things we simply have to work out and we're not in that mode as of yet. One of them is the preservation of the ridge line that's here. We're not quite sure we can build on it. Build around it. Through it or whatever and whether the road has to go through here. We don't know if it's a viable alternative either way ' so we said we'd work with the staff. The realignment of this road here actually related to the ridge road so we said in item number 2 that we'll try to work that out and come back with ' something that's probably acceptable. We proposed, it was a requirement that we provide affordable housing in the site. Affordable housing is designated by the Metro Council as having less than $115,000.00 for sale and we've checked with some of our friendly builders ' and we can provide that in somewhat... form on that area so we could meet that we project, probably 42 units max in that area of that type of thing. Economically we're better off doing that than rentals. Okay. Economically. Relative to the traffic, the streets, the type of streets, whether we have parking on the streets. Whether they're public or private. What the configuration of this is. What the turn off of this is. Item number 13 said, we need a traffic study. We agree. And then after the traffic study, which is the current and then what ' somebody would project this type of thing would generate, we think that's the time to talk about the streets. You know, why don't we get the information in hand and then come back and design it. The reason that's important, as I said, is if in fact we meet the village concept. In other words we're trying to make parking in the middle here and pull things up: We need parking on the streets. It's very specific in the staff minutes that we can't do that. If you recall Fred last time said, keep your mind open on that issue. I think that's much of that is ' engineering. Much of it's the State. You know, we don't know. We'd just like to argue that case that we may die at this point. We may end up back with regular retail there because we just don't have any parking. So that's how we'd like to approach that. And then finally, as ' far as the affordable, the rental housing. We're not sure it's either feasible financially or physically to put it there. Or anyplace in Chanhassen. That's our feeling so if you go to the next page, what I've done is done an analysis in starting, I believe on Monday at 5:30 the ' community starts discussing how do we meet the livable communities standards that the Met Council has set for us. As I told many of you, the problem there is that that's going to be a ' 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 real strategic planning problem because it isn't easy. There are very good reasons we don't have a lot of rental property in Chanhassen. It can't be built. It's too expensive. And so we have to deal with that. So the bottom line here is I took an average rent of $500.00 per month. I capitalized the cost of development, which is what we do, and if we were going to build $500.00 a month apartments in Chanhassen, the annual subsidy is $5,604.00. And the developer would make no money and the buildings would break even. And this is real life because this is what we do for a living. If you have to subsidize it $467.00 per month. Now that's all possible. Okay, I mean they're doing it in Minnetonka. Just approved a 66 acre site like this and they're doing it. Okay. But I think what should be dealt with is in fairness to the staff and probably in fairness to you folks, is that there is probably a need for it. We could probably figure out how to put it in here and spread it out and strategically say, it's a good deal for everybody. Everybody wins. I don't think we can do it at this meeting. That's my feeling. Because I think my feeling is that the staff needs some strategic plan that they're working on and you guys have to understand what that is. It's very much of a financially driven thing. And so I don't know how else to handle it. I plan at being at every one of those meetings because I think it's important to me as a developer in the community to add my input because this is what we do. You know it's not ... but all over the state of Minnesota. But this is real numbers on rental housing today and so my recommendation on that issue, and I don't know how you do that is that trust us. I mean you've got to trust the staff. You've got to trust the Planning Commission and that's tough to do but we're going to have to come back here, you know and we can probably incorporate some type of solution to this rental issue here. I don't know what that is. I don't know how big a subsidy the city will provide ... I don't know. Because it will not be built if it's not financial. But this is not just Chanhassen's problem. It's the problem... through all of the United States and the last time we had a wave of rental development was 10 years ago when we had tax credits to do it, for those of you who were in it. We haven't had any and it's a problem in every community. And I don't know, my feeling is the Met Council has said to the staff, you've got to do it. I don't think any tools have been provided to us to figure out how to do it. Now as far as the retail mix and stuff ..as you know I was elected to the School Board. Thank you for your congratulations but one of my missions was to figure out how do we increase the tax base so these folks can pay less taxes. This particular project will pay in taxes about $24 million when completed. And the last school referendum I calculated this morning, that would have paid $50,000.00 of the referendum. I don't know... they would have paid for 10% of the cost of the referendum under the normal formula. The school district deeply feels that we should start to try to balance, and this is from the school district now, balance. It doesn't have to be on this site but someplace in Chanhassen we have to raise the total amount of taxes that are passed onto the commercial people so the people living in the houses won't be taxed too much. And I think that's really the answer. In most of the communities where I go to, they love to have commercial /industrial. It's either for jobs or to lower the tax base. Or you know, balance the taxes and that's a very important thing. This particular community voted 2 8 0 �II L� Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 ' to 1 against a referendum for the kids that we're sending through the schools. And we all have to come to grips with that. I think along with the livable cities thing that the staff is dealing with, the Council, not you guys, have to come to grips with what are we trying to do. ' Are you going to be taxed out of the world? What's going to happen and all those are kind of issues I don't think we can deal with tonight. Thank you. ' Mancino: Thank you... presenting for you? Brad Johnson: No. Questions. Mancino: Were there any questions from commissioners at this point? I'd like to open this to a public hearing. May I have a motion to do so and a second. Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Since this is a public hearing, anyone wishing to make comments, please do so now. Come up to the podium. State your name and address. Resident: One of the things that's been mentioned here tonight, along ... was concerns for neighbors and also... One of the things that should be pointed out. People that moved into this neighborhood did, as this was being built, this area was zoned on the east side of the property... was for single family... The current plan holds it that way. There's also a proposal into the Met Council as Bob had mentioned. It says right now to make this medium density. What the request is currently in your plan, this is one that's high density. That's not what we bought knowing. It is a change and I think there should be some concern for what the neighbors feel. Mancino: Thank you. Gary Disch: Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'd just like to reiterate that. I've been here for 8 years. I checked when I bought the house that this was single family below me and medium density in the middle. I checked 4 years ago. It was still the same thing. I checked last year. It was still the same thing. All of a sudden now we're getting high density rammed down our throat. I did not buy my property there to go in next to high density. Mancino: Thank you. Brian Johnson: Thank you. My name's Brian Johnson. I live at 8143 Marsh Drive. I'd like to echo the comments of my neighbors who just spoke up. I think when this City Council 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 and staff gave single family residential zoning... neighborhood, you take on with that a responsibility to think of the concerns of the people who are going to live in that neighborhood. Again, most of us bought in that neighborhood expecting that we were going to have single family and at the most medium density residential next to us. Also the state statute on rezoning, if you look at that, requires that the rezoning has to be reasonable. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to take single family residential land and move it all the way up to high density for rent kind of uses right next to existing single family homes. I don't feel that staff has really gone through and justified the position of why high density residential needs to be placed in these locations right next to existing single family homes. A compromise that we have talked with the developer is putting in medium density townhomes, which will help make you meet the criteria of the livable cities act. The current request by staff that you put for rent housing may or may not meet the livable cities criteria. As Mr. Johnson just went through the numbers on what the cost of rental housing are, and the cost to put that together, either requires some large subsidies from the city, the state government, the federal government in order to make that cash flow. So you end up with rental housing that does not even help you meet the livable cities goals. It's trying to get below $650.00 a month. The numbers just don't justify that. Couple other concerns. I would like staff and the Council to look at whatever precautions to limit speed on Lake Drive East. Currently Lake Drive East, a number of cars are already going 35 -40 -50 mph along the church coming up to Total Mart. It's the request of the neighborhood that the stop sign that's currently at the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East remain there and that you look at the traffic at that corner so it does not become a high speed zone from TH 101 all the way down to the intersection behind McDonald's. Again, there's a number of small children in this neighborhood. We've got some very, I'm concerned about how much traffic is going to be on Lake Drive East, and especially at what speed that traffic is going to be. I guess in summary, from the neighborhood meetings, Brookview residents oppose high density rental, especially in the area immediately adjoining the single family residential homes. Medium townhomes or medium density townhomes, we have discussed with the developer. It helps meet the livable cities goals. I think that's acceptable to the neighbors. I think staff has failed to show why high density rental is necessary and that the zoning change is reasonable. Staff also in it's comments has said that there are a number of other medium density zoned parcels within the city of Chanhassen that are currently vacant. Why doesn't it make more sense to take something that's zoned single family and move it all the way up to high density than taking other existing medium density parcels and moving them up to high density. Again, what I would ask you to do if you do move this along tonight, I would like you to remove condition 19 requiring rental housing and support the developer's current recommendation of medium density for sale townhouses in the area immediately adjoining the Brookview single family homes. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. 10 I � LJ IL 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rita Klauda: Good evening. I'm Rita Klauda. I live at 8130 Marsh Drive. I want to support ...neighbors and I also am concerned about the traffic on Lake Drive East. At the last meeting I stated that concern and it was brought up that we just have to realize the traffic will increase on Lake Drive. The folks in our neighborhood aren't naive. We know that the traffic is going to be there on that road but we feel that with a traffic study and with proper use of that road, that traffic and speed can be controlled so we as a neighborhood can safely exit our neighborhood, whether it's on a bicycle. Whether we walk. Whether we're in a vehicle. I think the people in that neighborhood are owed that. That we can get in and out of our neighborhood without the fear of being hit by a speeding vehicle. I think that a traffic study that's done on the corners and help people to enter and exit the entire development, extend all the way down East Lake Drive. That that piece isn't forgotten because I think that's a big concern from our neighbors and for me, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. My house happens to be the one directly across the street from Total Mart. There are two corners immediately adjacent to my property and it is Lake Street. I am very concerned about the traffic on that street. I've had significant property damage as a result of traffic on that road. And I do have two small children. I'd also like to add that I support all of the comments of my neighbors and I am very concerned about the transition between my direct property line and this development and how it will affect property values of my home. Thank you very much. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Steve Lundeen: Good evening. My name is Steve Lundeen. I live at 8160 Marsh Drive. I hope you won't find me rambling tonight. In listening to the discussion with the folks from Halla and that concern, there seems to be a decent amount of concern on you guy's part that they were there first and they deserve some consideration with development that's made around their property and I believe that the same should be true for us. That we, that there is some consideration ... on our neighborhood. Just like all the other folks have said, they are concerned with the transition and I reiterate everything they said. I called several realtors, one that I bought my house through and another one, and asked them what they thought of this transition and both of them said, no matter what kind of apartments are put there, your property value will not go up as well as it has been in the past. And you can maybe even expect a decrease. And at the current tax rate I don't know how I can justify even staying in the neighborhood with that being the case. You guys have all heard the little commercial by a local copier company... business decision. A lot of the scenarios that they play out are because the decisions were made in a hurry and they weren't thought through and they weren't 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 planned well enough and I feel that because the Met Council is enacting you know this livable housing and the city has agreed to follow through, and I believe in the idea, but are we in too much of a hurry. You know that the money's not there to support it and it seems like well, here's an opportunity. Let's just slap it there and we'll be over our responsibilities and everything will be hunky dory. Another concern is the failing of the school referendum. I have four small children who I'd love to see have quality education in District #112 and if you noticed in the paper that Chanhassen was the major obstacle in passing that referendum. It's because the city taxes are much too high. I have friends in Chaska that live in the same value of property as I do. They're paying way less taxes. And another, co- workers that live in Bloomington, Plymouth and Eagan, they all have the same range of house I have and their taxes are even lower than mine. Some study that was in the paper showed the difference between taxes in various school districts and stuff and they said our school district was on a lower eschalon and I'm concerned about that. And if we provide more TIF financing, $5,000.00 a unit, the taxes seem unlimited. That's all I had to say. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission tonight? Randy Meyer: Hi. I'm Randy Meyer. I live at 330 Sinnen Circle. There's a couple issues that I believe were raised by Council at the last meeting that were requested that staff look into. One was to prove whether or not, or at least put some documentation whether or not we need more retail and commercial and I do not believe that that has been addressed. Right now we all know there's a lot of businesses downtown that their doors are closed. You know there's nothing in there. Just empty space and I don't know that it's been shown to anybody that we need more commercial and retail and I think that's one thing that was specifically asked of staff to do. I think another thing was asked to address the issue of the buffering zone, and I think specifically was asked to identify what would be, what it would look like. What things would fit in there. I haven't seen anything to address that issue. And I don't know if staff might have asked this or if Council asked but the people have all asked to see how this would affect our property taxes and our property values and I think that's very important to the people in the room, especially to all the neighbors and I don't think that issue has been addressed. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners on, well on several things. One of the biggest changes have been that the applicant has come in and asked to changed the R -12 zoning on the east side of the area to R -8, which would mean medium density and have so met with the 12 L IJ 0 u Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 neighborhood on that. Other changes that are significant. It's talking ,a little bit about East Lake Drive and the traffic that will be generated on that from this development. And if you could please address any other concerns that you heard tonight, that would be appreciated. Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Well, we definitely have to have some traffic study done to see what the impact is going to be and what controls we'd have. I guess I personally support the concept of putting the medium density for sale units next to the existing residential. I think that's a good move. If I were there I would have the same concerns they have. I support that. I don't know where the rental units are going to go, if at all. Again, those are some of the things that have to be presented with the next phase of the project. I assume they're going to come in with those options... Mancino: And the mix of retail, that was another concern that we as a commission had. Mehl: Yeah, do I understand it correctly? That the ... that staff is recommending additional retail. Mancino: Bob, would you like to reply to that? You are recommending that what the applicant is suggesting is. Generous: We are recommending approval of the addition of commercial space. Whether now the mix of retail, we can provide direction at that time. We think they primarily should address meeting niches in the community that aren't met but we'd really hate to limit it to only though because of the potential viability of the entire project. What if they can't get all specialty retail and a video store comes in? Are we really going to be opposed to that? Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: If I was to vote to approve this concept, that's what it is. It's a conceptual issue. I'd have to say that I understand the reasoning to add more retail. I'm not against adding more retail. If we go back and we look at the two packets that were provided to us as to why we would put in more retail, the primary culprit for adding more percentage has been the required parking, and our city's a pretty good example. You look outside and you see these large pocket developments here. You see that they are, they have a pretty hefty amount of parking in adjacent to their building. They hold a lot of customers. They're not like the typical town that you saw up here where you see a small retail area. They're very large retail areas. Some of them 60 some thousand square feet. They require a lot of parking. I'm not 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 sure that a convincing case has been made here, it seems to be washed over, that we need at least, I think it was mentioned 4 or 5 acres I believe in the report. Let me quote it directly here. That should be a targeted goal except I'm not sure why that should be a targeted goal but it might be. Mancino: 4% to 5 %. Farmakes: 4% to 5 %. Maybe we can use the criteria that we used in the 3 trees. That 3 trees is twice as much as we have now so that's a good target. I would feel more comfortable if we knew at that ratio that that's going to service our community and we define it that it's, either we're regional or we're not regional. That we define that. We say it's this many acres and I realize that we have yet to have a highway built to the south. That will probably have some commercial development but that we should have a goal for that and a plan for that similar to how we have our central business district here. That we had an end goal and we shot for that goal and I consider that to be good planning. And that we have criteria established for that, or expansion of that. I'm not convinced that I've seen that. However, I would forward this with that motion involved, or added onto this, asking that to be specified to the Council. That they look at that issue or ask us to define that very clearly as to where we would want to be there. It seems to me that it's still pretty wishy washy as to where we're picking that percentage from. In particular if a large amount of that percentage of acreage is parking. Now I'm going back to the important factor here tonight that we've noticed that is different from the meeting that we had before, and I think the recommendation of the city engineer is that we're, this development's contingent on having parking on the street. And it's interesting to note how full circle we get in a decade when we looked at the other developments here where you just couldn't get anyone to discuss street parking because hey, we can't get a building financed that way. We've got to have this many feet to the front door or we don't get our dollar. It's a great idea and I'm certainly not against that, as long as it's safe but that's outside my realm of expertise so I'm not going to, but I see that as a factor that in the studies that I looked at in here, the parking is a lot of that space. So if we're to look at that, it seems to me the parking issue could be, and I agree with Brad that that's a pretty basic issue in regards to this development or the reasoning that we used to expand that acreage or percentage of available land. Mancino: Do you have comments on the changing of density on the eastern. Farmakes: The issue of density goes beyond the issue of this development. It goes to the issue of affordable housing which is, if not there, where. And if not ... who and it seems to me that that is, I'm not opposed to the solution that the developer's proposing. The issue of for sale versus rental. Rental is a real problem as far as the affordability or to be able to build it without the tax incentives. And I'm not sure what we're looking at, is this $5,000.00 really n I� I� 14 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 annually but we're looking every 10 years, $50,000.00 annually plus inflation so I don't know that if it's a rental situation, you know if our populous is going to buy into this. We may tell the, shrug our shoulders and say we don't have a choice but it's interesting to see these ' numbers and I'm not sure that they're accurate but it's interesting. These are the first numbers I've actually seen without adjectives of, pleasant adjectives in front of them. And these are really the issue in front of us. So irregardless whether they're factual numbers or not, I'm really going to discount those but really what we're looking at here is the basic problem is, we're looking at another thing that's being added onto this development. I think because of it's location on the highway and so on, that that's probably using as a criteria with other ' developments or other communities that that's probably an established precedent for placing that type of housing there. The mixed use on top and so on, that would be going back to the ' type of development that you see in the inner city or older type development. I have nothing again against doing that if it's a feasible issue. When we go outside of the realm of paying for itself, or heavy subsidization, we're leaving sort of the realm of planning and entering into ' the realms of politics. I think that's really for our elected officials to deal with. So I don't have a problem with moving this with some of those conditions and asking to see their response in this regard. ' Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Meyer. ' Meyer: My concerns parallel I think Jeffs quite a bit. Concerned about having, requiring rental housing in the development. I do like what the developer has proposed in the R -12 area. Down zoning that to R -8. ' Mancino: The two parcels? ' Meyer: Yeah. The apartment concerns I think are something, I don't know if we can address it and—but that's a concern also. I guess the really big ones for me and if we could address those would be comfortable moving it forward. ' Mancino: Okay. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I've always liked the general plan. I think this is a large goal extension of downtown retail area and is also going to be our gateway to the city from the south when Highway 212 comes in and gives us a good plan in general for that. As the commissioners ' have pointed out, there are a number of things that need to be worked out yet but I would vote in favor that the commission would approve this so the conceptual plan could go ahead to City Council and the preliminary plan could start working out some of those details. I've ' always been concerned about the buffer area to the east to the neighborhood and I'm happy, I agree with changing the density. I also agree with staff and would like to put some, we'd like 15 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 to make up that somewhere in this development. Perhaps without the central office site. A lot of the slides that were shown had two story buildings with rental above that. Perhaps something like that could be worked out. I'd like to see rental try to fit in here somehow, somewhere. The highway study is certainly going to be, it is necessary. Traffic flow in here and pedestrian passage is going to be a big concern. Market Boulevard is a pretty busy area. It will be more busy when 212 comes in and there's offices, proposed offices to the west that will require access to the village so I'm certainly going to require... for pedestrians. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: The majority of the comments have already been made. Again on a conceptual basis I like the project. The only thing that I'm still uncomfortable with is where the placement of the potential rental units would be adjacent, directly adjacent to the single family homes. And I'm not trying to personally place them somewhere else. I'm uncomfortable in doing so nor do I think they to obviously, but I look at it and my first view is there really isn't, from a financial standpoint. Pushing it towards the lake probably isn't logical. Where it is probably the most logical. I'm just uncomfortable with it there as far a the transition so. You know R -8 all the way through that would be I think more tolerable from my perspective, and certainly to the residents of the area but other than that, I'm very comfortable moving it up to the Council. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: I have very little to add. Maybe there's some neighbors that they probably should just take a look at the staff report because it may sound like we might not have looked at some of the issues but I think if you looked at the staff report, maybe it's a little bit of clarification in terms of retail. Mix and I think ... not totally solved but staff has done a fair amount of work on that so again, taking a look at the staff report. I think the other issue is the transition to the east. I don't think you go from single family to high density. We've never done it. That's just not what we do and I think... Aanenson: Except for the senior housing project. Conrad: Yeah, well that wasn't my idea. Aanenson: Well we've got a couple other places in town that we didn't show you a slide. It has been done and I understand the issues completely. We're just saying somewhere on this site we'd like to see it. I understand the issue. Conrad: This site is just a great opportunity. 16 �I Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Good. I have a final, I guess I get to make final comments and I have a few and they mostly have to do with the conditions in here. I just want to make sure when one of the residents came up and asked about the traffic study. That it does go east on Lake Drive East, Lake Drive and we take in those comments that I think that she articulately expressed. Aanenson: I think we'd want to even include Rosemount. Mancino: That whole area. And this is kind of past, this is over and beyond this. Looking at East Lake Drive in that area and seeing what boulevard trees and making it feel more like a neighborhood area, it certainly as a car driver, when I feel I'm going through a neighborhood area, I slow down. I mean I don't really need a sign to tell me that but I'm sure we will look at posting speed limits and reducing them. But one of the other things in my mind, as I drive that I slow down is, if there are trees around. It feels neighborhoody, etc. And I notice that there's a fence, just a fence on East Lake Drive there and I think that we could do some plantings. That would help. I also agree with the rest of the commissioners on the transition from single family to the east to medium density townhomes. I also would like to pass onto the City Council a recommendation for rental housing and have them figure out where it goes. I don't think that it necessarily has to be east of TH 101. I do feel that it could be west of TH 101. There could be an underpass. There could be a pedestrian walkway so that those who live in rental property on the western side could get over to the retail on the east. I think that that would be, would work out well. And they can look at the economics that go with that because that's something that we won't be. I would, on another point and that is public streets. Parking on public streets. I would like to offer the suggestion that we change condition number 12 so that the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets. Making sure that it doesn't interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. But I would like that option to remain open instead of just closing it. I would also like to add a condition 22 so that if this conceptual plan goes through and we get to preliminary plans, that the applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report. So that we see it at the appropriate time and that is at the preliminary time. I think that signage and a mix use area and lighting is a major concern. I would also like to amend condition number 4 having to do with architecture. The applicant shall better define the vernacular to be used within the project. And that second sentence, and I'll give the rationale afterwards. Specific architecture development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. And what I mean there is that, I think one of the ideas that we all as a commission buy into and are excited about is a village concept. And not only do I see this for the retail commercial but also for the townhomes and that again the whole development has a neighborhood. Has a look and it's all very compatible. And that is, and many of the townhomes that we're seeing before us, the first thing you see or the only thing that you see are garages. And that is certainly not the 17 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 concept or what I'm assuming that we will see in townhomes in this development. That it will be more of the neo traditional, new urbanism concept. Whether that means an alley way, whatever. That we look creatively at that. So that there is a good compatibility here. And I think those are all my comments. I'd entertain a motion. And I think that if one person entertains a motion, others of us would add friendly amendments. Peterson: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #92 -1 with the conditions 1 through 21. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Farmakes: I'd like to add a friendly amendment. I'd like to instruct staff to define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other reports but specify specifically the advantages to the community of doing so. Mancino: Is that friendly amendment accepted? Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Any other friendly amendments? I would like to add a couple friendly amendments. And that is to condition number 4. That the first sentence stays as is. The second sentence changes to specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. Is that friendly amendment accepted? Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: The next friendly amendment is on number 12. That the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Thank you. Number 22. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architectural of the project as outlined in the staff report. 18 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 ' Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? Oh! I guess I have a question. Does this mean that ' the new, question for Bob. That what we are approving here is the new revised R -8 zoning for those two eastern parcels. G Aanenson: No, you approved what we had with number 19 in there. Mancino: Oh, okay. Generous: No, it would be the proposal. You would have to make that specific. That the applicant provide medium density adjacent to. Aanenson: Or transition or however you want to word that. Mancino: Okay. I just wasn't aware that that is not part of the motion at this time. It would remain R -12. Generous: Well what they're proposing. Generous: Yes. Mancino: What they are proposing in front of us. Mancino: Okay. Which is R -12 and R -12. Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Peterson: I think we need another friendly amendment. Point of discussion first. I think, my sense was that we all agreed that there was a transition problem between the high density and the single family. At least I heard a few of us say that. So I think in turn, how we should integrate that into this. Meyer: How would you word that? Generous: Well as a motion maker you could add another condition that the transition, residential be no greater than medium density and your second could approve that. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Peterson: To that end I would make an additional condition that the density be, between the residential, current residential and the new residential, that it be medium density rather than high density. Aanenson: I have a question. Can we get a number on that just so that we have the same understanding that what we say medium is 4 to 8 units an acre. Is that understood? Peterson: Yes. Aanenson: Okay. Mancino: 4 to 8 units per acre. Okay. Peterson: Was I succinct enough on that? Aanenson: Yes. I just want to make sure that everybody understood that that's what we classify as medium. Mancino: Any discussion? My next question is, are you meaning also to keep in 19 which would also have the developer looking at rental housing in another area of the development? Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make clear that that was it. Do I have a second on that entire motion? Mehl: I'll second it. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #92 -1 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east -west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in it's entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD. 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. Oul Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses. ' 4. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land ' uses within the project. 5. The applicant shall investigate realigning the Lake Drive East extension to follow the ' Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east /west ridge on the northern portion of the project. ' 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. ' 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. ' 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. - ' 9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. ' 10. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining public street shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East will require an 80 foot right -of -way and the southerly loop street a 60 ' foot wide right -of -way. 11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDot review ' and approval. 12. That the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parldng on public streets that ' does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. 13. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and ' to determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this ' development. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 15. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 16. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. 17. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 18. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag /urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 19. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 20. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. 21. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development. 22. Instruct staff to define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other reports but specify specifically the advantages to the community of doing so. 23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architectural of the project as outlined in the staff report. 22 p 1 C Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density (4 to 8 units per acne) and not high density. I All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carved. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A 9,400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7600 OUATTRO DRIVE MICROVISION CORPORATION Public Present: ' Name Address ' Patrick Giordana Minneapolis Paula Jackels 8531 Merganser Court = Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report Mancino: Any questions for staff? I have a quick one. Can you keep that up please for a ' second Sharmin. They've already graded the parking lot. Okay. When, and is that part of what we were approving? The parking lot. The expansion of a parking lot. Al -Jaffa What we have done in the past is allowed grading to take place. ' Mancino: Now do you allow grading to take place? I mean what if there are trees there? I mean are there, do they have to put up fencing. Protection fencing. Would you allow grading prior to the Planning Commission okaying the site? ' Aanenson: It's still permitted through the engineering department. They would review the plans and make sure they're consistent with drainage and everything else. And there's only a ' certain level that they're allowed to permit administratively. Otherwise you have to go through this process. ' Mancino: So the engineering staff looks at the environmental effects as trees that are up and everything and how. I Aanenson: No, they communicate with us to do that. 1 23