Loading...
2 Aboretum Village PUD CITYOF 10 CiO, Ce, ter Ddve, ?0 Box 147 iCt~anhasse,, Min,esota 55317 Pho,e 612.937.1900 General £~v 612.937.5739 5,gi,eedng Fax 612.937.9152 !ublic SafeO, Fax 612.934.2524 limb wwu:ci, cha,hasse,, m,. us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanensom AICP, Community Development Director DATE: January 16, 2001 SUB J: Arboretum Village Update BACKGROUND On December 5, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review Arboretum Village. This item was tabled for review' of several issues where the Commission wanted additional information. There have been some modifications to the plans including the size and location of play area and provision of guest parking. Summary of changes/modifications to the development are highlighted in the staff report. Following are those issues and the staffs response. ANALYSIS 1. Rental Units in the .Project Pulte Homes is now the sole developer of the project. They have acquired the remaining portion of the Savaryn property which was located just north of West 78th Street along the eastern wetland. Rental units have been eliminated from the project. All units will be owner occupied. The area that was proposed for rental units is now the "Manor Home" Project. 2. Parks and Open Space Requirements Upon conclusion of the discussion on Tuesday, January 9, the Park & Recreation Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Arboretum Village PUD as depicted in the attached plan and the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails: · Full park and trail dedication fees be collected. Dedication of the north wetland trail alignment as a public outlot. Pulte Homes shall construct the north wetland trail as a public amenity with reimbursement from the trail's dedication fund. ;e Gt~, of Chanhassen. A £rowiny~ community with clean lakes, quality schooh, a cham~ine dow,town, thdvin~ businesses, and beauti~d oarks. A ~reat vlace to live. work. and day. Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 2 · All totlots shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, and the large north wetland all be preserved for perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these spaces remain intact. 3. Architectural Upgrades on Village Homes The Planning Commission was concerned with the design of the Village homes. The developer has made modifications to improve the look. The roofline has been changed to have two pairs of gables on front of the roof with a cedar shake look. The end of the gables will have the cedar shake looking material 2/3 of the way down the end gable. The doors at the end of the building will have a roof (porch). A bay window is located on the second floor. A pair of bay windows will be placed on half of the units in any one building. These changes should reduce the massive look of the building as well as to create additional fenestration to the building. A perspective of the change will be available for the Planning Commission meeting (see revised elevations). 4. D'affic There was some confusion with the trip generation numbers shown in the staff report versus what the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had estimated. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) number shown in the staff report was 6,176 trips/day. This number was based on the original Pulte submittal, which included rental townhomes. The trip generation factor for rental townhomes is greater than the factor for owner-occupied units, which would give a higher estimated ADT. The total number of units initially proposed was also greater than what is now being proposed. Initially, 414 units were proposed. This was the number used in the staff report's trip generation. Currently, there are 379 units being proposed (the EAW assumed that 385 units would be built). Hence, fewer units would yield fewer trips per day. Finally, staff assumed a larger portion of the site (35,284 sq. ft.) would be commercial retail than the EAW (20,000 sq. ft.). All of the above variables factored into the larger ADT number estimated by staff (6,176 trips/day) compared to the EAW estimate (4,730 trips/day). * In essence, the EAW's estimate is more accurate because it's based on the current proposal. Another issue dealt with the expected level of service at the major intersections surrounding the proposed development, namely the intersections of TH 5/TH 41, TH 5/Century Blvd., and TH 41/West 78m Street. Level of service is a method used to grade the overall traffic flow and vehicle operation on roadways. Level of service grades range from a high grade of (A) to a low grade of (F). After construction of the proposed development, each of the above intersections is estimated to operate at a level of service grade (C) or (D). Staff agrees with the EAW findings that this mid-grade level of service is acceptable. In a growing community such as Chanhassen and with the close proximity of a major highway (TH 5) to the intersection, there will be unavoidable overflow traffic on the surrounding streets. In fact, Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 2 · All totlots shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, and the large north wetland all be preserved for perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these spaces remain intact. 3. Architectural Upgrades on Village Homes The Planning Commission was concerned with the design of the Village homes. The developer has made modifications to improve the look. The roofline has been changed to have two pairs of gables on front of the roof with a cedar shake look. The end of the gables will have the cedar shake looking material 2/3 of the way down the end gable. The doors at the end of the building will have a roof (porch). A bay window is located on the second floor. A pair of bay windows will be placed on half of the units in any one building. These changes should reduce the massive look of the building as well as to create additional fenestration to the building. A perspective of the change will be available for the Planning Commission meeting (see revised elevations). 4. Traffic There was some confusion with the trip generation numbers shown in the staff report versus what the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) had estimated. The-Average Daily Traffic (ADT) number shown in the staff report was 6,176 trips/day. This number was based on the original Pulte submittal, which included rental townhomes. The trip generation factor for rental townhomes is greater than the factor for owner-occupied units, which would give a higher estimated ADT. The total number of units initially proposed was also greater than' what is now being proposed. Initially, 414 units were proposed. This was the number used in the staff report's trip generation. Currently, there are 383 units being proposed (the EAW assumed that 385 units would be built). Hence, fewer units would yield fewer trips per day. Finally, staff assumed a larger portion of the site (35,284 sq. ft.) would be commercial retail than the EAW (20,000 sq. ft.). All of the above variables factored into the larger ADT number estimated by staff (6,176 trips/day) compared to the EAW estimate (4,730 trips/day). * In essence, the EAW's estimate is more accurate because it's based on the current proposal. Another issue dealt with the expected level of service at the major intersections surrounding the proposed development, namely the intersections of TH 5/TH 41, TH 5/Century Blvd., and TH 41/West 78TM Street. Level of service is a method used to grade the overall traffic flow and vehicle operation on roadways. Level of service grades range from a high grade of (A) to a low grade of (F). After construction of the proposed development, each of the above intersections is estimated to operate at a level of service grade (C) or (D). Staff agrees with the EAW findings that this mid-grade level of service is acceptable. In a growing community such as Chanhassen and with the close proximity of a major highway (TH 5) to the intersection, there will be unavoidable overflow traffic on the surrounding streets. In fact, Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 3 staff believes that if the entire site south of West 78th St. were proposed to be commercial (as the current zoning allows), then the level of service grades would be worse. The location and need for traffic signal lights was also questioned. In addition to the current signal at TH 5/TH 41, a signal is planned to be installed at the intersection of TH 5/Century Blvd. with the uP,tg[hading of TH 5. Currently, there is no signal planned for the intersection of TH 41/West 78t Street. The only planned traffic control for that intersection is a stop sign for drivers traveling west on West 78m St. If, in the future, the proposed three-way intersection of TH 41/West 78th St. became a four-way intersection, then a traffic signal may be warranted. *Staff's original analysis also attempted to provide alternative development scenarios for comparison purposes. 5. Sufficient ~ater A concern xvas raised regarding how the proposed development would affect the public water supply, individual water service, and upcoming sprinkling ban. The City has, by ordinance, an annual odd/even sprinkling ban that is in effect from May 1 through September 30. This ban is in keeping with other metro area cities as a water conservation method. In the fall of 2000, the City instituted additional sprinkling restrictions during Phase I of the Lake Lucy Water Reservoir renovations. This reservoir contains over 66% of the City's water storage capacity. Phase II of the renovations are planned for the spring of 2001. However, the reservoir will be back in service before the completion of any of the proposed units. In addition, new wells are proposed in 2002, 2004, and 2005. A new water storage facility is also proposed for 2005. The new wells and storage facility are planned to address anticipated growth in the community and to reduce the City's reliance on the Lake Lucy Water Reservoir. 6. lYetland Setbacks and Buffer The wetland setback is being designed consistent with city ordinances. Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator, has given a further explanation of the wetland ordinances and modifications to the review. They are found in the wetland section of the report. 7. Bluff Creek Overlay District The application of the Bluff Creek Overlay District is an ordinance of the City of Chanhassen. Chanhassen is the only community in the Bluff Creek Watershed that uses this type of ordinance. The ordinance was developed as a result of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. It was drafted with the assistance of Hoisington, Koegler and Associates (Planning Consultants). The Overlay District with the primary and secondary zone is a tool the city can use to protect the creek. The ordinance allows for the transfer of density out of the primary zone (Sec. 20-1559 of Article XXXI). If the city does not want to grant the density transfer, then the property may be purchased (park and trail Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 4 dedication funds) or a variance would be the means to grant relief from the ordinance to permit development. In this circumstance, the City Attorney's opinion is the city cannot demand that the property be dedicated without some compensation. Transfer is one of the best ways to achieve the primary zone protection (see attached Overlay District Ordinance and Map). 8. Number of School Age Children The number of school children that will be produced by this project is based on information from Barbara Lukerman, a demographer for District 112, and a professor at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. The formula that she uses for projecting students is 0.2 students per dwelling unit for town house developments, 0.7 students per dwelling units for traditional single family detached housing, 0.1 students per dwelling unit for apartments, 1.1 students for subsidized apartments and 1.2 students for subsidized townhouses. Therefore, if there are 379 units x .2 = 76 units students. The developer estimates based on the sales data that they could expect 91 students. 9. Concentration of Affordable Housing Staff has prepared a map that depicts where the current valuations for housing are under $134,250. This number represents affordable housing that is defined by the Metropolitan Council. This number does not mean that these units are subsidized or that people living in these units must meet income qualifications. It simply represents the number of units under $134,250. All units north of West 78th Street are above the affordable definition from the Metropolitan Council of $134,250. Those units south of West 78th Street would meet the definition of affordable (see map attachments). 10. Crime There have been questions regarding this type of project and crime. The city does support the Crime Free multi-family housing. This type of project is for rental housing. In speaking with Beth Hoiseth, Crime Prevention Specialist, and Sgt. Dave Potts, a Carver County Deputy, crime is not higher in these types of owner occupied developments than any other single-family developments. There may be more call outs because of the density of housing but not necessarily more crime. According to Beth there is not a higher rate of crime in Mission Hills, Walnut Grove or Autumn Ridge. 11. Livable Communities Act The city has participated in the Livable Communities Act since 1995. There are three components to the Livable Communities Act. Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 5 Life-cycle housing is made up of two components. The number of non-traditional housing or percentage of housing that is not single family detached. The other component is the ratio of owner occupied units to renter units. De~?sity compares the number of units to the acres of development. This ratio is applied to low density and multifamily. Affordable is that percentage of new housing units that will be affordable. As of today's date, the Met Council considers those owner occupied under $134,250 affordable. Rental affordable is $715 per month (2 bedroom). The City of Chanhassen has always had a goal of providing a variety of housing types for persons with a range of incomes. Since 1995, the city has increased the number ofnontraditional residential development, apartments, townhouses and cluster developments have been built. Much of this has to do with the maturation of the community. In 1990, there wasn't even a grocery store in town. The city has substantially increased its commercial and industrial base. Along with the maturation has come the demand for alternative housing types. Because the city was historically a bedroom community with a large supply of single-family housing, single- family housing xvill continue to be the predominate land use. Most of the zoning or land use for different housing types has been in place for these developments, but some changes have occun'ed. Staff has learned with each project that diversity should occur not only in the design, style, and product, but also price. When the city was first approached by Pulte Homes, the concept plan showed just ttzree housing styles. This was flatly rejected because of too much monotony of product and the overall design was inferior. The staff has worked to refine this project. The changes include unit mix, styles and materials of buildings, street layout, etc. All of these changes have pushed the price of the units higher. The predominate product with the original proposal was back-to-back townhouses. It is staffs opinion that this is the most common type of"other housing" choice we have in the city. The goal was to provide diversity not only in this project but in the city. The staff goals are and always have been to provide high quality projects that reflect the goals of the city including: The Highway 5 Corridor Study Bluff Creek Overlay District Livable Communities Act The Comprehensive Plan Staff has worked hard to accomplish goals that sometimes conflict with each other. While it is not a goal with this project for the city to subsidize any of the units (Carver County may buy up to 6 units), it is a goal to provide some affordable housing as well as a housing type that is not traditional single family. The affordable goals are being accomplished through this development through the zoning of the property. The goals of the Highway Corridor identify the view from Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 6 the road. Staff and the developer have worked to provide orientation of buildings that should be least obtrusive. The Bluff Creek Overlay District transfers density out of the sensitive development area, which results in preservation of sensitive areas while compressing density in others. This project has been compared to the project in Eden Prairie at Dell Road and Hwy. 5. In speaking with the planners at Eden Prairie, the project is all the same type units. It has 180 units on 38 acres with a net density of 7.5 units an acre. The Pulte project is less dense and has greater diversity than the Eden Prairie development. It was stated at the last Planning Commission meeting that I said with the most recent adoption of the LCA that no project would have more than 30 percent affordable. This was certainly not the context in which I said 30 percent. I was asked if "30 percent was a goal for all new developments." My answer was "yes." The realty is that all new single-family traditional developments won't provide any affordable housing. The average new house price is approximately $265,000. The only possible way to achieve affordable housing goals is for some developments to exceed 30 percent. In examining developments that have been approved by the city in recent months having housing under $134,250 (or affordable at that time), most of them have had over 50 percent affordable. The city does not have a mechanism that prohibits housing under a certain valuation. There isn't a requirement that states all housing must be $200,000. What the city does have is design standards, for example, lot size or house minimum square footage requirements. If any development were to submit all housing units at $115,000, the city could not deny approval based on valuation alone. In December of 1999, the Metropolitan Council prepared a Report to the Minnesota Legislature on Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing. This report is a three-year review of all communities and counties in the Metropolitan Area. According to this report, Chanhassen is not the leader in providing affordable housing for communities that issued over 1000 permits (1996-1998), the average percentage of affordable owner occupied housing was 30%. Chanhassen had 25% (see attachments from Met Council Study). RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the changes have continued to improve the project and is recommending approval of the development with the conditions in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS o 2. 3. 4. Petition from Dogwood residents Letter from William Naegele Letter from Steve Berquist Village Home Design Arboretum Village Update Planning Commission January 16, 2001 Page 7 0 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Preservation Areas Sample Conservation Easements Pulte Alternatives Chanhassen Housing Data Planning Commission minutes dated December 5, 2000. Met Council Report to MN Legislature on Affordable Housing 1996-1998 BlUff Creek Overlay Ordinance City Affordable Housing Map Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone Map Revised Plan g:\plan',ka\pulte. 1 - 16-01.doc TO: Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP & Planning Committee FROM: Dogwood Road Residents DATE: December 10, 2000 SUBJ: Pulte Homes, Arboretum Village Pulte Homes will be developing land at the Northeast comer of Hwy 5 and 41, Arboretum Village. As part of this development, they have proposed to maintain the 11 acre parcel at the Southwest comer ofHwy 41 and Tanadoona Dr. as woods and wetland. We, the residents on Dogwood Road, are in favor of this proposed plan to retain the natural integrity of this 11 acre site. WILLIAM OTTO NAEGELE December 28, 2000 The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Chanhassen P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mayor & Members of the City Council: would like to go on record as supporting the Pulte Project at Highways 41 and 5. My ;vife and I have been residents of Chanhassen for about 35 years and have had an opportunity to watch the various proposals submitted to the Staff, Planning Commission and City Council for this piece of property. I remember when Bob Taylor of Minnetonka, Inc. was very excited to locate his company's corporate headquarters on that corner. The City said no, it was not the right use. Then Mills Fleet Farm bought the property and the City said no, it was not the right use. The comprehensive plan was then changed and the property guided for industrial and medium-density residential. Pnlte entered the scene well over one year ago and has made many, many changes to their plan to make it more acceptable to the neighbors and the entire communiD~. I believe it is a great use for the property. Some of the opponents of the Pulte Project have suggested a split use of the property · ..Industrial/Office/Warehouse v~'otlld go on the south side of the frontage road and Medium Density. on the north side of the frontage road. My wife and I used to live at 2665 Longacres Drive in Longacres and had one of the prime views of the site that Pulte is considering...if we still lived there, we would much prefer to look at the housing proposed by Pulte rather than the back side of an office/warehouse project. It also seems logical to me that buying a retirement or a starter home in a lifecycle residential development like Pulte is proposing has much more appeal than buying a twin home adjacent to an office/warehouse project. (Continued...) Page Two At the last Planning Commission meeting comments were made about the aesthetics and flatness of some of the elevations in the project, particularly on the more affordable portion of the plan. It should be remembered that the more elevation depth changes, the more expensive the "affordable housing" will become. Some of the rear elevations in the Longacres development and other new projects in Chanhassen are also more one- dimensional than many people would prefer, but it is a function of cost and selling price. I believe Mike Ryan's input has made the project better; however, I do believe the project as now presented makes sense for the City of Chanhassen. The overall density of 5.62 units per acre might be of less concern to the residents of Longacres if they focus on the fact that the product north of the frontage road and closest to them has a density of 3.6 units per acre; and even more importantly, the proposed twin homes fronting on the shared wetland have a density of 2.5 units per acre, very similar to Longacres. Regrettably I will not be in town for either the Planning Commission Meeting or the City Council Meeting, so I write this letter in support of the project. In closing, perhaps the City of Chanhassen or the residents of Longacres shOuld purchase the pr. operty if they~elieve it should not be developed. /try Vu y yo/urs, // , Biil~Naegele / Resident of Cl~anhassen 3301 Shore Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 WON:jmw CC: City Planner CC: Members of the Planning Commission My name is Steve Berquist. I live at 7207 Frontier Trail. I am here to advocate for Chanhassen' s continued committment to the Livable Co~mnunites Act. It is a carrot and stick approach to asking cormnunities to do what is inherently in their best interests anyway. By adopting the LCA and reaffirming your outlined goals to provide a wide variety of housing options, we provide ourselves with the possiblities of receiving state fi~nds for use in our cmmnunity for a wide variety of hnmediate and future needs. By adopting the LCA and continuing to strive for mixed densities and density transfers in projects that are appropriate we provide ourselves with controlled growth that addresses the needs of all of our citizens. By adopting the LCA and working to educate people as to what it means to Chanhassen, we can continue to provide housing opportunities to people that are desirous of and desirable to Chanhassen. Putting faces with the "life-cycle housing" phrase is important. I mn talking about housing that will be rented or owned by: school teachers, bank tellers, auto mechanics, dental hygenists, retail employees, clerks, nurses, child care workers, cooks, receptionists, janitors, . church employees, newspaper reporters and many other people that are vital to the overall efficiency, economy and needs of a community. I am talking about housing that will be rented or owned by: young adults just entering the work force. They may be doctors, airline pilots, attorneys, manufacturing professionals or any other career you can name. I am talking about empty nesters and retired people that have chosen to downsize into sometlfing with less cost, footage or upkeep. In other words, we are talking about everyone - except perhaps -those of us who are in the prhne of our adulthood in terms of our earning power and ambition Providing housing options for every individual who contributes to a community - no matter how large or small the contribution - should be our goal. Chanhassen's current comprehensive plan speaks to to issue very well. 1. A balanced housing supply - available for all income levels. 2. Accomodation of all racial, ethnic groups in purchases, sale, rental and location of housing. 3. A variety of housing types for poeple in all stages of the life cycle. 4. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods - including ownership and rental. 5. Development that respects our natural environment while trying to accomodate a wide variety of housing types and costs. Those of us who believe that adoption of the LCA will bring us LOW INCOME HOUSING and turn us into BROOKLYN CENTER are unknowing of the problems regarding housing and so are fearful that they and their families may be adversely affected. Prior to the election, a letter to the editor in the Chanhassen Villager made the misanthropic assertion that life-cycle housing will allow Chanhassen to become a haven for $6 per hour people that we don't want here. It's impossible to intelligently address a statements like that. I can only say that the adoption of the LCA does not mean housing values will drop and that crime will rise. It does not mean that Chanhassen will be overran with the poor and indigent seeking asylum. It means that we are commited to providing housing opportunities for each and every member of our community, be they young, old or in-between and regardless of the size of their paychecks. In my opinion, that is good business, good for the community and morally uptight. I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to doing what is fight for the entire community of Chanhassen and reaffh~ our commitment to the LCA. Thank you very much. .0-.?£ i / i X a: ~t~o aOl'l!t~fil Preservat.ion Areas 'I , / / / ~,/ i · / // /! O(IT£OT D CONSERVATION EASEMENT Instrument made this 29'~ day of August, 2000, by and between Marsh Glen, L.L.C., hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). Witnesseth: The Grantor, in consideration of good and valuable consideration paid by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant unto the City a permanent conservation easement for the purposes set forth in this instrument, over, under, and across the premises described in the attached Exhibit A ("subject property"). Grantor and for its heirs, successors, and assigns, agree that the following are prohibited in perpetuity on the subject property: m. g. C. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and playground equipment. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegetation, except for noxious weed control by or as directed by a government agency. Excavation or filing. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation. F. The deposit of waste, yard waste, or debris. Go The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides, except for noxious weed control by or as directed by a govemmentaI agency. H. Outside storage of any kind. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. , Grantors and for its heirs, successors, and assigns, further grant the City the affirmative right, but not the obligation to do the following on the subject property: mo Preserve, improve and enhance the slope, trees, vegetation, and natural habitat by altering, clearing, and removing trees or other vegetation, by changing the contour of the land, and by planting trees or other vegetation. B, Enter upon tine subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. Marsh Glen, L.L.C. by Steven Kroiss, Jr. its Governor. City of Chanhassen By: Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor And: Scott Botcher, City Manager Arboretum Ct')IIR r II{)M£S IO~VNEII (.lC(;.) ] t)WNIIOMF,~ (I1EN I'^ I,| DENSITY (GROSS RESII)EN'I IAI,) 4.98 tlNI Ir?dAC. / / lt.,.'~ / ? :! ? / / _,'~'~..::: ::- '~. ~._~,,,., .....'.?--~ ...... -: '.~. ,-- , -",~7 ':;42- .¢'_..-": .... / ~ ,/ .,.),--.'.-: p~_¢c6:/ -- ;,4, o ~ I /> o / / / ....... IlW¥. 5 · .! I I I I / ? ;ArboretUm. .... · , / #.,, · .... ',..~-.'/.. · .~." ,~, / ,, ? . '/, , - " ~./ .- / · / ~ .' , .~.;~_ ,. .' ,." ~/,4 , %. %~..." , ~,, .. ,. ~. ~ ',: 136 TWIN 170 TOTAL NORTII ARiIOR.E'I'UM VILLAGE ~ITE DATA AILEA (GROSS) 84.2 AC. COblblERCIAL 3.7 AC, RE.~I D EIW[I A L 80.5 AC, RESIDENT/AL U~ITS 494 TOTAL q~,V 1N I 101M F.$ lff~ COORT 11051V-~ ¥1LLAG£ IIOMES 228 DENSITY (GROSS RESIDENTIAL) 6,14 UNITS/AC· i · I ~24 . i' EE° 0 ~ T s~,!W~d jo ~qwnN Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay, it passes and goes to City Council for their next meeting I assume? Aanenson: Yes. It's going December 11th. Generous: Quick turn around. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (393 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES~ MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 417 ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Brian Evans Leah Hawke Shelly Christy Laura Papas Steve Hanousek Susan Cohoon Anne & Mike Ryan Mike Zumwinkle Michelle & Kurt Oddsen Allan Vargas Kathy & Tony Larson Scott C. Rile Bill Naegele Peter Prosen Bruce Buxton Ton Green Dave Sellengren Dan Cook Susan McAIlister Dennis R. Griswold Tom Standke Kevin Farrell 2585 Southern Court 7444 Moccasin Trail 7377 Moccasin Trail 7434 Moccasin Trail 7501 Bent Bow Trail 7525 Bent Bow Trail 2595 Southern Court 7250 Hillsdale Court 7325 Moccasin Trail 2596 Southern Court 2631 Longacres Drive 2665 Longacres Drive 3301 Shore Drive 2701 Longacres Drive Brainerd, Minnesota Mills Property Minneapolis Eden Prairie 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Pulte Homes Pulte Homes 7336 Fawn Hill Road 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions for staff. Deb. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Let me find my place here. The primary benefit for doing a PUD is this concept of density transfer and preserving these large stands of trees in that Bluff Creek primary zone. Our city code does not allow clear cutting of trees so if they develop this as a standard subdivision, they would not be allowed to cut down all the trees. So are we really saving that many more trees by doing this a PUD? Aanenson: That's a good question. We've walked, there's a couple of subdivisions that were heavily wooded. One is the Woods at Longacres. Another one would be Stone Creek. Heavily wooded. When Stone Creek came in we recommended doing large lot in the treed area and clustering outside. The Planning Commission and the Council at that time had recommended no. There was a lot of trees lost in both those subdivisions. It happens when you grade. Even when you custom grade. There's just, the clear cutting says you can't go in and cut down all the trees and then come back and alter the terrain. The purpose of saving the trees is it forces the maintenance of some of the natural topography, which is one of the other goals xve're trying to achieve, but yes you will get a lot of tree loss if you did a straight subdivision. Kind: I know I have other questions. Oh, on page 9 of the staff report it talks about that it appears it will be 41% owner occupied units. I was at the City Council meeting. I was the designated Planning Commission person at the meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved unanimously by our City Council, and it was 30%. I'm assuming that the reason this is 41% is that we, this is the only type of area where we are going to get affordable homes so we need to have a higher percentage here. Because the 30% is for all new units built in Chanhassen. Is that how it works? Sacchet: May I jump in here? Because the 41% is not accurate anymore. It's actually between 20 and 25% now because the price of the coach homes xvent out of the range of affordable so only the village homes are considered affordable and there are 82 and 82 out of 383 is about between 20 and 25%. Kind: So xve're not even making up anything with this? Sacchet: So yes. Aanenson: I don't think that's a right number. The village homes is the predominant use and that's the most modestly priced ones. Sacchet: Oh excuse me, there are 160 village homes. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Yep. So it's 41% about. Aanenson: It's 41%. Kind: But the reason for the higher percentage is because it's for all, well go ahead. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Aanenson: It'd be nice to accomplish it, you know our goal would be to try to accomplish it in any subdivision. Economically it's impossible to do a single family detached home, in a traditional subdivision, and make it work because the economics are such that when you have a three car garage, two story home, you're not going to get one under 134. We haven't built one under 134 for a number of years. So the only way to accomplish some of the affordable owner occupied is to do some other type of product, and that tends to be townhome or condominium type product. The only product that we've done as single family detached, that's affordable, is the North Bay one that the City participated in. That's been the only one that we participated owner occupied in a number of years. And that's off of Lake Riley, Lyman Boulevard and that's a detached type home. And the City participated in that. Kind: So with the 41% for this project, does that put us on track for meeting our overall 30% goal? Aanenson: It moves us towards it but we're still quite a ways from it. Kind: Okay. On page 10 of the staff report it talks about setbacks and I'm curious, I think elsewhere in the staff report, I couldn't quite put my finger on it, it talks about the distance across the wetland to the neighboring homes. What is that distance? Aanenson: 700 to 1,000 feet. Kind: And then how about across the smaller wetland to the new proposed. Aanenson: That's also approximately about 600-700 feet. Let me just, as long as we're on that topic. That was another one we looked at this, doing the density transfer because this neighborhood is isolated. You're not connected, as I showed on Walnut Grove, you had two neighborhoods that are connected, which is much more sensitive to the traffic patterns. This neighborhood is not connected to another neighborhood in that way. They won't be able to get, except for the West 78th Street extension, to connect to another neighborhood. And they're at the end of a line. Looking at access onto collectors. Kind: On that same page, under the commercial development standards it talks about under point number 2 that curtail walls would be allowed on office components. Standing seam curtain walls. Do we really want to say that? Aanenson: No, we want it as a support material. I think if you're talking about a long, where we don't want it as a long unadorned wall. If it is standing seam siding, it could be monotonous so, I mean if that's a concern I would recommend that you strike that language out. Kind: It's a concern so I agree. Next staff question. Oh, on page 12 where preliminary plat subdivision, where we're talking about conservation easements and the common spaces and the outlots and that sort of thing. It brings to mind that these conservation easements are, are they, who owns them when they're dedicated? Is it the City? Aanenson: Well it's staff's recommendation that we put, that we put them in a conservation easement but if they're left with the homeowners association, there's only so much density. This has come up in other PUD's, with this project. If they wanted to put additional units, they'd have to come back and ask for a rezoning because a fixed number of units goes with the project and that's the beauty of the PUD. They can't make alterations without coming back and asking for amendments. As far as the Wetland Conservation Act, I mean they're bound by law as far as what they can do to that, and those also have utility and drainage easements over them. That they cannot alter those either. That's based on the 13 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 Wetland Conservation Act. If you wanted another level of assurance, you can speak to the applicant about if they wanted to put the conservation easement in the name of the City or something so they make sure that the homeowners association didn't decide to put a gazebo in that area or something like that. Kind: I think that might be a good idea. So that dovetails into my wetland question which is, are they being dedicated to the City as well? Haak: Yeah, I knew you were going to... Yes, what the proposal is and what typically happens with wetland issues is that the existing wetlands are dedicated to the City in drainage and utility easements. Any replacement wetlands are under separate drainage and utility easements and there are some other restrictions and covenants that go along with those replacement wetlands. They xvill be replacing it 2 to 1 as is required by law. Kind: Okay. And the large xvetland, what if it becomes not so wet anymore and basically dries up and all of a sudden could they build on that? Haak: Well that wetland has existed for quite some time. I wouldn't anticipate something like that. if that were to happen, there's a number of exemptions that could be applied, if the Wetland Conservation Act stays the way it is right now. But like I said, with a historic wetland like that, it's part of the Bluff Creek Watershed. I wouldn't anticipate anything like that happening. Aanenson: Can I just add to that question? It's a good question. Again, that's the density question so any alteration of that, they would still have to come back and ask for one, any exemptions of the wetland act if they use them. Then they'd also have to ask for additional density because you've given so many units. So it would take an amendment to the PUD. Kind: Brings to mind another question which is, I know in Longacres some of those home's properties actually go into the wetland so that's counted as their square footage, their 15,000 average or whatever. In this development, are we giving the applicant any credit for any of that wetland? Aanensoll: No. Kind: Anything that density transfer... Aanenson: ...taken out of the net density. Kind: Okay, so the net density is just upland? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have another question. Oh! On page 19, there's a park and trail section and this is an area I don't think we should get into. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to direct planning staff to take a look at what we've done with other multi-family home projects as far as totlots and prepared some sort of document for City Council. Just not even get into that discussion. Aanenson: Well yeah, the Park Commission's recommendation goes directly to the City Council. In the past the Planning Commission and Park Commission may not always have been in agreement where the Park Commission may have wanted something more active. Maybe the Planning Commission wanted something more passive. The Planning Commission has asked to see what the Park Commission's 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 looking at. You don't have to be in concurrence. You don't have to review what they're doing. Their commission, their recommendation similar to your recommendation, goes up to the council and they'll consider both of those in the evaluation of the project. So you don't have to be in concurrence or review what they're doing. It's just really for your edification. Kind: What do you think about preparing something relative to what we've done in other multi family housing developments? Aanenson: Sure. That seems like a reasonable request. Kind: Okay. Page 22. Street. The traffic analysis and the EAW, on page 19, shows a C and D level of service as acceptable. Do we agree? Saam: Yes. Yeah, I agree with that. Kind: I just had never thought ofa C and D as being a good grade, but for streets it is huh? For traffic it is? Saam: Well acceptable, yeah. ! guess it's better than what was it the Gateway EAW. Kate and I had discussed this before the meeting. I wasn't around when the Gateway EAW came about so. Aanenson: The C or D means it's adequate. It's not performing but HighWay 5 is functioning at C or D and it will with the upgrade so. Kind: How about if this parcel is developed as commercial or as a standard subdivision, how would that affect the traffic? Aanenson: We had put that in the other packet. Matt's new here. We had put that in the concept, the different scenarios under based on what we estimated for trip generation. We kind of review our math, what we had put in there. It's one of the attachments. Kind: It's one of these attachments? Aanenson: One of the attachments at the very end. Under the original concept you wanted to look at population projection for students, tax capacity and population for... Kind: Excuse me Kate, but what page are you looking at? Aanenson: The last page. The estimated students on the top, that was the name of our thing but it's actually trip generation rates. The top heading's going to say estimated student projections. Right under trip generations. Kind: Yeah okay. Aanenson: I can go through those with you but I think if you look at what the EA projected and if it was industrial and commercial, you're over by 1,000, a little over a 1,000 trips a day from what, so our estimate was pretty close. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Saam: Yeah, the EAW had predicted 4730. What Kate modeled for what Pulte's actually petitioning or applying as is 6176 so that's about 1,400 more. If it was all commercial it'd be even higher. 7,700 so. The traffic would definitely increase if it was all commercial. Kind: Let's see ifI have another one. Oh, speaking of streets. There's one dead end street in the proposal that abuts up to the McAllister property. Will that road be posted as possibly being extended in the future or something like that for clear communication purposes? Saam: Yes. That's something we typically do. Put up a barricade and say this street will be extended in the future. Kind: Do we know that it will be? Should the language say maybe or? Saam: Yeah there's no, xve don't know for sure. It's not set in stone but that's what we're planning for. Aanenson: Right. There's two anticipated access to the McAllister property. One would be directly off of West 78th. The other would come through that street. She is requesting sewer and then possibly for sewer and water, way may come through that way too so. Saam: Both we'd xvant through. Aanenson: Right. So it gives you txvo options so it's probably, that may be a good idea to post it. Saam: Yeah, it's dependent upon development of course. If she never wants to develop. Kind: Then it won't happen. Well and there's a fexv streets like that that the roads never did go through and I can think of one in Stone Creek where it abuts Timberwood where the street never did go through, even though it could. Aanenson: The staff recommended approval. The neighbors didn't want it tied in. Kind: Right, and so it didn't happen. And then there's another one in Chart Estates abutting the Brookhill development too, yeah. Where that road never went through either so a couple examples. They don't necessarily go through, but the possibility I think should be told. Aanenson: I think for the Stone Creek one, staff had recommended approval. It's still posted there. If for some reason some future council changes their mind, so the bus can go through. Kind: We won't get into that tonight. And speaking of Miss Rosie's, I'm wondering if it makes sense again under the heading of clear communication, that if this proposal goes through, that the future buyers all sign some sort of disclosure statement saying that they're aware of Miss Rosie's petting farm and also we're not sure what's going to happen with the Gateway. You mentioned that they are selling but maybe disclose that there's a Gateway group home there and then the possibility that that road could be extended in the future. The next thing on that page talks about the EAW. I'm still on page 24 guys. I think they're trying to keep track. It talks about the EAW and the plans that are shown in the EAW are different than the current proposal. Is there any' problem with that? Aanenson: It's less intense so we scope for the maximum. This actually has less units and it's been modified so. And we'll comment on that when we send it. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kind: Okay. And in the EAW it also talked about noise abatement and it recommended that air conditioning, it recommended that there be year round climate control which. Aanenson: I believe all the units are air conditioned. So that issue has been resolved. Kind: Sorry guys, ! got a lot of questions. Oh, on page 26. Under the fifth finding it talks about, staff report talks about the code does allow for a density bonus for affordable. Are we, does this proposal include a density bonus? Aanenson: No. Kind: No. And then there's also a couple numbers in there that that are different. Aanenson: Those are the older densities. Kind: The older. It should be 8.3 units on the, let's see. On the south side of West 78th Street and then 5.6 overall. Aanenson: Right. Kind: And that's it for now. Burton: Other questions for start'?. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a lot of questions but I feel'a little torn. I mean we have a lot of people here that want to give input to that and I have at least as many questions as Deb had so I would want to ask whether it's acceptable that we can ask more questions as we move along because we have people with small kids. I think it'd be fair to them if we moved this thing along. Burton: I think we've typically asked questions as we go anyway so I don't have a problem with that. Anybody else want to ask questions? Conrad: A couple. Questions before you open the public hearing? Burton: Or the applicant. Aanenson: I think the developer would like to finish his presentation. Conrad: Kate, would you just...developer, give me a history of this. We saw it in concept form. Tell me what's happened since that concept. Aanenson: Sure, I'll go through those changes again. Conrad: And then, so that's one thing I need to know. And then two. In the staff report it appeared that there were two issues that City Council brought up. That were of concern to them so I'd like to know the history, public involvement and then I'd like to know the major City Council issues. If you could summarize them based on your memory. 17 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 Aanenson: Sure. The council had an issue regarding the density on the north side. At a minimum all, my understanding is a minimum of all twin homes along the perimeter. And that wasn't able to be accomplished on the eastern side of the property where the rental homes was. They had Pulte didn't have control of that. The applicant...Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental. Audience: Could you speak up please. Aanenson: Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental. To date it appears that Mr. Deannovic won't be doing the rental. That has been dropped from the project and Pulte is trying to acquire that piece and it's their desire to put the manor homes, which is this product, along that perimeter property. So it will be all owner occupied. So that was one of the concerns that council also wanted to see the twin homes along the entire perimeter was one of the issues. Also the open space and some of the density transfer, how that worked. I'm not sure that was cleat' so we tried to show that in the staff report. How that ~vorked. Again ~ve treated it like Walnut Grove where we gave them again Pulte is dedicating West 78~h. If this project does not go through, it's a separate letting project. West 78th would terminate at Century Boulevard, which is this street right now. That's where the project right now contemplates. The water is running along West 78th Street, which goes over to 41 which would service the future Westwood. Sexver's running along the edge of that wetland so this project provides the mechanism for the next project to go. So that's the history. Neighborhood meetings. A neighborhood meeting was held last week. I'm sorry. Conrad: Go back further. When did we see this? Aanenson: Over a year ago. Over a year ago. Conrad: And we've seen it once? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: And then it went to council for their concept so they saw it and they gave those recommendations, they gave them two or three recommendations. And then since then. Aanenson: Right. And they also said it didn't have any legal standing. It does take, it does a rezoning does take, you have a lot of discretion as far as changing the comprehensive plan. And I think it was clear that the concept didn't have standing but they wanted to give them some direction on which way to go. Conrad: And then the neighbors were brought in at what point in time? Aanenson: Well we've been in dialogue on the, I'm not sure there's been always a lot of concurrence on some of the issues but they did meet last week, been a bit of dialogue. Conrad: So you've got City Council input a long time ago and now we're back. Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Okay. Burton: Alison, do you have any questions? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Blackowiak: No, not at this point. Burton: Alright, we'll move on then, unless there are other questions. Would the applicant or their designee and if they'd like to address the commission, please approach the podium and state your name and address. Tom Standke: My name is Tom Standke. I'm with Pulte Homes, 1355 Mendota Heights Road in Mendota Heights. Dennis Griswold: Dennis Griswold, the Director of Land for Pulte Homes. If you'd like I'd like to just make a few comments about the site and then we'll go through the product in more detail and show the elevations and then answer any questions you might have. Burton: That's fine. Dennis Griswold: Just to start. We are very proud of this proposal that we have before you tonight. We feel it's a planned unit development that is a perfect use for a site that has many things happening in it and around it. And the aerial photo that we took earlier this year indicates the different areas as they exist now, and I'd like to just point out so you can see in photo form how it does relate. Kate did have an aerial map but this is a little bit at an angle and I think shows the vicinity. The Longacres property is to the north. We have the generous wetland immediately adjacent to that in this area. The area that will be the primary development area is the tan colored open field area through here, and the dashed line that you see through here is the northerly extent of where our buildings will occur. So you can see we are backing up to the wetland. We're not violating that wetland. We're backing up to the wetland on the north and the east, but we're respecting that buffer and we're not violating it. The two little white rectangles that show up, these are the locations are actually the dimensions that we are from the, where the back of our buildings will be and the path that is along the back side of the homes in Longacres. You can see on the map, the path kind of coming into the right. That continues through the trees. We're 658 feet at the closest point diagonally across here and we're about 1,317 feet through the balance of that buffer area. The property west of 41 is about 11 acres and you can see that, where it's, the tree mass through here and the open area on the north. The other tree masses on the main part of the site are down along Highway 5 and then up north of the McAllister exception up along the wetland. And part of the proposal here of using the PUD concept again is to save those natural areas as much as possible and to make sure they are saved from here on. In doing that we have proposed the site plan that you have seen tonight and as part of that, thanks. Part of that site plan and the platting is that the wetlands and the property west of 41 will be saved within outlots. And I know it's been stated either in a conservation easement or whatever to convey that so there's an assurance that those will not be developed in the future. Those will be dedicated as outlots and they'll be dedicated to the city. So it will be under city ownership defined within an outlot and therefore it will be your responsibility and great effort to maintain those as is. That is a common practice in many cities so the city does have the right to go in and do any small maintenance or whatever on the boundaries of the wetlands and do what you need to do there. The development then, the proposal again is planned unit development. That allows us to work with the natural features. It allows us to put our density in the right areas of the site. It allows us to work with also the other features such as the 78th Street, Highway 5 to work with how we will have access to those and how our buffering would work. And again we have worked extensively with staff and I don't mean to go through each detail of the site but we are providing an ample interacting open space or green space throughout all of the different products. Most of them with a path system so you do have good circulation through. Just for scale, the open space down in the southwest comer, right in this location is 1 ½ sizes of a football 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 field. So you can get the sense of scale that that is a large open space that we are providing. We actually have about twice that much up in the open space up in the manor home area of the site. A little bit different character because it has trees and wetlands and a little more undulating. All of the open spaces have the play features that we are proposing. Totlots, half court basketball, volleyball courts, horseshoes, shuffle board, all of those types of things. Again we're trying to provide a plan that integrates the life cycle community aspect of homeowners in different stages of their housing needs. To work together not only with the natural corridors but also the transportation corridors and we feel that this particular site plan is an excellent site plan for this particular site. It's a very intense site with 41 and 5 and 78th Street. Those are all very major streets. We are integrating the density out in the area where the density should be according to comp guide plan. And we're transitioning for the more intense density on the south to less intense on the north. And that's a transition that works well with the man made and the natural features. So with that just a couple quick things that the planned development gives you that a straight zoning would not. First of all MnDot would not have to pay for 78th Street right-of-way. We're dedicating that. We are dedicating the 11 acres west of 41 that will be part of your natural corridor through there. We're providing the tree buffering along 5 and 41. We're not only saving the tree mass in this area, but we're also planting about 1,200 or so trees on the site that are primarily along 5, 41 and 78th Street. From the City's standpoint also, xvith the association owned green space that we're providing these recreational amenities and path system, those are not park dedication. Park dedication will be approximately $275,000 cash dedication per your per unit dedication requirement. So the City is getting a definite advantage from that standpoint. I think that the bottom line from our standpoint is the site and the uses fit with the area that we're dealing with. With that I'd like to, with Mr. Standke, do a quick run through on the units themselves so you can see what they'll look like and what they will cost and so forth. Burton: Okay. Tom Standke: Thank you. I believe xve'll start with just leaving the plat map up there. Talking a little bit about the prices, the sizes and the basic demographics of the specific products. As Denny had mentioned on the south side of the property is the village homes. These are the 160 units that was mentioned before as far as the affordable housing. Down in the, again in the south and the western portion of the site. This is the fourth community that we will be building village homes in. We redesigned this particular product. You may have recalled, it was in an L shaped building before. It is now in a different characteristic. Our estimations are, and again based on our history with this product, of approximately 21% children. That's 33.6 or 34 children. They are two story homes with tuck under garages. The finished square footage range is from 930 to 1,000 square feet. And the approximate selling prices go from $110,000 to $120,000. The piece that you see covered up is the L shaped portion of the building, which is why we put that there. Obviously you will now have just a straight run as we have shown on the plat map. This is the front door on the garage for the homes. We do have a rendering of the rear of the home that is a black and white. Here you see a typical four unit building. The entrance to the homes on the side comes in through the side of the home over in this area. Each of the home has it's own patio onto a green space as was indicated on the original plat. Here you see the side elevation of the drawing of the building where you have the side entry for the home that would be on the end of the building itself in it's totality. The next product is the coach home which is in this area. IfI don't take all of our things down. And again that is a coach home. It is a product that we developed for here. It is an off shoot of something that we called a court home. We have been building this product probably 15 different communities in the Twin Cities area. This particular product has all two car garages. These are back to back buildings meaning that there's a mirror image of the product that you see there. The coach homes, there will be 82 of them that are planned, again with approximately 21% children which comes out to 17.2 or 18 children. Finished square footages are between 1,200 and 1,350 square feet. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Approximate sales price range, $135 to $150,000. And again the other side is a mirror image. The next product is the manor home which is in the center portion of the plat. These particular homes are a front to back townhome. They're all two car garages. As a matter of fact, they're all oversized two car garages. With the inclusion we're looking at as far as the rental homes going away, and this particular product being added to the east side of the property, we would go to 105 manor homes. Here we're looking at approximately 18% children, which is 18.9 or 19 children. These are split level townhomes with basements. Finished square footages range from 1,200 to 1,600 square feet and the approximate sales price from $150 to $180,000. The architectural drawing that you see on the bottom is the end units and then the rear elevation of a typical building. And then the last product that we have is on the north end of the property. These are club homes. Club home is a product that we have built in the Twin Cities for the 10 years that our company has been here. These are all two unit buildings, front and side loaded garages. They are all one level homes. They do have basements and the next drawing you see there is a walkout basement. The rear elevation of a walkout basement of a two unit building. That is a, as I say, a one level townhome. Active adult are the typical buyers. Finished square footage goes from 1,400 to 2,200 square feet. The approximate sales price from $185 to $220,000 and again for the last 10 years we're finding approximately 12% children in that. In the 36 homes would be 4.32 or a total of 5 children. So what we're really looking at in the 383 homes would be a total of 76 children, which is about 1 child every 5 homes. There were some questions at the neighborhood meeting about the impact on schools. Obviously if it was a straight single family community you'd probably have approximately 2 children per home. Here you have 1 every 5 homes. So this is a basic of the plans, what they look like and the price ranges. We do have some exhibits here for the exterior color packages and we can certainly send those around. I'm not sure how good that shows up but what we have here is on the top left is the siding color. The middle is a vinyl shake. Then the roofing material. On the bottom right we have either stone or brick and then the accent color would be for shutters and front door. We do have, and that will be passed around. This one shows the brick and Denny will pick up the cultured stone and I don't think we'll pass that around because it's a bit heavy. Aanenson: We'll pass them. Do you want to see them all? All the colors? Burton: Why don't you just quickly hold them up. Why don't you go through and show them to the audience too so people can see them. Tom Standke: All of the homes are maintenance free exteriors with vinyl siding and vinyl shakes. As was mentioned before, there's a homeowners association that handles the lawn care, the snow removal, sprinkler systems, trash pick-up so it's a combination of things that we have done in the past quite a few times and if I've missed anything please let me know. Otherwise I'd be more than willing to take any questions. Burton: Questions for the applicant? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I would like to ask you a few questions. I don't have too many issues with you. Most of my issues are more staff issues but if I can just clarify a few things. The one thing, I want to clarify, in the staff report it says if Pulte Homes is to offer it, then the rental units will be manor homes. So is that a done deal or is that if?. Are at this point, is that a done deal that instead of rental units you are proposing to have manor homes there and they will be owner occupied or what's the meaning of the if in there? Or is that just a remnant from previous times? Dennis Griswold: If I may address that. That has changed primarily because of the input last week from the neighborhood meeting and we found that there was a lot of concern on the rental component and so it 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 was decided by Mr. Deannovic that he would give up that particular item and would sell it as owner occupied .... with Mr. Deannovic. It's my intention to pursue that very heavily and I think he is receptive to negotiating that with us. So we would like very much to purchase that part too and have the manor homes there. Sacchet: So that's not a done deal but it looks like it should go through? Dennis Griswold: I xvould hope so. Sacchet: My second point was the coach homes originally were proposed in the price range of $112,000 to $130,000 and now it's gone up to $135 to $150,000. Can youjust briefly give us an idea of why. Tom Standke: Well first of all the, pardon me. The initial application was over a year ago. So there's the increase in costs xvith both building materials as well as some additional changes and adjustments that we've made to the product. There's also building code issues. We have changed all of our product to meet tile energy code that was supposed to take place 3 or 4 different times. It was a moving target. It never did happen. However, all of our homes are built to that design xvhich added several thousands of dollars in cost so. With all of those things and passage of time, that's where they're Sacchet: Okay. In our package we have a letter from the Lundgren Brothers where they're hope, they're expressing their desire to have some buffering also on the east side towards the area that they're planning to develop. Is that something you're planning to accommodate to any extent? Tom Standke: Well there is a wetland inbetxveen the properties that Mr. Griswold is showing you now. Dennis Griswold: We do have the wetland which is again about 600 feet. There are trees, our side of the wetland and on the Lundgren side. The 78th Street location is approximately through here so the primary interaction between our residential pond and their's would be essentially across that ~vetland. The area down in the southeast corner of our's and southwest oftheir's would be a commercial component. Sacchet: So your answer is that there is a natural buffer itl place that fulfills that requirement. Okay. There is some discussion in the wetland context that in some areas you're actually proposing a 20 foot buffer where you could get away with a 10 foot buffer. And then there are some lots that are mentioned that are actually encroaching. I assume those are issues that you're working out with staff. And there was also talk about the northern cul-de-sac being moved in that context. Are those issues that are being worked on? Dennis Griswold: Yes. Those are minor site plan adjustments. Sacchet: Okay, so we don't need to spend time on that. And then finally in the context of the petting farm next door, I saw on your grading plan that by putting the road all the way to the lot line you actually do some grading on that property. That it goes about 20-30 feet onto their property. Is that something that, do you have agreement from the owner there to do that? Dennis Griswold: At this point we don't have any written agreement to that effect. If blending such is that is very technical and I would hope that we would be able to work that out... Sacchet: Okay, it shouldn't be a major issue. 22 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 Dennis Griswold: If not we would have to deal with a small retainer or something right at her property line, but it's very difficult and you are stubbing a street right to her property line. To not actually encroach into that property on a very minor basis. Sacchet: And then my last point real quickly, and I don't expect to get to the full bottom of that because it's as well a question for staff. Our city ordinance for petting farm has setback requirement I believe of 300 feet from the closest structure, and I would assume if it works that the petting farm has to be 300 feet away also. Your buildings have to be 300 feet away from the structure of the petting farm. Is that something that's being looked at at all? Dennis Griswold: I think staff has reviewed it and feels that we comply with that. From our point of view we did not have a problem with the location of our townhomes relative to the activities on the petting zoo area. Now I know there was setback issue of how many feet from the barn and I guess... Sacchet: We'll address that with staff further to see how that exactly is supposed to work but that's my question. Thank you. Burton: Okay. Other questions for the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Could you explain why there's a dramatic price change from the last time that we saw this? He did that? Sacchet: Yeah he did. Tom Standke: But I'd be happy to do it again. Kind: No, I don't want you to do it again. Where was I? I'm sorry. Tom Standke: The passage of time as well as changes in the way we build the homes as far as energy code was the main reason. Kind: I'm sorry. I really apologize. Tom Standke: That's quite alright. I hope all questions are that easy. Kind: I was hoping you were going to say they were dramatic architectural improvements or something like that. Dennis Griswold: If I may. I would say that the improvements to the site that the community is benefiting from, our portion of that as well as what Mr. Standke had indicated but the 11 acres on the west side of 41. All the different items that we've talked about do get included in that bottom line price. Kind: I'm sorry. I obviously was out listening as in not. I do have some concerns about quality of materials and the elevation that we were shown recently. The manor homes, the back elevation, you might want to put that up again there. I think the amount of windows is great. I have a concern about the back elevation. The roof being one continuous line. Would you consider adding gables or maybe cantilever some of those windows out and put gables above them to create a little more architectural interest on the back elevation? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Tom Standke: Well I think it's difficult for you to see the true effect of the rear elevation because the homes are staggered. Okay, so and again, yeah. Denny's pointing it out. You can see it more on a side elevation how you've got the roof lines moving and so I think again, a flat perspective does not really do it justice, just as our colored elevation of the front. Kind: How dramatic is the stagger? How many feet are we talking? Dennis Griswold: There's 4 foot horizontal at these two points. And then you have the decks projecting out. So there are quite a few things happening. Kind: On the back side of that. Dennis Griswold: The other point if I may add is, typically those are oriented within... Kind: Which leads to my next question, which is the back elevation of the village homes, which is exposed to that intent intersection that you talked about of Highway 5 and 41. That back elevation appears to me to be one continuous roof line as well. Dennis Grisxvold: Our intent from the site, and point ifI may just talk a little bit about that first. Is first of all some of the things that we're doing from the site here, we're preserving the tree stand which is a buffer for these units. Both for people looking in and people here looking out. Through here is probably at least half of this 1,200 trees around. Those are primarily evergreens and ornamental trees such as crab apple. Kind: Will there be a buffer that they're on top of'?. Or a berm I mean. Dennis Griswold: On a berm that undulates 4 to 8 feet. Kind: So it will hide the garages perhaps or? Dennis Gris~vold: Well the garages are basically internal. The garages are facing each other in these cases and that back elevation you were talking about is out toward this patio court in most cases. So it's, xvhen you're looking at it from different directions, typically you're oriented more toxvard the end of those buildings and that was the concept in doing that. You don't have in any of these village units paralleling the street so you get the width of the building if you will. Kind: And the end unit has entryway for the end unit and is there an overhang for that door? I went and looked at the village homes that were built in Apple Valley and I'm assuming these are very similar to those and I did not see any sort of protection from the elements, that sort of thing. On the sides. Dennis Griswold: The horizontal shift is at this point where this total area is shifted out. There's not a roof over the actual entry itself. Kind: Is that something you'd consider adding? Dennis Griswold: I guess one reason we haven't in most of the areas is because that also deals with setback issues so you're, in addition to the building you're tacking that onto the building envelope for setbacks. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kind: To me, and also in the front elevation those entryways, they're all just kind of flush. There's no overhang or pillars. Nothing like the charm of the manor homes which I think are quite nice. I'd like to see some of those kind of details on the village home. It seems to me it seems quite easy but I'm not the one doing it so. Dennis Griswold: We do have on those, and again the elevation here is flat but we do have the base jutting out. We have the horizontal shift at these areas. Whether it's 4 unit building or 6 or an 8. And each of the entry areas juts out and has a roof, either this style or a gable or a shed type roof so there are three different styles of that roof over the entry. Kind: In Apple Valley none of them offer any protection though if it's raining. It's got the roof but the doors are flush with the, they're on the same plane. I know a shadow is drawn but it doesn't cast much of a shadow. There's not much of an overhang there. It's just an idea for how I think it could be made a little nice. I also have a concern with the product of shingles. In Eden Prairie the club homes have much nicer looking shingles than the village homes. I can't tell from that flat little piece there. Is that the higher quality shingle that's on the club homes in Eden Prairie that will be used throughout this development or what is the roof material like? Dennis Griswold: This is an upgraded shingle from what you saw in Eden Prairie. So just the overall aspects of the village buildings. I think about everything you would look at in the Eden Prairie village home has been upgraded. Kind: Good. Dennis Griswold: ... doing it there and learning from what the buyers would like and what we want to provide. Kind: The Apple Valley one looked much better. I was relieved when I saw that. I had some concerns about the shingle quality. I know in the summer time the flat shingle tends to kind of buckle and something that's a little bit more textured like on the club homes is something I'd like to see in all of the units. Are you proposing using the same shingle products on all of the units? Tom Standke: Frankly I don't know that. We also have to remember something that, first of all the shingles that we use are a national manufacturer. They're warrantied for a minimum of 25 years. You know it's a typical building shingle. As far as is it the same shingle that we would use on a club home? Club home might receive a totally different shingle because you're selling a product that's up to $220,000. Here we're looking at affordability. It's not an inferior product. It's a product that is again, 25 plus year warranty and. Kind: I just want to make sure it looks good. That's my, that's where I'm going. Tom Standke: Okay. Kind: Oh. Also, on the.., it's difficult to tell. The original coach homes, let me see. Could you put the coach home visual up? I don't know what they were called a year ago. They weren't called coach homes. Tom Standke: Court homes. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kind: Court homes, thank you. The court homes in Eden Prairie have a ship lap siding, and just so you know where I'm going. I hate that stuff. So I'm hoping that none of this siding is going to be ship lap. Dennis Griswold: No it's not. Kind: Good answer. Tip my hand a little bit here. Oh, the side entries of those village homes have an awful lot of foundation showing. Are you proposing to put some sort of brick fagade or some sort of stone to cover up that foundation? Dennis Griswold: We do have retaining that works around the corner of that building that brings the grade up. Tom Standke: And there's also landscaping that goes in that area. As you go up the grade. Kind: It'd be nice to have rules to only so much of the foundation can show. Just quickly checking to see if I have any more questions. Oh, the air conditioning. You said that that xvas included in the base price? Dennis Griswold: Yes. Kind: Because out in Apple Valley it's not. It's an option. Tom Standke: It's standard here. Kind: I think that's it for the applicant. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? No? Ladd? Conrad: Diversity of color choices in the project is within a housing type, the product. The colors are the same? Exterior colors. Dennis Griswold: There is a range of colors. Kind of the range we've seen here. They're not drastically different but they are different. Tom Standke: I believe we have 10 color packages. Dennis Griswold: And you do get the differences in color on the buildings too. You know from the siding to the shade area and so forth. Conrad: But the buildings won't look alike and they're sitting next to each other in terms of coloration on the outside? Tom Standke: No. We choose the different color packages and we do not put them next to each other. Conrad: A year ago ! had one point and you probably remember what it was. I have more than one point. I was concerned with sort of the entry feel to Chanhassen on the intersection of 41 and 5. And was curious what you were, we were talking some gazebo look or some fountain look or something at that intersection to kind of signify that the site, that it fits in the project here. Right now I'm not sure what that is. What are you planning? 26 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 Dennis Griswold: What we have planned is basically the berming and the landscaping for screening and really continuing this plant mass around the perimeter for that we're providing screening. In terms of, and then there is also a wetland down in the comer. We explored that potential of a pond and we also were trying to explore other elements and I think it was talked about what could that be and quite frankly I didn't get enough of an answer to put it into the plan. I really just went with the berming and the screening and felt that that in itself and making the different housing units that we do have here, blend into that comer and have the screening not only for thc people living in the units, but for the people driving by. And I think that's fairly comparable to what you see in a lot of different developments or communities around. Conrad: So that comer you're under highway grade, right? So what's the berming going to do? Is that just, does that bring it up to highway grade? What is it doing? Dennis Griswold: No. It won't be that high. It will give you undulation and eventually when the plant materials get up to a bigger size, you will get screening that way. But I think you know, that is a very intense highway there and I don't want to try to say that we're going to have total separation because we won't. We will have I think probably better separation from that standpoint than if we created a pond which we would want to develop relatively on elevation and a view across the pond obviously would be open to the highway. Conrad: So right now it will be a wetland at that comer? It will be a pond? What will it be? Dennis Griswold: We're leaving the wetland that is in the comer. If it gets disturbed it would be by the Highway Department and I don't know where they're at in the details of that part. The major feature I think is going to be the larger pond here with the tree mass. I think that's really where you're going to get the most impression from the highway. Conrad: Okay. Into the different recreation areas within the site. The common areas. It looks like you have one trail coming through it. Are there other access points? Is it really intended to be a community park or, it looks like on the plan that I'm looking at, which is old, it looks like there's one trail going in. Dennis Griswold: Into that area? Conrad: Yeah, into that area. Yeah. Dennis Griswold: Well there's a perimeter walkway that connects to the 7gth Street pathway. It comes along this public street out to 78th Street walkway again and then from that walkway we connect through to where the half court and the volleyball and benches and so forth are. And there's also plans for a totlot in this area. And that connects out to this point which would give access to these units. Conrad: So what is that space? It's green space and it's got some recreation value. What's it's intent? Dennis Griswold: The intent is that it is association owned green space that is at a size that it's useable for various recreational needs for that neighborhood. It's not meant to be a community park. There's a community park in this particular case...And we do have this same path connection concept going through this area of the site, and that also crosses the road here to the public path along that wetland that goes this total length along the wetland. So that's where the public would be. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Conrad: Have you done other sites with this type of common area? Other projects? Dennis Griswold: We've had common areas with paths but quite frankly not to this extent. This is quite a bit more than we proposed in many communities. One of the, ifI may just add to that. One of the major recreational needs in a mixed use community like this is a path system forjogging and for walking. And for the active adults up on the north, they like to be able to make a loop walking and same with the younger people. They go out for a jog and not have to be in the street. So that is making a big loop there. Conrad: Okay. Just a footnote for staff. I think it'd be, and it's obvious you went to Park and Rec and I read their notes and their notes talked more about totlots than they talked about some of these other things in the public comments so. I wish we would have had their comments for this meeting because it does affect our recommendation. How we move to the City Council but that's going to take place next xveek or sometime so I guess that will be an independent process. That's all I have Mr. Chairman. Burton: Any other questions? I just have one quick question. On the site plan, there's the totlot in the east corner kind of it by itself. Is that still in the plans? Dennis Griswold: This is still on the plan. At the time we talked to the parks commission, they were concerned about whether that was the appropriate kids and size and so forth for rental housing because their estimation was that's where you have more kids. Now that that's owner occupied, it's really down to about 10 kids instead of the estimate of about 60 or 70 in there so we would still be proposing that but there xvould be more of a connectedness over to these other features here through the path system. And there's also the walkway along this whole road up and connecting to the public path to the north. Burton: Okay. That's the only question I had for now. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more question. You mentioned that there were 10 color pallets. There are 6 here. Do you have 4 more in there that I could take a peak at? I'm reluctant to approve color pallets I haven't seen. Burton: Do you want to do more than look at them? Kind: That's it. Burton: Okay. Question? No? Let's move to public hearing. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Blackowiak: Not right now. Burton: Okay, we can ask them if we have them as we go somewhat. Thank you. Open this to public hearing. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Okay, anybody wishing to address the commission maybe after these guys clear out a bit. Approach the podium. State your name and address and we've got a lot of people that want to comment so try to, I ask that we try not to be repetitive and keep things moving here. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kathy Larson: My name is Kathy Larson and I live at 2631 Longacres Drive. And I'm relatively new to this area. My husband and I chose where we live after checking with zoning here in Chanhassen as to what would be built behind our home. I feel like this is becoming more like Brooklyn Park and with some association in the northern suburbs. I know the properties at the Edinborough Golf Course have been in a drastic slump for years and Brooklyn Park is just digging out now from their crime rates and their property values that have been slightly depressed due to all this high density housing and I'm just wondering why it has to be at that location. I also have somewhat of an issue with the whole affordable housing piece. I sometimes think by neighbors feel that it's maybe the affluent versus those that don't have wealth and I'm an individual that lived in affordable housing. Was a single mom that was never, ever zoned by the government and I really take issue with the fact that people who worked hard and are paying the taxes that Chanhassen provides in this location are now being asked to pay taxes for some agenda that the constituents haven't necessarily approved. And that's all I've got to say. Burton: Okay, thank you. Anybody approach. State your name and address please. Allan Vargas: Yes, my name is Allan Vargas. I live at 2596 Southern Court. And I'm here really for two reasons. One of them is because my house is right on the buffer and it's my understanding that was to be low density housing behind that. I'm obviously in favor of low density versus... I think one of the concerns I also have is as a citizen here of Chanhassen is that I'm really concerned about the, it's one of the things you have in Chanhassen. One is problems with the water. We were on water rationing most of the fall and...and you know if you don't have a sprinkler system, you know what's going to happen to your lawn if you don't get up at 3-4 in the morning to go and water. And apparently that's going to be happening again this year and the question that you have is why is that in a growing community. What's going to happen to our services? The other thing that I have to ask too is about our taxes. I also understand we're probably one of the highest property taxed communities in the State. And the other thing, I don't know whether a lot of people saw your bills yet or not or if I'm the only one, but my taxes or my city taxes are proposed to be increased 15% and I'd like a show of hands here, how many here got a raise of 15% in their salaries this year. There's another little item there that it just says, actual...goes up 25%...as far as the growth and everything we're going to have. The other thing that we talk about is what's going to happen. You know we're saying about what is our community going to look like and we're supposed to be having an impression as people are coming in, as they're going out. If you take a look at it on 5 and Dell Road, what is the first things that we see. We see the townhomes and then the next thing that we see is industrial. Going out you see the four comers of 5 and where 41 is, you'll find you see a lot oftownhomes, Galpin Boulevard and also in the proposed area and the question you've got to have is what... Is there going to be one anywhere else? Let's see, I've got some notes here. The other part that also speaking about the taxes and one of the things that I really don't understand is on, it hasn't been explained to me, is on the affordable housing. How does that really work? Okay. And apparently the rental units have been taken out. Things like that. One question that I have is, if the market value of property, say it's $1,000. Okay? And with a life style home you can now rent that property for $700, okay. Who makes up the $300? The value of the property. Does that come in in taxes, either directly or indirectly that we're being taxed? Now I think these are the things that we've got to ask as a city government. You know if our taxes are going to be going up 15% per year in city taxes and are being just under 6 years, they'll be doubled. I thought one of the things that city government is supposed to be doing for us is really kind of protect us and protect our lifestyle. And I guess that's all I've got to say. My recommendation is no on the medium-medium. Burton: Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Mike Ryan: Hi, my name is Mike Ryan. I live at 2595 Southern Court. I've got a lot to share and express with you with respect to this project and I'll try to be fast. I'm not sure I can be brief but I'll do my best so please bear with me. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission my first time before all of you and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of many of the residents adjoining this project. First we want to, many of us want to immediately address the impression that may be out there that we are against affordable housing, and I can say that that is not the case. What we've got here is what we need to do is talk about the facts. And there is a perception and I think a valid reality here that there is an unacceptably high percentage of affordable housing that is being located at our western gateway. And until a couple of the neighbors commented that's not really being addressed I think properly. Secondly, we genuinely want the best product for our western gateway. What we'd like to review tonight are some of the ordinance and issues that affect this product at our main entrance. I have spent a great deal of time with my neighbors trying to understand our ordinances and our comp plan and the housing guidelines. It's not an easily digestible subject and frankly at times appears to be a house of mirrors, and I know you guys live this all the time. We, many of us, we moved in over 5 years ago and we did our due diligence and we did do that Pulte. We looked at the property. We discussed this with Lundgren about that property at length and understood fairly clearly what that property was guided for. North of the frontage road, low density, single family detached, residential PUD. Minimum lot size 11,000 to 15. South was the medium density, multi-family cluster with up to 8 units per acre. We moved to Chanhassen understanding the comp plan and the plans for that property. We believe that the zoning guidelines are a covenant with the residents and we honestly planned and purchased based on the comp plan. What city staff and Pulte are proposing is in conflict with that covenant and the neighbors and all that enjoy the western gateway potential. Excuse me. I'd like to address some of those ordinance and issues that need to be addressed productively. First, the current guide and zoning which I just listed. Pulte and city staff would like to imply that the net densities are in line with the guide, but the building structure and the land square footage allocation is out of alignment. The building structure does not allow cluster homes north of the frontage and does not allow high density of these 9.5 units per acre. And there is some need for clarity as to what in fact really is the amount of units on the south side of the frontage. It is important to note the PUD is allowable for that property as is guided. I have the application of Pulte where they specifically acknowledge the current land designation, and I'd like to share this. And on July 30th you'll see here, if I can use this fancy... Not once but twice, okay can you zero in on that? The present land use designation, low, medium and density residential requested. Low, medium density. First time. Second time. Same thing. Low and medium requested land use designation. Low and medium. Ail this change though it was never demonstrated right from the beginning from the original concept plan. Again, we did our due diligence and I'm confused and it appears Pulte has not done their due diligence and with the aid of the city staff has made convenient changes, I think at the expense of the neighborhood and of the city. Also, there's been discussion tonight about the somewhat magnanimous offerings that Pulte is making about this land that's up north. This 11 acres. If you look here, again Pulte knows however, this request does not require, Pulte's request does not require any density transfer from the property west of Highway 41 for their tabulation. The other aspect to that is that that's in the Bluff Creek watershed. They can't build on it. So they should have done their due diligence with respect to that property. So it's baffling that the city staff seems to accommodate and enables the developer at every turn then respecting the current comp plan. I realize there has been a need to make changes with the staff report but there are many discrepancies in the staff reports that I'll do my best to outline that this has been a moving target. What was noted tonight with respect to the affordable housing guidelines, that the city has just acknowledged the importance for all new construction to be at a maximum of 30% for affordable housing. Two, I think it was 2 or 3 weeks ago Pulte was supposed to be before you and I got a call the day, I think the day before they were to be before you saying that there's been all these changes. There's been a change with respect to the densities and as I tried to peel the onions, the layers of the onion to find out that they raised, they just simply, it's the same product, they just raised the prices. And this was I 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 believe from my side, and this could need to be clarified but about 48 hours to 72 hours that they were supposed to be before you. That' s why staff says tonight that it appears now to be 41% simply with this price raise. Well, so I called the Met Council to find out when is the next time that they're going to be raising the threshold for affordable housing. In February they're going to raise it again so what they say is that now it's been dropped down to 40%. Come February it'd be 70%. Right back up to where it was 3 weeks ago. So when we talk about affordable housing, not so long ago I guess it was 1999, November, Maple Grove was acknowledged for their winning strategy using your fan dangled thing here and what they're receiving awards for and accolades from the Star and Tribune is working with properties that are in the 5 to 20% affordable housing range. Not this 51%. This 59%. This 40 to 70 percent that is being offered to our community. So what we have here is the third affordable housing project in Chan. I thought this was almost in as many years, and they all exist within 5/10 of a mile on, all on the Highway 5 corridor and as Mr. Vargas pointed out, now we're book ended by this look of row housing and affordable housing look. It's all in one concentration and if you go to page 31 of the Chanhassen guide lines, it clearly says the City will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout the community. That's throughout. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated in one area of the city. I think this is overly concentrated with the last two and now we have three projects and it's basically bang, bang, bang. All within a half mile. We have to ask ourselves, if this is the western gateway, is this the best Chanhassen can do. It's the main entrance. It's our first and last impression of Chan. This is built for conception, this is a very poor view scape of Chan. Now I could go in great detail, I'm happy to, to list all the ordinances here. I don't know, that I see are in challenge here. Do you want me to? Kind: Go for it. Mike Ryan: Okay. In our current PUD in the intent. Number 1, preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, blah, blah, blah, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. High quality of design. Higher quality of design than is found elsewhere in the community. Sensitive development along significant corridors within the city. Development which is consistent with our comp plan. Consistent with our comp plan. Such park and open spaces shall be consistent with the comp plan and the overall trail plan. Fast forward. The city, well I'll skip that one. Moving on. Next issue is park and land dedication requirement. The Pulte project is severely deficient with park and land dedication. As noted tonight by Mr. Griswold, they're paying cash for parks. They're basically selling out the future residents of that project and you know, cash for parks. With the estimated, and at least at the neighborhood meeting there were 700 estimated residents. There should be 9.33 acres. There appears to be, if you include that central area, and I need this to be confirmed but approximately 2.5 acres and I don't know if that falls under the park category, but the question is, is this right? To me it seems very short sighted. People will have to cross the major thoroughfare on 78th Street. They will potentially place demands on Longacres parks and, ifI was Lundgren I'd be very concerned about this with any parks that they want to put on their property. It's going to place demands on their's. So if we can we should do better for these residents. So as we take a look at the ordinances for parkland and dedication requirements, 1879, land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the city's zoning ordinance and shall be in addition to, not in lieu of open space requirements for PUD's. Now, if we fast backwards here to Mr. Griswold's comment of paying cash for the parks, it appears here, if we do calculate those 2 ½ acres that he's allowing for that center area and for the totlots, that is 6.8 acres and if you, I'm trying to do a rough calculation of what the value is of those acres, and it's $36,000 of acre that he may be paying out. This is calculated based on his $250,000. The City I think is being chumped here and more importantly again I think the Pulte residents are being chumped as to what is, to me I think a great motivation for any developer to pay out and put more density on a piece of property. Next is the Bluff Creek Overlay 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 District. This famous document that is very important to the city and the watershed and what takes place and building in that project is a lot of natural site management. It's taking care of the trees and the forest and I do want to share xvith you, sorry. Is that an interesting discrepancy here is, if we look at the city staff report going back to September 1, 1999, Pulte is being allotted saying to their credit the developers are proposing to preserve the larger wooded area near Highway 5 and the tract across 41. This would benefit the area greatly by providing natural area within an intensely developed one and some buffering and staff strongly recommends that the applicant be required to maintain these preserved areas when their preliminary plans are submitted. That's September 1, 1999. Moving to October 21st staff report saying this plan proposes saving the large stand of trees as far as the gateway vision of the comer. Moving to November 14th. The plan does, excuse me. The plan does propose preserve vegetation of the two significant areas on the wooded on the site as well as providing perimeter landscaping and it goes so far as saying that, allotting them and saying that they are retaining 50% of those wooded trees. So from being strongly for it, all ora sudden that was now being ~vatered down to being 50%. Again, all on the behalf of the developer. Not on behalf of the city. Okay. The Bluff Creek overlay district states very specifically, the development within the corridor must be designed with utmost sensitivity to the environment and development pattern must be of quantity and quality other than what might occur in the absence of specific standards. Protect the Bluff Creek corridor wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design. Development in the corridor should be ecologically designed, built around natural features such as the trees, wetlands and bluffs. Significant natural features should impact development rather than development impacting significant natural features. Promote innovative development techniques such as cluster development, open space and I think they're doing that to excess in the southern part of that frontage road. Okay. The other aspect here and I've heard various different numbers of how many students are going to be introduced into the school system. I thought I heard at the neighborhood meeting that there was going to be 150 students. Tonight we heard 76 students and the staff report ! believe it says 50 students. So what is it? And it keeps moving all the time. And I know that there is this supposed profile of what this life cycle housing is but if you guys can't get it right in trying to factor and determine what this profile is and the planning, what this is going to be on the ciD', how can we have faith in this whole process? And again there are discrepancies with the car movements. It's anywhere from 6,000 in one report and it's 5,000 in another. Mr. Vargas mentioned about the concern about water. The projection is about 118,000 gallons of water use a day. And we're at this point severely deficient with our water supply and coming off a water ban and shortage at this point in time, can we believe that we're going to be in good shape with the project of this magnitude. And lastly is, too many papers. But if we go to your staff, the staff report finding 5. I think that there is a very general and liberal use of wording here. Number 5 in the finding. It says development which is consistent with the comp plan. It is not consistent with the comp plan. And they go so far as saying here the development is consistent with the comp plan if the city and the Met Council approve a land use amendment. How does that work? You know. If it's consistent with it if they approve it. It's not consistent. So with that you can see, I think my frustration and the frustrations of us, the taxpaying residents, stakeholders, shareholders in the city. There is a feeling of very disingenuous information approach truly dealing with the facts and it's very hard to have confidence in a product that is as important as this is for our western gateway and we think that the city and we hope that the Planning Commission will do a very good, thorough analysis in understanding of this project. So thanks. Burton: Thanks. Go ahead. Kurt Oddsen: My name's Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. You know kids are great. They get frustrated with a meeting, they run outside and scream. We have to sit here and listen to me. But I'm sitting here ready to explode because I have to say something in listening to all this so I appreciate your patience. Is this what we want in our neighborhood? That question was asked earlier and I thought it 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 was very significant because I'm not sure this is what we want on the western side of Chanhassen. The comment was also made on that particular zoning ordinance, are we trying to cram too much in a small area? I believe on this site we are. And I think we need to take a real serious look at how we plan these developments. Staff has already said there's two other projects in very close proximity to this. It's been stated that we should take the housing and spread it out throughout the community. It doesn't appear to me that we're doing that in this situation. A lot of discussion is made about wetlands, and boy we love them here in Minnesota. They're not swamps. They're not marshes, they're wetlands. And they're great. I love them. And they're talking about 600 feet clearance and people are talking about buffer zones on the east side of the project. Lundgren is even saying gee, maybe we want a buffer zone. Maybe they're concerned about what's going there too. They have a lot more pull than I do so they may be able to accomplish that. But 41 and 5 is a major intersection. In our meeting the other night with the developer I asked him what the setback was going to be from the right-of-way and it's 50 feet. The comment was made earlier how high will the berm be? 4 to 8 feet rolling, but the grade is below highway grade. Comment was made about earlier, a year ago I believe, because I think I was here too in front of the council, talking about putting a pond in that comer. Setting those units way back. Making it look more like an entrance to a city rather than bringing buildings, flat side of the buildings that don't appear to be very attractive. There's been comments made about that tonight. That's not my opinion, but ! do agree with it. And they're going to be 50 feet from the right-of-way with a 4 to 8 feet berm. And yet we're worried about 600 feet on another side and other buffers. I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to think about that and maybe talk about making that wider. Maybe it makes the property unfeasible for the developer. So be it. We have to go back and ask the question, what do we want in our neighborhood. Traffic is a big concern to me. You look at the map, ifI can use their map. You've got approximately two major exits coming out of here. A possible third one and I know there are traffic studies and all that but I don't think that people are going to get on this road, run all the way down to another highway, maybe Galpin Boulevard, maybe one of the other boulevards closer to the city before they get onto Highway 5. These are going to be major exits. And somebody brought up the amendment. It appeared to me if you look at the amendment and the traffic patterns, on the low density and medium density, you're looking at numbers of 1,200 trips a day, 1,400 trips a day. I don't have the document in front of me but I'd ask you to refer to it just for clarification. But they're looking at the development of, I think it was 6,176 trips a day. That's a lot of traffic coming out of there. I live up in Longacres. Most of the residents don't go out, exit on 41 unless they're heading north, because trying to turn left is dangerous. I don't even come down from the north side to make a left hand turn because I looked in my rear view mirror and I see people coming at 60 mph for me, going aroundme about a foot and a half to two feet from my car. It scares me. I come in Galpin Boulevard. I go out Galpin Boulevard so I have a light. I'm very concerned about the traffic in the area and I'd like the Planning Commission to think about that. Now, that gets back to the density. ! understand it's the way thing are done. We shift this. We move this. We plan for this, but it was stated earlier what this was zoned for. We met with the council and the PUD and all they kept referring to was the 5 year plan. The plan that was done 5 years ago and this was all agreed upon. Now we're able to change it? I need some help here. I'm not real fast in figuring this stuff out, but why do we agree to it on one hand and 5 years later because somebody says oh, maybe we ought to change it so everything fits in. I don't like that. Somebody needs to explain to me why we keep doing that. And the density on the north side of 78th Street versus the south side is not zoned for that. If you blend it altogether, it works our perfectly. I just have a hard time with that and I just want you to consider that. The so called wetlands down here, ooh boy. I tell you what. If that's defined as wetlands, I have a problem with that. It's a bunch of grass in a wet area. The wetlands that are in here contain some water in certain wet seasons. So now they're going to fill that one in and move it to another site. I understand that's done. I'm just saying that I wonder how many more variances and exceptions and changes are we going to listen to before we finally say you know what? We're trying to make something fit that doesn't fit. Green space is an interesting issue. I've got to touch on that, and I apologize. We 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 passed a park referendum. I don't know the numbers. Millions of dollars, and we're buying up land and building parks all over the city. I voted for that. Now I look at this and I say wait a minute, we're going to have 380, 70 units in there. I don't know how many people. I can't keep track of the numbers anymore but we're going to designate only this amount of land and we're going to get $250-275,000 for the city. I'm wondering when we are going to start looking at these developments and say you know what, I don't xvant to pass another referendum. If you're going to build in this city, then you put in some parks and you put in some recreation. You're going to foot the bill for it. If the project doesn't fit it, then we aren't building. And I don't think this is enough space in that area. I'm not a planner. I don't have all the numbers but I'm looking at this from just a common sense standpoint, which I would ask you to look at it. ! mean we can bring out all the rules and regulations but let's look at it from some common sense and say maybe we ought to start thinking about this. Taxes and children in schools, we've touched on that. I can only be redundant by bringing it up again. So I think what I'I1 do is I'I1 end and I don't know what all the legal procedures are, how it goes to council. How staff gets involved. How the developer gets involved. Heck, I'm not even sure how I get involved and yet you're nice enough to listen to me up here and air my grievances. I would ask you not to make any decisions at this point...I don't know how that's done and I'd volunteer to help you with that so I can learn myself, but I just see a lot of moving targets here and it concerns me and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else? Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. And I'm just going to be real short. I pay over $12,000 a year in taxes. I feel like I'm being boxed in with this cluster housing. I know this is a redundant fact. We know now that within a half mile we're looking at possibly three projects. Two te~Tns come to mind regarding this whole thing. One of them is payola and the second one is the City's not dealing in good faith with it's citizens. I'm very disappointed. Burton: Thank you. Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail and I just wanted to make a couple of points here tonight for the record. The first one is the neighborhood meeting. We had a meeting a year ago with Lundgren. I'm sorry, with Pulte when this thing first started and it was agreed there would be a second neighborhood meeting. That neighborhood meeting was not conducted until after ~ve requested it because we found out it was going in front of the Planning Commission. Additionally, this was taken to the Park and Rec Commission prior to the neighborhood meeting. I went to that meeting to ask them to hold off until the neighbors had been heard. So I kind of have a hard time believing that Pulte is really wanting to work with the neighbors when they're asking commissions to approve it before they've even given us a chance to be heard. Additionally, many members of the neighborhood didn't even hear about these meetings directly from the City or from Pulte, even though we were on the list of interested parties way back when. We found it out from Mike. We had to have Mike calling people to let us know what was going on. I think that's unfortunate. The second point I'd like to make is I also attended the council meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved, and what confuses me here is this 41%. This 30%. It's my understanding that our City Council approved 30% maximum in new development. Kate, correct me if I'm wrong. There was a lot of discussion between Councilman Mark Senn and Mayor Nancy Mancino on what that 30% was. And it was nailed down that it was a maximum of 30% for new development. It wasn't 30% across the city. Kate Aanenson: That's not how I understood it. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, .2000 Leah Hawke: Am I, then I would ask for the record that we let the person that voted on it speak. Kate, I mean they sat there and they argued to and for and you were asked what the numbers represented and Mark Senn said I thought it always was 30% for the new development, and you responded yes. And that was what went into the record so I also want to be clear about what the City Council has said should happen in Chanhassen and what has been approved. That's not what's happening here tonight and I think if you say 30%, you need to live by 30%. Because that's where residents go, what is going on? You're saying one thing and you're doing something else. I was also at the parks and rec commission where this was discussed and I don't think that they were comfortable with this proposal. That's why they tabled it. That's my opinion. I do know that they mentioned the gateway. That was also mentioned the first time that this went in front of the City Council. Is this what we want the gateway of Chanhassen to look like. The other issues that came up that haven't really been spoken about here tonight are locations of recreational areas and the proximity to the street. As a parent, I mean my point to the Park and Rec was if you're going to build it, build it right. If you look at totlots here, they're right on 78th Street. Which parent is going to send a 3 to a 5 year old or 7 to 12 year old to one of these totlots that on what's going to end up being a very busy road. So those are really my three points. Very off the cuff. I have to go relieve my babysitter and get my kids to bed, but I really think there's a lot of misinformation that's been circulating about this. I for one would like it nailed down what this is and what the rules actually are and then have it presented to you. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Hugh Bishop: My name is Hugh Bishop. I'm here on behalf of Miss Rosie's Farm, Susan McAllister's property which is being surrounded almost by the'Pulte development. We're here to speak just briefly to two issues. The first is affordable housing. A good concept that should be embraced. I'm not going to speak to that but Susan McAllister would like to speak to it herself. And I believe her answer is yes it should. The issue that I am speaking to is should the proposal for the rezoning PUD-R be approved. And we believe that you should recommend that it is approved with one sentence added to the conditions under which it's approved. The background of this is that, as you probably know Miss Rosie's Farm is the only petting zoo in Chanhassen and has, after some amount of work and back and forth with the City gotten established that yes, we're in a transitional zone and we're changing from agriculture to higher density but for a period she's been given permission to continue operating the petting zoo. Not petting zoo, petting farm in a way that it has been set up. And there's a 10 year period for a limited use. Now one of the provisions when the City modified the zoning code was to provide setbacks for petting farms. We had to create these last spring. So we have now a new setback requirement of 300 feet for any structure or storage area from an adjacent single family residence. Well you know we comply with that. There's no single family residence within 300 feet of any structure or barn on Miss Rosie's Farm. So that's great. Now, the Pulte development as it's presently proposed is not going to cause any problem there either because there's no single family home that is proposed for within 300 feet of where she might have the barn or storage area so that's great. Now the concern would be this. What if there were a change at any point down the road and maybe a double changed to a single. Well, now is the time to just add this one sentence for clarification and what we'd like to contemplate is there are three possibilities you know. If there were an application for a single family to go in within 300 feet of where we are right now. One is, they could say well you know, we're here now and so you need to take down your barn. Well that doesn't seem quite right. Susan could say well you know I was here first so you can't build. Well, she's not really interested in saying that. So what we would like is to have the one sentence addition of a condition upon which the PUD would be authorized to provide the interpretation or just a provision that neither of those would happen. That the owner of adjacent land would not be able to enforce the existing setback requirements 300 feet so as to prohibit development of the Pulte property by it's successor's or by Pulte themselves. And consequently, fair for the goose, fair for the gander, just 35 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 make it clear right now so it's not an issue that needs any discussion later that the developer of the PUD property will not enforce our existing setback requirements in such a fashion that it's required to take down her barn. That's all that I really want to propose. I do have a handout for you and then I'll recognize Susan McAllister for the other issue that she wishes to speak to herself. Unless you have a question. Burton: No, thanks. We'll take a look at your handout. Why don't you go ahead Susan. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I am at 746t Hazeltine Boulevard. I've heard a lot of the stories about the Longacres people, how they don't want it in their neighborhood and they don't like possibly the type of people or whatever they believe they have too nice of houses to be in that area with the affordable housing in their back yard so I have one really good suggestion. I'll take it in my back yard and I'll take it in my side yard and I'll take it in my front yard because I don't see anything wrong with it. ! think that you know being a person that's lived here since 1959 1 am somebody that needs to be responsible to the other people that are coming into the city and that it's the new way that we have to do things. Chanhassen is not growing any more land but we're growing people and we need to house people and this is the ne~v, I don't like to use the word trend but I believe this is the new way that it has to be. I'm a person that designs trends for mass merchants. They pay me to come up with a good way to get a good product. I believe that what Denny Griswold and Pulte have proposed is a good product. I'm also talking as a member of the, 5 year member of the Environmental Commission for the City of Chanhassen. AS a member, past member of the Highway 5 task force in 1995 which chose, you know did the recommendation for this. Also a member of the Highway 5 overlay district and a member of the Bluff Creek corridor. I believe all aspects of this development fit everything that was on, I was on those committees for. It's different and it's scary and I have to tell you that a year ago I was not, I was right where Longacres was now and it took me you know quite a while of bending and stretching and thinking and you know really soul searching and I believe that where I am now is looking at it totally objectively. If I weren't living there, you know it's the perfect place for it. It's segmented off and it only works in masses, okay and I believe that what's being done is the right way to do it and I think if we're going to do it, let's dig in our heels and do it right. Don't just put our little toe in the hot water and say oh, that's a little bit too hot. Take the dive. You people are there to start helping us with the new trends and to house people so I expect that's xvhat you should do and I'm hoping that's what you will do. That's xvhat I have to say. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Brian Evans: My name is Brian Evans. I live at 2585 Southern Court, on the northern edge of the development. I really don't have anything new to say. Everything's been said. Hashed over. I think it's kind of nice to see the American way here. Everybody getting their say. I just want to say that this is what I feel. I bought my first house in Chanhassen in 1976 and I've seen a lot of changes and there's only one opportunity here and I think you know that as a Planning Commission. We want to get it right the first time. I'd hate to look down the line 5 years and say we did it wrong. We should have used it for corporate. We should have done something else with it. I guess my other concern is, and it may be frivolous to some but there's one flock of wild turkeys on that field and my hope is that flock gets captured and relocated before any kind of a development takes place there. Thank you. Burton: Thank you. Pastor Tony Larson: My name is Pastor Tony Larson. I live at 2631 Longacres Drive and I wanted to address the issue of traffic that wasn't considered earlier as we look at this map here. All the traffic 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 that's coming out there on the Highway 5 and then the traffic on the other end going to Highway 4 I. I just wanted to bring up the, that I'm well aware of the Westwood's plans of building a church on the other side. The northwest portion of Highway 41. I know the staff there very well. I have been on a pastoral staffofa very large mega church in the past and this is what Westwood is and is becoming and I just wanted to also add the idea of not just Sunday morning traffic coming from the other side of 41, but also throughout the week. When we're talking about a mega church, the impact of traffic not just on a Sunday morning or Sunday night or a Saturday night or when they get into multiple services on multiple nights, then you talk about Wednesday nights and then their plans are to also include some offerings into the community that would invite more traffic throughout the week, during the day as well as in the evening and I just wanted to bring up that point that needs to be taken into consideration along with this development. The impact of further traffic from the other side of 41. Burton: Thank you. Any other comments? Steve Hanousek: My name is Steve Hanousek and I live at 7501 Bent Bow Trail in Chanhassen and I echo what my fellow residents have said tonight. I'm not going to go over that again but I would like just some clarification. The rental units, are there going to be rental units or are they going to be manor homes? I know we covered that briefly but that means there needs to be definition of that and I just want to leave that out there. Thank you. Burton: Thanks. Tom Green: My name's Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. Mills property that owns that property and I acquired that property for our company back in 1987. I see some familiar faces here, especially Mr. Conrad. Conrad: It's too bad isn't it? Tom Green: Yeah, still there. I've gotten a little older also. Conrad: Why did you buy that property? Tom Green: I don't know. But I'd like to go through the history of that land. Some of you folks don't realize it. Somebody asked about corporate. The original purchase, proposed purchase of that property from Dr. Savaryn was Minnetonka Inc. The Soft Soap people and they wanted to put a corporate headquarters there and the City of Chanhassen didn't want it. Mills Fleet Farm came along, and obviously you know what we wanted to put there, and that such a... cry came up that we ran back to Brainerd with our tails between our legs and we sat on that property now for 13 years. The Pulte people came along and frankly it's been zoned for this type of a project and that's apparently what the City wants and so they've got a reasonable, in my opinion, a reasonable project together and you don't want that. And so I'm at a loss what we should do with that land and if somebody would want to buy it for what we're paying taxes on or more, we'd have to consider it because it seems to be impossible to develop in the city of Chanhassen. Thank you for your consideration. Burton: Thank you. Any other comments? Jim Deannovic: I'm Jim Deannovic. I live at 9455 Amsbury in Eden Prairie. I'm the person who owns the north side of the piece of property who was going to originally do rental townhomes. And it seemed like there was some indication that Pulte didn't try to make this thing work. Well in fact they have and 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 so have I. With the rental townhomes there was never a subsidy from the City taxes. And I think there's been a lot of miscommunication in that regard and we've tried to work with Pulte to make this happen. I knoxv that Pulte, I've been at some of the meetings. Pulte's been in here and he's tried really, Pulte's tried incredibly hard for a long, long time. I feel the same way as Fleet Farm. Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission before we close the public hearing? Alright. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Now it's our opportunity to discuss the matter. Anybody want to venture forward with their comments? Sacchet: Well, I'll get started. You know as I said when I asked, started asking some questions of the Pulte people, I don't have that many issues with the Pulte thing in front of us. I do believe that in a traffic location like that, where we have a highway and another major through road going through, that that's a good location for high density. I do believe that we need more affordable housing. It's actually interesting, just a week ago there was a headline in the Star Tribune that reads Met Council tells suburbs to add affordable housing and then goes oil that if the suburbs don't do that, that there will be penalties. That it's actually going to be pushed with some additional incentives. So it could be costly not to pursue that. Now' the question whether this is really cooked enough, to use all image. I don't think this is cooked enough. I think that the staff report ~ve have in front of us is not sufficiently working the issues to the point that I'm comfortable with, that I feel exactly what's in front of me to approve or recommend approval I should say. I do believe that, my concern is surely xvith the densities there are issues that some of you have mentioned a little bit of being a moving target in this process and we need to be very, very clear about what that aspect is. We need to look at how does it fit into the context and I don't live too far fi'om there myself. I do believe that the general concept that Pulte puts in fi'ont of us with having a gradual transition from the high traffic area where it's higher density to go up gradually to lower density, it makes a lot of sense to me. I support that. I think the proposal has a lot of merits. However I want to be very clear in terms of what is in front of us with the densities. In terms of the western gateway, well I have a little bit of issue with that. I mean for me the western gateway to the city is not the 41 and 5 crossing. For me the entrance to Chanhassen, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the Arboretum. And what's that neighborhood there called, Crimson Bay or what. That to me is entering the city. Once we're at the crossing of 41 and 5 we're unfortunately, I mean I like rural too and I just moved out that way because it got a little too urbanized here to what's at that part of Chanhassen, but that's what's happening. And Susan you mentioned it, it's the trend of our time. We can't stop progress so I think the gateway issue for me is not really an issue. The aspect with traffic that was brought up. Well, as the traffic increases there will have to be traffic lights. It's just as simple as that. I'm trying to get onto 41 from a little further up north than you guys are in the Longacres area and I do take those left turns and I have my kids say dad, there's enough room to go. I say no it isn't. I live with that every day but as these things become issues, as the city we address them and maybe put traffic lights there so my position, to sum it up and I'I1 take everybody's time here excessively. I do believe I would like to propose that we table this here to address a lot of these issues that are still open, but in general I'm thinking this is a great proposal. It needs to be fine tuned more. All the issues need to be addressed. We have to be very clear what's in front of us and I think all the questions that you've been raising, especially you Mike Ryan, I really appreciate all the work you've put into this and I think we have to be sensitive to all the comments that were brought up. But then at the same time it's as important as we are sensitive to the comments of the landowners. I mean just having built a house lately in this city, I have to agree that it is not the easiest place to build something. Put something in place. And if we have people that have major tracts 38 Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000 of land and at least in one of the cases have made an effort to develop it, one way or another way. And then one way we say no. They try to do it the other way, we say no. Well, it's tricky you see. We want to be consistent with our agreements. We want to honor what we've agreed to do and at the same time we don't want to be so rigid that we can't do anything anymore. So when we say this is not exactly in line with all the visions that were there before, well let's be reasonable. It has to be give and take from everybody. It's a transition from higher density to lower density. The houses that are going to be at the edges there, yes. They're proposing a duplex home which in that sense is something they're asking us to approve. Now is that such a bad thing? I personally don't think it's a hurdle that is unsurmountable. I think we can come across and we have to look at with the PUD the amount of green space that stays there and yes, you're correct. I did the math myself from the significant trees, depending how we define significant trees. If we define significant trees as being a tree that is 30 inch or 40 inch or bigger, half of them will be cut down. And that's an issue I'd like to dig into a little further too. That how much would be cut down if it would be the traditional development? I would expect more than half. But so what we're in a position to trying to make it as workable as possible but I think I said my piece so apologize. I took a while. Burton: That's alright. Anyone else comments? Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of staff. One of the things that Mike Ryan brought up was the density transfer from the, how are we describing it? The northwest, I think it's Outlot F. Is in the Bluff Creek primary zone and so they would not be allowed to build there anyway so we shouldn't allow a density transfer. Will you, I don't have my Bluff Creek thing here right now. Will you talk about that. Aanenson: Let me clear up some. When this project originally came in, again there were the two property owners. Pulte and Mr. Deannovic. Mr. Deannovic owned the Savaryn property. Owns the Savaryn piece which is this property right here... Okay. From the beginning the staff has tried to work the two projects together. The Bluff Creek ordinance is under the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen. We regulate the primary zone. What we have done under the ordinance is said, you can transfer that density out. That's a way to accomplish the preservation because our goal is to preserve in the primary zone. If we don't allow the transfer out, we are obligated in the ordinance to allow them a variance to build within that. We have to give them some property. Now Mr. Ryan is right when he showed that letter because Pulte's original position was, and we said as staff from day one, our position is we don't want that property built on. They had no control of that so their letter stated, we're not asking for anything. Well they weren't because they didn't have control of that property and they have been trying to gain control of the entire piece and as of late last week, when Mr. Deannovic appears that he's willing not to do the rental property and Pulte's still trying to get control of the entire piece. That's been our goal. To have one property owner to work with. It makes it much easier and that's why some of the ambiguity and that's why it got tabled because Mr. Deannovic came in at the last minute with three different products and it confused us. We didn't want to come here saying we're not sure exactly what that's going to be so we recommended that it be tabled until we resolve it. That they again try to have a neighborhood meeting. So that's where that came from. Kind: So the proposal before us tonight is one owner, one parcel? Aanenson: Well they haven't secured that yet. They're working to do that. Right. And that's some of, what I'm hearing from Uli some of the things he wants to make sure has been resolved. It's a control issue. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Kind: That makes sense to me. With that I'll expand on my comments if that's alright. I'll try to keep them short. First of all, all compliments to staff and Pulte and the neighbors for all your comments and input and hard work on this. I know I spent a lot of time looking at this packet too and I'm sure you all have spent a lot of time as well and I think it's come a long ways in one year. I can't believe it was a year ago already that we looked at this. I do have some concerns that need to be addressed, especially if we table this. If we need to button some of this stuff up. The totlot issues obviously. I don't think that that is our role as a Planning Commission to get into what we think it should or shouldn't be, big or small or whatever. That's Park and Rec Commission's role. But from a planning perspective I think we need to make sure that we are being consistent with other family neighbors, multi family neighborhoods and I guess I'd like to direct staff to take a look at what we've done in other multi family developments and give us some information about totlots and that sort of thing. I do have the same concern ! had a year ago about clustering all the one car garages together. ! prefer having one car and two garage units mixed together. However I think that the village homes, those are the one car units, could be acceptable as far as quality goes with some of the changes in architecture that I talked about with the applicant. My main concern is that the back elevations look better and the front entries have the same quality as the other products. The coach homes and the manor homes and the club homes I think all look quite nice and the village home in Apple Valley looks a lot better than the one in Eden Prairie so I was pleased about that. The other concern I had is that, the expectations have been changed for the neighbors and that's the part I wrestle with. IfI xvas a neighbor, would I feel like the rules have been changed on me? And when I look at this I see that the housing type has changed. They knew there were going to be possibilities of twin homes and...to change and I'm trying to sort out how I would feel about that compared to saving that large stand of trees on 41. And I know that our PUD planning tool is the only way we could transfer density and save those trees. So next time this comes to the Planning Commission I would like to hear the neighbors talk a little bit more about whether it's worth it to save those trees or not to transfer the density. Because we've established now that the density needs to be transferred to do that. Or whether you feel like the rules have just been changed. So that's my struggle there. On the plus side I think that the twin homes along the perimeter of the wetland are not changing the rules and the view from Longacres is the same as it would have been if it was low density housing because then there would have likely have been twin homes there as a transition from the medium density on the south side of West 78th, so I think that would have been a reasonable expectation that there'd be twin homes there. And that appears to be not changing so that makes a lot of sense to me. And the buffer is a natural buffer that that large, large wetland seems quite sufficient to me. In fact I think it's awesome. IfI overlooked that I'd just be so excited. It's very nice. I would also like to see for our next meeting some sort of, I don't know if proof is the right word or a ghost plan showing how many units could be put in there if it was a standard subdivision. A ghost plan or, that's what I call it. Not real but just if they complied with our ordinances, how many trees would we really lose and can you really get 383 units in there on the upland? I like the idea of providing a different housing style. A non-traditional single family home is important in this city and it is the only way we're going to meet our affordability goals and I heard it the same way Kate did. It's funny how people at the same meeting can hear different. Aanenson: Maybe ifI could just comment on that. I guess the intent was that we do it per project. What I heard was new construction. Kind: I heard all new construction too. Aanenson: So I just confirmed it with Bob too. That's the way we heard it but obviously there was some other. Kind: It's per project. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Aanenson: Well I think that's what other people's expectations were is being per project. I'll go back and look through the minutes. That certainly wasn't my intent. I'll go back and review the minutes and see what exactly took place and report that back. Kind: Okay, so that would be helpful information included next time around. Overall I think PUD's are good planning. I think if you take a look at the intent of our PUD ordinance, code, this project meets the requirements of that. We've told the landowner that we don't want a corporate campus there. Soft Soap was no. We told them we didn't want commercial venture. Big box. No. And we put in our comp plan that we wanted this to be housing so I think we need to live by that. And it does meet the intent of our planned unit development standards so I do think it is a good candidate for PUD. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Sure, I'll take a stab. I just had three main issues with this pretty much all night. My first big issue is traffic. I'm very worried about access to and from 5 and to and from 41. I know that means that there will be other lights. I believe there's something scheduled for Century, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: And then more than likely that type of number would necessitate some type of a light to exit on 41 and I don't know what that street is going to be called. Aanenson: That's West 78th. BIackowiak: Oh it's going to be West 78th? Okay. So have you heard anything, I mean I know it's a state highway so there's not much. Saam: On 41 ? Blackowiak: Yes. Saam: Stop sign is what I heard. Aanenson: Right. Not a signal at this point. Blackowiak: Not signalized? Saam: No. It's a 3 way stop on the west side. Or the entrance on the west side, yeah. A stop sign. That's what's shown in the EAW also. Blackowiak: Okay, so no light huh? Aanenson: Right. Again let me just rephrase it. That's one of the issues we brought up if this was to go office industrial. The traffic goes up significantly so I mean the issue doesn't go away if you flip...in there, right. Blackowiak: No, no. But yeah, just overall traffic is an issue for me. My second major issue is that the rental versus the manor homes has not been resolved and until that issue is fully defined, I don't even, I don't feel that I could, I would want to really make a vote on that because I think that that issue is going to really drive a lot of what happens in terms of the neighbors and in terms of school enrollments. In 41 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 terms of totlots. Just a lot of different things are going to change depending on whether the eastern edge of the property is rental versus manor homes. And finally, I would like to have a little more input from park and rec because if they're comfortable with what's on the plans right now, I guess I would have to question how they got their numbers because I don't think there's enough green space in there. I would like to see a little bit more. 275's the number that's been bandied around for the cash outlay. That's a park and rec number so they're going to have to, I mean it's the number that they came up with so I guess I'll have to, I would like to hear how they arrived at that number and find out if indeed they're comfortable with that number because it doesn't seem like an awful lot to me either. Short of owning the property there's not a lot you can do to stop development so I think one of the things that we all have to remember is, if we have an idea of what we want we have to work to get the best project and I don't know if we're quite there yet. I think we're moving in the right direction but I think if we see this again or maybe a couple times, who knows, we're moving in that direction so I hope that we can continue to work together and get a product we can all live with. Burton: Ladd. Conrad: 100 years ago when I was here I probably was for the commercial development of this. Then I was for Fleet Farm. I liked that idea. It pays taxes. And we're probably under commercialized in Chanhassen meaning it's not going to, the percentages are at the low end and it's right now fixed. So in terms of sensitivity to some of this stuff, I think I've lost almost every issue so, and I think the City Council put a moratorium out here and tried to figure out what to do with it. And they probably, I probably disagreed with what they wanted to do. That's a set up for my comments I think. This is a perfect spot that xve don't see very often for a PUD in terms of buffering. Normally we're talking about 20 feet. Normally we're talking about 50 feet of three story. We're in a different area here so some of the comments from the neighborhoods, which I really appreciated. I think everybody's done a terrific homework and thinking. But from what we're used to, we're here every 2 weeks. Some of Us maybe too long. This, in my world, is a terrific project based on other things I've seen come in. The neighbors said, you know a lot of what you said I disagree with but I'd have, we'd be here until midnight and I tell you I give you why and it'd be fun just to stop your comment and tell you and you should know. You should know what some of us have been thinking. You really should and I don't want this to go forward because you may not like what we do but I want you to understand what we might do. I think that's real important. It's important to be involved. As somebody said, this is the best form of government and to bundle you in is wonderful. You may not get what you want but you'll hear why and we should do that job and I think we can make staff do that. My recommendation is to table this and not because I don't like what I'm seeing in general, because I do. Somehow we have to explain some of these things. There's too many good things that, they still may not agree with once we explain to the community but they've got to know. So for minutes I think Kate, we've got to go back, and I'm not sure what the motion's going to be. Well no, I do. We're going to table it but you know, I think we've got to go back through the couple hours that we've been here and really pay attention to what the neighbors said. And I really want to be able to go through and dialogue a little bit about why, the why's. If we can. And that means you've got to come back and whatever and so, come on back. We've got to do it but you said some things. The things that I'd like us to take a look at. One, I want park and rec's input. In most cases, it's a double stream. We are, they're recommending to the City Council stuff and we don't see it and here's a case where I think their recommendation should be involved with us in a PUD. They should. We should hear what they're saying about totlots and access to common areas in general. I'd like to use them that way as a resource and we very seldom do. I want to be totally confident that we have a diversity and look of colors, materials and whatever within the project. When we put a big project in, l just don't want it stamped out. And there is economics that Pulte is doing that they have to, but again just to make sure we have the diversity and they said the right thing. I want to make sure Miss 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Rosie's comments are bundled into our review in terms of the, it's hard for me to understand what they'd like in terms of the 300 foot deal so I need staff to advise me on that. I do think Pulte needs to take a look at the back of the village home. It's not, most of the designs look pretty good to me. I like them. But that side of the village didn't look quite right. I'd like the city staff to look at the water issue just so I know what this means. The watering at 2:00 in the morning is ridiculous and that's so stupid, but let's talk to everyone, me, about it. I don't get it. The tree preservation, I'd like to know a little bit more about that and what we're saving. I think it was brought up the part, and some of these you'll get off ora tape but the park dedication calculations, I'd like to explain that and make sure we're on the money there. The projected students, I'd like to know what they really are based on that. I think a year ago we were concerned, just like you may be in terms of taxes and what are we bringing in and I think one of the reasons we were sold on this is it was probably developed for people that really, there weren't that many kids that were going to affect a school system at that time and therefore the taxes necessary to handle it may not have to be increased but, and that's funny thinking you know. To get a handle on that but again I'd want to know. I think I want to know for sure and say well then, just for your benefit, the neighbors around, that it's probably the same as a single family, 15,000 square foot subdivision or something like that. Just for your edification. The affordable housing number we need to know what that is. I don't have a bet on affordable housing. We do have some commitments. I think it's become more of an issue than maybe it needs to be. Diversity of home styles is, it's the same thing but the offering diversity here is pretty good. I think you want it. I think you don't want your kids moving some other area. I think we want a place for senior citizens or peopIe that are moving to a different life style. I think we need that here. There aren't that many places to put this in the future, and we're here looking at places to put these type of projects and there aren't many left. There just aren't in Chanhassen. It's, this is one that it may work. We have the right transportation systems. Logically from a planning standpoint it's not bad planning. We've got to sell you on that. You may not like it but we should sell you on it. The traffic out at 4I, I need the engineering staff to take a look at it. Make sure it's right. Tell the neighbors it's right. Tell the neighbors it's wrong. Whatever it is, let's give them the feeling that it's not stupid. We don't know that. I think we've seen some EAW's but let's take a look. The turkeys on the thing, I'd love to take the turkeys somehow and make sure it's bundled into this project. We should do that. The design of the former rental units, I need to know what that is and I'd like to have staff review the, that comer. I think the folks from Pulte are probably telling you the right thing. I think the narrow profile, the trees buffer on that intersection, it may make some sense but I want staff to tell me that. I want in their words to tell me that it makes some sense. I always thought I wanted to make it the gateway down there but a low profile and some, a bunch of trees may be a good thing. I'd like our staff to do that so those are my comments. I'd like staff to review them and hopefully we can, and I only captured some of your comments unfortunately. They're good. They're good comments. I think there's reasons that you're wrong in some of those comments but I think we should make sure. Make sure that's true. Anyway, those are my comments. I think it should be tabled for another meeting so somebody can go through some of these. Burton: Okay. And I could just simple mirror everybody's comments but I think I agree with everything you all said but I'll go on and add my own comments anyway. First I want to thank everybody for coming tonight and also to thank everybody for handling this in kind of a civil and democratic way and not making this a heated exchange. I think it's a lot more productive to do it the way we're all doing it. This isn't my dream project. It's not what I would ideally like to see there. I love the rural feel of Chanhassen. I'd like to preserve that as much as anyone but regardless of what we all want, this is going to get developed. We can't stop that and that's all been discussed tonight. So I sit back and kind of look at what the benefits of the project are and the detriments and I do think there are a number of benefits. I think it's a good way to get the street here. It's a good way to work on meeting our affordable housing goal which my understanding is historically has been a very important goal of this city and it's becoming 43 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 even more important as the Met Council is directing. This may be a better way to preserve the trees than other alternatives. I think it's also a good and natural way to have transition from the high traffic areas to the lower density housing. And I also think, as I think Ladd mentioned it, it is good planning practice. We've got a plan for development that's going to happen west of even here and I think this project takes that into consideration. The detriments again I think they're, and I can't get around this one no matter what comes. I'm saddened that we lose the rural flavor of the area, but you can't do anything about that really. The neighbors concerns are all detriments of the project. I know the tax issues, city services issues with the ~vater. I think it's important that we consider the neighbors expectations of when they originally came to the area. And what's coming here now. The wildlife's an issue and also perhaps even the additional traffic from the church. When that is ultimately developed. Additional concerns that I have, and I'm sorry my notes, I'm trying to read some of my notes and my handwriting is just atrocious so it's kind of hard. I do have concerns about the adequacy of the recreation areas and the totlots. I would also like to have the input of the park and rec commission on that. Our PUD ordinance, and it's intent says that it's the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with other more standard zoning districts, and I'm not sure if we have that yet. I think that's part of what we're asking staffto clarify. I have, I'd like to see something kind of special and different here. I'm not sure that we have that. And I think that's sort of what some of Deb's questions were directed toward is improving some of the getting a little bit more higher quality of the development and I'd also like to see a more sensitive proposal to the environment and the neighbor's concerns. And I don't know what to do about the gateway issue. I guess I could be convinced that this is satisfactory too. Another element is again weighing the neighbor concerns versus the affordable housing goal. I think that we can still have an affordable housing element to this pro~ject and still meet the neighbors concerns. And I also would like to make sure that we have something in our proposal next time that addresses protecting the McAllister property. I know that there are a number of lawsuits where people move into a, it's called moving into a nuisance. ! don't think their property's a nuisance but that's what they call these type of suits and I want to protect the McAllister property fi'om those type of claims. I don't want anybody to be complaining aboutthe animals when they've known it's been there all along. We do have a high amount of discretion in reviewing these things. I think it makes sense to table this and I'd ask that the neighbors stay involved throughout the process and keep helping us out with our decision. And with that, I guess we need a motion. Sacchet: I want to make sure we do the best we can do so, and I'm making a motion to table this. Burton: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the request from Pulte Homes for Arboretum Village at the corner of Highways 41 and 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Mr. Chairman a point. Can we make sure we know what we're doing by tabling it? And the process. Will we be, Mr. Chairman will staff be addressing the issues we just brought up? And it's going to be that simple? Is there any kind of neighborhood involvement that's necessary before that meeting? Is there anything you'd like to have done with the applicant present to the neighborhood? Anything on that? Burton: I think it would make sense to have a meeting with the applicant and the neighbors before we see it again. And incorporate whatever comments they have to staff. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Conrad: I'm not sure. Aanenson: Can I address that? We are clicking on a clock of timeframe to get this reviewed. I anticipated this is going to take longer. Have spoken to the applicant and he's willing to give us extra time. At least 120 days. The next Planning Commission meeting is January 2nd. It is a hard time to try to get together and the Park Commission, I believe their next regular meeting is not until January. So if you wanted their input, we're kind of pushing us back into January to resolve some of these issues. Certainly there needs to be some clarification communicated. As Ladd pointed out, understanding the ordinance, that sort of thing. I think that's going to take neighborhood input. Some redesign between the applicant and the neighbors and staff. So we're probably looking probably towards the end of January. I just need to make sure that the applicant's going to give us that extension to meet the State... If you wanted to ask that, if we can do that. Burton: Would the applicant, can the City have that extension of time? Dennis Griswold: Until the end of January? Aanenson: Well for the Planning Commission I mean but by the time it goes to Council, you're talking February. I have the date starting the 60 day, October 23rd. So in December we're at 60 days and I'm telling him we need another 60 days at.a minimum and then we have to re-evaluate that. Dennis Griswold: Is there not a Planning Commission first half of January? Aanenson: Yes there is but if they're recommending that they want input from the Park Commission, I don't believe they meet until later in the month. They may be having a special meeting this month. I'm not sure what their agenda is. I'm just saying... Burton: Yeah, I think we come before the Park Commission in January and we need, we're asking for their input before we meet so we would probably be the 16th of January would be our next one? It'd be two weeks after the 2nd. Aanenson: Correct. Burton: So that would be our next one. And then we go to council so we're just looking to have time so it goes to council, came to the council in the time frame that you require. Dennis Griswold: We'll go with that extension but I would ask your indulgence if we could have the information together to make a decision at that point. And I know you don't know what we're bringing back to you but I would want you to understand that...very critical and very important to us. We want to work with the city on the time issue too but give us a decision. Burton: And I can't tell you what will happen in our next meeting but we understand your concern and we understand that we need to make a decision. We have to make a decision because the time's going to run anyway so we're going to be forced to make a decision. Conrad: Mr. Chair, can we ask to see if this could get onto the Park and Rec's agenda? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000 Aanenson: Did anticipate that question coming up. I spoke with Todd. They are having a special meeting. I'm not sure if you can get it on. Certainly the neighbors want to have input too. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. So we'll just have to see what we can do to communicate that. I just want everybody to know that's part of the process. Conrad: We conduct public hearings, excuse me Mr. Chair. Burton: That's fine. Conrad: We conduct the public hearing. I think the public made their comments known tonight. At least about the part of the totlots. Are there other issues? There are. Okay. Audience: Can I make a comment? Or not? Burton: Quick. Audience: Very quickly. I just think what we want to make sure is that we take the time and if this is going to happen, which I heard from a couple people that it's going to. Or at least under very serious consideration, from my standpoint and I won't talk for everybody. From my standpoint is, I just want to make sure we do do it right. And the density issue and quality issue and some buffering, some things like that are important. We think...gateway and I would just love to sit down and talk about that. Really I would because I think it's important. But that's xvhat we would like. I would like to have input on is what happens. And I think time is understandably for the developer is important. Burton: Yeah, xve're trying to accommodate all that. So Ijust want to be clear on the extension that we have. Aanenson: I'm saying, I just don't see, even if the park commission met sooner, I'm not sure based on xve're getting towards the holidays, we can work with the neighbors and get that through the process in that first meeting. I think we're going to need at least until the 16~h meeting in January to, for the next Planning Commission. Burton: For the extension that we actually need from the applicant though, is it just through the 16th of January we need or do you need to make sure it gets... Aanenson: Well I'm telling him we're taking the extra 60 days. It may go longer than that. Just so he's aware of that and, otherwise you're going to have to make a recommendation, whether it's favorable or not, and get it up to the City Council so we stay within that. Burton: Okay. Anybody have any other issues they need to? Okay. Alright, we're actually going to move on to old business. OLD AND NEW BUSINESS. Aanenson: ...Anyways I just wanted to share with you where the park design is going on this project. This is an area again that we got through the projects. The PUD on the one side and it's been left natural. It's a very nice, natural area. 100 acre park. And the high area to the wetland. This is the Trotter's Ridge subdivision with Coulter going through it. Now looking at the parking for this area and the trails. As you recall this is an area we also looked at using as a place for the school kids to go over and use 46 14 Thousands Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Residential Permits by Type, 1970-1998 12 10 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Percent of Residential Permits by Type, 1970-1998 100% 80% ........................................................................................................................... .~. Singl~ OO/o ...... 40% [ ........................................................... : " ,," '"' ,, Multifamily 20% ........................... 0% F , Mobie home change -20% 1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Source: Metropolita n Council annu al surveys. -2020 L.and Use i. ,. J e E E o ~ o o - ~ o lid 0 r ..12 ~ 0 0 0 (,-¢,) CZ) OD © © "-- ~ 0 LO 0 """- C", C") ~ ,,~ ,,~ 0 U© 0 ,- · · ~ , 'i'~ o3 0 Ob cO cD 0 0 o4 ,-- 0 ~- 0 LO U3 L,O 04 0 CD · · =<~ o o o o-, ~ o o o,-,--- o o o o ~ o ~ ~ o o o ~ · ,: - .-: .,~: · . ~;,~ o o o o ~ o ~oo oooo o o o ooooooo x C) 0 0 u,, rr~ O. 0 "~-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'c~' 0 0 0 0 r,-.- ~ ..... · 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 ~_ 0 CO © 0 8 0 LO 0 0 CO .... ,.. EcL " cd_ ck ~ ~ ~ ~ o cL __ CD ~ ...... 0 o_o 0 ~-- 0 ~- ~0 ~ ~ O~ 0 ~-- 0 oooo oooo o o · ,r--~ 0 ~ CiD O~ 0 LO C~ 0 O0 'r-'O0 O0 '~- 0,,,I ~ 0 CD T- 0 0 CZ) C) CD 0 0 ":d- 0"~ 0 "~ ~-- 0'~ C'~ 0 C'~ CO ~ h-..- 0 C ~ 0 '~' 0 E E E E 0 0 © · · o i 00 00 ! 00 010 0 0 o.o,o.oo~°oooo.~°oooo.oooo~o. ~o 0 · --- i ...... ~ E -': ........... 0,000 O0 00000 000 O000000 0 cO 00000 000 0 CO o'ooooooooooooooooooooo~oooooooo o ~ ZONING § 20-1551 d. Demonstrates the tower's compliance with all applicable structural and electrical ~ standards and includes an engineer's stamp and registration number. (2) For all commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use, and so long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is no disruption to the service provided. (Ord. No. 259, § 1, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-1522. Temporary mobile towers. Personal wireless service antennas located upon a temporary mobile tower used on an interim basis until a permanent site is constructed or located shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: (1) The height of the tower shall not exceed ninety (90) feet including trailer platform. (2) Temporary mobile towers shall maintain the setbacks as contained in section 20-1505. The setback shall be maintained from the trailer platform. (3) Temporary mobile towers shall be prohibited in residential zoning districts. (4) Temporary mobile towers shall have a minimum tower design windload of eighty (80) miles per hour and shall comply with the requirements in section 20-1508. ' (5) A temporary mobile tower may be permitted for up to one hundred twenty (120) days. Towers located on a site longer than this time shall require the processing of an interim use permit subject to section 20-381. (6) Temporary mobile towers shall require a building permit and comply with section 20-1516. (7) Mobile units shall have the opportunity to appeal the administrative decision subject to section 20-1517. (8) Mobile units shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications subject to section 20-1520. (Ord. No. 275, § 2, 10-13-97) Secs. 20-1523--20-1550. Reserved.  ARTICLE XXXI. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 20-1551. Purpose. The Bluff Creek Watershed Area and the development within it have a major influence on environmental quality in the city and the region. Development within the corridor must be Supp. No. 11 ' 1295 20-1551 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE designed with utmost sensitivity to the environment and the development pattern must be of a quantity and quality other than what might occur in the absence of specific standards. The purpose of the district is to: (a) Protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs, and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design, protective covenants, sensitive alignment and design of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural features, landscaping, techniques outlined in the city's surface water management plan, and the practices delineated in the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. Encourage a development pattern that allows people and nature to mix spanning multiple ecosystems. Development in the corridor should be ecologically designed and built around natural features such as trees, wetlands, and bluffs. Significant natural features should impact development rather than development impacting significant natural features. The natural qualities of the corridor should be preserved to ensure sufficient habitat area for wildlife. (c) Promote innovative development techniques such as cluster development and open- space subdivisions to measurably reduce the amount of impervious cover compared to traditional development practices resulting in significant portions of a site being retained as permanent, protected open space. (d) Foster the creation of a greenway connecting Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the Minnesota River Valley. The greenway will serve as an uninterrupted pedestrian trail, bikeway system, and wildlife corridor affording opportunities for recreation, education, physical fitness and non-motorized transportation. (e) Encourage cost effective site development. Open space design practices can reduce infrastructure engineering and construction costs because of lot configurations, short- ened streets, and reduced utility runs. Long term cost savings can also be realized by the City of Chanhassen associated with infrastructure maintenance costs. Implement the policies and recommendations found in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Mana'gement Plan. The terms, definitions and appendices found in the Management Plan are incorporated herein. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1552. Intent. The city intends that all development within the district including commercial, industrial and residential uses should blend into the natural environment while protecting Bluff Creek and sensitive land areas abutting and in the vicinity of the watercourse and its tributaries. The criteria by which new development in the district shall be judged are as follows: (a) Consistency with all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, as amended from time to time; the Surface Water Management Plan; all provisions of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance not specifically overridden by the provisions of this district; and all other applicable land use regulations, Supp. No. 11 1296 ZONING § 20-1555 (b) Preservation of the natural conditions found in the Primary Zone and to the greatest extent possible, preserving significant resources and minimizing impacts in the ~econdary Zone through cluster development and other practices which minimize the removal of vegetation, minimize site grading, and application of practices found in the city's best management practices handbook. (c) Creation of a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection, bluff protection, and vegetation protection and the design and function of man-made features. (d) Creation of an interconnected open space network that preserves migratory patterns for wildlife. (e) Creation of an interconnected open space network that provides recreational and educational opportunities for people. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) · Sec. 20-1553. District application. The BCO district shall be applied or superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this article. The regulations and requirements imposed by the BCO district shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of the districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1554. Conditional use permits. A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1555. Boundary delineation. (a) Generally. Primary and Secondary Zones shall be subject to the requirements estab- lished herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinances and regulations. The Bluff Creek Watershed regulations shall not be construed to allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the overlay district applies. (b) Boundaries; maps. The Primary and Secondary Zones include land that is generally defined in this article and in the BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to, a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. The planning director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone Supp. No. 11 . 1297 § 20-1555 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. Data for watershed zone ~lelineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed ~ttanagement, environmental science or other related profession. The applicant may appeal the planning director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1556. Impervious cover and slopes. To the greatest extent possible, all development shall minimize the amount of impervious surface by clustering development, using common access drives and utility corridors and minimizing building footprint size. Roads, walkways, bike trails, and parking areas must be designed parallel to natural contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Management of surface run-off caused by impervious cover shall be designed using practices delineated in the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. Within the Secondary Zone of the Bce district, areas with average slopes exceeding twenty-five (25) percent shall be preserved in their natural state and maintained as permanent open space. Areas with average slopes less than twenty-five (25) percent but greater than ten (10) percent shall not exceed an impervious surface coverage of twenty-five (25) percent. Impervious coverage for areas where average slopes are less than ten (10) percent shall be governed by the underlying zoning district. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1557. Bluffs. Bluffs shall be preserved as provided for under Article XXVIII. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1558. Site views. Through environmentally sensitive design such as "terrain adaptive architecture" (see Figure 1), landscaping and site planning, site views both to and from the BCW district shall be preserved and enhanced to the ga'eatest extent possible so as to maintain views that reflect and Supp. No. 11 1298 ZONING § 20-1559 protect the natural beauty of the BCO District. Special attention shoul(! be given to views that are highly accessible to the public such as scenic overlooks, ridges and trails. Clustering of developrhent away from natural overlooks is encouraged. Develop terrain-adaptive architecture for steep slopes. 'On steeply sloping sites, the propsedbuilding should step down the hillside. Terrain-Adaptive Architecture Side garage access requires less site disturbance, Figure 1. "Published in APA PAS Report #466" (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1559. Density clustering. -- Density clustering shall be allowed as a tool to facilitate cluster development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. Density clustering may be used in areas where portions of the site are unsuitable for development because of the location of the Primary Corridor. Density clustering shall not be allowed for areas that are otherwise considered unbuildable due to wetlands, lakes and other areas not suitable for building purposes. In areas where density clustering is applicable, density may be transferred to unconstrained parts of the site within land included in the Secondary Corridor, subject to the restrictions of this article, and within land lying outside of identified corridor areas. Additionally, the following conditions may qualify for density clustering: (a) Land slopes in the Secondary Zone that exceed twenty-five (25) percent on average. (b) Land in the Secondary Zone containing stands of native trees. (c) Land with suitable natural habitat to endangered or threatened species or a fragile ecosystem. Supp. No. 11 1299 § 20-1559 Ct-IANHASSEN CITY CODE ~om rol o,g i c al Traditional Development Pattern "Designing Open Space Subdivisions, Randall Arendt" Cluster Development "Designing Open Space Subdivisions, Randall Arendt" Supp. No. 11 1300 ZONING § 20-1561 ~ln~flc~nt, n~l~ur~! rcsour¢~ Industrial Cluster Development (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1560. Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster-home PUDs. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dsvelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1561. Natural habitat preservation. (a) Natural habitat areas within the primary zone shall be preserved as permanent open space. Any development that occurs shall be directly related to the continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to I,ake Minnewashta as outlined in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. (b) Where possible, any disturbances of natural habitat areas within the Secondary Zone shall be avoided. Any alterations to the natural habitat within the Secondary Zone shall adhere to the practices delineated in the city's Best Management Practices Handbook. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Supp. No. 11 1301 § 20-1562 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-1562. Natural habitat restoration plan. If natural habitat areas located within the Secondary Zone will be disturbed during any stage of development, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan identifying the resources that will be disturbed and a corresponding restoration and/or mitigation plan. Such restoration might include wetland mitigation and replanting of habitat significant to endangered and threatened species. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Scc. 20-1563. Open space rcquircmcnts. Open space shall comprise one hundred (10O) percent of the area located within the Primary Zone. The city will establish the boundary for the Primary Zone using data provided by the applicant. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Sec. 20-1564. Structure setbacks. All structures shall be setback a minimum of forty (40) feet from the Primary Zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first (20) feet of such setback. (Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) Supp. No. 11 1302 [The next page is 1977] cITy OF P.C. DATE: 11-14-00,12-5-00 1-16-01 C.C. DATE: 2-12-01 CASE: 99-2 PUD BY: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A mixed housing development (379 units) consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, and village homes on 89.5 acres and 2.94 acres of commercial uses on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential located on the northeast comer of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes. -- a. Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - from low density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial b. Subdivision of I20.93 acres into 2 additions; 1st addition 26 Blocks including 199 units and Outlots A-F and 2nd addition 24 blocks including 180 units and Outlots A-C c. Site Plan Review - of 32 club homes, 105 manor homes, 82 coach homes, and 160 Village homes d. Wetland Alteration Permit - to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins e. Environmental Assessment Worksheet ± will be reviewed addressing potential environmental impacts of th( proposed development making the approving finding and decisions in the need for An Environmental System. f. ' Conditional Use Permit - for subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District LOCATION: Northeast comer of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 APPLICANT: Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corp. 1355 Mendota Heights Rd., Suite 300 Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 (65I)452-5200 J. P. Savaryn Estate 9950 North Shore Road Waconia, -MN 55387 Mills Properties, In 512 Laurel St. P. O. Box 50555 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential ACREAGE: 120.93 Acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R, Meadows at Longacres S - PUD-I, Arboretum Business Park E - A2, Agricultural Estates W- RR- Rural Residential WATER AND SEWER: Water will be available with frontage road construction. Sewer has been petitioned and the city council has ordered a feasibility study. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 2 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Rolling topography, large wetland on northern edge, two large stands of trees. 2000 LAND USE: Low Density (north of frontage road) Medium Density, Commercial, Institutional, Office (south of frontage road) SUMMARY OF REQUEST Pulte Homes is requesting a land use amendment and a rezoning to PUD-R to allow for a mixed residential development and neighborhood commercial. The proposed development requires an Environmental Assessment. This project includes site plan review of the 4 different products and a subdivision of the 120.93 acres. Pulte Homes has acquired the remainder of the Savaryn Property and they are the developer of the entire project. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezoning, PUD's and amendments to the PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A rezoning or PUD and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The city's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL SUMMARY Pulte Homes is requesting to rezone 120.93 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Highways 5 and 41. There are two underlying property owners, Mills Fleet Farm and the Savaryn Estate. A portion of the Savaryn property (11 acres) is located on the west side of Highway 41. In the fall of 1999 this project was given conceptual approval by the city council. The conditions of approval that were given at the time of conceptual approval included: change the club homes along the northern portion of the site to two unit buildings and consideration of relocation of the rental town houses. Changes in the plan since conceptual approval was given, are: Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 3 1. New elevations on all buildings including additional revisions to the Village homes. 2. Reduction in the number of units from 418 to 379. 3. Coach homes were reduced from 8 unit buildings to 4 and 6 unit buildings. 4. Guest parking was added in the Coach and Village homes. 5. The Village homes were redesigned from an "L" shaped building to 4, 6 and 8 unit buildings to accommodate the open space. 6. Tot lots and recreation space was added per the Park and Recreation Commission in the rental townhome area and Manor and Village home area. 7. A small wetland 0.46 acres is being proposed for mitigation on the northern portion of the 11 acres located west of State Hwy 41. 8. The rental units (32) are being proposed as manor homes. 9. Additional visitor parking. The subject site is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and RR Rural Residential. In the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, this area was given a Study Area status. It was guided as a part of the Highway 5 Corridor study in 1995. The land use considerations for this site are low density, office, and institutional or medium density residential. This area was brought into the MUSA in' 2000; this is consistent with the city comprehensive plan. The site will be accessed via the Hwy. 5 frontage road (West 78th Street) that is being proposed with the Hwy. 5 widening. The area east of the north/south road (Century Boulevard) was given an institutional, office or commercial land use (2.9398 acres). This request proposes a PUD in order to mix the density and locate the commercial from the west to the east side of Century Boulevard. This project will also require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Arboretum Villages has the following unit mix: Club home 32 units Manor homes 105 units Coach homes 82 units Villages homes 160 units 379 units BACKGROUND The majority of the site has been farmed. There is a large wetland to the north and eastern edge of the site. The three smaller wetlands that are found on the southeast corner of the site have been determined to be exempt because of past farming practices. The total amount of wetlands for the entire site is 26.3 acres. The site has a rolling topography with a 40-foot change from the wetlands to the highest point. There is a home on the south comer of the property. The home is vacant and is not habitable because it has inadequate utilities to the site (failing/failed septic and well). On the northwest portion of the site (Parcel A) is the McAllister property (5.8) acres. The parcel has a home and is proposed to remain as a large lot. The city recently gave this site an Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 4 interim use for 10 years to operate a petting farm. Future subdivision of the McAllister property is possible. To the east is Outlot K of the Meadows of Longacres, the old Dolejsi property. Lundgren Brothers has started the process of preparing a plat for this site. As currently shown this site will be consistent (density and lot size) with the Meadows of Longacres. Located in the middle of Outlot K is the American Baptist Group home, which is comprised of ten acres. The group home has informed the city that it is their intention to relocate to a new site. If the group home were to be relocated it would be desirable to incorporate this property in the surrounding plat. West on Highway 41 is the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the old Kordonowy property, which is 60 acres. The Kordonowy site has been acquired by Westwood Church and will be going t?u'ough site plan review in the near future. Westwood Church has petitioned the city for sewer and water. The development of this site is being influenced by several important policies. These policies include the Highway 5 Co~Tidor Study, the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the Comprehensive Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the Livable Communities Act. Following is a summary of each of these documents and its influence on the design of the subject site.. Highway 5 Corridor Study The purpose of the TH 5 study was to select a prefen'ed alignment for the northerly frontage road to review land use and zoning alternatives along the corridor and provide design guidelines. The purpose of the Overlay District as stated in the ordinance is to "be designed with greater sensitivity to the environment and of generally higher quality." The purpose of the district is to: a. "Protect creek corridors, wetland and significant stands of matures trees... b. Promotes high quality architectural and site design... c. Create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment... d. Foster a distinctive and positive community image...especially for the Highway 5 corridor which functions as the City's main entrance." The study proposed that the area north of the frontage road be given a land use designation of single family residential and the area south either medium family residential, institutional or office use. Transferring the density west 41 and the credit for the ROW will give an overall density of 5.7 units an acre. The overall density would not exceed what is proposed in the comprehensive plan - Northern density 3.5 u/a - Southern density 8.3 u/a transfer + ROW credit. This proposal is similar to what was done with the Walnut Grove Development. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 5 The plan also recommended the city establish the western gateway at TH 5/TH 41 by reinforcing the "orchard grid" of plantings. The plan does propose preservation of the two significant wooded areas on the site as well as provide perimeter landscaping. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Corridor Study is a vision and planning document that has the following goals: 1. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Resources 2. Acquire land to create a continuous greenway along the creek from the Minnesota river to Lake Minnewashta 3. Create development standards that manage upstream such as mixed or cluster development easements and alternative zoning 4. Develop educational watershed awareness program 5. Develop a Natural Resources Plan An overlay district was created for Bluff Creek with a primary and secondary corridor. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undistributed conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The secondary corridor boundary delineates a management zone. This is the area where development and/or urban activities directly affect the stream's upland ecosystem. The preservation and enhancement of this area will result in a better habitat and less strain on the stream. Management practices for this area focus on the preservation and enhancement of upland vegetation and the reduction of peak flows. A portion of this site falls within the primary and secondary zone. The primary zone on the east side of TH 41 is largely in the area of the large wetland bordering the northern portion of the site and the trees around the south edge of this wetland. The other portion of the primary zone is on the west side of TH 41, which includes most of the Savaryn property. The City's Bluff Creek Overlay District states that no development shall occur within the primary zone. For this reason, staff believes that this area needs to be included within the PUD and a density transfer would be permitted to the east side of TH 41 out of the primary zone. Section 20-1559 of Article XXXI provides the mechanism to allow for density transfers. The Bluff Creek Plan makes a couple of recommendations for this area including restoring the shallow marsh and restoring the big woods. An alternative was discussed for providing an additional underpass just for animals under TH 5 but this was not included in the design plans. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 6 Highway 5 Frontage Boulevard Much of the topography and the shape of the parcels is being driven by the location, necessary grading and pond location for the Frontage Road. The road is being constructed as a part of the upgrade from two to four lanes on TH 5. This road is being built and will be used as the by-pass during the construction of TH 5. The road also provides an east/west access alternative for local traffic so you would not have to get on Hwy. 5. The design of the road was also approved as a part of the Hwy. 5 corridor. The road is intended to be a boulevard with streetscape, lighting and a trail on the no~1h. The cross intersection currently exists between Powers Blvd. and Lake A~m Park. The construction of the road is necessary for this site to development. The frontage road construction will alter the topography by the amount of grading necessary, elimination of the exempted wetlands at the corner of TH 5/41 and tree loss. Livable Communities Act The city signed on with the Livable Communities Act since 1995. The principles of the act state that the city support: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people of all income ranges. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 4. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access and linkage between housing and employment. The owner occupied units will be 4 different types of products. The price range on the for sale units range from $110,000 on the Village home to $220,000 on the Club Home. Any home sale under $134,250** would be considered affordable under the Metropolitan Council standards. This project would be meeting some of the city affordable and housing diversity goals without city financial assistance. Carver County HRA may be pursuing the purchase of few of the village units to provide financial assistance. **2000 Ownership housing costing no more than 30 percent of household income for families with less than 80 percent of metro area $68,600 income ($54,880 max.) = $t34,250 or less home value. There is no city assistance being considered on the owner occupied units. Carver County HRA may be acquiring a few of the village homes. Although some of the homes will be sold at a price that meets the housing goals there is no mechanism in place to qualify buyers. Someone making Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 7 more than the median income limits will be able to purchase a home. They are being sold at market rate. Planned Unit Development The applicant is seeking a PUD in order to develop the entire site as one project. Because there are two underlying property owners, it has always been staff s opinion that this area is best developed as one parcel. The Savaryn parcel is very narrow and is encumbered by two wetlands and bisected by the frontage road and TH 41. The plan incorporates good planning principles by combining both parcels. The issue for the City to resolve is if this plan makes good use of the PUD principles. Having earlier noted that the primary zone is on the west side of TH 41 that density should be transferred to the east side unless the city wants to give a variance to this area and allow it to be developed separately. DENSITY Net Acres NORTH Of 78th Street Maximum Units/Acre Allowed in Low Density Total Units Allosved North of 78th Street 39 x 4 = 156 Net Acres South Of 78th Maximum Units/Acre Allowed in Medium Density Total Units Allowed South ' of 78th Street 24 x 8 = 192 * Right of Way for West 78th Street - 5 acres (credit given for dedication) at 8 units an acre = 40 units Total Units Allowed Total Net Acres Total Net Density Allowed 388 + 68 = 5.71 Pulte Proposal Total Units Allowed Total Net Acres Total Net Density Allowed 379 + 68 = 5.6 Net Density North of West 78th Street 141- 13 7 units + 39 acres = 3.5 Net Density South of West 78th Street 242 units +24 + 5 (west 78th row) acres = 8.3 A subdivision was developed for the old Kordonowy site. This proposal, which included 57 acres, had 110 homes. This plan was never formally submitted and this property has now been Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 8 sold to Westwood Church. Therefore, with the density transfer there will be no additional homes on.the west side of TH 41. The best zoning application for this property is the PUD. The property is two separate parcels and the PUD allows for efficient development of the site and application of the Bluff Creek District. ANALYSIS Pulte Homes is requesting Preliminary PUD and Subdivision approval as well as Site Plan Review. The proposal also requires a Wetland Alteration Permit, Conditional Use Permit and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Preliminary PUD The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of ~nost 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 developn~ent costs, h~ 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 ~ore standard zoning districts." The mix of 4 different housing products as well as the commercial zoning makes the PUD excellent zoning applicant. Unique design standards will be applied to the different housing types. Site Plan Review The plan has 4 different types of units including: 1. 32 Club homes (one level town homes for active adults, 1220-2200 sq. ft., ($185,000-$220,000), 2. 105 Manor homes (split level town homes with basement, 1200-1,600 sq. ft., ($150,000-$180,000), 3. 82 Coach homes (two story town homes 1,100-1,350 sq. ft., ($135,000-$150,000) 4. 160 Village homes (two story town homes with tuck under garage, 900 -1,150 sq. ft., ($110,000-$120,000), and It appears that the maximum percentage of affordable owner occupied units would be 42 percent. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 9 Staff supports the rezoning request. The proposal is more sensitive than a standard single-family subdivision, since the structures are shifted from the environmentally sensitive area and grouped closer together to reduce grading and provide greater efficiency for utility installation. The PUD also provide for common ownership and maintenance of the site. PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density- housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site - plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. -' b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to-be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required 50 feet From Collector Street From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right-of-Way 30 feet 60 feet Minimum Proposed 50 feet Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 10 Hard Surface Commercial 70% Hard Surface Coverage (Total site) 30 % Not available at this time 29% d. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. RE S IDENTIAL STANDARD S The plans propose five products. Each product must confo~Tn to the following standards. 1. Club Homes (Rambler attached two unit town homes) One level town homes (with or without basement). · Building exterior material shall be a combination of 4" vinyl siding and brick. · Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). · Each town house shall consist of two units. One unit will have a side-loaded garage and the other will have a front loaded garage. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers, etc. · All units shall utilize fiberglass shingles. · Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree ~vithin its front landscape yard. · All units shall have access onto an interior street. · All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 2. Manor Homes (three to four unit town homes) · Split level town homes with basement. · Building exterior material shall be a combination of 4" vinyl siding, vinyl shakes, brick and stone. · Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 11 · Each town house shall consist of three or four units. No more than two garage doors may be adjacent to each other. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as round louvers, dormers, etc. All units shall utilize fiberglass shingles. · Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front landscape yard. · All units shall have access onto an interior street. · All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 3. Coach Homes · Two Story town homes (four to six unit town homes). · Building exterior material shall be a combination of 4" vinyl siding and brick. · Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. · Each town house shall consist of four or six units. Garage doors must be separated from each other by entryways. · Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as dormers, etc. · All units shall utilize fiberglass shingles. · Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 over story tree within its front landscape yard. · All units shall have access onto an interior street. · All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. 4. Village Homes · Two story town homes with tuck under garage (four to eight unit town homes). · Building exterior material shall be a combination of 4" vinyl' siding and brick. · Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc. · Each town house shall consist of four to eight. Garage doors must be staggered. · Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as dormers, bay windows, arched windows, shutters, etc. · All units shall utilize fiberglass shingles. · Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front landscape yard. · All units shall have access onto an interior street. · All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or landscaping. · Changes to building detail plans dated January 16, 2001, shall be required. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 12 Preliminary Plat - Subdivision The entire property is 120.9332 acres. The proposed subdivision of the property will be in two phases. The 1st phase includes 199 dwelling units. Lot 8, Block 1 is the common space, Lots 10 and 14, Block 2 are common space, Outlots A, B and C include the common space in the Club, and Manor homes. Outlot D is the 2.9398 acres of commercial property. Outlot E is 3.03 acres for open space. The 2nd phase includes 180 dwelling units which is located north of the large wetland and Outlot F - 11.0481 acres (located west on Hwy 41). Staff is recommending a Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over Outlots E and F and those areas where trees are shown to be preserved. The proposed subdivision of the property is consistent with the guidelines established in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved with conditions outlined in the report. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Approximate tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Pulte Homes Arboretum Village development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 94.64 acres 18.0 acres 19% 20% or 19 acres 14% or 13 acres Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 261,360 SF or 6 acres Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement area 313,632 SF Total number of trees to be planted 288 trees Additional landscaping required for the development includes buffer yard plantings along West 78th Street and Highways 5 and 41. The following table summarizes the minimum requirements: Required Proposed Canopy Coverage 288 overstory 317 overstory Hv~gf. 41 - buffer yard B 20 overstory 40 understory 60 shrubs 20 overstory 85 understory (52 evergreens) Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 13 Hwy. 5 - buffer yard B W. 78th St. - buffer yard B W. 78th St.- Blvd. Trees 13 overstory 26 understory 39 shrubs 53 overstory 105 understory 158 shrubs 93 overstory (1 per 30') (33 ornamentals) 24 shrubs 13 overstory 49 understory (36 evergreens) (13 ornamentals) 29 shrubs 57 overstory 174 understory (114 evergreens) (60 ornamentals) 41 shrubs 57 overstory The applicant meets minimum requirements for over- and understory trees in all buffer yards. However, all evergreens used as overstory trees must be at least 8 feet in height. The applicant should change the plant schedule on the landscape plan to reflect this requirement. Landscaping falls short on numbers of shrubs required, mostly along W. 78th St. Staff recommends that the minimum number of shrubs be required along Highways 5 and 41, but that understory trees be substituted for some of the shrubs along W. 78th Street. By ordinance, evergreens are required to average seven feet in height with a six-foot minimum. The proposed landscaping plan calls for six-foot evergreens. Staff recommends this be changed to an average height of seven feet. The applicant has located boulevard trees along West 78th Street at approximately 60-foot intervals. This is twice the required distance between trees. Further east along W. 78th Street, the city's boulevard tree plantings between Powers Boulevard and the Lake Ann entrance are spaced 55 feet apart. Staff recommends that the applicant redesign the boulevard plantings to be located 55 feet apart and add any trees necessary in order to meet minimum boulevard tree requirements. No landscaping was specified for the tot lots in the development. Staff recommends that a minimum of three overstory trees be planted near the tot lots to provide shade and beauty to the area. Plant materials specified by the applicant are acceptable with the exception of the Colorado spruce selected for the buffer yard areas. Staff recommends a hardier, more disease resistant selection of evergreen be chosen and all Colorado spruce be replaced with a new material. This site contains a number of significant trees in its wooded areas. Oaks and maples ranging from 38 inches in diameter to 60 inches are present on site. These are large trees. They have been on the site for hundreds of years and deserve special attention. Of concern are the following trees: #1369 (52" oak), #1743 (60" oak), #1742 (48" oak), #2173 (42" oak), and #1881 (36" Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 14 maple). These trees are either at the edge of the grading limits or within but close enough in elevation to merit an attempt at preservation through a change in grading plans or the use of retaining walls. Staff would recommend that the applicant work with the city to preserve any or all of these trees. In addition, staff recommends a walk-through on site to inspect silt/tree preservation fence prior to construction. Wetlands Nine ag/urban wetlands and one utilized wetland exist on-site. Wetlands comprise approximately 26.29 acres of the 120.93-acre proposed development. Basin 1 Basin 1 is an ag/urban wetland located just north of Highway 5 and west of Basin 6. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass. It receives water from the Highway 5 roadside ditch and from a pipe that discharges into the basin from the west. Surface xvater flows from this basin through a' ravine to Basin 6. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Basin 2 Basin 2 is a utilized wetland located just north of Highway 5 near the middle of the property. The basin is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin; however, stolxn water will be discharged into the basin. The applicant has proposed a 1 O-foot buffer with a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge for this basin. Since this Vt,..,I,~.>lll l,~a L.4.1.111Z~,~',~I. ¥¥~..,I. It,.A. II",~-~ 11~1~11~1 ~ V~II~I IIVt ~ O~kU~91k1~ l~llCg~ IIVYVVV¢I~ ~11¢ ~11¢g11¢ lll~J1 Basin 3 Basin 3 is part ora wetland complex that spans the northern edge of the site. This complex is a portion of the headwaters for Bluff Creek and is therefore within the Primary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and jewelweed. Because the adjacent upland has been farmed for many years, very little wetland buffer cun'ently exists adjacent to the basin. A 20-foot buffer is proposed. Eeca'ase the 1~,,o;,. ; ...... /,,,.1-, ......+l,,,.,,q ,-,,,l,, ............ s ................ , .... ..... vv ....... a ............. Princ al structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer e e Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 15 Prior to December 14, 1992, principal structures were required to maintain a 75-foot setback from the wetland boundary. This allowed property owners to mow to the edge of the ~vetland as long as the principal structure did not encroach into the setback. On December 14, 1992, the City adopted a wetland ordinance that reduced the setback requirement, but added an additional requirement: a buffer strip. Requiring a buffer strip with a decreased setback is more beneficial than simply maintaining a 75-foot setback. Buffers provide aesthetic screening, wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity as well as water quality benefits, while reduced setbacks allow better use of potentially buildable areas. In addition, ~vetland boundaries are not linear. Therefore, in some situations, it may be more beneficial to the City, the property owner and the health of the wetland if the buffer width varies. Recognizing this led the City to include acceptable ranges for buffer widths into the wetland ordinance. Acceptable widths vary according to the classification of the wetland (Pristine, Natural, Ag/Urban or Utilized). The follo~ving structures are proposed to encroach into the required 40-foot setback:. Phase I: Phase II: Outlot A, ¼ Court Basketball Outlot B, Lots 16 and 17 Outlot C, Lot 19 Outlot B, Lots 7 and 9 Outlot C, Lot 19 Under the current proposal, the applicant would be required to apply for variances from the required setback for the above structures. Chanhassen City Code states that ag/urban wetlands, like those on this site, must preserve a 0-20 foot wide buffer strip that maintains a minimum average width of 10 feet. Therefore, it is acceptable for the applicant to decrease the ~vidth of the proposed buffer in the seven locations listed above. If the applicant decreases the width of the buffer in the above areas (but does not eliminate the buffer in any area, thereby preserving buffer function), all but one of the proposed structures (Phase I, Outlot B, Lot 17) would meet the required setback. The applicant should resolve the encroachment of the above structures into the wetland buffer setback. If the applicant chooses to decrease buffer width in any or all of the above areas, all plan sheets showing the proposed buffer and setbacks must reflect these changes. Drainageway 1 is an area dominated by reed canary grass that flows north into Basin 3. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing. To reduce potential impacts to the drainageway from the proposed fill, the applicant has proposed a storm sewer inlet on the south side of the road crossing ~-~:~ .... :~ ~, +~, ~,~; ........ + ...... · ......... c~,~, ,~ ..... Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 16 applicant should provide an invert elevation for the proposed storm sewer inlet to ensure that wetland loss will not occur due to excessive drainage of the drainageway and to ensure that the drainageway will not become wetter. Basin 4 Basin 4 is located in the extreme southwest corner of the site and is adjacent to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This wetland receives storm water from the intersection and also the southwest portion of the property. This wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails. No wetland fill or drainage is proposed in this basin; however, some storm water from the southwest portion of the site will be diverted into the basin through the use of overland drainage. Pretreatment will be provided through the use of vegetated s~vales. Basin A To the north and east of Basin 4 is an area that was originally classified as non-wetland by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. The area was classified as wetland in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and as an ag/urban wetland in Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Upon inspection of the area by City, Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) staff, the basin was found to exhibit the three parameters required for an area to be classified as wetland (wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation). Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc then delineated the basin. Wetland hydrology exists despite the presence of draintile through the basin. The basin is dominated by a species of sedge (Cyperz~s strigosus). Examination of aerial photographs showed that at least a portion of the basin had been farmed annually for years, making it a low quality ag/urban basin. This project proposes filling Basin A completely (0.46 acres). Basin 5 Basin 5 is located along the eastern edge of the site. Some City documents classify the basin as ag/urban while other documents classify it as natural wetland. Upon inspection by staff, it appears that agricultural practices in the last 20 years have degraded the quality of the wetland. Therefore, staff recommendations reflect City standards for ag/urban wetlands. This basin (below the OHW) is DNR Protected Water 209W. It is also located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and contains nettles, willow and cattails. The applicant is not proposing impact to this wetland. The applicant has not shown a 0- 20 foot wide buffer area for the northern portion of the wetland; ~' ......... ~a r~^~ ,,,,rr~, ;o w~v ......................... v .................... so a minimum average width of 10 feet will would be achieved. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 17 Basin 6 Basin 6 is an ag/urban wetland located just north of Highway 5 and west of the eastern property line. The basin was delineated by both Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. (in conjunction with this project) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (in conjunction with their Highway 5 project). Wetland impacts associated with this basin were included in the Wetland Alteration Permit for Highway 5 reconstruction (WAP 99-1). Basin B Basin B is an ag/urban wetland located on the eastern side of Outlot F. ~10* /''~ll*~fi* F'') ~ ~*h~ ~ ~+~ /''~'"~* ~''~ ~ The wetland is dominated by reed canaw grass and stinging nettle. No wetland impact is proposed in t~s basin. Wetland replacement is proposed to the no~h and west of this basin. Basin C Basin C is an ag/urban wetland located on the west and south sides of Outlot F. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and stinging nettle. No wetland impact is proposed in this basin. Wetland replacement is proposed to the north and east of this basin. Sequencing The applicant has provided wetland impact avoidance alternatives and Sequencing. The applicant proposes 0.08 acres of wetland impact for a road crossing Drainageway 1. The applicant has stated that this wetland fill is related to "an unavoidable road crossing (for safety purposes)." Since avoidance of this wetland impact would most likely result in two cul-de-sacs, each at least 250 feet in length, staff believes this argument is acceptable. The applicant has proposed filling Basin A completely (0.46 acres). Application materials state "Basin A is a marginal wetland that has been highly degraded by agricultural practices of tillage and an active drain tile system. This basin lacks vegetative diversity, and is tilled through almost yearly. With the current plan, [this low quality drained wetland is] replaced with a higher quality wetland that is part of a natural ecosystem." Application materials also state "If the parcel were not built, then there would be additional pressure on the developing fringe to push urban sprawl farther outward at a faster rate than it is currently moving. The current plan unit densities will slow urban sprawl." Staff believes these avoidance alternatives and sequencing arguments are Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 18 acceptable. In addition, the fill of Basin A and replacement at a 2:1 ratio will allow the applicant to increase density adjacent to Highways 5 and 41 while providing a higher quality wetland with greater function and value on the northwest portion of the parcel. Mitigation and Banking Summary Recent changes in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) have eliminated the "deductible" approach to the de minimis exemption. Therefore, projects with wetland impacts over the de minimis must incorporate 2:1 wetland replacement for each square foot of impact. For this project, proposed wetland impacts exceed the 2,000 square foot de minimis. Therefore, 2:1 mitigation is required for all wetland impacts. According to WCA, wetland mitigation areas must be constructed prior to wetland impacts occurring. The applicant has presented a site plan that proposes to fill 0.54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins. Wetland A, which is a degraded ag/urban wetland located in the southwest comer of the proposed development, xvould be filled completely (0.46 acres). The applicant has also proposed 0.08 acres of fill in Drainageway 1. These wetland impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the WCA. Under WCA rules, the applicant must replace wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio. New wetlands must be crea~ed to replace the impacted area at a 1:1 ratio, but remaining replacement can be accomplished through the use of public value credits, including upland buffers and storm water treatment ponds. The applicant presented a wetland replacement proposal that would create 1.31 acres of new wetlands on site (Pools 1 and 2), create an upland buffer of 0.98 acres adjacent to the new wetlands and provide additional replacement with 0.55 acres of storm water treatment pond credit (creation of Pond 1 and expansion of Pond 2). Construction of new wetlands and upland buffers would occur on Outlot F in upland areas that are currently used for agricultural purposes. Staff believes that this proposal will provide highly aesthetic, highly diverse plant and wildlife habitat that will function as a link in the "greenway" between Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and the wetland basin on the north side of the proposed development. (The applicant should provide proof of property ownership for Outlot F, as well as a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland) This mitigation proposal exceeds the 2:1 requirements of WCA. Therefore if, at the end of the five-year monitoring period, all proposed wetlands and buffers are adequately established, the applicant will be entitled to 0.77 acres of new wetland credit (NWC) and 0.99 acres of public value credit (PVC). The applicant will be required to submit a wetland banking application. Per WCA requirements, the proposed wetland replacement plan was mailed to the following agencies for comment on October 19, 2000: Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnehaha Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 19 Creek Watershed District. As of Friday, January 5, 2001, ,,T ..... ~,~, ~, ~nnn ............... , no comments were received. Other Wetland Issues Silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The applicant will be required to re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. Wetland buffer areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide vegetative barriers to define buffer edges. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond in the northeast portion of the site and the expansion of a second NURP pond in the southeast portion of the site. These ponds should be constructed/expanded in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1. Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on medium density residential development rates of $1,53 O/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density developments have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. This results in a $192,363.50 water quantity fee for the proposed development. SWMP Credits The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Current information indicates that the project proposes water quality ponding for approximately 44 acres. This results in water Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 20 quality credits equaling $67,320.00. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $221,473.30. This amount will be finalized prior to final plat approval. Inspections and Fire Marshal Comments The Fire Marshal is recommending a possible grid system to determine better street addressing. Also, location of fire hydrants and fire code issues need to be addressed (see letter dated Aug 23, 1999 from Mark Littfin). The Building Official has addressed accessibility requirements on a percentage of the units and the type of occupancy (see letter dated August 19, 1999 from Steve Torell). Park and Trails Upon conclusion of the discussion on Tuesday, January 9, the Park & Recreation Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Arboretum Village PUD as depicted in the attached plan and the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails: 1. Full park and trail dedication fees be collected. 2. Dedication of the north wetland and wetland trail alignment and treed open space as a public outlot or easement. 3. Pulte Homes shall construct the north wetland trail as a public amenity with reimbursement from the trail's dedication fund. 4. All totlots shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. o Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, and the large north wetland all be preserved for perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these spaces remain intact. GRADING The site mainly consists of rolling terrain that was employed in agricultural practices in the past. There are a couple of wooded areas and isolated wetlands. Existing wetlands on site are Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 21 proposed to be impacted by development. A wetland alteration permit will be required. Most Half of the wooded areas are being retained. Tree conservation/preservation easements should be required to preserve these woodland areas indefinitely. The site will be impacted by the upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 and the future construction of West 78th Street. MnDOT is currently constructing Trunk Highway 5 and anticipates completion in the summer of 2002. The construction of West 78th Street through the subject property is scheduled for the spring of 2001. The phasing plan includes redirecting traffic from Trunk Highway 5 onto the new West 78th Street frontage road in fall 2001. With all the proposed construction activity and rerouting of traffic, access to the site may be difficult. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT in coordinating street grades and access to the site. Berming has been provided along West 78th Street, Century Boulevard, Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5. This is important because there is no noise abatement proposed with the Trunk Highway 5 project. MnDOT will also have to review and approve the grading plan to ensure compatibility. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic - control plans. Also, any off-site grading will require temporary easements. UTILITIES Cm-rently, there is no municipal sewer or water service available to the site. In conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5, MnDOT and the City are coordinating to extend water service along West 78th Street from Galpin Boulevard. The City does not control the timing of MnDOT's project. Staff's conservative estimate is that the earliest water would be available is early spring of 2001. Sanitary sewer is located east of Galpin Boulevard just north of Trunk Highway 5. Sanitary sewer will be extended across Galpin Boulevard with the Trunk Highway 5 project. The City has received a petition from the applicant and a property west of Trunk Highway 41 to extend sanitary sewer further to the west. The City is currently in the process of conducting a feasibility study on extension of the sanitary sewer. If the sewer project is ordered by the City Council, it would not be available for connection until summer of 2001 at the earliest. In conjunction with utility extensions, the project will be subject to assessments accordingly. Utility improvements throughout the site will have to be constructed by the applicant in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at each phase of development at the time of final plat. The applicant will also be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The utility system, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 22 Appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat for any utilities which fall outside the dedicated right-of-way. DRAINAGE A storm water management plan will need to be developed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT to consolidate/minimize piping and ponding systems. Storm water ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards. Pre- and post-storm water calculations including drainage area maps for a 1 O-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event, need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. Development of the storm water management plan may result in loss or relocating of units due to storm water pond locations. The large storm water retention pond located at the southwest corner of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street will be constructed and owned by MnDOT in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. The plans propose enlarging this pond to accommodate runoff from the southern half of the site. This will require MnDOT review and approval. Another storm water pond is proposed in the northeast comer of the site. This pond will drain most of the site north of West 78th Street. Soils throughout Chanhassen have a very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. Staff reconm~ends the construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge. The City has, in the past, experienced hazardous conditions for the public through the discharge of sump pumps in the streets, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. STREETS Overall, the street system is fairly well designed. West 78th Street which is the major east/west collector street through the site appears to conform with MnDOT/City plans. Timing of West 78th Street is of major concern. The phasing plan for Trunk Highway 5 is to construct West 78th Street from Trunk Highway 41 to at least Galpin Boulevard and use it for a detour route while Trunk Highway 5 is being reconstructed. West 78th Street is classified as a collector street in the City's Comprehensive Plan and designated as an MSA route. The street will be constructed 36' wide face to face with multiple auxiliary turn lanes and traffic delineation/medians at the intersections of Century Boulevard and TH 41. The turn lane medians will limit access points to the site. Access to the commercial parcel located in the southeast corner of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street is also a concern. There is additional land just to the east of the commercial site that Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 23 will mostly likely develop in a similar land use. Due to medians on both Century Boulevard and West 78th Street, access to the site will be very limited. Staff believes it may be feasible to provide a right-in/right-out on Century Boulevard and a full access towards the easterly side of the commercial parcel. This full access will eventually have to be shared with the future development of the parcel to the east. Cross-access/maintenance agreements would need to be recorded against the parcel to provide future access needs for the adjacent parcel. Staff assumes that the wider street systems shown on the plans will be public streets and that the other streets will be considered private. Access to the private streets should be addressed with cross access maintenance agreements or covenants. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements for urban street sections which is 31' back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter. In areas where turn lanes are proposed, the right-of-way and streets will need to be wider. Also, the minimum grade on public streets is 0.75%. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site will have to be revised to meet this criteria. Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be required prior to final plat consideration. The applicant is Proposing private streets to serve the villas and cottage homes. The proposed private streets are similar to the Walnut Grove development adjacent to Galpin Boulevard north of Trunk Highway 5. City code requires a 24-foot wide minimum private street with no parking unless the street serves less then four dwellings at which time the street may be 20-feet wide. The private streets will need to be constructed to meet a 7-ton per axle design weight criteria. Cross access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the benefited parcels. Deadends must provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based upon applicable Fire Codes. If on street parking is desired, a wider street section, minimum 28' wide, should be designed. The private street system will need to be located within a strip of property at least 40' wide. This width should be adequate to satisfy the required drainage and utility easements over the proposed utilities. In conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 project, a trail system will be constructed along Trunk Highway 5 between Trunk Highway 41 and Century Boulevard as well as along the south side of West 78th Street. The applicant has incorporated these trail systems into the plans. A number of additional interior trails have also been proposed. The applicant should be advised that these trails will be considered private and, therefore, not maintained by the City. A sidewalk system has been incorporated along the public streets and will connect to the trail system on West 78th Street. In addition, a 5-foot wide sidewalk should be added along the south side of the public street in the northwest corner of the site. Staff has reviewed the street extensions to the adjacent parcels in conjunction with this development. Staff believes that the north-south street on the eastern half of the site will not need to be extended in the future. Staff recommends that the cul-de-sac, at the north end of this Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 24 street, be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minimize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent wetlands. The other parcel, shown as an exception in the northwest corner, is proposed to be served by a public street, which terminates at the property line. The alignment of the street appears to allow the parcel to develop in a fashion conducive to the site features. EAW The Project did require a Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Attached is the Finding of Fact for a negative declaration for Need for an Environmental Impact statement. EROSIONCONTROL Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan should include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff also recommends that ~he applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be'seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Rock construction entrances shall be provided and maintained at all construction access points. LAND USE PLAN FINDINGS o The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, Office/Industrial, and Commercial. The legal description of the property is: see attached Exhibit A. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies include: Land Use Goals- The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a full range of house opportunities; the city will encourage the development of neighborhood service centers where appropriate. These will be developed as a part of mixed use development or PUD; and the city will seek to provide transitions between different uses of different types; and Housing policies - subsidized housing should be given equal site and planning consideration to non-subsidized housing units and should not be placed in inferior locations or in areas that are not provided with Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 25 o necessary urban services; the development of alternative types of housing such as patio homes, townhouses, and quadplexes should be permitted to supplement conventional single-family homes and apartments provided that they are compatible with appropriate land use practices and are representative of high quality development; housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources used for housing, and the city will promote the mixing of housing densities within a project in order to provide a wide range of housing styles and types. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The planning report PUD #99-2 dated January 16, 2001, prepared by Kate Aanenson is incorporated herein. REZONING 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: Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The significant stands of trees are being preserved because of the density transfer and the use of conservation easements in other areas. 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 project utilizes land more efficiently through clustering the residential units and the provision of open space areas. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 26 . 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. Common open space as well as buildings will be maintained. Finding. The development will incorporate high quality design and design compatible with surrounding land uses. There are four different styles of homes. Within the Manor home there 3 and 4 unit buildings and 4 and 6 units building for the Coach and Village homes there is a variety of homes styles and materials. Staff has prepared design standards to ensure a higher quality design and overall development than is found elsewhere in the community. . 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 sensitive transition between the existing Long Acres single-family development north of the wetland (approximately 700 to 1000 feet from the existing homes) and the future subdivision to the property to the east also bordered by a large xvetland. This property is bisected the planned West 78th Street. Two State Highways also border the site. Access the site is limited to the State Highway or West 78th Street. 5. Development, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the city and the Metropolitan Council approve a land use amendment. The area north of West 78th Street meets the current comprehensive plan limit of 4 units an acre. The proposed development is 3.5 u/a. A land use amendment is required because the zoning ordinance prohibits attached housing except for duplex. The area south of West '78th Street is 8.3 units an acre. The code does allow for a density bonus for affordable, this proposal does not use the bonus for housing, but it does incorporate the Bluff Creek Overly density transfer and credit for West 78th Street right-of-way. Staff is recommending rezoning to PUD with a land use amendment. The overall density is 5.6 units an acre. The transfer for the ROW and the Bluff Creek overlay are consistent with Sec 20-505 (c) (1-4) and Sec. 20-1559 of Article XXXI of the zoning ordinance. The overall zoning is consistent with the medium density land use (8 u/a). o 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. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 27 Finding. The plan proposed leaving the 11 acres west of Hwy 41. The plan proposes avoiding two large areas of trees. There are three tot lots proposed they are located in the Village homes, Manor homes area.. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Affordable housing is being provided based on market rate and any unit sold under the $134,500 for the owner occupied units. Some owners may seek first time home buyer assistance or similar type assistance. Carver County may pursue purchasing a few of the units. Except for the units being purchased by the county there are no income restrictions being placed on the units. , Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Ail of the units are attached limiting the number of exterior exposed walls. , Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as approPriate. Finding. The extension of West 7gth Street will provide access to the site. Interior' access is limited to West 78th via two interior local streets. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to the conditions of the staff report. o The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 28 Finding: The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report. , The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause envirorrmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions in this report. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required as part of the subdivision. , The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. c. Lake of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is confident the proposal preserves the natural features of the site and recommends approval land use plan, rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions of this report. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS In addition, a conditional use permit is required prior to the construction of any structure within the Bluff Creek Overlay district. The Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 29 permit and the council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. o Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. , Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 4 Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and condition of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property that do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. I2. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Findings: The area defined within the primary zone is being slated for preservation. Staff is recommending that those areas described as preservation shall have a conservation easement placed over it. Because development is outside of the primary zone mitigation is not required. Arboretum Village January 16,2001 Page 30 A density transfer is being recommended in order to preserve the Bluff Creek Watershed Primary zone. The City's sewer and water construction project will be within the primary zone. Reforestation and seeding shall be done immediately following construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the resolution for a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density residential to medium density residential and medium density residential to commercial; and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property from Agricultural Estate, A2, and Rural Residential, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R, subject to the following conditions: 1. Contingent upon review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Compliance with the Development Standards (dated January 16, 2001) and site plan date October 23, 2000 - revised January 16, 2001 ." "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Subdivision of 120.93 acres into 2 additions; 1st addition has 26 Blocks including 199 units and Outlots A- F and the 2nd addition has 24 blocks including 180 units and Outlots A-C subject to the following conditions: . o , o Final platting for the commercial area located in Outlot D shall include a site plan review and approval. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This shall be done prior to issuance of any building permits. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. Staff recommends An erosion control plan shall be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. The erosion control plan shall include, but not be limited to, Type III silt fence adjacent to all wetlands and an erosion control blanket on the steep slope adjacent to the eastern wetland. Staff recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 31 plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. o Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign. o The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for review and approval prior to City Council approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Stormwater pOnds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter. . The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 4 The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan EnVironmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 11. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access and/or maintenance of the ponding areas. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 32 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Con'idor Study. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant shall supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. Also, any off-site grading will require temporary easements. The cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the site shall be revised to meet the minimum street grade requirement of 0.75%. Staff also recommends that the cul-de-sac be moved to the west and possibly shortened in length to minimize grading, tree loss, and the impact to adjacent wetlands. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Boulevard and a full-shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. A cross access agreement will be required at the time of final platting. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Boulevard. Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5. Landscaped median islands maybe pe~rnitted within the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. A 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be added along the south side of the public street in the northwest corner of the site. A Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over Outlots E and F and those areas trees are shown as preserved. Accessibility shall be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 33 24. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines shall be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. 25. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy ( a building containing three or more dwelling units on the same property ) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area shall be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 26. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 27. An architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official shall design 27. The buildings will be required to. 28. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 29. Landscaping and tree preservation: a. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated-for preservation. b. All evergreens used as overstory trees in buffer yard areas shall be increased to a minimum height of 8 feet. The plant schedule on the landscape plan shall be changed to reflect this requirement. c. The minimum number of shrubs shall be required in buffer yard areas along Highways 5 and 41. Applicant shall work with staff to meet minimum requirements for shrubs along W. 78th Street. d. Boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be spaced 55 feet apart. e. All Colorado spruce specified in landscape plans shall be replaced by a new selection of evergreen. f. Revise plant schedule to show seven-foot evergreens for understory trees. g. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be added to each of the tot lot areas. h. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. i. The applicant shall work with city staff to preserve any or all of the following trees: #1369 (52" oak), #1743 (60" oak), #1742 (48" oak), #2173 (42" oak), and #1881 (36" maple). j. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #99-21 - for 32 club homes, 105 manor homes, 82 coach homes, 160 village homes subject to the following conditions: Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 34 1. The development must comply with the Arboretum Village Development Design Standards. , Upon conclusion of the discussion on Tuesday, January 9, the Park & Recreation Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Arboretum Village PUD as depicted in the attached plan and the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails: a. Full park and trail dedication fees be collected. b. Dedication of the north .... -,.,-~-,~*~*'~ .-,~'~ wetland trail alignment ~ *-~ ......... .......... v .... v-,,-,- as a public outlot or easement. c. Pulte Homes shall construct the north wetland trail as a public amenity with reimbursement from the trail's dedication fund. d. All totlots shall have a minimum capacity of 40 children. Outlots E and F, the forested area north of the McAllister property, and the large north Wetland all be preserved for perpetuity by a conservation easement. The conditions of this easement to be very restrictive to ensure that the present condition and integrity of these spaces remain intact. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-4 - to fill .54 acres of wetlands in 2 separate basins subject to the following conditions: . The applicant shall resolve the encroachment of the following structures into the wetland buffer setback: Phase I: Phase II: Outlot A, 1/2 Court Basketball Outlot B, Lots 16 and 17 Outlot C, Lot 19 Outlot B, Lots 7 and 9 Outlot C, Lot 19 e The applicant shall provide an invert elevation for the proposed storm sewer inlet on the upstream side of Drainageway 1 to ensure that wetland loss will not occur due to excessive drainage of the drainageway and to ensure that the drainageway will not become wetter. Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 35 e Wetland buffers of 0-20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet shall be provided around Basins B and C. 4. Wetland mitigation areas must be constructed prior to wetland impacts occurring. o Wetland mitigation must occur in a manner that is consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). . The applicant shall provide proof of property ownership for Outlot F, as well as a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 7. The applicant shall submit a wetland banking application. . Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. . The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions. 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide vegetative barriers to define buffer edges. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. 12. NURP ponds shall be constructed/expanded in conjunction with the construction of Phase 1. 13. Based on the proposed developed area of 64.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $98,929.80 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are $192,363.50. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Current information indicates that the project proposes water quality ponding for approximately 44 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $67,320.00. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the Arboretum Village January 16, 2001 Page 36 time of final plat recording, is $221,473.30. This amount will be finalized prior to final plat approval. "The Planning Commission reconm~ends approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and approval of the Finding of Fact and Negative Declaration for an Environmental Impact Statement." "The City' Council approves the conditional use permit for a subdivision within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with the condition that all disturbed areas shall be reseeded immediately following construction." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Hearing notice and property owner list 3. Letter from Mark Littfin, dated August 23, 1999 4. Letter from Steve Torell dated August 19, 1999 5. Letter fi'om Lundgr~n Brothers dated September 01, 1999 6. Letter from Chanhassen Chamber dated June 21, 2000 7. Wetland Conservation Act Application dated October 19, 2000 8. Letters from Mn/DOT dated September 15, 2000. August 28, 2000 and September 20, 2000. 9. EAW mailing list 10. Letter from Carver County Public Works dated August 22, 2000 11. Letter from MN DNR dated October 2, 2000 12. Letter from Minnesota PCA October 4, 2000 13. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society dated October 17, 2000 14. Metropolitan Council date October 19, 2000 15. Letter to Barbara Conti dated October 20, 2000 16. Letter to Thomas W. Balcom dated October 20, 2000 17. Letter to Helen Boyer Met Council dated October 20, 2000 18. Traffic Analysis 19. Tax Capacity Student Projections g:\plan\ka\arboretum village.pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION .ICANT: :[ESS: !PHONE (Day time) Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corp. 1355 Mendota Hei'ghts Rd.~ #300 Mendota Hei§hts, MN 55120~1112 1651) 452-6200 OWNER: JP Savaryn Estate ADDRESS: 9950 North Shore Rd Waconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE:_ 612-442-21ql F×t. 5173 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance ~ Non-conforming Use Permit · Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Wetland Alteration Per;mit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment X Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARRVAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must'be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required fo{ other applications through the development contract ' NOTE - When mutliple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Arboretum Village LOCATION. NE Quadrant Hwy 5 & C.S.A.H. 41 LEGAJ_ DESCRIPTION See attached PRESENT ZONING A2 - Aqricultural Estate District REQUESTED ZONING R-4~ R-8~ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION BN Low & Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Retail REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Low &Bedium ~ Density Residential~ Neighborhood Retail REASON FOR THIS REQUEST~_e_V_e]_op ]th~ Property per existing ¢,nm,n. G~id~ Plan in c. nn'jllnnfinn _ with the proposed MNDot Frontage Road. This application must be completed in tull and be typewritten or clearly primed and rn~Jst be a~....~mpanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, corder wi-th 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 ac, ion by the City and that I am responsible fo/' complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and ! am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (efther copy of Owner's Duplicate Certiticate of Tit_lo, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement),, or. I am the authorized person to make this application and the tee 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 consulling fees, feasibility studies, etc. wi'th an estimate pdor to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and irrformation I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. · I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval'permit is granted within 120 days wilh the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. . -/(,/[, Date Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.. · Thc ~r~r~llcant should contact staff for i~ copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to th PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY t6, 200t AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAI~ Arboretum Village APPLICANT: Pulte Homes LOCATION: NE Comer of Hwy. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Pulte Homes, is requesting a rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, a land use plan amendment from Iow density to medium density residential and commercial office to medium density and office industrial to commercial, and preliminary plat subdivision of 120.93 acres and wetland alteration permit, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Oveday District and recommendation and review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and site plan review for a mixed housing development (383 units) consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental townhomes on 89.5 acres and 2.9 acres of commercial uses and on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Hearing is closed and the Commission discusSes project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 4, 2001. MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 640 GRANT ST E MINNEAPOLIS MN 5540 BRUCE A & YVONNE M GESKE 7325 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DARRYL L WILLS & LIZANN M BRISSE-WILLS 2721 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH 7801 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 400 VERNON AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 5541 YO YEOL PARK 2715 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD 7460 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MILLS PROPERTIES INC ATTN: TOM GREEN PO BOX 971 BRAINERD MN 56401 SANG CAM & NHI T KY 2711 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A & RENATE E CROOKS 7450 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE MINNEAPOLIS MN 5545 PETER A & KlM MARIE PROSEN 2701 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE C/O PAUL SAVARYN 9950 NORTH SHORE RD WACONIA MN 5538 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER D~O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 5531 SCOTT C & COURTNEY E RILE 2665 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN '5531 CHARLES W & SUSAN MARKERT 7461 HAZELTINE BLV~D BOX 311 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 RIAZ & SHIREEN HUSEIN 2655 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 BYRON A & MARY M OLSON 7331 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS 3610 CO RD 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE 319 15TH AVE SE 424 DON HOWE MINNEAPOLIS MN 5545 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DtiPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON 2631 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 MID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2600 ARBORETUM BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIC R & BETHANN L CAMPBELL 2717 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ALAN R & SANDRA M PHELPS 2613 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 JOHN P SAVARYN ESTATE C/O PAUL SAVARYN 9950 NORTH SHORE RD WACONIA MN 5538 JONATHAN F & THERESA M WEHSE 2719 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 TIMOTHY J & JENNIFER A LORGE 2589 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 5531 AVID M & ELIZABETH D KUCERA 372 SOUTHERN CT HANHASSEN MN 5531 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN IN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 JAMES L & LISA R COLBERT 7454 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 [ICHAEL T & MARY T K MAESER 584 SOUTHERN CT HANHASSEN MN 5531 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN IN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 DAVID G & STACY R HURRELL 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 LLAN H & ELISABETH VARGAS 596 SOUTHERN CT HANHASSEN MN 5531 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN IN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 JOSEPH KELLY BAHR 7476 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 IICHAEL E & ANNE M RYAN 595 SOUTHERN CT :HANHASSEN MN 5531 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 JOSEPH W SILBERNAGEL & MARY BETH SILBERNAGEL 7492 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ;RIAN G & NORMA J EVANS 585 SOUTHERN CT :HANHASSEN MN 5531 MATTHEW D & KIMBERLY HALLER 7400 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ROBERT C & ELIZABETH J SPONSEL 7508 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 3N E FREEMAN 575 SOUTHERN CT I~HANHASSEN MN 5531 LEE K & BARBARA CRECELIUS 7406 MOCASSIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 MICHAEL G & DIANN M TAYLOR 7516 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 1CHARD OLSZEWSKI & TEPHANIE A YANKO 710 LONGACRES DR HANHASSEN MN 5531 NICHOLAS C & KAREN M POWERS 7414 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 STEVEN M & SUSAN M COHOON 7525 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ICHOLAS H STILLINGS & )ENISE C STILLINGS ~670 LONGACRES DR !HANHASSEN MN 5531 RICHARD E & SANDRA A NICHOLS 7424 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 COTT T & JACKLYN JAGODZINSKI 120 HILLSDALE CT [-IANHASSEN MN 5531 THOMAS B & LAURA E PAPAS 7434 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 ~IARK W & JOAN R LARSON ~298 HILLSDALE CT 2HANHASSEN MN 5531 JOHN O ESCH & LEAH HAWKE 7444 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 5531 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 CiO' Ce;m;' D;'ive, PO Box I4. C/)~.,/.,.asse,, Zi~;~esora 55317 3o;;e 6]2.937.1900 Gc;~c;'d £:x 6t2.93 ?.5 739 E, gi;:ee;'i,S ~,.~.x 612.93 Z 9152 h:blic S,'!/'eO~ £:.v 612.934. 2524 MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn R Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 22, 2000 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for A-2, Agricultural Estate PUD, Planned Unit Development, a land use plan amendment from low density to medium density residential and commercial office to medium density and office industrial to commercial, and preliminary plat subdivision of 120.93 acres and wetland alteration permit for a mixed housing development 3 83 units consisting of club homes, manor homes, coach homes, village homes and rental townhouses on 89.5 acres and 2.9 acres of commercial uses and on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located in the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Highway 41, Arboretum Village., Pulte Homes. Planning Case: 99-2 PUD I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site platt review is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. All streets, spurs, cul-de-sacs, access roads will be required to have street names. Submit proposed names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. . When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, this protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal and City Engineer for locations. The Cit.), qf Cha;~hasse;t. A 2;'old;~?, co;;mn:,ir;, wit/., c/en;2 /:~.kex. ¢i:~din' sd>ools. ~. d.~,vv;:i,7 dow,tolt,,, t/,;'Mn;~ busir~esses, ~md beaut/fid parks. A great/)b, ce to live, lco;'k, a,d /)&l Kathryn R Aanenson August 22, 2000 Page 2 o Fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 20' in width. If no parking is to be allowed on the side streets, "No Parking Fire Lane" signage will be required and installed per Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy//06-1991. Copy enclosed. During the building construction phase, fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Code Section 902.2.2.2. g:\safety\ml\plrev99-2pud CITYOF ~0 CiO, Cem~r D'&,e, PO Box I47 C/;ad~asse~, 3&~,e~ota ~317 P/:o,e di2.937.1900 Ge,end Fa.v ~I 2. ~3 Z 5730 E, gi, eeri,g Fax 612.~3Z 9152 P,b& 5,~0' L~x 612.~34.2524 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: DATE: SUB J: Steven Torell, Building Official August 17, 2000 %"T'~ Review of PUD for Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes Planning Case: 99-2 PUD I have reviewed the plans for above project and offer the following comments, which should be included in the conditions of approval: 1. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Mirmesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 2. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one- hour fire-resistive construction. 3. Any building classified as an R-1 occupancy ( a building containing three or more dwelling units on the same property ) and with over 8500 gross square feet of floor area is required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 6. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. G/saIet3. qst/memos/plan/pultehomes2 The CiO, qf Chauhmse,. A ~;vzvi,,g commt,:itt with c/ea, lakes, q~:~di~,' schooh, :. cha;',,i,¢ dow,tow~, th;'ivi,¢ busi, esses, ~'md be,u:tifid oarks. A great a/ace to live, wo;'k. Wetland Fill Basin A 19,952 Sq. Ft. Northern Nurp Pond Draincgell Way #1 3500 I Sq. I I I 1 ! I I I I i I I I Ft. .. 'State Highway No. 5 ._ j_l IL ..... Your Neighborhood Builder Phone 952.473.123~ Fax 952.473.7401 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 License I,'o 00214~3 August 31, 2000 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chmzhassen, MN 55317 Re: Arboretum Village by Pulte Homes Dear Kate, As you 1,mow, the Western property line of the Dolej si property we hope to begin developing in the spring of 2001 abuts the eastern property line of Arboretum Village, being proposed by Pulte Homes. A wetlands will physically divide our two properties. We are aware that Pulte plans to build rental units, possibly four plex slab on grade at this Eastern portion of their property. We at Lundgren have been plmming to build upper end single family directly across the wetlands from Pulte's rental units. We are hoping that Pulte will provide significant screening, in order to shield the view of the rentals from our future homesites, so that the value of our homesites will be maintained. Please telephone me if you have any further questions or if I can be of fro%er service. Thank you. Sincerely, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION Michael E. Burto~nn~~--'' Land Development Manager C' Marc Anderson, Vice President, Land Development June 21, 2000 TO: FROM: Mayor and Members of the Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Affordable Housing The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, passed the following resolution which we are forwarding to you. The Chanhassen Chamber Board of Directors (the "Chamber") wishes to express its appreciation to Pulte Homes personnel who recently met with our Governmental Affairs Committee to present and explain their proposal for the improvement of property located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 in Chanhassen. WHEREAS, the Chamber, does not wish to take a position on any specific Site Plan proposed or to be proposed by Pulte Homes, WHEREAS, the Chamber recognizes the continuing expressed need on the part of a variety of types and sizes of Chanhassen employers for housing which is affordable to current and prospective employees, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chamber wishes to reiterate its commitment to supporting life-cycle housing in our community so that employees--professional, skilled or unskilled, entry level or retirement stage--can afford to live in Chanhassen and we applaud Pulte Homes for the mix of types and prices of homes their proposal would bring to the Chanhassen employee market. 600 West 78th Street · P.O.. Box 976 · Chanhassen · MN 55317 · (612) 934-3903 o fax (6t 2) 934-3561 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 NOTICE OF WETLAND CONSERVATION.ACT APPLICATION FOR IMPACTS >10,000 SQUARE FEET Name of Applicant: Application Name: Mr. Dennis Griswold Arboretum Villaae Type of Application: (checkone) [] [] Exemption [] Replacement Plan No Loss [] Banking Plan Date of Application: Location of Project: October 17, 2000 E lA of the SW ¼ and W ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 9, Township 116N, Range 23W Summary of Project: This project proposes the construction of 385 residential units consisting of 77 multi-unit structures on approximately 107 acres of a~icultural property in the northeast comer of Trunk Highways 5 and 41. There are a total of 9 wetland basins and 1 drainageway classified as wetland on the property. (Two of the wetland basins are located on Outlot E, which consists of about 11 acres just northwest of the main portion of the property.) Wetland impacts (23,452 square feet) are proposed in 2 locations: 1. 3,500 square feet for a road to cross the drainageway; and 2. 19,952 square feet of impact to a farmed wetland in the extreme southwest comer of the property. The aPplicant proposes the construction of 2 wetlands to mitigate wetland impacts. The project will provide 57,142 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC) through wetland creation and 66,856 square feet of public value credit (PVC) through the creation of upland buffer areas (42,856 square feet) and storm water ponds (75% of 32,000 square feet or 24,000 square feet). Wetland impacts will be mitigated through the use of 23,452 square feet of NWC and 23,452 square feet of PVC. All remaining wetland credits (33,690 square feet of NWC and 43,404 square feet of PVC) are proposed to be deposited into the wetland bank for use by the applicant at a later date. List of Addressees: Mr. Dennis Griswold Pulte Homes of Minnesota 1355 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, ~ 55120 Mr. Chip Hentges Carver SWCD 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Mr. Doug Snyder BWSR 1 West Water Street St. Paul, MN 55107 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WD c/o Mr. Bob Obermeyer Barr Engineering 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Minnehaha Creek WD Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 149 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Doug Norris DNR Ecological Services Section 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Gary'Elftrnann Department of the Army, COE St. Paul District ATTN: CO-R, 190 5th St E St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 You are hereby notified that the above-referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Application is attached. Comments will be accepted on this application until November 6, 2000. Date of Mailing of This Notice: October 19' 2000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By~,,/~, ~(~"~: '~~ Title: 15]h'r~t.. ~e~t~.~s Date: October 19.2000 G:kENGXLORP.KDMIN\PLANNINGkArb Village WRP Notice.doc Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 September 15, 2000 Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen Community Development Director 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 937-1900 ext. 118 CITY OF CHANH,qsS[r¥ Re: Aboretum Village Pursuant to a meeting with Dennis Griswald of Pulte Homes, I am writing this letter to express the impacts on this property with regard to the trunk highway project scheduled for construction in 2001. Dennis Griswald is currently pursuing the acquisition of the property located in the northeast quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41. For S.P. 1002-71 an extension of the West 78th Street frontage road will be constructed through' this property requiring a need for Mn/DOT to acquire right-of-way. After our meeting With Dennis Griswald on September 11 th, it is our understanding that if the plat and development plan for Aboretum Village are approved in a timely manner, Pulte Homes will donate the required right-of-way as well as any temporary easements that will be needed for the construction of the frontage road from Century Boulevard to TH 41. The followin~ items are the benefits of the right-of-way donation bv Pulte Homes: · This donation will be a benefit to the general public in that tax dollars will not be required to purchase right-of-way. Expediting the approval of the plat benefits both Mn/DOT and Pulte Homes in that the State does not have to go through the lengthy acquisition process so that construction will not be delayed. Pulte Homes will be able to initiate their development plan. The development plan will reduce the amount of right-of-way need to construct the frontage road because the proposed elevations are closer to the finished roadway design than the existing ground elevations. If someone besides Pulte Homes purchases and develops this property, the benefits to Mn/DOT will most likely be reduced. Please take this in consideration xvhen reviewing the paperwork for Pulte Homes. Thank you for considering the thoughts of the Mn/DOT Right-of-Way office. Sincerely, Jotm Isackson, P.E. Mn/DOT Area Right-of-Way Manager An equal opportunity employer Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters - Metro, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 August 28, 2000 Kathryn R. Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Arboretum Village- Pulte Homes, DNR Wetland 10-0209, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. Aanenson: This is the letter that you requested in our telephone conversation of August 25, 2000. DNR Waters has received (August 14, 2000) the information submitted by the City of Chanhassen concerning the Arboretum Village Development by Pulte Homes. Arboretum Village is located in the southwest quarter of Section 9, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, in Carver County. After a brief review of the preliminary plans for Arboretum Village we have the following comments to offer: 1. DNR Wetland 10-209W is located on the Arboretum Village site. The plans should note the ordinary high water level of 910.30' (NGVD, 1929) for Wetland 10-209W. It is good to see that there is no work proposed'to be done within DNR Wetland 10-209W. However, there are other wetlands on the Arboretum Village site in which work is proposed to be done. The work in these wetlands will be under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, City of Chanhass~n and the Riley-Purga. tory-Bluff CreekWatershed District. 'Other employees of the DNR may comment on the pernuts submitted for these regulatory programs. 2. It is good to see that the Arboretum Village site is not within a FEMA floodplain. However, the many wetlands and sediment ponds on the property are potential causes of flood damages. All the structures within the development should be constructed well above the 1% (100-year) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 3. It is good to see that the stormwater from Arboretum Village will be treated to remove some of the sediments before the stormwater is routed to natural wetlands and drainage ways. However, damage can be caused by large volumes of stormwater. The actual_ volume_of stormwater from the development should be reduced by minimizing impervious surt/tces, intiltrating stormwater and eliminating the use of storm sewer, curb and gutter whenever possible. The grading of the property should be minimized to avoid compacting the soils on site. 4. It is good to see that large portions of the wooded area in Arboretum Village are being preserved. If possible, the landscaping of the property should use the same species of trees and shrubs that are found within the woods. These areas should be preserved by using the association documents, deed restrictions, easements, and covenants. 5. There are steep slopes on the Arboretum Village Property. To avoid erosion and sedimentation problems, construction should be minimized in these areas and, if possible, the existing vegetation preserved. In general, the erosion controls for the Arboretum Village site need to be very careful and grading of the site should be minimized. The City of Chanhassen should consider requiring bonds for erosion control purposes. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer :~7~.':;i'i:' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Kathryn K. Aanenson August 28, 2000 Page 2 6. The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for giving DNR Waters the opportunity to comment on Arboretum Village. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 772-7910 should you have any questions. Sincerely, ~.//. ~J~oseph Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 RoseviIle, MN 55113 September 20, 2000 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Arboretum Village -- Mn/DOT Platt Review File #P00-072 Northeast Quadrant of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 and TH 41 Chanhassen, Carver County C.S. 1002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: · Mn/DOT has a project (SP 1002-71) that is scheduled for construction in the spring of 2001. The city and developer will need to address the following issues with respect to this project: 1. The site plan shows a street/entrance to the west of the TH 41 and West 78th Street intersection - this does not exist and will not be constructed as part of the Mn/DOT project. 2. The construction plan is 60 percent complete and the project will construct the West 78th Street extension from Century Boulevard to TH 41. The developer (Pulte Homes) will need to coordinate the grading of this site with MnDOT. The plan does not reflect the current drainage design for S.P. 1002-71. Any grading by the developer for Arboretum Village will require Mn/DOT review so that proper adjustments can be made to the contours in S.P. 1002-71. Additional comments concerning grading are addressed below in the next bullet item. Please direct questions concerning the above issues to Jane Krebsbach (651-582-1767) of Mn/DOT's Consultant Design section. · The plans are missing some major features from the proposed West 78th Street project (SP1002-71). The developer needs to work directly with Mn/DOT on their drainage design. A Mn/DOT drainage permit is required to construct the project. Page 9 on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) incorrectly states that Mn/DOT is creating a pond on the south side of TH 41. Mn/DOT is not building a pond at this location, only 'Pond 1" on the northwest comer of TH 5 and Century Boulevard. The EAW incorrectly mentions wetland impacts as being mitigated by Mn/DOT on page 6 for basin 6. Mn/DOT is unable to determine where the boundaries for basin 6 are located because the submitted wetland plan only has a hand-drawn diagram with no coordinates. Mn/DOT will not mitigate any wetland impacts by Pulte Homes. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Patrick McLarnon (763-797-3151) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. An equal oppqrtun'ity employer · There are significant problems with the submitted plat including the following: 1. The 100-foot wide corridor shown on the plat is insufficient. The-100 foot wide right of way corridor on West 78th Street is substandard because it is too narrow to cover all of the ditch bottoms. The plans need to show the right of way line that is being developed in the plan for SP 1002-71. 2. The plans need to show the latest right of way "B" corners on the plat. The "B" corners have recently been revised so it is important that the developer get the most recent information from Mn/DOT. 3. The new centerlines for TH 5 should be shown on the plat. 4. Access control exists along TH 5 and TH 41, which should be shoxvn on the plat. Please direct questions concerning these issues to John Isackson (651-582-1273) of Mn/DOT's Right of Way section. · Any impact to Mn/DOT right of way will require a permit. A Mn/DOT drainage permit is required. Questions regarding permit applications may be directed to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443) of our Permits Section. · The final plat will need to identify MrL/DOT right of way any monuments found on the final plat. Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review at the following address: Jeff Hoffstrom Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Miflnesota 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3108 · Century Boulevard to the south is Minnesota State Aid (MSA) route 118 and West 78th Street is MSA route 113. These routes need to meet State Aid rules and policies. Furthermore, the City should clarify whether it is their plan to make Century Boulevard an MSA route all the way to West 78th Street. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Thomas Leibli (651-582-1372) of Mn/DOT's State Aid section. · Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often results in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures, rl"he project developer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impacts of any highway noise. Please direct questions concerning Mn/DOT's noise policy to Jim Hansen (651-582- 1392) of Mn/DOT's Transportation Planning section. Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to: Sherry Narusiewicz Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Please note that Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1771 if should have any questions. Y, Paul Czech Senior Transportation Planner/I, ocal Government Liaison Copy: John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation Hedlund Mn/DOT Division File C.S. 1002 Mn/DOT LGL - Chanhassen Environmental Quality Board (1) Environmental Review Program 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 ,OallUtion Control Agency (3) yle Skowronek Environmental Analysis Office 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Department of Public Service (1) Myra White 200 Metro Square Building 121 East 7th Place St. Paul, MN 55101 'i/T~-nsportation (3) Gerald Larson MnDOT Environmental Services 3485 Hadley Ave. No. Oakdale, MN 55128 'r"~a'iural Resources (3) Tom Balcom Office of Planning 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 ..nealth (1) vironmental Health Policy Plan And Analysis Unit 121 East 7th Place, Suite 220 St. Paul, MN 55101 ning Cgriculture (1) ecky Bulk 90 West Plato Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55107 egislative Reference Library (2) arol Blackburn 645 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 iivironmental Protection Agency (1) lliam D. Franz Chief of Environmental Review 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ~.(~onrad Fiskness Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 ~B6ard of Water and Soil Resources (1) Doug Thomas One West Water Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55107 ~nvironmental Conservation Library (2) 300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 ,-~. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1) Twin Cities Field Office E.S. 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 Reference Library Carver County Library-Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 b,,~_ istorical Society (1) State Historic Preservation Office 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, MN 55102 .- ,.,, ,,.,~'?~S~ ArmYHangerCOrps of Engineers (1) Regulatory Functions Branch 190 Fifth Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 ..,,~,' · i/Metropolitan Council (1) Linde Milashins, Referrals Meats Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 i~arver County Engineering Roger Gustafson 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192 Phone (952) 361-1010 Fax (952) 361-1025 Ad ministration Parks Engineering Highway Maintenance Surveying & Mapping August 22, 2000 To: From: Subject: Kadlryll R. ,~an~n~on, ,..,oi ~. iluility uev'~upi ilunt/,~ ~,.ctu~, .,-,a ..... r ,..,~. .... Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Bill Rezoning request - Northeast Quadrant of TI:I g/TH 41 intersection Planning Case: 99-2 PUD We have reviewed the information regarding the proposed rezonin9 request on property located at the northeast corner of TH 5 and TH 41 as transmiEed to Carver County by memorandum dated August 11, 2000. Development on this property does not directly impact a Carver County roadw~y. 'Nc, further comments will be sent from the Carver County Public Works Department re9arding this development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rezoning request. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at 952-361-1010. Affirmative Actiotz/Equal Opportunity Employer ?rbztt'd ozt ]0% Post-Cousumer Recycled Paper Oct 3 2000 16'24 P. O1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5{)0 LaI'ayetlc Road St, Paul, Minnesola 55155-40__ 10 October 2, 2000 Kathom R, Aar~enson Commtmi. ty Development Director 690 City Center Drive P.o.'Box I47 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Post-it* Fax Note 7671 tPhon~ # - ' ' ' · ~'J-z - ~ ~ 7 - ~TJ ~ Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Department of Nat~ral Resources (DNK) has reviewed the EAW for the Arboretum Village project. We offer the following commems for your consideration. Item 14, Wat~r-retated Land Use Management District, is correctly answered "no" because no parr of the project site occurs within the FEMA floodplain. However, the final project xvill occur on a site comaining several wetlands and sediment ponds, all of which are potential sources o£ flood-related damages. Ail the structures widfin the development should be constructed well above the 1% (100-year) flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Waterstted District. The site contains erodiblo soils a~.d some steep slopes according to Item 17, Erosion and Sedimemation. Cor~su~ction should be m inimized where these conditions are present, artd if possible the existing vegetation should be retained and preserved. Regarding the erosion control measures employed for the project, they should be regularly monitored and maintained as required. Item 17b indicates that treated storm water rur~o££w{ll bo routed to "a natural wetland area." Althou~a permissible, ~is action can result in damage to tl~¢ wetland because of the large volumes of water directed to it. These volumes could be further reduced by: [) minimiz~g impervious surface creation; 2) utilizing infiltration-based storm water runofftreatment techniques; and 3) eliminating the use of storm sexver, curb and gutter wherever possible. Construction-related grading of the property should be minimized to avoid compacting the so,Is or~ site. In general, we recommend that landscaping and revegetation efforts for disturbed areas use native species of trees and shrubs as deemed feasible. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We do not recommend preparation of an envirommental impact statement 0SIS) based upon natural resource considerations. We look forward to 1 DNRInformation' 65t-296-6157 * I~888.646-6367 · Ar~ Equal Opportuni[y Employer Who Values D{v~sity TIT' 651-296-5484 " !-800-657-3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Oontaining a MLnimum of lO% Pos't-Consumer Waste Oc'c 3 2000 16:2zI P. 02 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director October 2, 2000 receiving your record of decision and responses to comments at the conclusion oft. he environmental review. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action_ Please contact Bill lohnson of my staff at (651) 296-9229 if you have questions about this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmenta[ Planning & Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services Kathleen Wallace Con Christianson Joe Osch.wald Russ Peterson, USFWS .Ion Larsen, EQB Tom Standke, Pulte Homes of Minnesota., Ine. #2000063 I4)002 ARBORETUM.WPD 10/03/00 TUE 09:30 FAX 612 296 7782 ~ETR0 MANAGERS OFFICE ~001 Minnesota Pollution Con rol Agency ' October 4, 2000 · · Ms..Ka't'tu3m Aanenson City ot: Chanhassan 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Post-it' Fax Note 7671 Phone # ~Fa~ # RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) - Arboretum Village Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW for the Arboretum Village Development project.. The proposal is the construction of townhouses and a commercial area on 107 acres, near the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 and TH 41. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staffhas reviewed the EAW for this project. We have the following comments for your consideration and response in determining the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wetlands Item 8 should indicate that a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and a CWA Section 401 xvater quality certification from the MPCA regarding thc proposed alteration of wetlands is required. Item 10 indicates there will be 1.2 acres less of wetland on the site after construction. The location and boundaries of the existing wetlands and the location and extent of the proposed impacts to the wetlands must be indicated on the layout in order to assess the potential impact of this proposed wetland fill or impact from other structures. Item 12 indicates that wetland compensatory mitigation will be provided for the wetlands impacted, but there is no indication where or how this mitigation will be provided. The location and description of the wetland compensatory mitigation must be described and included on the layout, particularly if it is to consist of onsite creation. This information is necessary in order to assure that the mitigation would be adequate to compensate for the impact and that there will be no additional environmental impacts caused by the mitigation construction. Questions regarding wetlands requirements may be addressed to Larry Zdon, at (651) 297-8219. Storm Water Runoff The EAW notes that permanent detention basins will be designed to National Urban Runoff Program guidelines for total suspended solids and nutrients. The permanent basins must also fulfill the requirements of the MPCA's general permit. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul · Brainerd · Detr'°it Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www, pca,state,mn,us Equal Opportunity Employer · Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. 10/03/00 TUE 99:31 FAX 612 296 7782 ~IETRO ~fANAGERS OFFICE ~002 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Page Two We encourage the use of low-impact development principles like added detention through ponding, depressional storage, and infiltration. We recommend that the city of Chanhassen and developers develop a plan to mater existing (pre-development) and post-development discharge rates and volumes from the site. Additionally, we encourage the project proposer to minimize the amount Of impervious surfaces in the project area, which will help minimize the potential impacts from storm water runoff. ... QueStions about the MPCA's construction storm ~vater program requirements may be directed to Gene Soderbeck at (651) 296-8280. General We would encourage the designers and proposers to strive for human scale, pedestrian oriented developments, including plans for safe pedestrian movement between the residential and commercial areas. We would also encourage the proposer to actively evaluate and pursue waste prevention opportunities during the construction phase of the project. We recommend that the proposer preserve existing Significant trees and incorporate native plantings in the landscaping to the maximum extent possible. We look forward to receiving your written responses to these comments hs well as documentation of your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any other questions about this letter, please contact me at (651) 296-6703. Sincerely, Barbara Conti Planner Principal Operations and Planning Section Metro District Be:sis cc: Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality Board Tom Standke, Pulte Homes Larry Zdon, MPCA, MD/CAP Gene Soderbeck, MPCA, MD/CAP October 17, 2000 STATE HiSTOPd~VATiON OFFICE MINNESOT-& HISTORICAL SOCIETY RECEIVED OCT J. 9 2000 CITY OF CHANH^SSb. I'~ Teresa Halloran Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55369 RE: Hedlund Arboretum Village Subdivision Chanhassen, Carver County SHPO Number: 2000-1434 Dear Ms. Halloran' Thank you for submitting the copy of the cultural resources survey of the above referenced project. At this time, we have the above following comments' 1. Based on the findings of the archaeological survey, we conclude that there are no significant archaeological properties in the project area. 2. The survey rep'ort includes, on page 8, a statement that the proposed project is not a federally licensed or federally funded undertaking. However, it does appear that the project will require a NPDES permit (an EPA/MPCA permit process), which means that a Section 106 review will need to be addressed. As part of this review, the following items will need to be considered: A. The eligibility of the farmstead on the east side of Highway 41 (see page 10 of the survey report) will need to be determined. As an initial step in this determination, we would suggest that photographs and a sketch map of the farmstead be submitted to our office for further assessment. B. The effects of the development on the Minnesota Fruit Breeding Farm need to be further considered. We do not necessarily agree with the determination that the proposed development will have no adverse effect on this National Register eligible Fr,.,p,.., ,~,. In order to better assess these effects, we need more information on the scale and layout of the proposed development, particularly on the western edge that abuts on Highway 41. We look forward to working with the permitting agency, the developer, and other interested parties in completing this review. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns. ~' ,,L/c'/~ .q''Si~~~~'ncerely' ,_~a~,.~ ~ (~ __.D~hnis A. Gim p~c Government Programs and Com e Officer Cc: Randall Hedlund, Hedlund Engineering Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen Keith Cherryholmes, MPCA Peter Olin, Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future October 18, 2000 Kathryn R. Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Re: RECEIYE 2000 CffY OF CHANHA$SEN Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Chanhassen Arboretum Village Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18363-1 Metropolitan Council District 4 Dear Ms. Aanenson: Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed the EAW to determine its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns. The project proposes to construct 385 units of residential housing on approximately 107 acres. Included in the 107 acres is an undeveloped three-acre parcel proposed to be used as commercial property. Staff submits the folloxving advisory comments: Storntwater (Jack Frost, 651-620-1075) . The project proposes to create two storm water NURP ponds to treat the runoff from the site. While these ponds xvill adequately treat the runoff and keep the rate of runoff to predevelopment conditions, the volume of runoff will increase because of the increase in impervious areas. The increased volume can cause deleterious effects on downstream resources. The developer should give consideration to reducing the amount of impervious connected areas. Examples of techniques to reduce imperviousness can be found in Low bnpact Development Design Strategies: An b~tegrated Design Approach by Prince George's County, Maryland. The staff reviexv concludes that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. If you have questions, please contact Linda O'Connor, technical reviewer, at 651-602-1098. Sincerely, Helen Boyer Director, Environmental Services Cc.' Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Keith Buttleman, MCES, Director Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department Tom Caswell, Sector Representative Linda Milashius, Referrals Coordinator Linda O'Connor, Principal Reviewer 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 CITYOF CHAN E 690 Ci0, Ce,ter Dfive, PO Box 147 C/.~,/~asse,, Mi,,esot~? 55317 P/so,e 612.937.1900 Ge,em/ £ax 612.937.5739 £,g/,eM,g Fax 612.937. 9152 P,[~/ic S,~'0' F,.= 612.93&2524 II"cD u'zvzc d. ch,?,/~,zsse,, mn.~s October 20, 2000 Ms. Barbara Conti Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Conti: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments from your letter dated October 4, 2000.' WETLANDS Continent 1: Item 8 should indicate that a Clean IVater Act (CI, VA) Section 404 permit fi'om the USAm0, Co~s of Engineers and a CI~ Section 40] water qualiO, certification fi'om the MPCA regarding the proposed alteration of wetlands is required. Response 1: The City will require the proposer to obtain both a Section 404 permit and a Section 401 certification. Conmtent 2: Item !0 indicates there will be 1.2 acres/ess olivet/and on the site after construction. The location and boundaries of the existing ~,'etlands and the location and extent of the proposed impacts to the wetlands must be indicated on the layout in order to assess the potential impact of this proposed wetland fill or impact fi'om other structures. Response 2: The City has received this information and will assess the potential impacts of the proposed wetland fill. Comment 3: Item 1.2 indicates that wetland compensatou, mitigation will be provided for the wetlands impacted, but there is no indication wh~re or how this mitigation will be provided. The location and description of the wetland compensatoO, mitigation must be described and included on the layout, during construction so the City may help to educate developers, designers and construction firms about xvaste prevention. Comment 8: We recommend that the proposer preserve existing significant trees and incorporate native plantings in the landscaping to the ~naximura extent possible. Response 8: The current proposal calls for the removal of few, if any, existing significant trees. Because the proposed project is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Corridor, the City will recommend native plantings be used whenever possible. The City will provide the MPCA with documentation of its decision on the need for an EIS once such a decision is made. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator cc: Scott Botcher, City Manager Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes Katlu-yn Aanenson, Community Developlnent Director File CIT O 690 CiO' Ce, ter Drive. ?O £ox 147 Cha,hasse,, .Mi;mesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Onem/ P~v 612.93Z5739 &~ginee~ng F~' 612.93Z9152 &,b/lc S~O, &v 612.93(2524 1I% wu,u~ci, cha,h~m,, m,.Its October 20, 2000 Mr. Thomas W. Balcom Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4010 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Balcom: Thank you for 5,our comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments from your letter dated October 2, 2000. Continent 1: Item ]4, IVater-re/ated Land Use Management District, is correctly answered "no" because no ]2art of the projec~ site occurs within the FEMA floodplain. However, the final l~roject will occur on a site containing several wetlands and sediment ponds, all of which are potential sources of flood-re/ated damages. All the structures wit/fin the development should be constructed well above the 1% (l_ O0-yeaO flood elevations of these ponds in accordance with the regulations of the CiO, of Chanhassen and the Riley-?urgatoo;-Bluff Creek Watershed Dist~gct. Response 1: The City will require the project to meet these requirements. Comment 2: The site contains erodible soils and some steep slopes according to Item ! 7, Erosion and Sedimentation. Construction should be minimized where these conditions are present, and if possible the ex'isting vegetation should be retained and preserved. Regarding the erosion control measures emj)loyed for theproject, they should be regularly monitored and maintained as required. Response 2: The City will inspect the site on a regular basis and will require the maintenance of erosion control measures when necessary. Comment 3: Item 17b indicates that treated storm water runoff will be routed to "a natural wetland area." Although permissible, this action can result in damage The City of Ch,,hmsc,. A gro'.vi,~o cvm,u;,iO, with cle,7, lzzkcs, qz:.7/i5, sd, ooh, r; c/.,,7m5,~ dou,;~tow,, thriz.i,~ bmi,esscs, a,d bc,udfi:/ p,z;:l:s. A ~rcat p/,vce to/il,e, work, a,d t, la)~ to the wetland because of the large volumes of water directed to it. These volumes could be further reduced by: 1) minimizing impe~.eious surface creation; 2) utilizing infiltration-based storm water runoff treatment techniques; and 3) elimh~ating the use of storm sewe~; curb and gutter whereverpossible. Construction-related grading of the property should be minimized to avoid compacting the soils on site. Response 3: The City will make the applicant aware of the potential for damage to the wetland and will encourage the applicant to incorporate the suggestions given. Contntent 4: b, general, we reco~nmend that landscaping and revegetation efforts for disturbed areas use native species of trees and shrubs as deemed feasible. Response 4: Because the proposed project is adjacent to the Bluff Creek Cmzidor, the City will recommend native plantings be used whenever possible. The City xvill provide the DNR with documentation of its decision on the need for an EIS once such a decision is made. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator cc: Scott Botcher, City Manager Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes Kattu3~ Aanenson, Community Development Director File CITYOF CHANH SE 890 CiO' Ce, te;' Drive, PO Box I47 Ch,,/mxe,. 35,,csot, 55317 &o,e 612.93Z i900 O,e~a/ Eax 612. 93Z 5739 &~g/,evrh~g Fax 612.93 Z 915~ October 20, 2000 Ms. Helen Boyer Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1626 RE: Comments on Arboretum Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Boyer: Thank you for your comments on the EAW for the Arboretum Village development project. Following are responses to your comments fi'om your letter dated October 18, 2000. Comment 1: The R~'oject])ro]voses to create t~vo storm water NURP ]vonds to treat the runoff fi'om the site. l~tile these ponds will adequateO, treat the runoff and keep the rate of runoff to predevelopment conditions, the volume of turnoff will increase because 2~the increase in impem,ious areas. The incJ'eaxed volume can cause deleterious effects on downstream resources. The developer should give consideration to reducing the amount of impe~wious connected areas. Response 1: The City will make the applicant aware of the potential for damage to downstream resources and will encourage the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious surface associated with the project. The City will provide the Metropolitan Council with documentation of its decision on the need for an EIS once such a decision is made. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lori Haak Water Resources Coordinator cc: Scott Botcher, City Manager Dennis Griswold, Pulte Homes Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director File 0 03 CO w- ~- ~-J c~ 0 ~- o o ,-- ,-- 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ c c .-- 0 O~ ~_ O O 0 c c ~ ~ 0 0 ~~cc C ~ ~ ~ o~oo~ - ~~EE =~= oo EEEEEEEEEE EEEE E E EE E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (.,3 O O O z I- o LU 0 LU o x <~ I- 0 EE~ E~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ b b ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~c = c ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~mO0 8~}~¢ E E E E EE E E E E : ~E~ E E E E E E E E E E O ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O 0>~000 00000000 0 0 E~~ O~ ~ 0 0 ~o>~ooo EE E EEEEEEEEEE EEE EE EEEEE O O O O O O O O O O