The URL can be used to link to this page

8 Arboretum Village PUDCIT¥OF .9' Center Drive, PO Box 147 ~hassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612. 937.1900 neml Fax ¢12.93Z5739 ~eering tax. 612.937.9152 (SafeO, £ax 612.934.2524 u,vw. ci. chanhassen, mn.m MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Scott Botcher, City Manager Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director October 20, 1999 Pulte HOmes Background At the September 27, 1999 meeting, the' City Council tabled the concept PUD for further study on several issues. The council considered the merits of leaving the low density on the northern portion of the site and zoning the remainder of the site as office or office/industrial. This development will require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This will be a condition of approval. Staff is expecting more information on the materials used on the buildings. 'It is staff's expectation that the site plan be further refined and the product being proposed be high quality in its design and the use of building and landscaping materials. Analysis Mass Transit As a part of the internal design of the proposed development, the transit shelters can and will be recommended for incorporation. Westwood Church is working with Southwest Metro Transit to provide a park and ride facility. This would be a good location because the park and ride would not conflict with the church use. The park and ride would be similar to the one at Pauly Drive and Market Boulevard. · Housing Goals-Density The city signed on with the Livable Communities Act in 1995. The principles of the act state that the city support: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for pe6ple 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. 7it~ o£Chanhassen. A ~row/ng commumh, w/th cka, ' lakes, aua[in, schooh, a cha,rmn~ downtqu~: tt~r?me.O,~in?s~es, ~d beauti~t[oat'k~i A_~(~at place.to live; work, and day.' Pulte Homes October 21, Page2 A v~ariety ' housfng. 5. The Theapplieantis: diversity * 1999Unitsmn~[for no Pulte Homes October 21, 1999 Page 3 important issues. For instance, an analysis of service demands is not shown. Second the office market is not here. This site may sit vacant for 5-10 years; therefore, no taxes would be paid for several years. · Traffic Counts (sensitivity analysis) The most amount of traffic based on the staff analysis would be the office or office industrial use. The intent of the frontage road was to provide for a alternative route to avoid the traffic on Highway 5. The Highway 5 Corridor Study recommended this site as an intuitional use. If this site were developed with a church use, the traffic would be less, especially during peak hours. Unfortunately, the price of the property has discouraged any church use. · School Age Children See attachment. The proposed development would generate fewer children than a traditional single-family neighborhood. The multipliers used in the projections are consistent with those used by the Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Chaska School Districts. · Gateway Vision of Comer The vision for the intersections of the community as stated in the Highway 5 Corridor Study is saving the natural features. The plan sPeaks to the preservation of the natural elements as a means of preserving the visual quality. This plan proposes saving the large stand of trees. One of the design principles is that a landscape buffer area be established between TH 5 mainline and Access Boulevard in those sections where the roadways are in close proximity, earth berms and landscaping should be provided. This plan provides for screening and intense landscaping along the perimeter. The plan as proposed is consistent with the goals of the Corridor Study. If this site were developed with an office use, the building would likely be greater in height and thus more visible. The comprehensive plan permits a density of up to 8 units/acre for residential at the comer. The current proposal lowered the number of units on the property adjacent to Highway 5 and mixed the unit types. Staff is confident that as the design of the project evolves, a sea of roof tops, as has been suggested, will not be the dominate view. · Rental Tax Credit This product will provide another housing option. The rental units provide a housing opportunity for those living at the Chanhassen median income of 50 Pulte Homes October 21, 1999 Page 4 percent. The median income is $61,000 therefore the average income in people in these units is $31,000. The product is difficult to scatter throughout the development because they are two different types of products, owner occupied and rental, and they will have different homeowners associations. This product should mirror the quality of the rest of the development. Recommendation "The City Council approves the Conceptual Planned Unit Development #99-2 for Arboretum Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. o The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 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 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 the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or Pulte Homes October 21, 1999 Page 5 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 or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. o 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. 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. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 10. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 11. 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 for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. The applicant shall incorporate berming into the plans adjacent to West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5 per city code. Additional buffering/screening should also be considered along TH 5 and TH 41 for noise abatement. 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 Corridor Study. 13. 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. 14. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. 15. The applicant/property owner shall petition the City for sanitary sewer service. Pulte Homes October 21, 1999 Page 6 16. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. 17. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Blvd. and a full shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. The exact location of the access points are subject to City and MnDOT review at time of site plan review. Cross access agreement will be required at time of final platting 18. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Blvd., TH 41 and TH 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5 project. 19. Provide a public street and sidewalk/trail system south of West 78th Street which will loop back out to West 78th Street. Sidewalk/trails shall also be provided along the public streets north of West 78th Street. Eliminate the trails along the wetland in the easterly portion of the site. Provide trail connections to TH 5 trail and future trail connection to TH 41 between West 78th Street and TH 5. 20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted 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. 21. Future extension of the north/south street is not needed. Shorten street to minimize impacts to wetlands and trees provide cul-de-sac. 22. Each housing area shall become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics with more specifics on the material being use. 23. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. Neighborhood uses are those goods necessary to meet daily needs. 24. A road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order. 25. The applicant shall be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans are submitted. Pulte Homes October 21, 1999 Page 7 26. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area before a setback can be established. 27. Preservation of the wood lots on the property. 28. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. 29. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction. 30. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. 31. The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2-1/2 acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. 32. A more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. 33. A creative approach to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. 34. The Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, and playground areas in the plan. 35. More detailed vision of the commercial area. 36. Preparation of Environmental Assessment." ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Trip Generation. Tax Capacity. Student Projection. Study Assumptions. Letter from Pulte Homes. Fax from Jim Deanovic. City Council Minutes September 27, 1999. ARBORETUM VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION 10/21/1999 SITE AREA: 114.21 acres TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Acreage Multiplier Units/Sq. Ft. Arq Daily AM Peak PM Peak Wetlands 12.21 ROW 11.4 10% Commercial (gas/convenience) I 0.3 13,068 162 78.06 97.14 Commercial (retail) 2.7 0.3 35,284 42.92 1.03 3.74 Office/Industrial 30 0.3 392,040 6.96 0.82 0.86 General Office 30 0.3 392,040 11.01 1.56 1.49 Medium Density 30 6 180 5.86 0.44 0.54 Medium Density 30 8 240 5.86 0.44 0.54 Low Density 56.9 2 114 9.57 0.77 1.02 Low Density 56.9 4 228 9.57 0.77 1.02 Arq Dailv 2,117 1,514 2,729 4,316 1,055 1,406 1,089 2,178 TRIPS AM Peak 1,020 36 321 612 79 106 88 175 PM Peak 1,269 132 337 584 97 130 116 232 Pulte Arboretum Villages Manor Homes 83 5.86 0.44 0.54 Court Homes 104 5.86 0.44 0.54 Village Homes 144 5.86 0.44 0.54 Rental Townhome 32 9.57 0.65 0.65 Club Townhome 51 5.86 0.44 0.54 Commercial (gas/convenience) 1 0.3 13,068 162 78.06 97.14 Commercial (retail) 2.7 0.3 35,284 42.92 1.03 3.74 TOTALS Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Commercial, Office/Industrial, Low Density (2 units/acre) Office/Industrial, Low Density (4 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (2 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 486 609 844 306 299 2,117 1,514 6,176 7,449 8,538 9,037 10,126 5,775 6,864 6,127 7,216 7,582 8,671 37 46 63 21 '22 1,020 36 1,245 1,466 1,553 1,756 1,843 1,223 1,311 1,250 1,337 1,503 1,590 45 56 78 21 28 1,269 132 1,628 1,855 1,971 2,102 2,218 1,615 1,731 1,647 1,763 1,874 1,990 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 g:\plan\bgV~rboretum Village Traffic Spreadsheet Assumptions: Tax Capacity Single family detached (low density) Townhomes (medium density) Manor Homes Court Homes Village Homes Rental Townhome Club Townhome Pulte Homes HOUSING VALUATION $250,676 $147,500 $155,000 $121,000 $105,000 $105,000 $182,500 average valuation 1998 building permits average valuation 1998 building permits mid-point of price range mid-point of price range mid-point of price range mid-point of price range Commercial Office Industrial Office COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VALUATION $70 per square foot $40 per square foot $70 per square foot Ownership Housing Rental Housing Commercial/Industrial/Office TAX CAPACITY 1% of first $76,000 - 1.65% of balance 1.2% of first $76,000 2.4% of first $150,000 - 3.4% of balance Taxes - Taxes are calculated at 146% of tax capacity. City's Share - 19% of taxes Fiscal Disparities - 40% of commercial/industrial/office Students (Estimate based on 1998 District 112 Analysis) Single family detached Townhomes 0.58 students per dwelling unit 0.12 students per dwelling unit ARBORETUM VILLAGE TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS 10/20/1999 Land Use Acreaqe Wetlands 12.21 ROW 11.4 Commercial (gas/co 1 Commercial (retail) 2.7 Office/I ndustrial 30 General Office 30 Medium Density 30 Medium Density 30 Low Density 56.9 Low Density 56.9 TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS Multiplier Units/Sq. Ft. Tax Capacity 10% 0.3 13,068 $ 29,601.84 0.3 35,284 $ 82,474.97 0.3 392,040 $ 531,674.40 0.3 392,040 $ 931,555.20 6 180 $ 341,055.00 8 240 $ 454,740.00 2 114 $ 526,770.41 4 228 $1,053,540.83 Taxes $ 43,218.69 $ 120,413.45 $ 776,244.62 $1,360,070.59 $ 497,94O.3O $ 663,920.40 $ 769,084.80 $1,538,169.61 City's Share $ 8 211.55 $ 22 878.56 $ 147 486.48 $ 258 413.41 $ 94 608.66 $ 126 144.88 $ 146 126.11 $ 292 252.23 After Fiscal Disparities $ 4,926.93 $ 13,727.13 $ 88,491.89 $ 155,048.05 $ 94,608.66 $ 126,144.88 $ 146,126.11 $ 292,252.23 Pulte Arboretum Villaqes Manor Homes Court Homes Village Homes Rental Townhome Club Townhome Commercial (gas/co Commercial (retail) TOTALS Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial I 0.3 2.7 0.3 83 $ 203,476.00 104 $ 77,670.00 144 $ 69,194.00 32 $ 16,224.00 51 $ 90,259.00 13,068 $ 29,601.84 35,284 $ 82,474.97 $ 568,899.81 Office/Industrial, Low Density (2 units/acre) Office/Industrial, Low Density (4 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (2 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) $ 297,074.96 $ 113,398.20 $ 101,023.24 $ 23,687.O4 $ 131,778.14 $ 43,218.69 $ 120,413.45 $ 830,593.72 Commercial, Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) Commercial, 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acr Commercial, 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acr $ 56,444.24 $ $ 21,545.66 $ $ 19,194.42 $ $ 4,500.54 $ $ 25,O37.85 $ $ 8,211.55 $ $ 22,878.56 $ $ 157,812.81 $ $ 324,702.70 $ $ 470,828.81 $ $ 435,629.63 $ $ 581,755.74 $ $ 271,824.88 $ $ 417,950.99 $ $ 303,361.10 $ $ 449,487.21 $ $ 369,495.36 $ $ 515,621.48 $ 56,444.24 21,545.66 19,194.42 4,500.54 25,037.85 4,926.93 13,727.13 145 376.76 253 272.O6 399 398.18 319 828.22 465 954.34 259 388.83 405 514.95 290 925.05 437 051.17 305 376.64 451 502.75 g:\plan\bg~,rboretum Village Traffic ARBORETUM VILLAGE ESTIMATED STUDENT PROJECTIONS 10/20/1999 Land Use Wetlands ROW Commercial (gas/convenience) Commercial (retail) Office/Industrial General Office Medium Density Medium Density Low Density Low Density Aceraqe Multiplier Units/Sq. Ft. Students 12.21 11.4 10% 1 0.3 13,068 - 2.7 0.3 35,284 - 30 0.3 392,040 - 30 0.3 392,040 - 30 6 180 22 30 8 240 29 56.9 2 114 66 56.9 4 228 132 Pulte Arboretum Villaqes Manor Homes Court Homes Village Homes Rental Townhome Club Townhome Commercial (gas/convenience) Commercial (retail) TOTALS 1 2.7 0.3 0.3 83 10 104 12 144 17 32 4 51 6 13,068 - 35,284 50 Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial. Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Office/Industrial, Low Density (2 units/acre) Office/Industrial, Low Density (4 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (2 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 66 132 66 132 88 154 95 161 8O 146 g \p an\bg~rboretum Village Traffic Arboretum Village Scope The purpose of this summary is to supplement and update the excellent report prepared by the Chanhassen staff. Many of the concerns and suggestions by staff, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission have already been incorporated into the revised Concept Plan. Pulte Homes is eager to work with the City of Chanhassen in providing a Life Cycle residential community with a limited amount of Neighborhood Business for the convenience of the residents. Vision Pulte Homes envisions this site as a high-quality Life-Cycle residential community harmoniously integrated with the natural and man-made features, constraints, and amenities of the property. The proposal includes five housing types that are designed specifically for five different buyer profiles within the life-cycle of housing needs, as previously submitted. This allows a young adult, just starting his or her career, to live in the same city and even the same neighborhood with their parents, and their grandparents. While each neighborhood of housing types will have its own identity, the overall community will have a strong character bound together with common architectural elements, ample berming and landscaping, entrance monumentation, pathways interconnecting the greenspaces, transit stops, neighborhood business area, existing mature wooded areas, tot lots, and open play areas. A community open space can even be made available for the City to construct an element (monument or clock tower or ?) depicting the western entrance to the City. All of this will happen with respect for the Highway 5 Corridor Study, the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the Comprehensive Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the Livable Communities Act. Planned Unit Development Benefits 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan According to the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan, the property south of 78th Street is guided for either Office/Industrial with a small amount of Commercial or Residential - Medium Density (R-M) (Net Density Range 4-8 Units/Acre) with a small amount of Commercial. The area north of 78th Street is guided for Residential - Low Density (L-M) (Net Density Range 1.2-4 Units/Acre). The 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan, indicates that 2000 MUSA Area Totals include only 51.2 net developable acres of Residential - Medium Density, including approximately 27.6 acres on the subject property. If the subject property develops as another use, as others such as the Kordonowy Property have, the City will have an extreme shortage of developable land for Residential - Medium Density. This is the exact type of housing necessary to assure young professionals and active adults the option to live in Chanhassen in the future. Further, the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates that only 185.8 net developable acres will become available in the years 2005-2020. Conversely, there are 294 net developable vacant acres of Office/Industrial presently available from the 1991 MUSA plus an additional 220.5 net developable acres will become available in the years 2005-2020. It is clear that the present need for Chanhassen is Residential - Medium Density. Vicinity Relationships The two dominant, and opposing, features of the vicinity are the expansive wetlands and woodlands within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the expanding Highway 5 Corridor. Intermingled with those natural and manmade features are acres of vacant Office/Industrial land south of Highway 5, the Minnesota Arboretum and a future church west of CSAH 41, Meadows of Long Acres north of the expansive wetland/woodland buffer and Outlot K of Meadows of Long Acres to the east, across the wetland buffer. The Highway 5 Corridor very effectively forms the division between the Office/industrial area to the south and the residential area to the north. Further, the wetlands and woodlands give extreme buffering from the single family detached homes of Meadows of Long Acres and the one-level walkout active adult club homes proposed in Arboretum Village. The Neighborhood Business area would be located adjacent to the future signalized intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard, conveniently accessible by automobile or by the paths and sidewalks within the community and along 78th Street and Century Boulevard. Property Ownership The subject property is a combination of two underlying parcels under separate ownership. The proposed alignment of West 78th Street yields a very difficult configuration for access and efficient development if the properties are developed separately under different ownership. This proposed Planned Unit Development will bring the two properties together to be developed by a single developer, Pulte Homes. The owner- occupied units will be built by Pulte Homes, while the rental townhomes and the commercial will be built by others. Density Calcs./Transfer The intent of Pulte Homes is to develop the property east of CSAH 41 based on the density achievable on the acres east of CSAH 41 only. The residual acres west of CSAH 41 are not being purchased by Pulte Homes and it is not our intention to encumber those acres with any density transfer. Therefore, Pulte Homes density calculations are as follows: North Portion of the site = 38.8 net acres x 4 units/net acre = 155 units 166 units proposed South Portion of the site = 41.5 net acres x 8 units/net acre = 332 units 252 units oroposed TOTAL = 80.3 net acres x 6 units/net acre = 487 units 418 units proposed (5.19 u/a) Traffic Traffic patterns and levels will be studied in detail as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) at the time of Preliminary Development Plan review. However, it is reasonable to anticipate that the traffic pattcms will be more evenly dispersed over the day with the life-cycle residential usc as compared to peak-hour emphasis and additional truck traffic with the introduction of office/industrial usc. MNDOT R/W Cost A major public benefit of this Planned Unit Development, other than providing affordable housing in line with the Livable Communities Act, is that if this proposal is approved and developed timely with the construction of MNDOT's West 78th Street, the right-of-way for West 78th Street and Century Boulevard and additional right-of-way for Highway 5 and ponding would be dedicated with no cost to the public as part of the platting procedure. However, if the PUD does not occur timely with the street improvement, the right- of-way would probably need to be acquired through condemnation proceedings. This could easily be a cost to the public in excess of $3,000,000.00. Taxes The taxes to be generated from the area south of West 78th Street on a per acre basis is indicated to be approximately equal when comparing Residential R-8 to Office/Industrial. However, the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates that Office/Industrial should be estimated based on a floor coverage ration of .25 rather than the .34 used in the Tax Impact by Use calculation. This would yield a tax per acre for Office/Industrial of $21,780.00 (43560SF x .25 x $2.00/SF) rather than $30,000.00. The taxes generated for the subject area based on Residential - Medium Density would start being levied on the proposed units as they are built starting in the year 2000 and completed in 2003. Taxes generated from Office/industrial for the same area would not start for many years due to the abundant supply of vacant Office/Industrial land nearby in a relatively soft market. It is reasonable to anticipate that 5-10 years of tax revenue could be lost with the Office/industrial option. This is estimated to be a potential tax revenue loss in the range of $6,000,000.00 - $12,000,000.00. Respectfully submitted, PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORPORATION Dennis R. Griswold, RLA Director of Land ___V V' V V V V .V ProJect Description: Thc Chunh~t~n Family Townhouse project would be 'an a_tTordahle rental mwzfl~ouse complex that cousists of 34 unim. Thc ~-'xt~or ~haract~r of the project would bc ~-imilar to ~h= for ua]e towahouse units in Ctumhas~-n., vinyl siding, ~-phalt shingles and uttachr, d guraScs. The site will provide suz-facc paddng for guests. Thc site will include n small playground, and will be well land~capc, d and will include an tmdergrotmd sprinkler system. The mix ofunil-~ would be split evealy between 2 and 3 bedroom units. Each uflJ~ includes a spacious living area, which would ]t~c]ude a living room, dining room, and kitchen in agreat room feel. 'Cne typical appliances are incll~ded, The uflim have gas forced air heating and individual central air conditioning. Residers pay for gas and electric, The majority oft. he projec~ wo~ld he for people making 50% of Chanhassen's median income, also laken/nm consideration/s thc number ofldds w/thin a family. Chanh~sscn's mc-dian income is 61,000.00 so this proje~zt will b~ serving families with avcrugc incomm of about 31,000.00. We will propose W include l~ of the total unit_% which would rcccivc suppo~ fi-om thc Public Housing Authority to make th=se specific units affordable to people at very low incomes. Res/dents must have a verifiable anti positive rental h/story, in addition To a positive credit check, and background check with no criminRl £eco£d fol' each adult applioan[ in every household. This is fa/fly standard in most rental markets. Who w/fl rigs project serve, below are 3 examples. A. Single Mom Average two k/ds Workin~ in groceD,, restaurant, del:um'tment store or administrative Earns 25,000 per year B. Family Average 4-5 total in f~mily Both work Male-General Laborer Female-P,~ta/J or Administrative Earn 35,000 per year C. Handicapped or Disabled On d/sability $13 per hour ( when able to work) Hishnghts: Site will be on a primary unmsit route Chanhassen has 8000 jobs and 25% am retail trade and commercial service Site utilizes densities supported by Chanhassen Project is sfmilar to the "For Sale" town home., in the area Project would havo au association, for oonaistency and management Would assist in achieving the cities Livable Communities Goal The reasoning to not have scattered site homing is that it makes on-site managemcnt and maintenance very expansivo and inconsistent Financing is obtained is through a projc~ and no~ by individual units. The goal is to d~velop a healthy eavlroament to live and work in, which can be an asset te the development and the city as a whole. City Council Meeting ~ September 27, 1999 (The council clarified for staff and the applicant their request for revising the south and west elevations by adding awnings and fake windows.) Gerry Ruta: ...the window on the south elevation... I'm concerned about the image that it projects. Councilman Engel: How did Houlihan's pull it off?. Sharmin A1-Jaff: They painted it black behind it. Mayor Mancino: And it's fine. I mean it looks fine. It looks good from the outside. Gerry Ruta: How many do they have? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Three. Councilwoman Jansen: Are they all on one side or are they spread around the building? Sharmin Al-Jarl: There...on one side and one on another side. The hotel has six on the same side. Mayor Mancino: Again, it add to the architectural interest, etc. So that's how we feel and that's how we voted so, thank you. That you very much. Councilwoman Jansen: ...but I am voting no. It's just adding all the additional windows seems a little bit extreme. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you have three yeahs and one no. CONCEPTUAL PUD REOUEST FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES, COURT HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES; LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Cheryl & Bob Ayotte Anne & Michael Ryan Jim Speight Connie Moore Kurt Oddsen Michael Maeser Kristin Spangrud Mark A. Pletts Susan Cohoon Lisa Cobert Mark Guenther Dennis P. Griswold Cascade Pass 2595 Southern Court 7361 Moccasin Trail 7330 Moccasin Trail 7325 Moccasin Trail 2584 7487 7517 7525 7454 1355 1355 Southern Court Bent Bow Trail Bent Bow Trail Bent Bow Trail Bent Bow Trail Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights 21 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Leah Hawke 7444 Moccasin Trail Mayor Mancino: Staff report please, and if people could please stay quiet so we can hear the .presentation because obviously you're here and you want to hear it too. We just got the second part of the presentation to us tonight that Pulte will be giving to us. Kate, are there extra of these at all so that people can follow? Kate Aanenson: I did pass out some of the extra maps I had... Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, are there extras? Kate Aanenson: It's revised. Mayor Mancino: Oh, these are revised for us tonight? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Is everybody ready and I know you don't have much to look at. You'll just have to listen and try to follow along with things as best you can. And if you could hold your questions at different points, we'll certainly give you time to speak and ask questions or ask for clarification, etc. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. While we've had complicated issues like this project tonight, it's been a while since we've done one of this scale. Probably the last one of this scale was probably Villages on the Pond. I'd like to go and break this presentation into three components. One, would be the background first. The second is break down the request, and the third component is the detail of the proposal and I'll leave the details of the proposal up to the applicant to let them go through their project and talk about their product. But the first component then would be the background itself. We'll start by framing up where this property is. This property is at the corner, the northwest corner of Highway 5, excuse me. Northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41. This property is currently outside of the MUSA. It was left outside the MUSA in the 1991 comprehensive plan. It was left unguided. At that time the property owners were looking at some commercial zoning. The City wasn't sure exactly what they wanted to have happen to that piece of property and they wanted some time to reconsider that. In 1995 the City undertook the Highway 5 corridor study. And the purpose of this study was two fold. One is to look at the frontage road alignment. Continuity of the local street to provide for local trips east and west through the community. The Highway 5 corridor study also examined land uses along Highway 5, specifically this comer because it was left unguided. And then in addition, it examined some of the design standards and we did develop a Highway 5 overlay district, which I've included in your packet. The design standards. So the Highway 5 corridor study locked in the alignment and an environmental assessment document was done on that. MnDOT right now is pretty much close to the final design. Right now they're in the process of acquiring the right-of-way. City Engineer, Anita Benson gave you tonight an update on where they are with the alignment. That date has slipped back. Originally we were looking at bid, going out to bid this fall but that's been moved back to next summer so the applicant is trying to tie this project and the timing of this project and dedication of right-of-way with the construction of Highway 5. The alignment, Highway 5 was put on and off the table. It did get moved back because it was tied into the Highway 41 project. At one time MnDOT felt like they could not upgrade Highway 5 without the complete upgrading of Highway 41. The City's lobbied to break the two projects out because it became so cost prohibitive, we were competing in a different category. We were successful in that but they did leave offa segment of the frontage road, which is West 78th, which for discussion purposes tonight, we'll call West 78th. This request would provide for the dedication of that and the continuity of 22 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 that frontage road, West 78th for the construction of Highway 5, so it is important. The project also does provide some modifications to Highway 41 as it, like a free right to get into the access off of West 78th. So the Highway 5 corridor study again, besides looking at the frontage road and the EAW, also gave some land use recommendations which were adopted and put into the comprehensive plan and to date have been carried forward in the current comprehensive plan. We looked at a northern and a southern alignment. As this road came through it was pushed to the north for concerns, one is stacking on Highway 5. The Environment Assessment document that we did on the south side showed it even with that industrial property there, that the intersection of 5 and 41 is going to be at Level F, even with the continuation. And that was one of the recommendations when we looked at on the north side, there's the continuity of residential, pretty much predominantly on this piece of property on the north side is all residential. There isn't much industrial or office. The City, again looking at the land use we felt it was an important intersection of the community. It is our gateway. We've got the Arboretum on the one side and I'll talk more specifically about some of the surrounding land uses but did look specifically at an institutional type use. Something that would give some prominence to that intersection, so that was looked at with that. So I'll talk more specifically about the land uses in a minute but I wanted to just kind of give you some background on the documents that are guiding this. The next document was the Bluff Creek overlay district, and in 1996 the City undertook a study of the Bluff Creek, which this is the head waters. The wetland that's on this property, going all the way down to the Minnesota River. The purpose of this study was to ensure development along the corridor. We had some developments that were in the area that we felt were not respective of the creek itself and we wanted to add some extra protection. So this study undertook land uses along the corridor. Again, the southern area of the city south of Lyman was not guided. This gave us a dropping off point to go examine those land uses south of Lyman and make some sense. Again, the southern end of the city is much different than the northern area as far as topography. More wetlands. Larger wetlands and more rolling topography and steeper bluffs. So this document provided for the land use recommendations. In addition it created an overlay district. Part of this property is in that overlay district and what that district allows is for density transfer to provide for better setback and a different type of development pattern. We have used this on two other projects. The density transfer, and I'll spend a little bit more time talking about that in a minute. The other background on this is the Livable Communities Act, which the City is a member of. The Livable Communities Act. We talk about diversity and different housing types. I included in your packet the City's resolution regarding diversity in housing. In this project there is four or five different types of products and different price ranges. Again, something that we've talked about as far as the Livable Communities Act, providing different housing styles and types for different lifestyles. Then the other thing I wanted to talk about is the PUD itself and what we're here tonight to try to come to some conclusion. The goal of the developer is in acquiring this piece of property is to find out exactly, he would like, his desire is to develop it residential. We do have other guiding on the property but this is the proposal that's before you tonight is looking at the residential development. And again it would require a land use recommendation, the fact that he is moving, not increasing the density but shifting the density around. Similar to what we've done on other projects. What the council will be reviewing is this the right type of development under the PUD application and would you consider doing the density transfer land use recolrm~endation. And then also try to give direction for the next level, and I think it's fair that we all operate in good faith and give the applicant the direction that he needs to go forward because at the next level there is substantially more cost involved as far as putting the design together. And I'd just like to remind you, it's in the staff report, what we're trying to resolve as far as the PUD. The concept has no legal standing. It does have a public hearing requirement. Again at this point we're trying to flush out a lot of the issues and give clear direction. But the PUD itself is what we're trying to do is identify the overall net and gross density. The general location of major streets and pedestrian ways. Identification of lot width and size. Identification of public and common open space. Identification of land use and intensities. And then the staging. The staging for this development is obviously contingent 23 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 upon the road improvement because the road, West 78th is going to be driving some of the grading and the timing for this development. So again the applicant is working to try to put this project in at the same time frame as that. So that's the background. I'd like next to talk a little bit about the request itself and the zoning in the surrounding areas. Again, this area is staged to be brought in the MUSA in our comprehensive plan that was most recently adopted, we indicated this area would be served by municipal services in the year 2000, but that doesn't mean automatically the services are magically there. They have to be petitioned to be brought across the property. Currently they're at Galpin Boulevard. On the east side of Galpin at Walnut Grove. That's where they terminate. And they would be coming across, the water would be coming across with the improvement of West 78th and we'll have to petition for the sewer which would follow the low area, which would be on the south side of the large wetland complex. The surrounding land uses. The Minnesota Landscape Arboretum has property on the northwest comer. Experimental. Westwood Church has bought this property, the old Kordonowy property up there. Approximately 67 acres. This is the Gateway 2000 group home property. This property right here is Outlot K of the Lundgren Meadows at Longacres. Lundgren does have an option on this property, although Mr. Dolejsi still owns it. This is Mr. Savaryn's property. And this is the Mills property. The two had been tried to come in separately. It was always the staff's opinion that the best utility yield of the property was to put the two pieces together because there's large wetland complexes that drive the layout of the project. The Markert's own this property here which is approximately 6 acres, and then there's some other properties that are not included in this. And also not part of the Longacres. Mr. Savaryn also owns this property over here. That property is primarily in the overlay district of the primary zone. Part of this proposal, staff is recommending that we do a density transfer to preserve the natural features of that. There is a wetland on there. Some of that property is farmed and it does have some utility as far as density, but it would be our recommendation that that density, because it is in the primary zone, the headwaters of the Bluff Creek, that that density be transferred. There is also, Bluff Creek, excuse me, the Highway 5 corridor study and the comprehensive plan recommended some support commercial to this area. That support commercial was shown in this area. With this proposal and MnDOT's proposal, they are looking at a wetland on that property so they have moved it over to this side. With this piece right here that is owned by Mr. Dolejsi and again Lundgren has an option on. We looked at how you get access to this piece. There's an existing home on the property. It drops off significantly and there is a restricted access to this parcel so it's staff recommendation that somehow we look at tying these two properties together and we worked with the developer, or the owners to make sense of how that would work. Otherwise you're really limiting this piece of property here as far as future uses. Again as I indicated, there is a large wetland on this property and that is the headwater of the Bluff Creek, and then there's also another large wetland here. The original proposal had shown a street connection. This is heavily wooded through that area. It was staff's recommendation that that street not connect through. It would just destroy a lot of the trees. Most of the homes in this area, from the edge of their project, across the wetland. I mean to the property lines is maybe 300-400 feet to the back of the homes it's 600 feet approximately from the edge of this as you're looking across this area here. This is all again Mr. Dolejsi's property. The sewer line, as indicated, would have to be petitioned for to go across. It would follow the edge of the wetland. That is the low area. That's similar to what we did on the other side. We put the trail once that's been removed from the vegetation, that's where the trail. We would want the continuity of that trail. There's also a trail proposed on the north side. The cross section that's already in between Powers and Lake Ann, it's the exact same cross section that would follow the rest of West 78th to this road. Trees on the site. There's two significant stands of trees in this area here. That was identified to be preserved. That plan also respects that and behind the Market's home, this area of trees where there's a slope dropping down, we plan also to preserve those trees. There is a piece that's owned by Mr. Savaryn that's on the other side of the wetland. Topographically separated. Land locked without getting across the wetland at this point. That would be left as an open space and cannot be developed just because of the inability to get access to it. So some of the other options as far as zoning 24 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 that are available on the property are the industrial commercial, which staff did provide just looking at how the densities would lay out. If this was to come forward as a straight subdivision, they were to come in with the zoning or land use recommendation that was placed as far as the R, up to R-8 on the south of the frontage road. This is the actual MnDOT design. And it came in with the low density on the north side of the road. It would be in the similar range that they're proposing here. The 400 units. So the intent is not to increase the number of units, but to raise what is on the low density, on the north side of the road, raise that...and West 78th. And let me explain what the intent of that. We had the visual component. We could put, we could stack, the way to get the higher density along that segment is to stack the units because that's the only way you can achieve the density. Again that's in this area and the frontage road is Highway 5 to achieve the density that's allocated there would be more vertical, which is an option. And then the lower, on the north side of the road. What this proposal again tends to do is lower all that and trying to come up with a nice visual at that intersection so whereby lowering it, the front parcel, you need to raise it on the other end for what they're looking at for the value that they have paid for the property. And again, come out with the same number of units. So the other recommendation as far as land use was the institutional or office or industrial and that would be in this segment here. A concern that the staff had. Councilman Engel: Point at that again Kate. Kate Aanenson: Sure. That was identified, this is the frontage road here. It's this area in here. Staff did provide some, just kind of a cursory look at the traffic trip generation and it's significantly higher, office industrial. Assuming that if you had office industrial and you had warehouse space, if it was pure office it would be substantially higher. So we were concerned about that, and again what the visual impact would be and the grading impact. We haven't taken it to that level but we just wanted to...as far as consideration as far as what the visual impacts would be. Of course we have the Highway 5 corridor standards as far as materials and offer visually...Highway 5 as we spent a lot of time, because we wanted to maintain some of that topography and it took us three years to resolve a lot of those issues in order to get the industrial zoning. You have to compromise a little bit on the amount of grading and to make it work, because you have a bigger footprint of the buildings. So that was something we wanted to make sure we kept in consideration. And also to keep in that we didn't have much industrial or office on this site. Again, I think our vision was to see the institutional. Unfortunately based on price, the institutional chose another location a little bit further back. Just for your edification we did look at that where Westwood Church was. There was a preliminary layout of that at one time. It was approximately 120 homes that could have been built on that so those obviously homes will not, no longer be in place. Relocated. There was a meeting held with the Planning Commission on September 1st. They spent a lot of time discussing the design itself. Concerns that they had was that the layout itself was a little bit too predictable. In my experience though with some of the other projects, it takes a year as we move through the process before we come back. A lot of different designs. The applicant, we're probably on our fifth or sixth, is more than willing to keep working on that and pushing up. We haven't even talked about materials, but they certainly know our expectations. I think right now what we're trying to figure out is the density and the use, and if that's going to work. But the Planning Commission was a little concerned about the predictability and the stamping of the looks of the building. And also is there enough open space. Kind of what we did on Walnut Grove. Some of the more larger spanses and the other concern that they had was the street layout itself on that comer. In the comer it seemed a little bit mismatched so they have revised that and then I'll go through that tonight. The applicant will just to make sure it has a little bit better sense of flow. So conditions 32 through 36 were conditions that the Planning Commission added, and they wanted more detail on the commercial. Obviously the commercial on that will come back under the next level is more specific, limiting the uses under the PUD. We would give them a short list of accepted uses in that area, and then again design that would tie into the design of the project itself. 25 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 When I say design, I'm talking about scale and materials so it would be compatible with that. And the other thing I wanted to bring up is there was a neighborhood meeting September 1st. That was the first day of school. It was difficult for the adjoining property owners to attend the meeting. An informational meeting was held September 15th. A sign-up. I did put just some small notations in there. I tried not to characterize exactly what happened because no matter what I say, it's not going to be exactly what was said so I tried to just give some summary points. I'm certain the neighbors will share with you their concerns. But we did try to provide information, not only on this project itself but where we are with Highway 5 and...are changing and also as was indicated earlier, an informational meeting on the Gateway 2000 group home and any concerns that they had there. There is a wetland on the site, as I mentioned, a large one. There are smaller ones that are closer to Highway 5. MnDOT already examined those as part of their project itself. Those are exempt based on past farming practices. Some of the issues that we had concerns with as this moves through is we want to make sure we maintain the topography. There's a 40 foot change throughout the site and again we are preserving the trees. With that, I'd like to let the applicant go through the project itself and talk about the products and the design and if you have any questions. Otherwise the staff did put recommendations in staff report recommending approval. Again under the concept it has to come back with much more detail at the next level which I'm assuming is going to take a substantial amount of work to get to the next level of detail. So with that I'd like to turn it over to the applicant to go through their project. Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's fine. Kate, I just, can I just ask a couple basic questions? A simple one. According to our zoning map right now, what is north of the frontage road of West 78th? Kate Aanenson: Low density. Mayor Mancino: So that's 2 to 4. 2 to 4 units per acre, and is that gross or net density? Kate Aanenson: That's gross. What I calculated based on a low and a high range is somewhere, if we took all these based on that, you have 300 to 450 units in that project. Using a low and using a high of medium and low. If that makes sense. If they came in on that Iow side and did the lowest density, a straight subdivision. If they came in on the other end, maybe came in at 6 units an acre instead of 8,300, Closer to 300. Mayor Mancino: Making two different zoning areas and putting them together. Kate Aanenson: Right. Part of the traffic element, I broke it down by area and how many units approximately by area under the low using the low. And at maybe 1.8 and then again that's closer to the 4, if that makes sense. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, and then south 0fthe West 78th, that western side it is 4 to 8 or office or institutional, so those are the three. The overall density right now on all of it is 5.4 units per gross density again? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Again when they did their original calculations, they kept leaving this piece off. Those 12 acres. I think it was their objective to sell it. It was the staff's position that it's under one ownership. It's part of the PUD and it has the overlay, the Bluff Creek overlay district on it. If you were to segment that off, there's nowhere to transfer that density so you'd be forced to give a variance. We're saying as part of the PUD is that zoning you're requesting, it's part of the same tax parcel. Our recommendation we include it in the PUD. 26 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Mayor Mancino: And how many units are you transferring? Are they going again to the entire land on the other side or how many units? Kate Aanenson: They can only transfer what they can legitimately get on the site. Mr. Deanovic who owns that property is laying something out and he's given me a 30 number. I'm not sure that that's a valid number or not. Mayor Mancino: On 12 acres. 30 units. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. But he's got a different product that's not allowed under our low density so I'm not sure that that's a valid number. So I'd have to look at it. Mayor Mancino: So that's something you still have to look at to decide how much you can really transfer to the other side. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Because you can't count the wetland. You can't count the slope that's unbuildable. But in looking in the staff's review of it, we calculated at the low assuming the 2 units an acre and included that in the density. So actually our overall density, because we include those 12 acres, went down than theirs. Mayor Mancino: So it's a different number. Kate Aanenson: Right. Theirs was a little higher overall because they weren't including that. We put the 12 back in. Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I have a question that's right in line with your line of questioning, if I may. When you're talking about north of the frontage road and south of the frontage road, do you have those acreage numbers as to what you calculated that off of'?. I used the Highway 5 map and I didn't know if that was correct. Kate Aanenson: I apologize but the attachments got towards the back. I think it's right before the Planning Commission minutes. We did a matrix. It's right before the Planning Commission. Also, there was a letter from Lundgren Bros who had the option on the Dolejsi's on the back of that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, I got it. Kate Aanenson: Okay. So what we did is we used a multiplier and broke that down by acreage. I tried to go through that but. Mayor Mancino: So we're looking at the traffic analysis? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but it also gives you density allocation too. Councilwoman Jansen: So where you have medium density 30 acres, I can assume that that's north of the frontage road? Kate Aanenson: No, that's south of the frontage road. Councilwoman Jansen: Oh, I'm sorry. 27 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Kate Aanenson: Medium density is south in this area. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And low density would be on the west side of 41 and everything north of the frontage road. Councilwoman Jansen: So 56.9. Kate Aanenson: Right. So what we did is we took a high and a lowjust to give you that range so that's what I'm saying. It came up to 300 or 450. Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I was looking at the Highway 5 corridor map and on here, and I don't know if it was then just eliminating the topography that you couldn't build into. Buildable space then, is that what I'm looking at is 15.5 to the south? Is that what this number would be? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Mancino: Which attachment please? Councilwoman Jansen: I pulled it out. It's the Highway 5 corridor study map. Site analysis. Councilman Labatt: Is there a page number on that? Councilwoman Jansen: 4.7. Mayor Mancino: That's the one I've got too. Okay, 4.7. Kate Aanenson: ...as far as if it went to the north and the south. Those were just generalities as part of the land use recolnmendations. Councilwoman Jansen: It's just such a big difference. I guess between the 30 and the 15.5 so. Mayor Mancino: You know what Councilwoman Jansen, it might have been, and I'm just, just having been on the Highway 5 corridor and I don't remember it and don't deal with it half as much as Kate does, but the 15.5 might have been if you used alternative 2. That frontage road. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. This was a representation of how much possible development on...after the road went in place or what's buildable. Then from that we said what objectives would you want to get there? We want to preserve the trees like they have done with this. I think if we went and took some of that out, for example the wetland on this is 12 acres. If we calculated the areas of trees that are not, it may shrink that down. So again it's compressing some of the density. Preserving some of that. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Kate Aanenson: But it's just a representation. 28 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: I was making an assumption that because it had done the heavy line around what looked more like buildable space, that that's what that was referring to. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this point from councilmembers? Councilman Labatt: I've got one. What's the southeast corner of 5 and 417 That's guided for, directly across the highway from this property? Kate Aanenson: Arboretum Business Park? It's PUD Industrial. Councilman Labatt: And what's the long term goal for that corner piece right here? Kate Aanenson: Office. We left that out as, yeah. A regional office. Upscale. Councilman Labatt: Upscale. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess you know we talked about corporate headquarters. We talked about even hospital. Something of that, a medical facility. Councilman Engel: Trying to woo Microsoft to take that as a campus. Mayor Mancino: On right across on the south side of Highway 5, just south of 5, there are three lots. Lots 9, 10 and 11. Lot 9 is that western lot south and it's 23.2 acres and that's office, research, institutional, major corporate headquarters. Then on the west side of Century, which goes up to 5 is Lot 10 and that can be a hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, clinics, health club. And Lot 11, which is on the east side of Century be hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, so that's what across south of TH 5 in the Arboretum Business Park. These three lots. What they can be. Their uses. Kate Aanenson: ...as far as transportation issues I neglected to point that out. Century Boulevard, which does run north and south, there will be signal at TH 5 and so there is a way into this property... Mayor Mancino: Good. Any other questions? Councilwoman Jansen: Can I take my question one step further? And tell me if I'm jumping ahead but taken what they're projecting onto this southern corner compared to what you've said, the 30 acres. It's 248 units that they're showing. So that's at 8 units an acre. That's the high for the medium and I thought I heard you say that we were transferring some of this density and trying to spread it to the north. Kate Aanenson: Well again, we took some of that was on the west side also too. I don't think it's over that. Maybe we can recheck our calculations but it shouldn't be over that 8. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I was just curious if we'd gone back then and compared what we were thinking we were accomplishing to how this actually diagramed out. Okay. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Are we at that point? Hi. Do you want to give your name and address. 29 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Dennis Griswold: My name is Dennis Griswold... When we met with...and then Planning Commission we had a little different layout. I'm not sure if you have copies of those with you but this is actually a series of overlays if you will. Getting to this point we had several iterations to get to this site plan as it is and I'll just peel this back if ! may show you where we were at with Planning Commission. And then show you how we reacted to their comments to get to this point. Our overall plan at Planning Commission was again the four unit types. We have the club homes on the north part along the marsh. We have the manor homes and three unit and four unit buildings in the central area. We have the rental townhomes on the east central portion of the site. We had court homes through this area south of the new MnDOT road and then we had the village homes out on the comer of 5 and 41. I think the consensus or the direction that we received from Planning Commission and also parks was that all and all they were pretty happy or satisfied with what was going on north of the MnDOT road or the frontage road, with the trail system that we were providing. The green space through the townhomes. The trail along the marsh. They did recommend that this trail that would be along the marsh be moved up along the street through the east side of the property. And they recommended that we have a cul-de-sac up in the northeast comer here so that we would not be continuing on or creating a street continuation through some treed areas. So with that layout we were able to save the existing trees up by the Markert property, along the marsh. And we were able to create an overall green space system that worked well from one product to another. From that then we came south of the frontage road and their conclusion, as we perceived it at least, was that the, this is an all private drive scenario through the court homes and the village homes. And with this concept we had the private drive that somewhat looped through in this configuration and we had the village homes paired so that the patio areas of each of the village homes were out within a common green space on a paired basis. And their feeling was that that was a little too predictable. It was too repetitious and didn't really meet what they were looking for there. On that particular layout also we were providing a fence that would continue generally around the southwest corner of the property to tie from the existing tree mass here over to more landscaping at the midway point of the west side. The feature that we were proposing was to have a pond with a fountain at that comer along with screening and landscaping along the sides. As well as the pond over in this area by the commercial which would be our other access into the general property. So we would have two ponds in that scenario and this configuration. Upon their direction then to prepare for tonight we did this overlay which is what you have on your reduced plan and the general theme there is to meet a more organized public road system through to loop through in this area. And as you recall the previous layout was just the private drive. Not quite as well defined. This would be a very well defined circulation through that area. The other consideration was that we rearrange the village homes. Still the L shaped building but we configured those differently so that they backed up to tree masses. They backed up to larger open spaces that would also yield larger areas for berming along Highway 5 and along 41. So that was the main difference in configuration of that particular product. What that also yielded was a larger common green space within that area that was common not only to the village homes but also the court homes through here. So we were able to achieve that common recreation area that they were looking for. Within that area we show a totlot and then a large open space that could be used for any number of different activities. But those were the points that we did change to meet their desires and their comments. And we do appreciate the ability to come before you at concept level so that we can work on some of those types of site details. Some of the building aspects. At this level where it's easy to change to work with you. When it gets into too hard of a hard line mode, it's very costly to make even minor changes because there are a number of plans that go with it so I appreciate this level of review. If you have any questions, oh the other point just adding to that pedestrian aspect is we're providing the walkway that would loop through that southwesterly area that would tie with the pathways along the new MnDOT road. It's also the path that goes along 41 and 5 so there's really a series of paths that interconnect through this overall community. And we feel that that's one of the, especially with the older buyers that we do have on some of the product, essentially the club homes through here and some of the manor homes, that is a very important part of their recreational 3O City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 activity. So with that I'd like to introduce Mark Guenther, also with Pulte... quickly go through the different housing types that we are offering. And then if you have any questions or if you'd like to talk about site plan aspects now, whichever way you'd like to do it but...mind we would go through the product. Give you a better feel for the types of buyers we have and the demographics for each type of product that we're offering...and then answer any questions you might have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Griswold .... go ahead Mr. Guenther. Mark Guenther: Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity...consists of four products presented to you tonight and the first one is the village homes down in the southern part area and into this common area. Mayor Mancino: And do we have a picture of it in here? In the packet that we just received. Mark Guenther: You should have a package of, yeah a picture of all four products. If not, I do have these renderings. Mayor Mancino: So this is a village home. I just want to make sure that. Pull it out so I can. Mark Guenther: ...initially when the packet was submitted we just had the plans... Mayor Mancino: Okay, so this is a village home. Mark Guenther: This is the village home. The square footage of these homes are 900...price range of about $100,000 to $110,000. There are four floor plans within 12 homes. We have the floor plan on the end. There is the center home floor plan. On the comer there are two single level stacked homes. From here we market this, this product was marketed for the first time buyer. Typically young professionals wanting to get a start. They don't want to rent. They want to be able to earn equity and gain some equity in a home. It's an affordable home... These young professionals typically... The village homes is 156 homes. In that size community we see about 39 children. Half of those are school aged. Buyer profile... The next product is our court homes which is located in the orange on this section there. We have a rendering of as well. This product also markets to the same buyer... There are two elevations... The square footage of this is about 1,100 to 1,350 square feet. The price range is $112,00 to about $130,00. There are three floor plans in this product. We offer them in this community there are buildings that are four homes per building, six homes per building and eight homes per building. Once again this is marketed to the first time buyer. We also... The next product is the space to the northeast is the manor homes. The manor homes are marketed...association. All the snow removal and ground maintenance... This product here...ranging from about 1,200 to 1,600 square feet. The price between $145,000 to $160,000. The buyer profile on this... The last product is our single level club homes and that is located up here on the northern part along the marsh. This product is...the price range would be $145,000 to $220,000... so the topography of this site allows these, the reason why the square footage range is because... This is marketed towards active adults. Typically it's their last home .... average age is around 55. Very few children in here... In our single level townhomes we have two elevations that we offer there... There's one, that was the four products that we are offering. There's the fifth product is the rental townhomes which we are not building. That is up to the Mr. Deanovic and he would also, has stated that would copy the... Mayor Mancino: And which one? And on the rental townhomes, which one would they mirror? 31 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Mark Guenther: Well the exteriors would, the finishes would copy what... Mayor Mancino: And would it be a club home? A manor home or what would the exterior look like? Of the rental. Mark Guenther: ...speak to what the exterior will look like and the elevation. That's up to Mr. Deanovic. I'm just talking specifically to colors. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we haven't seen anything specific on the rental? Kate Aanenson: As far as design, no. I've looked at a couple of other of his pro,jects. In Eden Prairie to get an idea of the types. Similar to Pulte Homes. Looked at some of their other projects to get an idea. I just want to make one other comment while we're talking about the density, and Commissioner Jansen brought up a good point. As this thing evolves, we haven't measured setbacks. You know there's a question that came up on the, when this first came in we had all the same product. We're working really hard to get some diversity. We're concerned about the look from Highway 5. I think Pulte's been really responsive to try and be creative. Coming back. It's going to evolve a lot more. One of the concerns we had with the Planning Commission brought up with the village home, while it's a unique product, and it has a single car garage. Our ordinance, and you guys put some additional parking, they're going to have to lose some units. So while it seems high right now it's going to, it can't go up anymore. It will bounce down just to get the setbacks and everything that we need to, so it will come under. It's close to the 8 but it will come under because it has to meet the setbacks and get some of the other visitor parking and some of that. So,just to be clear on that. We're not saying this is going to be the final density because we haven't given that level yet. So that was a good question that you raised. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Aren't there locations where we can look at some of these products? Mark Guenther: Yes we do. Mayor Mancino: Or if you could give those to Kate and she could get them to us, that would be great. So that we could actually go and see the product that's out there. Okay. Any questions? Councilman Labatt: Your study group of people here. Is this from previously... Mark Guenther: ... Councilman Labatt: What is the closest one to Chanhassen? Mark Guenther: Shakopee. Councilman Labatt: The ones right along 1697 On the north side of 169. Mark Guenther: ...one off of Marshall. Club homes are down by... The demographics come from our buyers survey that purchase with us... information our buyers have given to us. Councilman Labatt: Have you done any comparison to the typical buyer in Chanhassen? According to what Chanhassen buyers? 32 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Mark Guenther: Product type, we have compared to those around... Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Engel: What did you say was the anticipated value of those court homes? Mark Guenther: The court homes... Mayor Mancino: And is Mr. Deanovic here? Kate Aanenson: He's in another meeting. Dennis Griswold: We apologize for that, but I would like to just make one comment relative to his product and also the property on the west side of 41. We would like to have our unit counts reflect only the land within this area that we're showing for development. We are not looking, Pulte Homes is not looking for any density transfer or any... With that, we would hope and we understand what Kate has indicated that our density...happen in other planned developments. We're really using this as a plan development for the units next and working with the amenities on the site. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Why don't we open this up for a few comments and then we'll bring it back to council for discussion on how we want to go about a decision tonight. Tabling it. Having some time or asking for more information. So anyone wishing to address the council on this may come forward. State your name and address. But if you've already spoken tonight, you can't come up a second time. Leah Hawke: ...Mayor, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight. My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail. I'm here tonight speaking, not necessarily on behalf of everyone sitting behind me but certainly several residents of the Longacres development. Anne Ryan, who's property is a little closer and who did receive notification of this development, unfortunately had to leave but she did want me to make special mention of her name and let you know that she left messages for everybody and would like to talk to you individually. And Mr. Engel, you may want to... As a neighborhood we'd first like to take this opportunity to thank Kate Aanenson and Pulte Homes for meeting with us to discuss Arboretum Village. The meeting was certainly very informative. We also have to admit that we've not been able to visit with many of our neighbors on this development. We've basically just gone down one street and I'm sure that we would like an opportunity to get more people notified of what's going on there we think there will be more interest in this. Just to be clear, we're not necessarily opposed to Highway 41 and 5 being residential. At least that's, the people I have spoken to. Some of these people in this room I haven't spoken to directly so they may get up and say differently. But we do believe the current plan raises many concerns that need to be addressed prior to approving tonight's Pulte's PUD. These concerns include, number one. Does the proposed development really reflect how Chanhassen wants to be viewed? As I'm sure members of this council are aware, the primarily factor for many of us in deciding to make Chanhassen our homes were the beautiful neighborhoods. The open spaces, the fields and the greenery. Selfishly we moved here hoping we could keep it the same forever. Realistically we know the city will have to grow and with that growth will come change. We understand this council faces a hard challenge every time it considers a new development. Trying to balance the preservation of Chanhassen's look and feel while promoting it's continued growth. However, we hope that you will take a careful look at this project, it's density, the number of low income and affordable housing units and it's location on a Chanhassen thoroughfare and question whether or not this project will indeed enhance our city and preserve what we all came here to 33 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 enjoy. My hope is you will review whether or not all options have been thoroughly explored and critically assessed whether or not this particular proposal aligns with our comprehensive plan and reflects how we want Chanhassen to be perceived in the years to come. Secondly, does the proposed development meet our goal of promoting public safety? We have two public safety concerns when it comes to this development. One of them has been mentioned here already tonight. This development, it will be close to the Gateway 2000 home. In choosing the type of'development for this land we urge this council to consider it's public safety responsibility. Do we or should we, as a city, have to take any precautionary public safety measures when locating residential areas or extending public walking trails close to this home? Do we have the appropriate public safety concerns addressed? We simply don't know, and I'm not sure anyone in this room has enough information to answer that question. We believe we should before we proceed any further. Second. We remain very concerned about traffic flow. Many already perceive Highway 5 as a difficult, if not outright dangerous drive. We understand the proposed ~videning of Highway 5 may help the situation. However, residents of Longacres still have Highway 41 to deal with, and that's a road that's become increasingly busy and congested. Many of us no longer take, let me get my bearings here, the right onto Longacres. We'll go right around and come through Galpin to get to our homes just because we're getting nervous about being rear ended on that entryway with traffic coming so quickly around that bend. Being conservative, if you assume 1 ½ cars for every housing unit contemplated by this proposal, we will be adding approximately 600 cars to our traffic system. Our hope is that the council will carefully consider the impact to our existing infrastructure of this additional traffic. Number three. Does the proposed development add additional challenges to our school district? Many of us are painfully aware that our school district is in desperate need of two new schools. The statistics are frightening. Our school district grows by one classroom a month. We need the District 112 referendum to pass. Realistically those of us working on that cause are unsure it will happen. Let me be clear, it is our opinion based on reviewing district projections that adding any new school aged child will only serve to exacerbate our problem. While we understand we are but one of many cities in District 112, we would respectfully request this council consider becoming a leader on this issue by saying the city will partner with the school district to ensure our growth decisions carefully consider the impact to our education system. Just as an aside, I understand a staff member informed a concerned resident that Longacres and it's children have contributed to the problem we're currently facing. On this point, I'd just like to say that we weren't here when Longacres was developed and it appears that when our, we had a chance when our development was going in to look at this particular issue and address it then. We're sorry it didn't happen but we as a neighborhood are saying that we should be looking at it with respect to any new development. Will the proposal impact property values? We're all very aware of the mandates from the Met Council for low income housing. Certainly we all respect the need to accommodate this type of housing. It's a very important issue that every city has to address. That being said, we are concerned that developing properties around ours that could be considered low income or affordable could ultimately reduce our property values. We also believe it could have significant long term impact on how our city is perceived. We understand part of our strategic plan is to bring more affordable housing into Chanhassen. However, I for one remain confused by exactly how much of this type housing we need. I also question why we've not planned ahead and identified those properties that might best be suited for this type of housing. We would respectfully request this council consider those of us already living here and the potential impact on our properties prior to making any decision on the Pulte Homes proposal. To conclude. In our opinion, how we will develop this property poses many issues and challenges that must be resolved prior to even approving Pulte's PUD. We would urge the council to avoid making any decision tonight that would bind the city. Instead we would respectfully request the whole project be sent back to the Planning Commission and city staff for additional review and analysis so we can ensure that whatever goes in on 41 and 5 meets the expectations of all residents. Thank you. 34 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Mayor Mancino: Anybody else wishing to speak in front of the council? Other concerns. Other issues that you have. Councilman Engel: Oh don't leave her out as the point person all the time. Councilwoman Jansen: You said it all Leah. Kurt Oddsen: My name is Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. I don't have as eloquent of a speech as Leah did but some of my points are the same issue and I guess it's important for a couple people to get up here and just at least express some concerns so that you know it's not just an individual or a small group that is saying we have a problem because of whatever, but it's a larger concern that I think a lot of us share. The points I'd like to make are some of the same ones. If you look at the traffic count, we have two entrances and exits coming out of the development. Leah made a point, I think did you say 1.8 cars per household. If you did an estimate on number of trips that are coming in and out of that development, I think you'd find that they would far exceed the number of cars that are per household. I'm sure the study has been done to look at this and there may be numbers and estimates and that sort of thing but I'll bring back to the point earlier tonight, we talked about the school speed limits. And the comment was made that when school was developed there was not a feeling for need some of those signs. Now we're sitting here how many years later and we're having that discussion. I don't want to have that happen with this development for traffic. I don't want to have to come back here 5 years from now and say here's the problem we have. Now what do we do? And have a state highway person tell me there's not enough traffic. There's not enough this. There's not enough that. So I'd like us to consider that before we make a decision to move ahead with the project. Personal note. I'm a little disappointed that we're looking at this project for that site. I think there are better uses for that piece of property that would fit in better with the community and be more aesthetically pleasing for that piece of property. That's a personal opinion. I know the studies have been done, the Highway 5 corridor. The frontage road. I'm still just concerned about where we're going with this. We keep saying we want to move all the retail downtown to Chanhassen so we don't want any retail out here. I understand that point but I'm not sure again this is the best use of the property. I was happy to hear about the density transfer not being an issue. I think that is, for lack ora better word, a bogus way of trying to put too many homes in one area by taking a piece of property and moving it outside and saying hey, aren't we good people. So I'd just... The taxes are a concern to me. We're looking at, what did they say, 5.19 units per acre. Somewhere in there. I would like to see an estimated revenue in terms of tax generation that this development is going to provide for the city. I know what I pay. It's public record. Anybody who goes to what I and my neighbors pay for taxes. And it's substantial. And we're going to be asked here pretty soon to increase that again and I would like to see what this is going to generate for the city because I think we have to take care of our city but I think everybody has to do their fair share. ! would also propose that maybe the developer take a look at how they can help the city, I don't know how these things work. These variances and these sort of things but is there a contribution that can be made to the school system for doing this type of a development? I'm not saying that being the reason to let them do it, but I'm saying we look at businesses in the city and we give them incremental tax financing. Can we do something in return to have them help our system, and the answer may be no. I see you shaking your head. Mayor Mancino: That's a legislative impact fees, but that is being talked about in the legislature so. Kurt Oddsen: ...showing some of my naYvet6 1 guess on some of these issues. That's why I felt a need to stand up here was to tell you that I'm concerned, and I don't know all the ramifications but I do know I have some concerns in my area. I think for the other points Leah made, I would agree with some of 35 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 those. I don't want to be redundant and keep us here all hours here tonight so I made a couple of my points and I appreciate you listening to me. Mayor Mancino: Good. Thank you for giving them to us. Anyone else? You don't have to sound eloquent. All you have to do is tell us what you think. Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail and I just want to point out, I remember reading a few years ago in the Villager before Walnut Grove was put in and a couple of the council members were quoted as saying, they had no problem with that development as long as we ended up not looking like Dell Road. And tonight we're calling the intersection of 5 and 41 as the gateway to Chanhassen, and if you start at that comer and go to Dell Road, we've got tract housing on every single comer just about. I don't think this is the image we want our city to portray. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Kristin Spangrud: My name is Kristin Spangrud and I'm at 7487 Bent Bow Trail. And I know since they have a stop, this is a proposed stop light at this intersection. With all of this increased housing, my concern is we are almost going to have to put a stop light at 41 for our development to get out onto 41. You can barely turn south and go south on 41. Many times you wait, I've waited probably 5 minutes sitting there and I just cannot imagine adding this many homes when all those additional people going north. I don't know that we could get even out of that development on 41 without a stop light there. So that's another big consideration I think. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We'll bring this back to council. A couple things that I'd just like to say. That I think most of the council members just so Mark and Dennis know, we got your part of the packet at our meeting tonight so really haven't had a chance to digest it visually and look through all the products, etc so I wanted you to know that. And just for other council members to know, it may take me a good week or two to come back with, it's just things that I'd like to digest. Maybe I'll give a few opinions tonight but I'd really like to have some time to digest what we were presented tonight, but I can speak to a few things that I'd like to get back from staff. A few questions that I have before our next meeting. I will do that after other council members have given their input. Councilmember Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: Wow. First of all thanks for all the great pictures and all the great information and everything that we did have to go through. This was quite the project .... commission because I could see that it was this huge project coming at us. So I've been really trying to address this and stay out of the detail. The more I've gotten into the detail and maybe looking at the individual homes, I think the farther I'm getting from what staff has tried to keep us focused on and that is the conceptual part of what are we trying to accomplish as Chanhassen on this comer. So I'm trying to put that hat on and that concept hat on and I've driven this area. Even though I drive it all the time, I drove it specifically with that in mind. And I guess some of the questions that really did come to mind were how we were presenting Chanhassen on this comer because the direction that we have in all of our major plans and primarily the Highway 5 corridor, is that this is our gateway. This is how people will get their first impressions of Chanhassen, and I have driven other communities entries or tried to figure out what their entries are, and it seems like we could make it a really significant impact on this corner. Visually. And that's as far as I'm going to go visually because I wouldn't even want to begin to try to say what we should do on this comer. But from a policy perspective and from trying to do what is in the best interest 36 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 of the community. I went back, I went back so far as to the '97 survey. What's important to our community members? Our residents. What are they saying to us? What are the characteristics they're looking for in a development like this? This is the first neighborhood that we're being asked as this council to pull together and give a look and a feel. And the characteristics that they gave were small town ambience. The rural nature of our community. The parks and the open spaces. Some of the serious issues that were raised in the course of that survey were our high taxes and we're forever hearing gee, our taxes are so high, and that would be okay if we were getting the right services and we saw the value in the community. So that's a catch all. Not necessarily lower them but let's just see some value coming for them. The traffic conditions. Constantly hearing about the traffic conditions. And quality schools. And the one housing issue besides affordable housing that has really been brought to our attention is our need for the senior housing. So those are the points that I then tried to bring back to this project, and the taxes stuck out in my mind, and I'll warn you. I've got realms of notes and I've tried to take it down to just nine points. Which seems like a lot but I'll try to be fast. So I started with the most important. The tax capacity on this piece of property. We have a very small percentage of our community that's actually planned for commercial or office or industrial. So I went back to a form that we were given, it was actually by Mr. Johnson with Lotus Realty so I would love to have staff work out a tax capacity for us on the 30 acres that could conceivably be office. Because when I worked that through, in comparison to what multi-family would bring into this city tax wise, office is 40% more in dollars. And I'm not necessarily hearing from the residents, you know we want more office or we need more commercial, but if we are hearing high taxes and we can maybe impact this corner a little less severely with an office complex, there's the catch-22 because now we're complicating the traffic formula. And that's where we get into those, you know hopefully the public debates. You know which way are we going? Here were the options. But I'm real hung up on the fact that we don't have a lot of properties where we will be designating them as office. This is right across the street from one of our significant complexes where we're hoping to have a headquarters office on the other side. And it just seems to compliment. So I did come at it wondering if we would be doing the right thing to walk away from office from a tax capacity standpoint. Wanting to see those numbers that are formulated by a rookie like me. The single family homes to the north just seems so much more compatible with the existing land uses that are there, and I'm going to you know, looking at the Lundgren letter where they're concerned about their future development being bordered up against the rental townhomes. It seems like we're putting a little bit of a conflict of land uses by intensifying the piece to the north. And when I then start looking at the densities and trying to do this calculation, I appreciate Kate noting that we still have to do all the setbacks and work through those numbers because I get different numbers. And so rather than trying to work through the north and the south, if I just, what I did Kate was I took the 86.9 in acres, and you have given us in our housing goals. In the housing goals agreement you reflected a density goal overall average of 3.3, and I realize that would be really low in comparison. Kate Aanenson: That's the minimum the Met Council will accept. Councilwoman Jansen: So minimum from Met Council would suggest on this entire 86.9 acres 210 units. Right? No, 286 units. So 286 compared to the 400 and plus, it's a huge difference and what I'm hearing Pulte Homes saying is that they're not as concerned about the density transfer. I'm not seeing density getting transferred even yet off of this front piece. If we stay residential, it seems there's an opportunity to make it less intense on that corner without intensifying it to the north. Leave it single family. If we do go for residential, I would say leave it single family. Let's look a little closer at that coiner. Mayor Mancino: And you realize leaving it from single family would be, could be 4 units per acre. It's 1 to 4 so it'd be higher than the 3.3. 37 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Councilwoman Jansen: And what I heard said was that the onus is on the builder to show the number of units that could actually be built on the property. So I would be curious. You know we're using minimums and maximums and it leaves a lot of room to work with. And it looks like we're at the maximum. We're closer to the maximum than we are even the goal that we have to reach of the 3.3. When we worked with Lundgren Bros, which was the other housing development that had the Bluff Creek standards applied to it. That was much lower than this, and we've preserved like 43% of the property for open space. And I'm going to pop the number off of my head because I have it here in all my paperwork. It was like 2.4 was the density that was left on that property after we preserved 43% of the property, so it's just seeming high. It's seeming, the density seems high for the natural features that we're trying to maintain. 12 acres of wetland. Whatever we do decide we need to do with that, with the other 12 acres on the other side, that's still not, it's like 14% of the total that we're trying to preserve. Yet we've got this 5.1 in density for the whole project. It just, it's out of whack. It just seems to be higher density than we need to be building to on this project. My fourth point were the whole housing goals, and I guess having been presented with the petition for the senior assisted living, hearing that we have a 30 person waiting list for our current senior housing, I look at this as an opportunity to maybe be addressing that other housing goal. The one tha~ the comrfiunity is actually ribbing us, or driving us to try to do something about. So I don't, though I see that this has units in it that are tailored to what could be that lifestyle, what we're seeing happening in other metropolitan cities is that they are building senior housing complexes and creating an environment for the seniors and I guess that's what I'm hearing. Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about rental units? Is that what you're saying? Councilwoman Jansen: And I don't know specifically if it's rental Kate. You know when we do the whole senior housing study, I guess I would again throw that back to staff and your expertise as to what that is. Senior assisted of course is what they petitioned for but that can mean. Kate Aanenson: That requires an institutional zoning and if it's the other, it's going to be rental. Just to be clear on that. That's generally what it is. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, and you did say this does have an institutional on part of it? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Could be. Could be, okay. My fifth concern was it just didn't seem to have enough green space or recreational space for the residents. It's like putting them out in this island and not giving them a park, though I see the totlots and the Planning Commission spoke to that concern. I went over to Walnut Grove, and of course they have the community park right across the street. That seems like more the type of facility I was thinking this one should have access to and I don't know, I have no concept as to what a totlot would look like in comparison to that city park. So without going into any more detail than that. Looking through the demographics of the people that we were saying might live in these kind of units. I fit those demographics at one point and so you know just thinking back to what was then important to me when I was in that group, the first thing that struck me was public transportation. When I was in that bracket I needed the bus. You know we're suggesting that we can go with a single car garage because there won't be two vehicles in a household. Well yep, I was in that demographics and I was that second individual who didn't have the car but I needed a bus route. And I'm not sure how well set up we are in that part of our community for someone to be able to access the transit system, and just to get that piece figured out as to where we're going with that. But then the other need that arose from needing the public transportation was having the convenience stores nearby because then once you did 38 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 manage to get yourself back to your home, it's your two feet in order to be able to go grocery shopping or any sort of necessity. So in driving around this area and I even clocked it. It's 3 miles from downtown, so a 3 mile walk if they're going to shop in downtown. It's 2 ½ miles if they go up to the crossings at 7 and 41, and it's about the same equivalent if they head down to Chaska with Rainbow and Jonathan Center so it just, when I did that it just seemed a little isolated for what we're trying to accomplish in having it be more ora set entity. And I know that we have that one piece with the 3.5 acres that we're saying could have some services on it. So I really want to focus on what those could or would be, and is it enough to really service what we're saying these lifestyles are going to need. And then lastly I put down the buffer. Looking at the residential sitting at that corner with two major highways and the amount of traffic noise, they look like they're sitting right on the right-of-way. And I do see that they do have the trees. Okay, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry Mayor. They're not in the right-of-way. The tree buffer is there but they don't appear to be as set back as I would anticipate and Kate you said that we haven't done setbacks yet. I'm assuming that maybe this doesn't, okay. Kate Aanenson: We're not to that level yet. Councilwoman Jansen: So there again it would reduce the amount ofbuildable space on the corner, and maybe also free it up for a better visual treatment as an entry point to the city. So just a few points. Mayor Mancino: Okay, food for thought. Thank you. Councilman Engel: I think I've got it boiled down to three. You know as a professional that takes pride in his work, it's hard for me to look another professional in the eye and comment on their work sometilnes. But that's, when I look at the plan I've got, and I know it's already different than the one I got in my packet. It's not the entry visual that I had envisioned for that corner of Chanhassen coming in from the west. It really does remind me of the barracks style homes I see in Eden Prairie as I come down Dell Road and there's a crack, I think we've had one for staff for a while, with the barracks. Some of those townhomes, they're very repetitive. You know I don't want to call the baby ugly but the baby needs a face lift if that's what it's going to be. On first blush it doesn't do it for me the way Walnut Grove does. If you looked at Walnut Grove, and I know we went through a lot of iterations on that thing. There was much more sensitivity to the transfer of the homes and the mirroring of the community that was to the north. In other words we had homes of like value, not exactly but slightly lower value as you move to the south. And although there's a much bigger buffer zone here to the north than there was with Walnut Grove, I still look at this overall parcel, 87 acres, and I see all the buildings on it. It just seems really intense. And I'm not really comfortable with that right now. I just didn't envision that for that parcel. If it's going to be all homes, I think it needs to make a little bit of a U turn toward the model we put in place at Walnut Grove. You need to have fewer homes, a little bit of transfer, moving to the south, but I think higher value homes on the north. Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about, excuse me. I just want to get clarification. As far as density or, because Walnut Grove is 6 units an acre so I'm. Councilman Engel: I'm talking about the big problem up front was when you cross the drainage ditch to the south, we put in homes that were very similar to the ones right across that ditch to the north. Right? Kate Aanenson: Okay. Because there wasn't a buffer, yeah. Councilman Engel: Right, there wasn't a buffer there. There wasn't that wratching down in value. 39 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Kate Aanenson: The wetland. Councilman Engel: As you went towards the highway. And that to be a better, it's a better marriage and I think it produces less parcels and less intensity on the development as a whole. But all that being said, I was only half joking when I say to Councilman Labatt that we want to see a corporate campus on the north, excuse me. The south comer of 41 and 5. And I really would like to see a mirroring, I think the highest and best use of that property is a mirroring of the zoning you currently see on the parcel just to it's south. And I'm very serious about seeing a soft or a technology type company come and turn that into a campus. Extremely high paying jobs. Very attractive businesses. Good for the community. I think that's the highest and best use. Can you go out and just grab one by the neck and drag them in here? No. Might be a field for a while. But that's what I envisioned. I think it's less impact on the city. It's less impact on the services and it's a better return on the tax dollar. But if it's going to be homes, it's got to look better than this. I'm going to stop there. Mayor Mancino: Okay. You may have to wait for a few years on that one. Councihnan Engel: You know sometimes I'm patient. Not much but sometimes. Mayor Mancino: Steve. Councilman Labatt: Okay, welt I can get out of here real quick by just saying ditto and ditto. Just so everybody knows who's in this room and I'm a resident of the Longacres neighborhood so if anyone from Pulte Brothers, I live in the neighborhood. Just so you guys know. Mayor Mancino: We have a lot of pressure on him. Councihnan Labatt: No I don't because one of the residents sent me an e-mail this seek and it talked about the fact that I was wavering, you know I said boy this is tough because I live in the neighborhood and some people are going to say it's in your back yard. That's why you're only opposed to it and this individual said no. Take a look at it as though you're elected by a ward and the area you live in happens to be your ward that encompasses this property. So I looked at that way and to that person, thanks. For opening my eye to that avenue. So with that said, what are we trying to accomplish here at this comer? Small town ambience. Rural nature. Open spaces and parks. What Linda said were important to people. I am not comfortable at all with the concept that's been proposed. I've said it once, this is a gateway on the west side of the city. The south side is going to be the corporate headquarters or that's the plan or the vision. It will be wonderful to see a mirror on the north side. Low density housing on the north side of the road, 1 to 4 units per acre. Single family. That'd be wonderful. I think Lundgren Bros made a point with their letter. About being the abutting property owner and they have concerns too. We need to look at that. Also, you know we need to take a look at the Gateway group home. So I lost my notes here. Traffic on 41. It is a nightmare to head out and turn south onto 41 from our development, and it's only going to get worse with western exit here of West 78th onto 41. I realize with office coming in there, if it were to come in there, it wouldn't create still another problem, yes. But maybe signalizing both intersections or working on widening, I don't know. I have a strong concern about the impact on the schools that this would entail. I just don't know if the demographics from Shakopee or Eden Prairie are the same with people who would buy in Chanhassen. I look at the concept of the color drawing here, there is a significant lack of open space and parkland. But there are other developments that come in there that have neighborhood basketball courts and tennis courts, I don't see any of that here for 414 units. And the last thing I want is a corridor of multi-family, high density housing along Highway 5 and that's what could be planned if this were to go through between 41 and Audubon. On both sides of 40 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Highway 5. Gosh, did I go through it that quick? Where are my other notes? The tax capacity that Linda brought up. I think we need as a city need to take a very serious look at that and what we can do to lower the taxes in our city. We as a council do, I think we do a fantastic job and are looking at the 2000 budget of...every penny and we're doing our duty at that point but we also need to look at how can we, what can we do to generate more higher paying, or higher tax paying businesses and commercial developments into this, to alleviate our tax burden. That was one of my campaign slogans. What I wanted to do and this gives us a strong time right now to take a serious look at doing that on the south side of the frontage road with putting in office there. So, I've said everything I'm going to say. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. I'll finish up here. The tax capacity was my number one too. I'd love to see staff come back and show us a comparison of the multi-family, you know the 4 to 8 units on that southern part versus office. What would also be office in that area. That was something that was also brought up at the Planning Commission and I've had other Planning Commissioners since that Planning Commission meeting call and say that they think their meeting and say that they're, they firmly want to look at office too so I know that that is a Planning Commission concern. I'm not going to repeat what everyone said. There are couple things that I'd also like staff to look at. One is, there is a neighborhood park that is in the Highway 5 corridor that's planned for this area as far as. Kate Aanenson: Yes, I'm aware of that. I talked to Todd Hoffman about that, as far as the demographics and that was prior to our acquiring the O'Shaughnessy piece on the south, the 100 acres. And Todd felt that based on that, that and the proximity of this area to be able to catch the trails and go up to the park that Councilwoman Jansen was talking about, that they had that park as their neighborhood park and so he would not propose at this time an additional park in this area. But you're right, he did appear and I did question that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the neighborhood park that's really here wouldn't go there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That was prior to the other two parks, yeah. Mayor Mancino: So have they taken formal action on that? Kate Aanenson: That was part of their recommendation, yes. When it went to Park Commission. They just wanted the totlots increased. Mayor Mancino: One of the things that is a concern of mine that wasn't brought up too much, but mine is the commercial, the 3.7 acres on the east side. Only because one of the things I'm concerned about is every time we stop by the stop light on Highway 5, we're going to have some little commercial node. We have it sure, on 41 and 7, which isn't very far from this, but we're going to have it on Galpin and Highway 5. And then we're going to have some commercial in the Arboretum Business Park, in that area. So I'm concerned about getting too many of these little service nodes or strip commercial on Highway 5 in that whole area, because that was one of the things that we didn't want to do. So I'd like to see, according to, from what I can tell from the Highway 5 study, that what we had designated as commercial, will really be some of the ponding for Highway 5, or West 78t~ Street. And that eastern node, the 3.7 acres would be office or institutional, and not commercial. So I would also like to look at that as the office or institutional. And again see some tax capacity rates on that. How that would go. As far as the life cycle housing, just conceptually, there is no question that we not only need to do senior housing but we need to do all different kinds of life cycle housing, whether it's affordable or not. And when we do, and I'm not sure because Mr. Deanovic wasn't here talking about the rental in this area, I would like, I mean we need a lot more detail about that. There's no question for me, if we do some low 41 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 income housing, that it's scattered throughout a project. That it's just not lined up one house after the other on one side of a project. That it is throughout a project and that the subsidy is in upping the quality of the home so that it looks like the rest of the neighborhood. And I think that the council has previously always taken that position. Again, it'd be scattered and not just in one area, and that the quality of the housing looks like the rest of the housing in that development. And since we haven't heard from Mr. Deanovic I can't really speak to that. I also feel, being on the Highway 5 corridor study that we were looking...I want to say it was kind of wow that reflected the values of a community. I have a hard time thinking that people will want to live in that southern part on 41 and 5. I mean traffic and the noise and everything is just going to be unbelievable. So I still don't yet, you still have to convince me how that would work on that comer with housing. As I see it, you know long term I get concerned about the housing there. I think everybody else really got to my other points on it and I certainly do want to see a comprehensive trail system through the area. No question about it and I put, the group home is not part of this development so that's a side issue, but there's no question there needs to be good pedestrian circulation, trails, etc in this development. The other thing that's missing for me I think the most is kind ora narrative character of the development, and I think Kate kind of talked about it in the report. I don't have a feel, a character feel for the different neighborhoods yet. You haven't, certainly I can't tell it visually here yet and I can't, I haven't read it verbally. So I'd like to have more of a feel and that's why I'm probably going to need to go to some of your other developments and look at them. But I don't have a character feel for what these neighborhoods are going to be like. And I know we're just at conceptual but I need to have more ora feeling at this point. I think that's it. Kate, on the northern half of 78t~ Street, which is single family. 1 to 4. Now in that 1 to 4 that is homes that are not only are single family homes but they can be attached housing also, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. There's three zoning options in there. Mayor Mancino: Can you go over the zoning options for what's zoned? Kate Aanenson: PUD. Smallest lot 11, averaging 15. That's what Longacres is. The other is twin homes which allows for 10,000 square foot lots. And the other is a traditional subdivision which is a 15,000 square foot lot. Those are the three zoning options. Mayor Mancino: And so the twin homes are much like the club homes? Is it the court homes? Are those twin homes? Kate Aanenson: ...right here. Actually if you go to a 10,000 lot you could probably put... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That's what's permitted within that zoning district. Mayor Mancino: Anita, do you want to add anything on traffic? Any of your concerns about 41 and 5 and things that we should be looking at? Do you feel comfortable with the frontage road and Highway 5 and 41 and what's going in. From an engineering. Anita Benson: From an engineering viewpoint and from a personal viewpoint, obviously transportation funding has been a big issue in getting state highway improvement project in this region. The Highway 5 project is one that's been worked on for years and now we see it getting delayed a little bit. Hopefully still to be constructed in 2000 and 2001. A big advantage of the Highway 5 project is the north frontage road. It will provide the access for residents located within the city to not have to drive on Highway 5 to 42 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 get to downtown. That was part of the overall plan. Is to allow for a lower speed, local access street to take the traffic to the downtown. So that's a big positive with the frontage road and also with Highway 5 being upgraded to a four lane divided facility. However there still is work to be done on 41. We do see that Chaska is working with MnDOT to initiate some improvements for shoulder widening and some turn lanes on Highway 41 south of Highway 5. I'm not aware of any improvement other than those proposed with the Highway 5 project north of 41. On 41 between Highway 7 and Highway 5. With the Highway 5 project there will be some turn lanes added at the connection with West 78th Street with 41. Mayor Mancino: Well maybe we should review that too. That would probably be a good idea to show the turn lanes that will be added to the Highway 5 project on 41. Anita Benson: Okay. I can certainly bring that back to you and probably with this council maybe an overall overview of the Highway 5 project at some point in the near future when we get a feel for where that's progressing and what the delay does to the construction schedule. Will we continue to work with MnDOT to have the transportation improvements occur within the city? Certainly, and Highway 41 north of TH 5 is an important project along with many others in the city. Mayor Mancino: As it refers to the school district, I'm assuming. I mean Kate you've been working with the school districts and giving them our projections and everything. I know you did for the comprehensive plan and I have the Lukerman Report that was told included Chanhassen in the projections. Is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Mancino: That we've been giving the school district 112 the numbers and what our projections are and you've been going, I mean you take that information from the, just a second. Take that information from the zoning map that we approved for the comprehensive plan and have given them those numbers. Kate Aanenson: Yes. And just, we didn't include it in the report but as far as numbers generated by different housing types as the applicant indicated, different ratios based on housing types and achieve a document that based on her projections based on vacant properties. Mayor Mancino: So tell me, when you give the school district numbers, so do you take the southern part, which could be institutional office or multi family. Do you give them the multi-family numbers? You give them office. You give them both? Kate Aanenson: ...in the comp plan you have to give a two way swing. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they've got all those numbers to look at. Now obviously they're still going to need to build new schools and they're still going to need to pass referendums. That's not going to stop. It's not going to stop with this referendum. It's going to continue going. There's no question. With Chanhassen and Victoria and Chaska growing that that will continue, continue, continue. So that we know that. But I know that we have been working with the school district on those numbers. And we're losing 57 or you put in your report where the church is going to go, and excuse me. I'm starting to lose my voice. Where Westwood is going to go, it's not going to be single family so those are 57 homes, single family homes coming. Kate Aanenson: Acres, so it was over that. It was over 100 and some units. 120, yes. 43 City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999 Mayor Mancino: About 120, so we'll lose that in the mix. Okay. And who knows, if the referendum passes and we have another school in Chanhassen, that might have been zoned single family and that won't be single family anymore so less children. Okay, so that's going to be. Tell us where that's going to be. Councilman Labatt: ...but we'd rather have the school. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but they don't have it yet. You know I think there are a few things more that we would like to see. I mean I think that the, to give Pulte a real firm direction. I mean you've heard us say we'd like to see the tax capacity rates on that comer so we can be real firm with you about multi-family versus office and where we want to go with that. So if we can come back in a couple weeks with that information and maybe some information from Anita on traffic and talk a little bit about Highway 5 and what's going to be, the upgrade there. A little bit about the frontage and about 41. And then as I said, I think that the, at that point we'll also talk more about density because I think what we do in that southern part has a lot to do with the overall density here. I'd just like to say, because I don't think anybody else brought it up, that, sorry for losing my voice but on that western piece and the trees there and being in the primary zone, wow. I sure would like to be able to keep that open space and those trees are just absolutely wonderful old growth trees. So if we could in between now and then, see some numbers about really what the density transfer would be, and what it means, that would be very helpful to have pretty good numbers. So that we understand that a little better. Anything else that I forgot? Councilman Engel: Said my piece. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So may I have a motion to table until our next meeting and come back with some more added information and some time to kind of think through the presentation from tonight? Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table. Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the Conceptual PUD request for a mixed housing development on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial uses located on the northeast corner of Highways $ and 41. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: Thank you all for coming and for adding to the, your comments for us to hear tonight. Appreciate it. We'll see you in a couple weeks. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the individual sewer treatment system, Mandan Circle. Councilman Engel: Wait a minute, we didn't do council presentations. Mayor Mancino: We don't have any council presentations. Councilman Engel: I have one council presentation. One. 44 CITY OF P.C. DATE: 9-1-99 C.C. DATE: 9-27-99 CASE: 99-2 PUD BY: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Conceptual PUD for mixed housing development (414 units) consisting of manor hom~,s, court homes, village.homes and townhomes on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial u~s on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located on the northeast comer of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41, Arboretum Village, Pulte Homes. Northeast comer of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41 Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corp. 1355 Mendota Heights Rd., Suite 300 Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1112 (651)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: ACREAGE: A2, Agricultural Estate 114.21 Acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R, Meadows at Longacres S - PUD-I, Arboretum Business Park E - A2, Agricultural Estates W - A2, Agricultural Estates WATER AND SEWER: Water will be available with frontage road construction. Sewer will have to be petitioned for after year 2000. PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Rolling topography, large wetland on northern e~lge, two large stands of trees. 2000 LAND USE: Low Density (north of frontage road) Medium Density, Commercial, Institutional, Office (south of frontage road) Arboretu Future Street 4 Autumn Ridge CI 6 Autumn Ridge Way~ Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Pulte Homes is requesting to rezone 114.21 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Highways 5 and 41. There are two underlying property owners, Mills Fleet Farm and the Savaryn Estate. The Mills site is 58.86 acres and the Savaryn property, which includes two parcels, has a total of 55.35 acres. A portion of the Savaryn property is located on the west side of Highway 41. This application omits this property but staff has included it because it is part of the tax parcel in discussion and it is integral to the PUD. The majority of the site has been farmed. There is a large wetland to the north and eastern edge of the site. Staff estimates the wetland to be approximately 12 acres. The three smaller wetlands that are found on the southeast comer of the site have been determined to be exempt because of past farming practices. 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 occupied, although there is inadequate utilities to the site (failing/failed septic and well). The site is bordered by two state highways. On the northwest portion of the site (Parcel A) is the Markert property (5.8) acres. The parcel has a home and is proposed to remain as a large lot. Future subdivision is possible. To the east is Outlot K of the Meadows of Longacres, the old Dolejsi property. Located in the middle of Outlot K is the American Baptist Group home that sits on ten acres. 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 through site plan review in the near future. The site is currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate. 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, institutional or medium density residential. This area is outside the current MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) and is not proposed to be brought in until the year 2000. 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 (2.5 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 would also require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Pulte Home request is for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development to accommodate a mixed use of 414 residential units and 3.7 acres of commercial zoning. There are 5 types of residences being proposed - 51 Club Homes, 83 Manor Homes, 104 Court homes, 144 Villages Homes and 32 Townhouses (rental townhouses). Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 3 BACKGROUND The development of this site is being influenced by several important policies. These policies include the Highway 5 Corridor 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 preferred 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. This request proposes lowering the medium density on the south side of the frontage road and raising the density north of the frontage road. The overall density would not exceed what is proposed in the comprehensive plan. This proposal is similar to what was done with the Walnut Grove Development. 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 area on the site as well as provide perimeter landscaping. Details on the building material are not available at this time. Bluff Creek Overlay District The Bluff Creek Corridor Study is a vision and planning document that has the following goals: a. Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Resources b. Acquire land to create a continuous green along the creek from the Minnesota river to Lake Minnewashta Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 4 c. Create development standards that manage upstream such as mixed or cluster development easements and alternative zoning d. Develop educational watershed awareness program e. 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 to TH 41 out of the primary zone. The Bluff Creek Plan makes a couple of recommendations for this area including restoring the shallow marsh, and restoring the bird 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. 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 north. The cross intersection currently exists between Powers and Lake Ann 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. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 5 Livable Communities Act The city signed on the 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 will 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 to an linkage between housing and employment. This plan proposes predominately owner occupied housing. There are 32 rental townhouses proposed which would meet the affordability standards for rental housing*. The applicant is proposing to finance the rental units using Minnesota Tax Credits. The owner occupied units will be 4 different types of products. The price range on these units range from $100,000 on the Village home to $220,000 on the Club Home. Any home sale under $128,000'* 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. * 1999 Units renting for no more than 30 percent of household income for families with 50 percent or less of median income ($30,400max.) = units renting for $760 or less. ** 1999 Ownership housing costing no more than 30 percent of household income for families with less than 80 percent of metro area income ($48,640 max.) = $128,000 or less. 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. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 6 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 ~his property has now been sold to Westwood Church. Therefore, with the density transfer there will be no additional homes on the west side of TH 41. ANALYSIS Pulte Homes is requesting conceptual PUD approval for the subject site so they may begin the process of developing their project. They have a two year staging plan proposed. The conceptual PUD process requires following information: · Overall gross and net density. · General location of each major street and pedestrian ways. · Identification of each lot size and width. · Identification and extent of public and common open space. · Identification and type of land uses and intensities of development. · Staging and time schedule for development. The conceptual approval of the PUD gives the applicant no legal standing when it appears again for preliminary approval. Rather it is intended to give the applicant clear direction for the next level of review. Following is the staff review of the development. The project does not include all of the underlying property, most notably the easterly portion of the Savaryn development. Because this area in the primary zone of the Bluff Creek, 'staff is recommending that it be included in this proposal. The density is consistent with what would be permitted if the area was guided for medium density and be developed at 8 units an acre and the area guided for Iow density at 2 units an acre. (Staff estimates that this would yield approximately 425 units). The plan has 5 different types of units including 51 Club homes (one level town homes for active adults, 1220-2009 sq. ft., $145,000-$220,000), 83 Manor homes (split level town homes with basement, 1200-1,600 sq. ft., $145,000-$165,000) 104 Court homes (two story town homes 1,100-1,300 sq. ft., $112,000-$130,000) 144 Village Homes (two story town homes with tuck under garage, 900 - 1,150 sq. ft., $100,000-$110,000) and 32 Rental units. Staff supports the diversity within the types of units. The Village Home is a new product that has not been built in the city. Information regarding the material is not well defined. Staff is recommending that each housing area become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. The site gains access off the frontage road and will have one internal road. Staff is recommending that this street be extended to the north. Staff is recommending that this street be Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 7 eliminated. The Village Court homes area has poor circulation. Staff is recommending that a road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order. The amount of grading is not shown on the plan. Staff would like to see the amount of grading kept to a minimum. Trails connect the entire project. There is a remnant piece of property north of the wetland (2.5 acres). This property could be sold to the adjoining property owner or be left as open space. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Existing tree cover is located in the south central part of the property along Highway 5 and also around the current home site. Tree lined fence rows extend northwards from these two areas. The jewel of the property exists on the west side of Highway 41. This is a 100% wooded triangular piece forested primarily with large sugar maples. Oaks and lindens are interspersed and all are mature trees. It is an outstanding remnant of the maple-basswood forest that once covered the city and deserves every effort by the city for complete preservation. It is also located within the primary zone of Bluff Creek and was noted as a prime candidate for preservation due to its superb health. Current canopy coverage has not been calculated, however conceptual plans show the fence rows and trees near the existing home as being removed. To their credit, the developers are proposing to preserve the larger wooded area near Highway 5 and the tract across Highway 41. This would benefit the area greatly by providing a natural area within an intensely developed one and some buffering and scenic views from Highways 5 and 41. Staff strongly recommends that the applicant be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans are submitted. Landscaping priorities for Arboretum Village will be boulevard trees along all streets and buffer yard plantings along Highway 5, Highway 41 and the north frontage road that will run through the development. Additionally, common area plantings and individual unit landscaping will be required to use varied and interesting plant materials. In the Village Homes common areas behind the units, increasing the number of tree plantings would create a more attractive and private area. In a sense, 'rooms' could be created that would provide the residents with a sense of place and unique interest. According to the conceptual plan, the applicant appears to comply with all of the general issues in the proposed landscaping. Specific changes and alterations will be addressed at the time of preliminary plan submittal. Wetlands There are two wetlands on this site. Both are connected hydrologically but have different characteristics. To the north is an Ag/Urban wetland which is part of a 40-acre wetland which extends from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard on the east. There is a smaller wetland of approximately 7 acres in size which is a DNR protected wetland (No. 10-209W). This wetland Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 8 feeds into the larger Ag/Urban wetland and is part of the wetland complex which is the headwaters for the Bluff Creek. The Ag/Urban wetland to the north is in very poor condition. Past agricultural activities have taken row crops to the edge of the Wetland. This wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and there is not a diversity of species remaining on the south side. There are some trees on the north side but nothing of high quality or native in nature. The wetland directly east of the property is listed in some City documents as Ag/Urban and in others as natural. After visiting the site and looking at the topography and vegetation, staff would have to say that it is leaning toward an Ag/urban wetland because of recent (within the last 20 years) agricultural practices. Very few of the remaining buffers of trees and native plants remain around the rim of the wetland. It has been row-cropped very close to the wetland edges and is dominated by reed canary grass which is choking out cattails along the edges. We saw some stinging nettle at that site. The trees that are there are box elders, willows and willow shrubs. We did find on the north side of the wetland some Arrowhead, sedges, cattails, duckweeds, ferns, willows and tall willows. Along this proposed development, the wetland is in a state of great influence through agricultural activities. Staff would tend to classify this wetland as Ag/urban at this time. As mentioned previously, these wetlands are connected and were part of the Bluff Creek study for a possible wetland restoration site. Two years ago when we were looking at sites for a Board of Water and Soil Resources grant to fund some restoration projects, we had looked at this site as a restoration possibility. However, there was opposition from the Lundgren neighborhood to the north and these plans were put on hold. Another factor in holding the project is that we had no easements over the south end of this particular wetland. Now that this project is becoming before the City, staff should reevaluate the possibility of doing the wetland restoration project and try to make a full-scale restoration project in addition to this project. Another aspect of the proposed project was to put a control structure in along the berm to act as a current or overflow barrier which controls the water level in these wetlands. The normal water level now is 959.7 and high water level is 960.3. With this project we would put in a control structure with the ability to manipulate water levels. We would increase the normal water level 0.3 feet to 960 and the high water level would be 960.8. These are very subtle changes but this would provide an environment in which the reed canary grass could no longer survive. If we raise the water level we would drown out a large majority of the reed canary grass and once it had died out we could again lower the water level to allow native wet meadow prairie plants to reestablish themselves and create a more diverse plant community and also encourage wildlife through this area as recommended by the Bluff Creek Management Plan. Wetland Setbacks The setbacks as indicated on the plan appear to be too close to the wetlands. While Ag/Urban wetlands require a 10-foot buffer in addition to a 40-foot setback, I believe this area should be on Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 9 the south edge of the proposed bituminous path. That way you don't have a bituminous path in the buffer zone which would defeat the purpose of having a buffer zone. There are no established DNR setbacks for protected wetlands; however, the City has different wetland setback requirements for Ag/Urban than natural wetlands. With natural wetlands there is a 20- foot buffer in addition to the 40-foot setback so we are looking for a 60-foot setback along the wetlands to the east. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area before a setback can be established. 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 Aug 19, 1999 from Steve Torell). Park and Trails The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the Conceptual PUD for Arboretum Village on August 24, 1999. Mr. Mark Guenther represented Pulte Homes at the meeting. Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director, presented the staff report. Commissioner comments focused on the preservation of the wooded lots, provision of expanded "tot lot" or play areas and the importance of the trail connections. Please note that the inclusion of trail/sidewalk connectors from the Village Homes west to Highway 41 and south to Highway 5 were discussed. The applicant agreed that these pedestrian routes are important and will add them to the plan. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, Commissioner Karlovich moved that the following conditions of approval be met. 1. Preservation of the wood lots on the property. 2. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction. 4. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. o The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2 ½ acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 10 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 proposed to be impacted by development. A wetland alteration permit will be required. Most 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 future upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 which is tentatively scheduled for 2000-2002. MnDOT has proposed to upgrade TH 5 to a four lane highway as well as construct the east/west frontage road (West 78th Street) from TH 41 to Lake Ann Park. Depending on MnDOT's phasing, staff is anticipating construction will commence approximately May, 2000 with the frontage road being constructed initially. The preliminary phasing plan includes redirecting traffic from Hwy. 5 onto the new West 78th Street frontage road late fall 2000. With all the proposed construction activity and rerouting of traffic, access to the site will be very difficult. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT in coordinating street grades and storm ponding issues throughout the site. Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans will be required with the preliminary plat submittal. Berming in accordance with city codes need to be provided along West 78th Street, Century Boulevard, TH 41 and TH 5. In conjunction with the Hwy. 5 upgrade, no noise abatement is proposed. Therefore, it is very important for the applicant to incorporate berming or other noise abatement features to this project. MnDOT should also review the grading plans to ensure compatibility. Both permanent and temporary easements will be 'required by MnDOT with construction of TH 5 This will result in a loss of developable land. 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. UTILITIES Currently, there is no municipal sewer or water service available to the site. In conjunction with the upgrade of TH 5, MnDOT and the City are coordinating to extend water service along West 78th Street from Galpin Boulevard. The timing of MnDOT's project is not controlled by the City. Staff's conservative estimate is that the earliest water would be available is late fall or winter of 2000. Sanitary sewer is located east of Galpin Boulevard just north of TH 5. Sanitary sewer will be extended across Galpin Boulevard with the TH 5 project. Currently there are no plans on extending this sewer line to service this site. The City has received a petition from a property west of TH 41. The applicant also needs to submit a petition to the City for extension of the sanitary sewer as soon as possible in order to consider a project in the year 2000. If the sewer project was ordered by the City Council, it would not be available for connection until late fall of Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 11 2000 at the earliest. Any delay in submitting a petition for sanitary sewer improvements will result in a corresponding delay in project completion. 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 Detailed Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at each phase of development at the time of final plat. A Comprehensive Utility Plan will be required at the time of preliminary plat submittal for review and approval. 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. Appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat for those 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 at time of preliminary plat submittal for review and approval. The applicant should work closely with MnDOT to consolidate/minimize piping and ponding systems. Storm water ponds shall be designed and constructed with NURP standards. Pre and post storm water calculations including drainage area maps for a 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events, need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval in conjunction with the preliminary plat submittal. 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 comer of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street will be constructed and owned by MnDOT in conjunction with TH 5 upgrade. This pond may be able to accommodate runoff from a portion of the site. The plans propose retaining walls as well as a fountain system in the storm water ponds. These amenities may not be permitted by MnDOT. The applicant should contact MnDOT accordingly. Another storm water pond is proposed in the northeast comer of TH 41 and 5. Given the close proximity to the intersection, staff believes the noise from the highways will be a major issue. Staff believes that a combination of intense landscaping and berming and reduced pond size would be a greater benefit for noise abatement then an amenity such as a pond. Staff recommends the applicant look very closely at revising this area to provide additional noise abatement features. Additional storm water ponding may be required in the northerly portion of the site which will result in the loss of units. Storm water ponding should also include drainage from Parcel A which is located in the northwesterly portion of the site if feasible. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 12 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 recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the streets created hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. STREETS Conceptually 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. MnDOT has tentatively planned to begin the TH 5 project in early 2000 with completion in the year 2002. The preliminary phasing plan for TH 5 is to construct West 78th Street from TH 41 to at least Galpin Blvd. and use it for a detour route while TH 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. The plans propose a driveway access to serve 4 units north of West 78th Street and east of Century Boulevard. Staffbelieves this access point should be eliminated and relocated to the proposed interior street system. This will result in shifting a number of units to facilitate the driveway. Access to the commercial parcel located in the southeast comer of Century Boulevard and West 78th Street is also a concern. There is additional land just to the east of the commercial site that 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 if at all on Century Boulevard and a full access towards the easterly side of the commercial parcel. This full access will eventually have t° be shared with the future development of the parcel to the east. Cross-access/maintenance agreements should be recorded against the parcel to provide future access needs for the adjacent parcel. Staff is also concerned with a number of areas where driveways will be too close to intersections or intense traffic circulation. In these areas staffbelieves that the units should be redesigned with driveway access points relocated to the interior lower volume street system. Staff does not believe that units will be lost as a result of this. However, reconfiguration of or different units styles may be required to achieve this. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 13 Staff assumes that the wider street systems proposed would be the public streets and the other streets would be considered private. Staff believes that the southerly portion of the project needs to be served by a public loop street similar to the area north of West 78th Street. This may result in loss of units due to additional right-of-way dedication of a public street. Public streets will required a 60' wide dedicated right-of-way and an 80' wide dedicated right-of-way for West 78th Street. 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 section 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. 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 7-ton per axle weight design 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. A private street system will need to be located within a strip of property at least 40' wide. This should be adequate width to also dedicate the required drainage and utility easements over the proposed utilities to service the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be required prior to final plat consideration. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 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." In conjunction with TH 5 project, a trail system will be constructed along TH 5 between Hwy. 41 and Century Boulevard as well as along the south side of West 78th Street. The applicant has incorporated these trail systems into their conceptual plans. A number of additional trails have been proposed by the applicant. Staff believes a number of these trail systems should be revised or eliminated. A sidewalk/trail system should be incorporated into the street system which will connect to the trail system on Hwy. 5 and West 78th Street. The trail proposed along the wetland on the easterly portion of the site should be eliminated and replaced with a sidewalk/trail system along the north-south street. Staff has reviewed the street extensions to the adjacent parcels in conjunction with this development. Staff believes that the north-south street will not need to be extended in the future Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 14 to the east. This will allow for the street to be shortened and a cul-de-sac to be constructed which will minimize grading, tree loss and impact to adjacent wetlands. The other parcel, Parcel A, shown on the plans is proposed to be served by a public street which will terminate at the property line. The alignment of the street appears to allow Parcel A to develop in a fashion conducive to the site features. EROSION CONTROL Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the preliminary and final grading and development plans and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff also recommends that the 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. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 1, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and recommended that the City Council review this concept plan with the conditions outlined in the staff report. There was discussion on other land use alternatives including commercial and office industrial. Much of the discussion of the project centered around the density and the design. The commission felt the project was a bit to predictable. The commission proposed some additional recommendations that are shown in bold. Based on the discussion at the commission meeting in which traffic was a concern, staff has provided a traffic analysis with the different land uses. This area is topographically separated from the property to the north because of the large wetland to the north. The only connection this property will have is to the east, west and south of Hwy. 5. There is low density zoning guided on the property to the east and west of this site. If there is office industrial zoning on the this comer it would create more traffic than the medium density zoning would. Other issues that should be addressed with the office/industrial use are grading and visual impact. There is no other office/industrial or commercial on the north side of HWY. 5. A neighborhood meeting with the residents of Longacres was held on September 15 to discuss the surrounding land uses and the proposed Arboretum Village. The neighbors were concerned with the density of the project and the proximity of the group home. Lundgren Brothers, who have an option on Outlot K (property east of the site surrounds the group home), has submitted a letter expressing their concerns with the project. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 15 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the Conceptual Planned Unit Development #99-2 for Arboretum Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. o The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. o 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 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. 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. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-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 the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater 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 or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 16 o 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. 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. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 10. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 11. 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 for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. The applicant shall incorporate berming into the plans adjacent to West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5 per city code. Additional buffering/screening should also be considered along TH 5 and TH 41 for noise abatement. 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 Corridor Study. 13. 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. 14. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. 15. The applicant/property owner shall petition the City for sanitary sewer service. 16. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. 17. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Blvd. and a full shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 17 The exact location of the access points are subject to City and MnDOT review at time of site plan review. Cross access agreement will be required at time of final platting 18. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Blvd., TH 41 and TH 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5 project. 19. Provide a public street and sidewalk/trail system south of West 78th Street which will loop back out to West 78th Street. Sidewalk/trails shall also be provided along the public streets north of West 78th Street. Eliminate the trails along the wetland in the easterly portion of the site. Provide trail connections to TH 5 trail and future trail connection to TH 41 between West 78th Street and TH 5. 20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted 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. 21. Future extension of the north/south street is not needed. Shorten street to minimize impacts to wetlands and trees provide cul-de-sac. 22. Each housing area become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics. 23. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. Neighborhood uses are those goods necessary to meet daily needs. 24. A road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order. 25. The applicant shall be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans are submitted. 26. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area before a setback can be established. 27. Preservation of the wood lots on the property. 28. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. 29. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction. Arboretum Village September 1, 1999 Page 18 30. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. 31. The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2-1/2 acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. 32. The Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. 33. The Planning Commission is looking for a creative approach to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. 34. The Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. 35. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. 36. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site." · ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Public 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. Highway 5 Corridor Study 6. Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan 7. Livable Communities Act 8. Highway 5 Overlay District 9. Bluff Creek Overlay District 10. Letter from Lundgren Brothers dated September 21, 1999 11. Planning Commission minutes dated September 1, 1999 g:\plan\ka\pultepud.con.doc JUL. 29, 1999a' 9'59AM~ TOM GREEN/LOUISE NO. 9355 P. 3/5/04 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANR'ASSEN, MN 55317 ($12) 957-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPMCANT:_ !ADDRESS: Pulte Homes of Mfnnesota Corp, 1355 Mendota Heights Rd., Suite Mendota HEights, MN 55120-~,112 (6B1) 452-5200 'TEL~PHON-: (Day time) . x Compi'ehenslve Plan Amendment · Temporary Sales Permit 1 ~ Cofldilional Usa Permit : __.-.-- Interim Use Permit __ . Nan-confom'ting Use Permit ~ PZarmed Unit Development' ~X Razoning ..... Sign Permits .-.--- Sign Plan Review .,, ..X $~te Plan Review' J _._ vaca~on of ROWlEas__.ments Varlanca , X Subdivision' Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinanc~ Amendment X,. Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cos[" ($50 CUPISPRNACNAR/WAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ~-~(2. ':~ A list o! all property owners within 500 feat of the boundaries of the property must be included with the applic.,3tion. Ruilding malaria[ samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size t'old~d copies of the plans must be submitted, including an SW' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. will be required for other applications through the development contract ° NOTE - When muh, i~ie r=ppli=ations are proce_~sed, the appmptir~te lee st~all be charged f~r each ~.~Ii=~t on. FROJ='CT NA~.'IH Arboretum Vi 11 age LOCATION NE Quadranl; Highway 5 & C.S.A.H. 43. LSGAL D=-SCF, IPTICN See attached PRESENT ZONING Agricultural Estate District ZONING Planned UI~. Develnpmmnl: FRo_SENT LAND tJS~ DSSlGNATION Low & Medium Denisty.__Residential, Neiqhborhood Retail REr3UESTED LAND USE DE=,IGNATION Low & MFdi,m [3~th~i~-y ~,'~4,~r~tie~. Neighborhood Re:ail' FOR THIS RE';UE$T PUD to int~grnt~ th~ prapn~e~ l.p~ t!lai w!~h ~c proposed MNDot i.mprov.ement and exis,~ing natural fm~t,ire.~ including trees & marsh This ~pplic~3n m~s-[ :3e completecl in ~ull anci be typewrites or clearty printe~ a~cl must De ar'"__..ompanied by ail ir'don'nation ;~nd glans require¢ Dy applicsJ=[e C~-y Ordinance provisions. Before filing this ~pplic~ti,',n, you shoulcL c;=rder witM the Ptznning D~psr, mEn~ ~m c~e!ermina the speo~ic ordinance an~ procedural requirements appliczble to .your sppli:stion. This is ~o certF, y that I am making application for the desc,'ibed ecl, ion by-the C~ and that I am responsible 1o~' cort'iplying with all City requirements w~th regar::l to this request. This applir.,~tion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City sMculcl :ontact r~garding any matter pemaining to this a.p. plic~tion. I ~ve ~"t~sched a cody of proof O! ownership (eitl~er c-Dy o! Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title. Abstra: ol Title or purchase agreement)., or. I mm the 3utl~odze¢ person to mak, this ,',pplir..,3tion and th, f~e owner has also signed this appiic~timn. will keep myselt intmrmed of the deadlines for submission of matedsl and the progress of this a~aplication. I further understsnc~ that ac~,.qi~ional tees may be charged lot m3nsuiting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with ~[n estimate prior tm any ~,uthodzation to proc.~ac[ with the siudy. Th~ do=umems and in'los'nation I have subm~ad are true a~d con-eot to the best of my knowledge. I also un,ara, and that s~er the approval or graming of the ~rmit, such po. traits shall be_ invalid unless tipsy are recorded against the t~le to the property for which the approval/perrni~ is grant_-d within 120 days with the Carver Coura? Re:o~er's Office..~n3-~he originst ~=:ument retume'd to City Hall Re=fda. Sign~u~r~_ ol Ac~iic~.n~ A..p.,-plication Re~,eive~ on Fee Paid Re=,oil3t No. · Thg applicant shculc~ contam maff for a copy of the m~-tl repari wt'llch will be avallal~le on FrlCay pdnr to th~ . ',: ' ';' ~" ~-,~ii~3.'.,' ~' .'-._,?~_:'..".~. .".'- ~C''.E~'.-.S "- 2;5 ,7,~ ;SZ-7..q W:.i'. ...... "~ '"' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANH'ASSEN, MN 5.5317 (612} 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APP~CANT: ADDR-:SS: T=~___~,mH©NE (Day time) Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corp. OWNER: ~r~. 1355 Mendota Heights Rd., Suite 300ADDRE~qS: Mendota HEights, MN 55120-1112 (651) 452-5200 TELEPHONE: X . Ccm=rehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' __ Rezoning __ Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Site Plan Review' X Subdivision' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost." ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/W AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTALr.-:E $ c;) ~O, ~ ,-% Iisi of all prope.~y owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the applic.stion. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/F' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract - ,,,u,,...,_ appii=ations are processed, the appropriate fee shall be :barge~.f=r eaon a.opti=ation. .=.-qOjECT NAME Arboretum Vi 11 age _.,,.A~ION~' - NE Quadrant Highway 5 & C.$.A.H. 41 L=GA2_ DESC. RiPTION See at'cached PF. ESENTZONING A2- Agricultural Estate District ZONING Planned Unit Dewl~nm~nt P.-~ESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Low & Medium Denisty Residential, Neiqhborhood Retail LAND USE DESIGNATION Low & MFd'~!lm f')¢r~'~ey ~¢:~i,-t~,~1:4~, .Neighborhood Retail' ~..EASON FOR THIS A-=QUEST PUD 1:o 'int'c, gr~'r= i-he proposed lan~ ;~zes with thc proposed MNDot imorovement and existino natl]rml f¢~f~r:~ 4nclud!n" trees & marqh This a:plication must ~e ~mpleted in full ~nd De ~pewn~en or clearly prime~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~:mp~nie~ ~y ~11 i~c~mi~r ~nd pt~ns re~uireC Dy s=plic~ble C~ Ordinance previsions. Before filing this appli~tion, you should.~er w~ tm Plannin~ Desa~menl tc ~=~rmin~ lh~ S~:5J¢ ordinance ant p~dural requ/rememG ~p/Jc~le. t~ ~ur ~u,~,,en. This is to ce.,1~v that I am making application for the des=.-ibed at,on by. the ,.,,,~'"'~- and '"-,,,,:t I Am resz:x:nsible, for .;:rr.,ptyin,.' with all Cib' requiremems with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name ~nd I am the part: whom the City shcutd com,,acl, regarding any mailer per, dining to this a.p.. piication. I have mlached a ~,py of proof o ownership (either ce.ay of Owner's Duplic.~te Car,~ir. me of Tille, Abstra.-t, of Title or pu:h~se a~reem, ent),, or. I .~m th: authodced person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this r42. pii~ation. ! will keep myself infc,,'-med of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this a~. plicStion. I furtive understand t,,.., ~..~,~,,n,~t fees may be charged for ~rauP, ing fees, feasibility sludies, etc. with ~n estimate prior to an' authorization to ....~.r,...._.o,~ with the study. The ¢.~=umems and irrformation I have submitted _.=,,,_ trJe =,...--"~ ~rr, ec: to the b :~f my knowledge. I also undermand ,,,,:, after the approval or graming of ,h. p-e. rmA, such pe. rmi~s shall ~ invalid unless they are recordec against the tP, le to the ;r:~,e.~/for which the am=rovaVcenmit is granted w~thin 120 days wP, h the Career Cou,,'~,/aecamer': C'tf,,ice---an,.d the original dc=umem, returned to City Hall Re~.,,~s. S~gna~ure oI ~;,=iic---n: ~a:e Signau~re of Fee C'~n~ ) Date A.c=iication =-'-:' '¢'" · , , .... p,__ On Fee Paid Receipt No. The eopllcant sh=uld contaC,, slaff for a ~py of the ~aff re.Lc, on whtch will be available on Friday prior to th ~_=~_-1.,.: :: .-.~'. :='~ --%_:: '- ,-':_-. =: '.h_= t~_-'-:.-..i;' ~'~ m.~:;_'--"-' .~ ...'-- '- -" -': : : .%?. .q . ' .-- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Concept Planned Unit Development for Mixed Housing APPLICANT: LOCATION: Pulte Homes NE Corner of Hwys. 5 and 41 NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Pulte Homes, is requesting a conceptual PUD for mixed housing development (414 units) consisting of manor homes, court homes, village homes and townhomes on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial uses 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 public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public 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. Public 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 August 19, 1999. S~reet w~ OQz< < -r' w~ >-~ >- w~ Z Z Z~/)Z · r.D 0-~7 w~ -4 o ..z. -~.~w >- o, -r- ~:z~ 0 oz z~ Z r'r - wz -roLO I--'OZ ~- w LU .~< o.~ vm_o uJ ~'wz _1 rr 'r ~j oozz ~w~ OOYX ~z.~ oO ,,z, -JUT' ~,< I-. c~ 0 iiiI'~ w~ ww~ LI.I rD '~ ~:r W ow~Z _1 '.~o 0 0 ¢> Om ~w~ O> z~O~ ~W z~ Z~ ~Z~ wz~ Z ~m 0 CITYOF CHAN SEI 690 Cig Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937. I900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Enginee~qng Fax. 612.937.9152 Public SafiO, Fax 612. 934. 2524 Web www. c/. &anhassen. nm. us MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn R. Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 23, 1999 SUBJECT: Conceptual PUD for mixed housing development (414 units), consisting of manor homes, court homes, village homes and townhouses on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial uses on property zoned A2, agricultural estate and located on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Highway 41, Arboretum Village, Puke Homes. Planning Case: 99-2 PUD I have reviewed the conceptual plans for the above project, in order to comply with tile Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. Tile plan 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. 1. Additional discussion and review will be needed to determine proper addressing of village homes and court homes. Possibly a grid system could be implemented. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for options regarding possible fire code trade offs if all or some buildings are provided with automatic fire sprinklers, i.e., reduced road width, further spacing of fire hydrants, smaller water mains. g:\safetyXml\arboretumvillage The Otv o£ Chanhassen. A zrowine communin, with dean lakes, aualitv schooh, a cha,nine downtown, thrivine businesses, and beauti&l oarks. A ~reat v/ace to live, work, and v~ CITYOF CHANHASSEN 0 G0, Ce, ret D~qve, PO Box 147 ~'/mnhassen, M in,esota 55317 &o,e 612.93Z 1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 3zgineeri,g /:ax' 612.937.9152 ublic SajSO~ £ax 612.934.2524 fl% ~,m: cl. c/J,,/sasse,, m ,. ,s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Steve Torell, Building Official August 19, 1999 Review of Conceptual PUD for Aboretum 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 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. 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:safety/st/memos/plan/pultehomes ~e Cin, of Chanhassen. A ~vwi~e commu,in, wit/~ c/e,, /akes. aua/it~, schoob, a cha,~in~ downtown, t/*rivin~ businesses, and beautiful aarks. A vreat t){ace to/ire, work. and July 30, 1999 ( uLTE Pulte Homes of Minnesota Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP City Of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Arboretum Village Dear Ms Aanenson: Pulte Homes of Minnesota Corporation is proud to present the community of Arboretum Village for the City of Chanhassen's consideration and approval. We at Pulte Homes look forward to providing the residents of Chanhassen with quality housing within your fine city. Please find attached twenty six (26) sets of the submittal package requirements for General Concept Plan review for a planned unit development. I look forward to working with you during the review process. The Arboretum Village plans represent a request for rezoning from A2 - Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development to accommodate a mixed use of 414 residential units within homeowner association greenspaces and 3.7 acres of commercial on approximately 82.4 acres for a density of 5.14 units/acre. Park dedication is proposed to be in the form of cash. The 32 rental townhomes and the 13 acres west of C.S.A.H. 41 will remain in ownership of James Deanovic, the underlying contract holder on the Savaryn property. Details of those areas will be addressed by Mr. Deanovic. However, Pulte's request does not require any density transfer from the property west of C.S.A.H. 41, per our calculations. Proposed timing for the development, as indicated on the Staging Plan, is for Phase One to begin Spring, 2000, timely with the MNDOT project and Phase Two to begin Summer, 2001. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comments on this matter. We look forward to the 8/1/99 Planning Commission and the 8/27/99 Council meetings. Sincerely, PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORPORATION Dennis R. Griswold, R.L.A. Director of Land Encl. 1355 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD · SUITE 300 · MENDOTAHEIGHTS · MINNESOTA55120-1112 PHONE: (651)452-5200 · FAX: (651)452-5727 · LICENSE#0001371 GALPIN T~) TH.41" I~iIANllASSEN, MINNESOTA JU~E 3,1993 AMMF. ND£D AUGUST 6,1993 ,,4 · L L L L L L DOL-F. Jfil 98..36 AC+ tr~l'O AC SITE ANALYSIS FIGURE 4.6 0 ~. :~of t nr~xAcr / I : ~: ~ omc~ on .' :': { :iT I / L ~e * ~:.'.:.'.. -2: ~ L L L h h L ' "- >: ~/':' ,'/:t-'-'.-"---- :-"- $IT£ D~V-ELOPMENT ¢O]V¢~T NOR~H ~ CC£$$ BL VI) .,~[,IGN~ FIGURE 4.7 1995 Study Area Parcel Description: 1990 Designation: Existing Uses: Potential Uses: Recommendation: North side of Highway 5 between Galpin Boulevard on thc east and Highway 41 on the west, extending north to BluffCreek. None. Mostly vacant with a few single-family residences, one group residential facility and a mlnlaturc golf course. This site currently lies entirely outside the MUSA line. Single-Family Residential: Appropriate and desirable for the bulk of the site, except along the Highway 5 and Highway 41 frontages. This use would take best advantage of and cause least harm to the wetlands and topography. Mulfifamily Residential: Appropriate for all Highway 5 frontage, to the same approximate depth (700 to 800 fee0 as shown in the 1990 plan for such uses east of Galpin, or to the access boulevard, whichever is less. Also appropriate along Highway 41 frontage. Retail/Commercial: Inappropriate for thc bulk of thc site due to drawbacks sibilant to those applicable to thc northeast quadrant of Galpin and TH 5 in Study Area 3. The Mills property (northeast quadrant of Highways 5 and 41) could be used in part for a neighborhood convenience retail center, but only ancillary to office, institutional, or mulfifamily residential uses. Office/Industrial: The Mills property would make an ideal site for a corporate/office center to complement anticipated development in the southeast quadrant. Office use might be combined with multifamily residential and/or mall-scale retail/ commercial uses. Medium density multi-family, retail/commercial or office/industrial. EIAFI?ON*ASCI4MT~I ASSOC:IATES~ INC:. ~(~ SINGLE-FAMILY KE ~NEWASHTA ZNETLAND o SITE ANALYSIS -KORDONOWY / 10.0 AC .. NW QUADRANT TH 5/TH 41 ,~:/ ~ CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA AMMENDED AUGUST 6, 1993 FIGURE 4.9 j j j j 'j m m m mm - 4NEWASHTA . PRESERV'ETREE MASSING · SINGLE-FA~HLY ~ ~ DRAINAGE WAY · PRESERVE TREE MASSIN~G '-'---...._~ j. SINGLE-FAMIL,Y 29.5 A / . / / . ~ ~ ., P~SERV~WE'r~D SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT NW QUADKANT TH 5/TH 41 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA JUNE 3,1993 AMMENDED AUGUST 6, 1993 · PRESERVE CONIFEROUS MASSING ~ 7'"* CONSIDER LANDSCAPE /SCREEN tiE) ORCHARD PLANTING ALONG RESEARCH PARCEL EDGE L ELEMENT. AUGMENT -=-~\WITH ORCHARD i~SCAPE CONCEPT V, Recom qe datio 5 This section recommends a series of projects and practices necessary to achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Committee, V,A Nc~twc~l Resources A, 1 Vlpla~d5 Recommendations in this segment focus on restoring wetland communities and re-establishing big woods forest species on upland areas. This segmAnt of the Bluff Creek Corridor and the sites addressed below are shown in Figure 9 on page 45, The corridor boundaries are defined by existing wetlands and recommended 300 foot buffer strips along either side of the Bluff Creek. The following plan of action is recommended: · Site ta - Shallow Marsh Restoration This site is within an existing wetland located between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Avenue. The plant community is dominated by reed canary grass with small amounts of nettle, willows, jewelweed, elm and boxelder present. Protecting, restoring and re-establsh/hg forest spec/es/n up/and ~reas is necessaO/ to 8thieve the vLqon. Wetland restoration of this basin Will involve the reestablishment of a mixed emergent marsh wetland community. Mixed emergent marsh are typically dominated by a variety of emergents. Different types of bulrush commonly occur in the deeper portion of the wetland and are dominants. This community changes into a fringe of wet meadow grasses including prairie cord grass, spike rushes and a variety of sedges, Pcige 64 The hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which exists in the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage has altered the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows best in seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a colonizing, invasive specie which out competes native species following disturbances from agricultural use, drainage, filling, siltation and others. Its aggressiveness allows the formation of persistent monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents provide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent marsh prior to the drainage. Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a prescribed burn (when possible). This, combined with increased water levels, should remove reed canary grass, It may not be practical to treat the entire site with herbicide or to do a prescribed burn, The areas that will have sustained water levels of 12 inches should not need to be treated with herbicide or burned because of reed canary grass's intolerance to sustained water levels. Areas with less then 12 inches of sustained water levels will need to have some type of treatment to remove the reed canary grass. Restoration of the hydrology could be accomplished with construction of a control structure at the wetlands outlet. The following considerations need to be addressed before the control structure is constructed: I. Flows Special considerations need to nnade to insure the control structure discharge capacity will be sufficient to handle the existing flows. 2. The control structure should not allow bypassing, 3. Consider potential conflicts with adjacent lands 4. Create an appropriate hydrologic regime for' the restored wetland If feasible, a control structure with potential for' water level regulation is preferred, It allows maintenance on the outlet and control structure when needed a/~d will help control plant succession - a benefit to waterfowl. Revegetation of the site may occur naturally over time. If quicker and more dependable results are wanted then the area should be planted and seeded root stock can accelerate the process. An economical solution is Bluff Cree~ Watershed Natkfr~l Re~ot,~rce~ Mdv]~ojemewt Pldn to allow the deeper' areas to revegetate naturally and seed the saturated soil areas. It is important to establish plants quickly in the saturated soil zone to reduce the chances of reed canary grass coming back to these sites. · Site lb - Restoration of Big Woods Vegetation Buffer strips of 50 to I00 feet should be established along Bluff Creek and along all wetlands within the corridor'. A mixture of tree and shrub species native to the Big Woods forest should be established within this buffer with lowland hardwood species on wetter sites and maple-basswood or oak forest species planted on upland sites. Please see a partial listing of tree and shrub species for Big Woods forest communities in Appendix C. These plantings should be linked to existing wood lots wherever possible to create a continuous travel corridor for wildlife. For maximum benefits to wildlife, interior portions of the corridor should not be visible fi'om outside the corridor'. · Site lc - Highway 5 Wildlife Underpass One of the biggest impediments to wildlife movement within the Bluff Creek Corridor are highway crossings. Highways fragment wildlife habitat and disrupt animal movements. Where highways cross migration routes or travel corridors of large mammals such as white-tail deer, mortality can be high and damage to vehicles and injury to humans frequent. The proposed recreational trail underpass near the new high school can be designed to encourage safe wildlife movement under Highway .5. To make the underpass attractive for wildlife, a bridge or a large culvert should be used that is directly linked to vegetation within the corridor. Ideally, dense, brushy vegetation such as conifers and shrubs sho~ld extend from within the corridor to the entrance of the underpass. Fencing should be placed along either side to funnel wildlife into the underpass. Fencing near the ground should be of fine mesh and partly buried for smaller mammals reptiles and amphibians. Ideally, the creek channel itself should extend through this underpass. · Site Id - Alternate Highway 5 Wildlife LJnde~'pass And Cor'ridor Link A wildlife underpass and strip of oak forest should be created at this location if a suitable corridor linl< cannot be created east of the future school site. The'wildlife Linderpass should be designed in accordance with specifications given for Site lc. A, 2 Meddowl~nd.~ The corridor in this segment is defined by r'ipa~ lan wetland and floodplain boundaries and by ar'eas containing significant wetland and upland forest [3luff Cree~ Wc~ter.~Red Nc~tt~rc]l Re.~o~rce:~ Mcmc]cjeme~f Plc~q _ .~:- P~ge 66 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: October 26, 1998 RESOLUTION NO: 98-95 MOTION BY: Berctuist SECONDED BY: Mason RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statues Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statues section 47~.254, and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycling housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions of the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 198, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local, Housing Incentives Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statues section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 1998. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 26th day of October, 1998. ATTEST: · ' /' ,";'. ' ' i."..;--' ' / ': ' ' '"' ' ' Nancy K. maficino, Mayor YES NO, ABSENT Mancino Engel Senn Mason Berquist None None HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The City of Chanhassen supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people of all income levels. 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. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to an linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to use the benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the period of 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and source availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. The City of Chanhassen reserves the right to negotiate the goals after 2 years. Chanhassen agrees that the Metropolitan Council will use other market indicators to evaluate goals. These indicators may include land prices, interest rates, cost of construction, and environmental factors including trees and wetlands. Affordability Ownership Rental Life-Cycle Type (Non-single family detached) Owner/Renter Mix Density Single-Family Detached Multifamily Overall average City Index 37% 44% 19% 85/15% 1.5/acre 11/acre Benchmark 60-69% 35-37% 35-37% 67-75/25-33% 1.8-1.9/acre 10-14/acre Goal 3O% 35% 34% 1991 Comp Plan 80-90/20-10 1.8 9-10 3.3 To achieve the above goals, the City of Chanhassen elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and has prepared and submitted a plan to the Metropolitan Council indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Nancy K. ~ancino, Mayor Date CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 212 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANI-IASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definitions: Landscape means all forms of planting and vegetation, ground forms, rock groupings, water features and patterns, and all visible construction except buildings and site furnishings. Site Furnishings means any structure, other than buildings, visible from any public way, and any street hardware located in streets and public ways and outside of buildings. Site furnishings include, but are not limited to signs, decorative paving treatments, fences, walls, railings, artwork, transformers, utility access boxes, lighting' standards and arrays, and other visible site appurtenances. SECTION 2. Section 20-201 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following special districts: HC-1, Highway 5 Central Business Corridor District HC-2, Highway 5 Corridor District SECTION 3. Section 20-106 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (6) to read: (6) Within the HC districts, meet the additional purpose, intent and standards of the HC districts. SECTION 4. Section 20-109 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (6) to read: (6) Within the HC districts, the application shall also include: Ae Building elevations from all directions, indicating materials, colors and landscaping at installation. Building and site views from Highway 5, the appropriate access boulevard (north or south of Highway 5), and any other appropriate arterial or collector roadways. Site views showing the relationships of the proposed building or development to adjacent development, including buffered areas. Drawings of all significant or atypical site features, such as unusual landscaping, man-made water features other than retention ponds, outdoor sculpture, or other large-scale artwork, and other uncommon constructs. E. Sample building materials, upon the City's request. F. Sample paving materials, upon the City's request. SECTION 5. Section 20-110 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (7) to read: (7) Within the HC districts, consistency with the purpose, intent, and standards of the HC districts. SECTION 6. Section 20-116 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (e) to read: (e) Within the HC districts, the standards for the HC districts shall apply in addition to the standards specified in this division. SECTION 7. Section 20-118 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Sec. 20-118. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in height, include state walls which cumulatively exceed five (5) feet in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect and in conformance with all building materials specifications and limitations set forth in this division or, if applicable, in the HC districts. SECTION 8. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXIX to read: 2 ARTICLE XXIX.HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS DIVISION 1, HC-1 DISTRICT Sec. 20-1450. Purpose. Thc Highway 5 Corridor and thc development within it will be major factors influencing the visual and environmental quality of the community as a whole. Due to the intensity of land uses, thc Highway 5 Corridor represents the heart of Chanhasscn as well as its dominating image of those passing through thc community. Development in the corridor must be designed with greater sensitivity to thc environment and of generally higher quality than might have occurred in the absence of specific standards. The purpose of the District is to: (a) Protect creek corridors, wetlands, and significant stands of mature trees through use of careful site design, protective easements, sensitive alignment and design of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural features, landscaping and massing of trees that enhance existing natural features and views, and the practices delineated in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. (b) Promote high-quality architectural and site design through improvement development standards within the corridor. These standards govern site planning, placement of building masses, use of materials, and the like enable the City to enhance what otherwise might result in low quality strip development. (c) Create a unified, harmonious, and high-quality visual environment throughout the corridor, thereby identifying it as a special place with a unique identity within both the City and the Twin Cities region as a whole. (d) Foster a distinctive and positive community image, for the City as a whole and especially for the Highway 5 Corridor, which functions as the City's main entrance. Sec. 20-1451. Intent. The City intends that all development within the district should strive toward the highest level of quality in both design and construction. The criteria by which new development in this district shall be judged are as follows: (a) Consistency with all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time to time; the Surface Water Protection Program; 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. 3 (b) Preservation of the natural conditions found on each site to the greatest extent possible, through minimized removal of trees and other vegetation and soil, minimized site grading, and application of the practices found in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. (c) Establishment throughout the district of harmonious physical and visual relationships among existing, new, and proposed buildings, open spaces, natural terrain, and plant materials and placement with the intent of creating a unique and unified appearance for the entire corridor. (d) Use of appropriate materials, lighting, textures, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high:quality design concept for each site that is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and functions, including but not limited to natural areas, City-owned property, and vacant land subject to future development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. (e) Creation of unified site designs, each with a sense of intemal order, that provide desirable environments for site users and visitors and the community as a whole and that consider all site elements including: the relationship of buildings to surrounding landforms; grading; architectural design; building, parking and loading dock orientation; building height; use of man-made materials, including paving; site furnishings (lighting, outdoor seating, signage, etc.); landscaping (retention of natural vegetation, plant selection and placement, retention and incorporation of water features, em,); and other visible outdoor site elements. (f) Creation of a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, and view protection and the design and function of man-made features on the other. Achieving this balance shall take into account screening, buffering, size and orientation of open spaces, personal and property security, localized wind and solar effects, and protection of important public ways. (g) Provision of safe and adequate access to and from sites giving ample consideration to the location and number of access points from public streets, the safety and convenience of merging and turning movements, and traffic management and mitigation. (h) Provision of on-site vehicular, bicycling, and pedestrian circulation by way of interior drives, parking areas, pathways, and walkways adequate to handle anticipated needs and to safety buffer pedestrians and cyclists from motor Vehicles. Ample consideration shall be given to the width of interior drives, internal traffic movement and flow, separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile, and delivery traffic, and the safe convenient, and practical arrangement of parking spaces. (i) Adequate separation and protection of each site from adjacent properties, access boulevards, and Highway 5 and vice-versa, through reasonable provisions for surface water 4 drainage, sound and sight buffers, view protection, privacy, and other aspects of design that may not be specifically covered by these or other regulations but are found to have significant effect on any or all of the properties and roadways. Sec. 20-1452. District Application. The "HC-I" district shah be applied and superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC-i" district shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of the districts, the mom restrictive requirements shall apply. Sec. 20-1453. Building and Parking Orientation. (a) For the purpose of determining front, rear, and side yards, the following shall control: In any lot that abuts Highway 5 directly, other than a single family residential lot, the lot line abutting the highway shall be considered the front lot line. In any lot that abuts either of the access bouleVards parallel to Highway 5, including any existing single family residential lot, but excluding any new single family residential lot, the lot line abutting the boulevard shall be considered the front lot line. In any lot that abuts both Highway 5 and one of the access boulevards, other than a single family residential lot, the lot shall be regarded as having two front lot lines. The lot line abutting the boulevard shall take design precedence. Such a lot shall be regarded as having no rear lot line or yard. No new single family residential lot may have a front yard that faces Highway 5, nor a front yard that faces either of the access boulevards. No new or existing single family residential lot shall provide driveway access directly from Highway 5, nor shall any new single family residential lot provide driveway access directly from Highway 5 or either of the access boulevards. 5 FRONT LOT LINE (b) Parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front (primary or secondary) yard setback of any lot. Sec. 20-1454. Architectural Design Standards. BUILDING SETBACK Standards governing architectural design shall apply to ail new and renovated buildings within the district with the exception of single-family residences on individual lots. (a) Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roof-line and setback. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are prohibited. · ~.t'1 ~v , ~,,.,~.,~ "~A (b) Monotony of design, both within projects and between any project and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and plant materials, sizes, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roof-line, and setback. 6 AVOIOI~G MONOTONY (c) Within thc district, particular attention shah be paid to architectural compatibility with the existing environment. (1) Each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. (2) All new construction and redevelopment shall conform to the established building scale, range of building materials, pedestrian orientation, and relationship between buildings and the streetscape. (d) Building heights shall be limited to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet. Measurement of the highest point shall exclude antennas for television and radio reception, but shall include architectural details (e.g., parapet walls), transmission antennas, satellite dishes and txansrnission equipment, microwave-transmission equipment, and other non- structural building elements. (e) All man-made architectural, landscape, and paving materials shall reflect the highest quality possible and should be used in a manner suitable to the nature of the material, its role in the design, general durability, expected level of use or abuse, weathering characteristics, and ease and frequency of maintenance. Major exterior surfaces of all walls 7 shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent, as determined by the city. The following may not bc used in any visible exterior application except when specifically permitted by the City in areas with limited public view: · Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks. Fabricate metal or pole construction structures, including mobile homes, sheds, warehouses, and industrial buildings constructed either on or off-site of corrugated metal panels. · Exterior brick that is painted over. Experimental materials with no proven record of durability or ease of maintenance in the intended application. A solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as a change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways. A change in texture alone is not sufficient to meet this requirement. Materials or construction methods used for one aspect or portion of a project that are significantly lower in quality than those used for the balance of that project, such that this one aspect or portion is or rapidly becomes an eyesore or detriment to the project as a whole. ' A distinct and different material or combination of materials for each exposed exterior wail. No more than two (2) principal materials or two (2) principal combinations of materials should be used to construct any one building. Addition of other materials for accent use is permissible. As building element, combination of elements, or another site structure that acts as a conspicuous building emblem or signature. Examples include single garish elements (e.g., orange roofs); use of bricks, blocks, or tiles to mm a wall into an outsized sign or logo; and other attempts to use a building or wall as an advertisement. (f) Site designs and configurations that tend to catch and accumulate trash, leaves, and dkt shall be avoided. In addition, provisions for washing and cleaning buildings, other structures, and building grounds shall be considered and included in the design. (g) All building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, soffits, and parapets, shall have good proportions that relate to the facade of the building and shall relate well with one another. PROPORTIONS OF BUILDING COMPONENTS (h) Colors shall be harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply conU:asting colors may be used only for accent purposes. USING COLOR (i) Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from the public view and with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public way. Use of parapet walls or pitched roof elements to screen equipment is encouraged. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen. (j) Screening of service yards, refuse, and waste-removal areas, loading docks, truck parking areas, and other areas which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, dense planting, or any combination of these elements. Screening shall block views from public right-of-way and shall be equally effective in winter and summer. ~CREEN FENCE OR. WALL ~:)OD TI~LLI~ ,~r'REENIN G 10 Sec. 20-1455. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings. The following standards governing design and placement of landscaping and site furnishings shall apply to all new and renovated buildings within the district, with the exception of single family residences on individual lots. (a) Where natural or existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty or utility of a development, they shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Modification to topography will be permitted where and to the extent that it contributes to good design. All topographic modifications shall adhere to the practices delineated in the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. PRESERVING TOPOGR. Ai~HY (b) The grades of all walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall conform with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, they shall provide an inviting and stable appearance from walking. Stairs and ramps may be substituted for slanted pavement when necessary. (c) All landscape shall preserve and enhance natural features (such as wetlands, drainageways, mature stands of trees, and the like), enhance architectural features, su~engthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. (d) Landscaping shall emphasize massing of plant materials over isolated or scattered placement of individual specimens. Reforestation as prescribed by the City's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Ordinance is encouraged. ~SC.A.PE MASSING 11 (e) Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other materials, and by correlation with natural existing materials and adjacent developments where appropriate. L iiz~'lTro~ ~ I'LA~ V~K LL'T~G UNrI-V OF DESIGN (f) Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture and color, and for its ultimate growth size. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be hard),, harmonious to the design of good appearance, and of relatively easy maintenance shall be used. (g) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, they shall be protected by appropriate curbs, tree guards, or similar devices. TREE pROTECTION (h) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees in parkways, gardens, or paved areas is encouraged. Trees should be clustered whenever possible, and consideration shall be given to the special needs of plants surrounded by impervious surfaces. I _ TREE PLACEMENT 12 (i) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other solutions--such as fences, walls, rock gardens, raised planters, or parings of wood, brick stone, gravel, or cobbles--shall be used. Carefully selected plants shall be included. ALTERNATIV'E LANDSCAPE TREATMENT (j) Exterior lighting shall enhance the building design and adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. Lighting shall be arranged and focused so that minimal light falls on adjacent property and no light shines directly at or into any'adjacent building. Excessive brighmess and glare shall be avoided. LIGHTING CONTROL (k) Site furnishings located on private property shall be designed as part of the site's architectural concept and landscape. Materials and colors shall be in harmony with buildings, surroundings, and other furnishings; scale shall be appropriate to the site and the design; and proportions shall be attractive. (1) Site furnishings and landscaping located in any public way or on other public property shall be harmonious with the design of adjacent buildings, with the appearance of the highway in the vicinity, and with the generally character of the City. (m) Lighting in connection with site furnishings (e.g., to highlight a ground sign) shall meet the criteria applicable to site, landscape, buildings, and signs. (n) All provisions of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, to the extent that they directly affect the appearance, design and utility of a particular site, and to the extent that they do no conflict directly with the standards delineated here, shall be a part of the criteria of this subsection. DIVISION 2. HC-2 DISTRICT Sec. 20-1460. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the HC-2 district is the same as the HC-1 district with certain modifications to the district standards reflecting/hat the area within the HC-2 district is not pan of the City's central business district. Sec. 20-1461. · District Application. The "HC-i" district shall be applied to and super imposed (overlaid) upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC-I" district shall be in addition to these established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Sec. 20-1462. Building and Parking Orientation. The building and parking orientation standards for the HC-1 district shall apply, together with the following additional requirements: (a) On building lots that' abut Highway 5 directly, the minimum building setback from the highway right-of-way shall be seventy (70) feet. The maximum building setback from the highway right-of-way for all buildings except single family residences shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. No maximum building setback shall apply to single family residences. (b) On building lots that abut either of the access boulevards parallel to Highway 5, the minimum building setback from the boulevard right-of-way shall be fifty (50) feet. The maximum building setback from the boulevard right-of-way shall be one hundred (100) feet. Sec. 20-1463. Architectural Design' Standards. The architectural design standards for the HC-1 district shall apply, with the exception of Section 20-1456(c) which shall not apply. Sec. 20-1464. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings. The landscape design and site furnishings standards for the HC-1 district shall apply. SECTION 9. The boundaries of the districts established by this chapter are delineated on the zoning map; the map and all notations, references, and date shown thereon are hereby adopted and made pan of this chapter and will be on permanent file for public inspection at the Chanhassen City Hall. 14 SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of July, 1994, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: 1(0 Don Ashw'~'~,orth city'~a'~e~' ..... 'Donald J. ~iel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 21, 1994.) 15 ~ S.lOIl::l.lSlO A¥-II:I=IAO ~ AYaH aer, f.~ ..... CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 286 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES, ESTABLISHING THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 18-40 (2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph k. to read: Within the Bluff Creek Overlay (BCO) District, the application shall also include: ao Identified boundaries of the Primary Zone and Secondary Zone on a drawing depicting existing conditions and on a site plan depicting the proposed development pattern. Calculations and/or drawings that identify the allowable density (number of units or building coverage) under the Chanhassen City Code including lands lying in the Primary and Secondary Zone. Calculation of allowable density shall specifically exclude lands classified as bluffs, flood plains and designated wetlands. Calculation of allowable impervious cover may include bluffs and flood plains but shall specifically exclude designated wetlands. SECTION 2. Section 18-64 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the a paragraph to read: Within the BCO District, meet the additional purpose, intent and standards of the BCO District. SECTION 3. Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definitions: Cluster Development means a pattern of development that arranges the layout of buildings on a compact area of the site so as to reserve a portion of the site for common open space or green space that is protected in perpetuity. Ecosystem means a community of interacting animals, plants and microorganisms and the physical and chemical environment in which they live. Natural Features Any slope (12 percent slope or greater), forested areas. Lakes, streams and wetlands, areas of unique vegetative cover, scenic views, natural habitat areas, or historic archeological areas, buildings or features. Natural Habitat Area means an area that is characterized by being primarily in a natural state, with only minor evidence of disturbance from modem human activity. Natural habitat areas may include forests, wetlands, or endangered or threatened species habitat. Primary Zone means the buffer zone that directly impacts Bluff Creek and/or its tributaries. The primary zone, which is generally delineated in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, is intended to be preserved as permanent open space. Secondary Zone means the buffer zone that contains habitat areas that are valuable to the delicate balance of the Bluff Creek ecosystem. The secondary zone, which is generally delineated in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, is subject to development limitations (bluffs, step slopes, wetlands etc.) in order to minimize the impact of new development on the Primary Zone. SECTION 4o Section 20-201 of the Charthassen Code i.s amended by v~ddirxg the following special district: BCO, Bluff Creek: Overlay District SECTION 5~ Section 2©~ ! 06 of the Cha~hassen City Code is amended 'by ad~./ng subparagraph (7) to read: (7) Within the BCO district, ineet the addition:~ propose, inten~ ar~-:~ .~.'::a~:dards of the BCO district. SECTION 6. Section 20-109 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (7) to read: (7) Within the BCO district, the application shall also include: A, Identified boundaries of the Primary Zone and Secondary Zone on a drawing depicting existing conditions and on a site plan depicting the proposed development pattern. Be Calculations and/or drawings that identify the allowable density (nUmber of units or building coverage) under the Chanhassen City Code including lands lying in the Primary and Secondary Zone. Calculation of allowable density shall specifically exclude lands classified as bluffs, flood plains .and designated wetlands. Calculation of allowable impervious cover may include bluffs and flood plains but shall specifically exclude designated wetlands. SECTION 7. Section 20-110 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (8) to read: (8) Within the BCO district, consistency with the purpose, intent and standards of the BCO district. SECTION 8. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article XXXI to read: ARTICLE XXXI. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT DIVISION 1, BCO DISTRICT Section 20 - 1460 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 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. (b) 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 Mirmewashta 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. 3 (e) Encourage cost effective site development. Open space design practices can reduce infrastructure engineering and construction costs because of lot configurations, shortened streets, and reduced utility runs Long term cost savings can also be realized by the City of Chanhassen associated with infrastructure maintenance costs. (f) Implement the policies and recommendations found in the BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. The terms, definitions and appendices found in the Management Plan are incorporated herein. See. 20- 1461 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 districti and all other applicable land use regulations. (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 Secondary Zone through cluster development and other practices which minimize the removal of vegetation, minimize site grading, and applica*.ion of practices fc~u~_d 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, bluffprotection, 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. Sec. 20- 1462 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 ordinance. 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. 4 Section 20-1463 Conditional Use Permits. A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior to the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. Sec. 20 - 1464 Boundary Delineation. (a) Generally. Primary and Secondary Zones shall be subject to the requirements established 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. Co) Boundaries; maps. The Primary and Secondary zones include land that is generally defined in this article and in the Bluff Creek 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 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 delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed management, 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. Sec. 20-1465 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 BCO district, areas with average slopes exceeding 25% shall be preserved in their natural state and maintained as permanent open space. Areas with average slopes less than 25% but greater than 10% shall not exceed an impervious surface coverage of 25%. Impervious coverage for areas where average slopes are less than 10% shall be governed by the underlying zoning district. Sec. 20 - 1466 Bluffs. Bluffs shall be preserved as provided for under Article XXVIII. 5 Sec. 20 - 1467 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 greatest extent possible so as to maintain views that reflect and protect the natural beauty of the BCO District. Special attention should be given to views that are highly accessible to the public such as scenic overlooks, ridges and trails. Clustering of 'development away from natural overlooks is encouraged. Develop ten'~in-adaptiv'e .rchitecture for steep slopes. propsed building should step down the hillside. Termin-gfla~tive Architect.re Figure 1. "Published in APA PAS .~?¢por~ #466" Sec. 20-1468 Density Ch;stering. Density clustering shall be allowed as a tool to facilitate cluster development within the BluffCreek 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 ordinance, 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 25% on average. b) Land in the Secondary Zone containing stands of native trees. 6 Land with suitable natural habitat to endangered or threatened species or a fragile ecosystem. Traditional Development Pattern "Designing Open Space Subdivisions, Randall Arendt" Cluster Development "Designing Open Space Subdivisions, Randall Arendt" 7 sl~jnlflcan~, na'c, ural ~'e~ource ~ Industrial Cluster Development Sec. 20-1469 Standards and Guidelines for Single-Family Attached or Cluster-Home PUDs. Single-family attached, cluster, zero let line, and similar dwelling types shall only be a~lowed. on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. Sec. 20-1470 Natural ]~r~b.(r~,'t Prese~x.~ationo a) Natural habitat areas withit~ the Primary Zone shall be preset'red as permaner~t open space. Any development that occurs shall be directly related to the continuous, greenway along the creek from the Minnesota River to Lake 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. Sec. 20-1471 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. Sec. 20 - 1472 Open Space Requirements. Open space shall comprise 100% of the area located within the Primary Zone. The City will establish the boundary for the Primary Zone using data provided by the applicant. See. 20 - 1473 Structure Setbacks. All structures shall be setback a minimum of 40 feet from the Primary Zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first 20 feet of such setback. SECTION 9. The boundaries of the district established by this chapter are delineated on the zoning map; the map and all notations, references, and date shown thereon are hereby adopted and made part of this chapter and will be on permanent file for public inspection at the Chanhassen City Hall. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 14th day of December, 1998, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: Do g .... - Nancy Manci~o, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 31, 1998) g:X. admink~rd\bl ufford.doe 9 City of Chanhassen N Bluff Creek Waterst' Watershed Boundaries Bluff Creek Corridor Wetlands Primary Corridor Secondary Corridor Lakes River Parks one 612.473.1231 x 612.473.7401 5 East Wayzata Boulevard ayzata, Minnesota 55391 Ider License No. 0001413 September 21, 1999 Lundgren BROS. Your Neighborhood Builder 1999 Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Conceptual PUD Review - Pulte Application for Arboretum Villiage Dear Kate; Lundgren Bros. recently became aware of the Pulte application for conceptual PUD review of a mixed housing development of approximately 414 units. Lundgren Bros. currently is the option holder, with schedule closing next month, on the Jay Dolejsi property known as Outlot K, Meadow at Long Acres. Our property is immediately east and adjacent to the Pulte property with a common border of 2550 feet. We would like to go on record with our position. The Pulte plan calls for a shifting of densities from a high density along Highway 5 northward into their low-density area. This places more units along our common border. The concept plan proposes that these unit include 32 rental units to be developed by another organization not a party to this application. We feel the density shift and the rental units would have a tendency to devalue our land compared to a low density per the city's Comprehensive Plan. We respectfully request that a single family low density area be developed by Pulte along our common border. Such an idea was accomplished well at Walnut Creek off Galpin Boulevard. If this is not possible then a medium density use should be allowed on Outlot K. The new frontage road west of the American Baptist/Gateway Group Home cuts off approximately three acres of our land. This leaves a parcel sandwiched between the frontage road and Highway 5. Per staff's recommendation, we request this parcel have a commercial zoning as the Pulte three acres parcel immediately to the west. Our property would provide the only full access into this area. Access into the Pulte commercial is limited by medians to right-in- right-out only. Thank you for considering our requests. by! Marc S. Anderson ViCe President - Land Development Lundgren Bros. t:\chanhass\dolesji-south\dolesjoj ay02.doc ARBORETUM VILLAGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 9/22/99 SITE AREA: 114.21 acres Land Use Acerage Wetlands 12.21 ROW 11.4 Commercial (gas/convenience) 1 Commercial (retail) 2.7 Office/Industrial 30 General Office 30 Medium Density 30 Medium Density 30 Low Density 56.9 Low Density 56.9 TRIP GENERATION RATES Multiplier Units/Sq. Ft. Avg Daily AM Peak PM Peak 10% 0.3 13,068 162 78.06 97.14 0.3 35,284 42.92 1.03 3.74 0.3 392,040 6.96 0.82 0.86 0.3 392,040 11.01 1.56 1.49 6 180 5.86 0.44 0.54 8 240 5.86 0.44 0.54 2 114 9.57 0.77 1.02 4 228 9.57 0.77 1.02 Avg Daily 2,117 1,514 2,729 4,316 1,055 1,406 1,089 2,178 TRIPS AM Peak 1,020 36 321 612 79 106 88 175 PM Peak 1,269 132 337 584 97 130 116 232 Poulte's Arboretum Villages Townhomes Luxury Townhomes Commercial (gas/convenience) Commercial (retail) TOTALS 363 5.86 0.44 0.54 2,127 160 196 51 9.57 0.65 0.65 488 33 33 1 0.3 13,068 162 78.06 97.14 2,117 1,020 1,269 2.7 0.3 35,284 42.92 1.03 3.74 1.514 36 132 6,247 1,249 1,631 Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial. Commercial Commercial. Office/Industrial, Low Density (2 units/acre) Office/Industrial, Low Density (4 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (2 units/acre) General Office, Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (6 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (2 units/acre) 1/2 General Office, 1/2 Medium Density (8 units/acre), Low Density (4 units/acre) 7,449 8,538 9,037 10,126 5,775 6,864 6,127 7,216 7,582 8,671 1,466 1,553 1,756 1,843 1,223 1,311 1,250 1,337 1,503 1,590 1,855 1,971 2,102 2,218 1,615 1,731 1,647 1,763 1,874 1,990 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation 6th Edition, 1997 g:\plan\bg~rboretum Village Traffic Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Perfect. I've got a motion, do I get a second? Blackowiak: Second. Joyce: Discussion. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99- 11 for a 20 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a sanitation dock enclosure addition, plans prepared by Setter, Leach & Lindstrom dated 7/28/99, based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall replace the trees being lost due to the expansion on a two to one ratio. Based on the grading plan dated 8/20/99 submitted to the city, the replacement trees include eight (8) conifers and 12 deciduous trees. These replacement trees shall be located to soften the building elevation and help screen the condensing units to the east. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan needs to be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Details such as retaining wall height, parking lot grades and erosion control measures need to be denoted on this plan. 3. The plans shall be revised to show specific utilities that will be extended through the site. Permits from the Building Department will be required for relocation and extension of the storm sewer system. Se Before a building permit is issued the applicant shall demonstrate that the building lighting is downcast and in compliance with city ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414 UNITS) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES, COURT HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Public Present: Name Address Dennis Griswold Mark Gugnther Jim Deanovic Paul Savaryn Bud Olson Bruce Geske Brian Evans Susan Markert Pulte Homes Pulte Homes Peter Anderson Co. 9950 North Shore Road, Waconia 55387 7331 Hazeltine Blvd. 7325 Hazeltine Blvd. 2585 Southern Court 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: ...conceptual point, this is conceptual PUD. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: So I'm a little bit confused in terms of the process Kate. I thought we were kind of, why all the conditions at this point in time? It looks like you put a lot of conditions on when you're really looking for a non-binding comment by the Planning Commission at this time. I don't understand. Aanenson: That's a good question. We leave no stone unturned. We want to make sure we've given them clear direction on what they need to do at the next evolution. That they're not going off in one direction. That they hear from you. I think if you wanted to leave it in broad brush strokes, come back with storm water calculations, more details in grading, that's fine. I mean their marching orders are actually in the PUD ordinance itself that says what you need to show at the next level of detail. So it could be addressed that way. But I think some of the things that we did want them to resolve that wouldn't be in the PUD ordinance is articulation of the commercial zone, specifically the list. You know the list that you feel comfortable with the uses. And then architecturally, how they're going to make that compatible. The other thing that we talked about, there is five different home products in there. Get some direction from you. The staff's initial response was to make those more neighborhoods. We want diversity of material within there but should that be done on a neighborhood basis or within the project and those aren't specific to the ordinance itself. Conrad: If I could challenge everybody up here. Stay on the big pic, ture tonight. Staff can do the other stuff. Don't get hung up in all the conditions in the staff report. Do you like where commercial is? Do you think there should be more commercial? Do you like the housing type? Do you like the, stay big. Joyce: We shouldn't get into the density at this situation? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Well, it does require based on this project, it does require a land use recommendation. Alteration which would read in that you'd have to, again we're not increasing the total number of units. What we're doing, so that we would need feedback on too. So that's the big picture though, that's correct. Joyce: Then it will come back to us as an amendment? Aanenson: When it comes back to you, the process would be conceptual approval, recommendations, whatever you recommend to the Planning Commission they will also hear and make a recommendation. They have to come back through the process with very detailed plans for preliminary. Joyce: ...that tonight at all either? Aanenson: No. But what I'm saying is they need some direction so they know how to proceed. Again, similar to like we did on Walnut Grove. Joyce: Okay. Any other questions for staff?. Conrad: Just a couple. The density transfer is coming from where to where in your recommendation? The visual was so dark. Aanenson: By the north side of the road is 0 to 4. And the south side is 4 to 8 so it's actually coming in, based on our calculations at 114. They're coming in at just a little over... Conrad: Were we preserving anything in that? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: What were we doing? Aanenson: This stand of trees. These trails connected throughout and then the area that's behind the Olson... And then all this area over here will transfer the density. This isn't going up but this is what we recommended based on the primary zone, that it's in the primary zone. That all this be preserved. That has the slopes on it. That would be in front of the future Westwood Church. Conrad: So we're transferring density from the west side. You are transferring from the west side of the highway? Aanenson: Right. Consistent with the Bluff Creek overlay district. Conrad: And that is all wooded? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Predominantly. I would say 80%. Near 90. Conrad: The ag/urban wetland that are marginal, you've just pointed at them. Is that where you're trying to get maybe some funding to support the resurrection of those or, I wasn't quite sure what the staff report said in terms of the future of the restoration of those. Aanenson: Okay. MnDOT examined those as part of the Highway 5 frontage road. When they went out and did their survey. And based on farming practices, some of those have been eliminated. They are proposing a pond, this pond, part of this will hold Highway 5 drainage also. But this pond does remain but they have been altered as far as past practices. Conrad: Pretty worthless basically, is that what we're saying? Aanenson: Right. Conrad: So we don't have plans from the city to help, or from a government standpoint, to help those? Aanenson: No. Again, MnDOT was driving that issue. They're out ahead of us on that as far as the frontage road. Conrad: Do we have a visual direction for the comer of 41 and 5? Are you comfortable with a pond being there? Being that it's a major intersection. We have the Arboretum across, is this where staff is comfortable in terms of an entryway to really Chanhassen? Is the pond what you like? Aanenson: Ah no .... actually they're coming back with more of an arbor. We had the same discussion on Bluff Creek Elementary that we're reflecting character of the Arboretum, which is apple orchards. I'm not sure as far as mitigation of some of this, it's going to be a busy intersection. Mitigation of visual qualities, that that's the best material that we should be using. I think we can do a combination. City Forester, the Water Resource Coordinator and I have discussed that. We think we can do a nice combination in that comer of forest, you know reforestation and a water feature and that's who we are and I think that would be a better statement instead of just the pond. Conrad: The commercial area, you like the proportion? Has that always been our vision? That amount of commercial. Aanenson: The comp plan said, I believe it was 2 ½ to 5 acres. That is one of your attachments. Flip through it quickly. 2 ½ acres. It's really a remnant piece and actually if you look at the frontage road it's a point of discussion that Dave and I caught as we were looking at the location of the frontage road. As this property goes back towards the group home it actually comes back and touches Highway 5. We have a little remnant parcel. This is the commercial piece. This is the property limits here. We've got this little remnant piece. It doesn't have a lot of, here's Highway 5...in front of the group home... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, '1999 Conrad: Do we like that restored wetland? The commercial, if it's neighborhood commercial it'd be cool if you didn't have to pass over a street. Do we like the restoration of that, do we like the pond where it is? Aanenson: I think that's being driven by MnDOT. They need a pond at that location. I think the commercial was originally on the other side of the street and that was their recommendation. Correct me if I'm wrong Dave. Yeah. But there is a nice tree row. If you bring that point up on the back side of that house that's being rented right now, but it's difficult at this time to measure the exact degradation as the trees at that frontage road and the gradings going to appear. It would be nice to save the tree lines on the back of this... Actually in Bluff Creek we talked about an alternative underpass and that was basically a critter crossing. Underneath Highway 5 we talked about that. It was not implemented into the design guidelines so we're going to put little arrows to direct the deer. But we do have the other underpass, but that was talked about. There is a nice tree line but at this point it's hard to measure exactly what the grading and utilities are going to do to that. And speaking of utilities, the sewer will follow similar to what it did at the Meadows. It does follow the edge of the wetland. It will be in the low area so it will be following the southern edge of that most northerly wetland. That's the low area. No matter what went in, that's where the sewer would go. Hempel: And a pathway will mostly likely follow the trail that's being proposed along that wetland edge as well. Aanenson: Right. And that's similar to what we did on the other side. Conrad: The Markert property, do we care what kind of vision or guidance do we have for that and we do have connectivity to that when it develops. Aanenson: Right. And as we're planning access on it, Mrs. Markert is here. We have met with her. She has some development potential for her property in the future but right now it's my understanding she'd like to leave it in the agricultural use. She has plans on kind of an agricultural use that you'll be seeing shortly, but we have provided access to her and where the Highway 5 touchdown point was located, they did...in order to give her a little bit of buffering and landscaping so it's not right adjacent to her property. Conrad: The property to the west of TH 41, again that is recommended for density transfer. How do people use that in the future? What is it's purpose? Aanenson: It's similar to what we did on the property just north of Stone Creek. We left that as a conservation easement. Conrad: Is there a trail projected to go through? Aanenson: No. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Conrad: Is it just there? Aanenson: Yes. Natural. Conrad: Just the natural. And how many houses, what kind of density can we transfer out? 4 to 1 out of that area? Aanenson: Well first they have to demonstrate what they could have got on that otherwise. There is a wetland on the north, very small little finger of wetland. They have to demonstrate what they could have gotten anyway if they were to do an official layout and then based on that, we'd take those number of units and transfer them over. Conrad: Any benefit to the, or what are we doing for the marsh to the north? That good, big wetland there. Anything that you've recommended Kate? Aanenson: Right. That one we did recommend. That was one of the projects we recommended. We did receive some resistance at that time from the subdivision to the north. We'd like to revisit that issue. The Bluff Creek corridor study made a recommendation to increase the habitat by adding some, by making it a little deeper. Adding some water. Give some diversity up there. We'd still like to revisit it. Again, this will be a very nice, with the trail around the entire property, very nice experience and we would like to increase the diversity, and that is a project and we will be working, if this goes forward, to try to make that as a part of this. Conrad: Do you know what condition that is, or where you said that in the recommendations Kate? And I don't want to get into details of it. Aanenson: It is on page 7 under wetlands. Very bottom of the page. Conrad: And is it in a condition on your recommendations Kate? Aanenson: Yes. I believe so. Conrad: I think that's important, that's why. We can come back to that Mr. Chairman, thank you. Joyce: Deb you had a question. Kind: Yes. Kate, could you talk about the trail, the section that you'd like eliminated. Show me where that was. I couldn't figure out the directions. Aanenson: Highway 5 does have a trail section. 41 is not being upgraded at this time. They show a trail going all the way around. The other issue, going back to circulation... There's two access points. The project on the frontage road which is West 78th...creating a better grid. With that we felt like there needed to some internal trails through there. Get out of here, you're blocking a driveway. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Kind: I agree. Yeah. Aanenson: So we felt if we made an edge here, making this...and put a trail or sidewalk in. Kind: And where's the trail that you want to get rid o~ That you recommended eliminating. Hempel: We're proposing a trail along this wetland here... Aanenson: Sort of duplicating that trail experience. Kind: Thank you. And then have you calculated the hard surface coverage? Aanenson: No. Kind: That's being proposed here... And just this drawing, I can't tell that they're providing for any visitor parking lot. Would our ordinance of 1 for every 4 units apply to this? Aanenson: We'll have to calculate that. We didn't do the landscaping percentage of anything. It's kind of broad brush at this point but that's something that they'll have to look at, correct. Kind: That's all for now. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman. Could you, on this color map, show us where the primary and secondary corridors fall based on the Bluff Creek study? Aanenson: It takes in most of this... Blackowiak: So pretty much everything west of TH 41, which is. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: And that follows the edge of this wetland. And then...but again the point I was making with Highway 5 frontage road, some of that would be eliminated. Blackowiak: So primary, pretty much the northern. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: No. And then along this edge. What about secondary? Is that all the rest? The secondary follows... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: Okay. Talking about setbacks from primary corridor, weren't we at 150 feet? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: What is the building setback from the primary corridor? Why do I have 150 feet in my mind? Aanenson: I've got the attachment, it's one of your attachments. The other thing is with the primary corridor is that, that was our kind of point of beginning. They can provide documentation by a qualified person to say this site has been altered but that was based on the information we had based on wildlife movement again and vegetation, slopes, wetland. Blackowiak: But didn't we have some qualified people to do the Bluff Creek study? Aren't we confident about the primary corridor delineation? Aanenson: It's similar to what we did with the wetland. We inventoried all the wetlands with an exact line of delineation. They would still have to go back out and verify by a qualified person. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: The ordinance is attached as one of yours, I don't have that off the top of my head but if you want me to look it up I can. They're going to have setbacks from the wetland. Burton: I think it's on the last page. Aanenson: 40 feet. Blackowiak: 40 feet. Aanenson: And that's consistent with like the, and that really is following the wetland. Edge of that wetland which is going to be 40 feet. It's a PUD. You can put what standards you want in there. Blackowiak: So where, go to Family of Christ on the south side of TH 5, near Bluff Creek school. Weren't we talking about 150 or 100 feet back? Aanenson: That was an area within the Bluff Creek study that we had identified additional enhancement to so as part of that PUD we said this is an area that we want to enhance. Similarly we said that huge significant tree stands we wanted to preserve so that was an area that we had identified in the study document, and I attached that in your packet, of an area we wanted to improve because that was along the creek. So we said we wanted additional setback there. For the PUD. What were we getting for that PUD. Blackowiak: Right. So what are we getting, tell me what we're getting with this PUD and why we should stay at 40 feet and shouldn't be farther back from the primary zone? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: I don't know if I've given a specific setback. I haven't calculated all those yet, or parking ratios. I think we're looking for some direction from you. Again, what the staff's position was was lower the front end instead of pUtting the higher units, that we preserve the significant stands. We transfer the density and the diversity of housing mix. Blackowiak: And then the commercial, the amount of commercial. How does it compare, I'm sure I've got it here somewhere but. Aanenson: 5 was the original recommendation, but what I'm saying is the pond had to go on that side so it lett a remnant parcel. It may even be larger if you add what's on the other side. Or you can say, maybe you only have 2 acres and the rest of it will be office related or quasi because you're going to have that remnant piece as TH 5 works it's, the frontage road West 78th works it's way back towards TH 5. Blackowiak: I'm just concerned about what kind of income, you know tax revenue. Aanenson: Sure. I guess and we wanted more specific, what types of uses they were looking at and maybe you could attach what some other quasi kind of uses that would be compatible to a neighborhood. Blackowiak: And just the overall, talking about what you want for that comer of TH 41 and TH 5 and you're not sure that the pond is what you want. Is this dense block of housing what you want? We as a city want. It's pretty intense right there. Aanenson: It could be more intense. It's up 8 units an acre. We lowered it down to just over 4. I think that's probably better than keeping it up closer to 8. And also I think with this type of product and orientation, I think it works nice with the trees being saved. You're not going to see with the orientation of the buildings, you're not going to see the sea of rooftops through there. Again, we don't have a lot of details on the topography, which is one of the conditions we had in there specifically. How they can work those units which they're aware. We've discussed that. Worked those units in so they're not, it's not mass graded. I mean it can hold 400 units. 400 plus units on the site. That's what they're coming in with. Whether it was all low density or what about the higher density, they're still going to have 400 units. It's 100 acres. Blackowiak: Okay. Burton: I was just following along with Alison. I'm concerned with the density too, and maybe it's just hard to look at the mixture here, but I like how the manor home section is spread out with the houses and that green space. And it'd be nice if we could incorporate more of that feel throughout the rest of the project too because just when you look through the corridor with the court homes and, especially along with the village homes too, it's just so dense right through there and I don't think it's like anything that I'm familiar with in the area. It just seems like it's such a heavy use right in the middle there. And one thing I was curious about, is this whole 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 project within the conservation, excuse me, the Bluff Creek conservation overlay? Whatever it is. Aanenson: No. Burton: Just the edges? Aanenson: Yep. Just this piece here. Burton: It's not in the overlay district, the whole? Aanenson: No. I know it's hard to read but that is unattached. Burton: Yeah, I couldn't read it at all. Because that's talking about incorporating the natural features and working with them and I kind of like the rural feel that Chanhassen has and this I think just eliminates that feel altogether. Joyce: See what they have for the presentation. A couple quick questions Kate. Is there a fence around this area? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: I mean is it a big fence? Aanenson: There's not specifics on that. Joyce: It looks like it borders the whole, that whole big section. I can ask staff. Are you saying that this road right here is going to, like a turn around, is that the suggestion there? Aanenson: Cul-de-sac it. We don't think it makes sense to pinch it between those two wetlands and take down the trees. Joyce: One, just so I can understand this. We're going to send this, this is kind of like a dry run that we're going to send to City Council. City Council's going to get our comments. Aanenson: Right. If you want additional you can certainly keep it here for a while but yeah, it's ultimately your recommendation will go up to the City Council and then they'll give the final read. It may take some time to come back, correct. It's not in the MUSA. They'll have to wait 'ti! that. They also have to petition for sewer. They have a two year phasing plan. They hope to be started in 2000. Very optimistic in our opinion. Assuming, we've got to get the road in place. Utilities in place. They can't proceed. We don't allow permits to go until the utilities are in place so it could be a year out. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: ...out in front of some people and find out what we're doing here so that's what we'll do right now. If the applicant would like to make a presentation. Dennis Griswold: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Dennis Griswold. The Director of Land for Pulte Homes and with me tonight is Mark Gugnther who will be up in a few minutes to talk about the particular product types that Pulte would be offering. And also Mr. Jim Deanovic who is one of the underlying property owners who will be speaking to you about the rental townhome portion and also the leftover piece on the west side of TH 41. So with that I think we've talked, or hit on a lot of the different points on the site plan. I'd like to just quickly go through some of those points and give you some of the thoughts that we had. Of course we're trying to, through the planned development process, do two things. Provide a community that would be a life cycle community for a number of different housing needs within the city of Chanhassen. And we're also trying to shift density around, or the units around somewhat so that we can work with the proposed frontage road and with the existing amenities on the site. Namely the wooded areas up along the marsh to the northwest behind the Markert property, and also the wooded area down on Highway 5, which is right in here. Those are the dominant features on the site that we can work with. Obviously we're totally avoiding the major wetland on site within the corridor so we feel that when we accomplish this site plan we will have a community that will be a life cycle community for various people in different age groups, income groups, housing needs groups to enjoy this land and the amenities and also be in a site that is very strategically located on a very busy road, but very convenient to the metropolitan area. And I think that's what we're trying to do is blend the Highway' 5 corridor if you will with the amenities and given that we feel it is a very exciting site and a very nice site to live at, if we can do those and accomplish it through working with you by the way and to this point we've worked closely with staff. We've come through several iterations of this concept plan, and we did want to keep it a concept level because as soon as we get into more detailed plans you get more locked into a position. It's harder to flex with comments. It becomes a very expensive process. This way we can have an interaction and hopefully come out with the best community possible working with you and council. We obviously don't know all of what you're trying to achieve. We were trying to provide an amenity on the comer of TH 5 and 41 in the form of a pond with a fountain that would be backed by pretty heavy vegetation and a decorative fence to kind of form the buffer between the heavy traffic area of TH 5 and the housing behind it. We thought that could be a nice entrance to Chanhassen from the west. Reflect what is over in the Arboretum in terms of plant material, but have the statement be more of a natural statement if you will with the plant material and the pond. I think through the process with you and staff maybe we can refine that to what your vision might be for that comer. It's obvious looking at the plan we're willing to dedicate some space on the site. Some expenditure to accomplish that. So we do have some common goals here. We want to come out of it with a very nice looking community that is economically successful for our company but one that you can be proud of too for years to come. We do offer within the plan development a series of paths that represent kind of our best effort at where people might want to go on site. On an initial stage. That has been recommended to change a little bit. Having gone through parks now, by revising the path along the east side in this area, and there have been comments about bringing the path system more into the southwest.., and maybe a better alignment on that street. So the streets within that part of the site are all private streets that would be maintained by the association. But given that we can 3O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 work with you on the green spaces in a more organized path system through there. The more heavily defined streets through this area and through here, of course public streets within public right-of-way. We would be constructing those and of course dedicating to the city. It was our understanding on a preliminary basis that that northerly, or northeasterly loop is something that was being contemplated by the, by one of the overall neighborhood plans and we're very happy to make that a cul-de-sac and not impose an access onto the adjacent property to the east. So we think that would be a very good solution. We will be, just a little bit about our process. Pulte Homes is a national corporation. We do about 20,000 units a year nationally. About 600 units locally and we're actually the Marv Anderson Division here in Minnesota. We've been here since 1990. And this is the type of community or project area that we really like to develop. We do the development and the construction of the units so we control the total community and I think we end up with a very nice product in the end. With that I would like to divert the comments to Mark Gugnther to just briefly touch on the unit types that we're proposing. As we mentioned on the site plan there are five different unit types. I'll just quickly point out where those units are on the site and then Mark can come through with more specifics about the architecture and the demographics. On the northerly part of the site, along the marsh are the club homes, which are one level with a basement where topography permits. Those club homes typically for the empty nester type buyer. In the center portion are our manor homes. They are row homes that are front to back. Garage on the front, back has the patio with either three to a building or four to a building. The area in through here, the rental townhomes which Jim Deanovic will be constructing. He will address those after Mark...his comments. On the south side of the frontage road would be the court homes through this area and those are 8 unit buildings and 6 unit buildings. And then down in the southwest comer are the village homes which are 12 plex units. They're three story on the garage side, or patio side, and they're configured with the green space in-between that creates kind of a little two building neighborhood affect for those people. So those are the different unit types. The villages, court homes, the manor homes and club homes will all be constructed by Pulte. They would be owner occupied and the 32 rental over here would be constructed by... With that I'd like to introduce Mark Gungther from Pulte Homes to go through the demographics and... Mark Gungther: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Mark Gungther. I'm the construction manager for Pulte Homes, Marv Anderson Homes Division as Denny mentioned. Denny did kind of give you a little background on Pulte Homes in terms of it's size. The thing though that we've been most proud of here in Minnesota in our division for the past 5 years we have been the best Pulte Homes Division across the U.S. in terms of customer satisfaction. The product that we deliver to our customers is a very high quality product. Our customers are very satisfied, with the end result as well as the service they receive afterwards. Like Denny mentioned, the community here of Arboretum Village consists of four products that are owner occupied and another product, one product that is rental townhomes. The products that we are presenting to you tonight, we have built hundreds of already across the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We've learned a lot from our buyers by building these communities what their needs are. What their wants are and then design and modify the products throughout the years to meet those needs. The first product that I'd like to present to you as Denny mentioned on the southern part is the village homes. This product is a two story townhouse with a tuck 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 under garage. We offer four floor plans in 12 home building so there are actually 12 homes in one L shaped building. Joyce: Mark, do we have a rendering of that? Mark Gungther: That one there. Was there one in the packet? Joyce: We have some nice color. I guess this one's black and white. Mark Gungther: The square footage on these homes range from about 900 to 1,150 square feet. Price range on these is about $100,000 to $110,000. The buyer profile on this, this caters basically to a first time buyer. They're typically professionals just starting out their career. Wanting to own. Moving up, or moving away from rental or mom and dad just said enough. It's time to get out on your own so don't want to live at home anymore. Since they are a first time buyer we have seen very few children in these communities. When we do a purchase agreement, each buyer is surveyed and so that's how we get our demographic information so by building hundreds of these homes we've been able to compile all that information throughout the years and what we've seen in this product is about .25 children per household. And in the age group, the majority of those children are falling in from birth to 5 years of age. In this product. As Denny mentioned on the elevation that you're seeing here, this is the two stories with the tuck under garage on the main entrance and then in the green space, this court yard area between the buildings here, the elevation of the homes will be two story and patios on that side into the courtyard as well as a couple units on the end with a patio courtyard. The next product is our court homes. These are also two story townhomes. The square footage is larger than the village homes. We range from about 1,100 to 1,350. The price range also is increased from about $112,000 to about $130,000. We offer three floor plans in 6 and 8 homes per building. The buyer profile on this is also very similar to the village home, except in the essence that they need a little bit more income. It's a buyer that wants a little bit more house. Has a little bit more income to spend and so they move into a two car garage unit. A little bit more square footage. It is typically your first time buyer as well and we've seen about. 16 children per household in this product. We offer in this community we do have multiple elevations. This one here is kind of a hip roof and then we also have...elevations. The elevations do get mixed up within the community so it's not just one elevation throughout the entire community. Joyce: Could I back you up for just one second. On the village homes, there's a question I was going to ask. Number one, you've got some bayed out windows in our rendition here. I assume that's a premium or something like that or is that natural? Mark Gungther: That is a different, the end unit is a different design. So that would be incorporated into the cost of that. And then in the comer, these are actually, it's a single level home. Single level...so that's the four different floor plans that we're offering. Joyce: The other question when we're talking about elevations is, we're looking at the gabling right now. They're just small gables here... 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Mark Gungther: Correct. Joyce: Thanks. Mark Gungther: The next product is our manor homes. Those are all... In this product we have two floor plans. They are both split level townhomes ranging from about 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Price range is about $145,000 to $165,000. These are available in 3 and 4 homes per building. The buyer profile on this is typically 50% are move up buyers. The other 50% are first time buyers. Just like the village homes, court homes, manor homes and the club homes, these are all association care communities. All the snow removal, ground maintenance, etc is all taken care of underneath the association. So they're looking for association care as well. You typically see a few more children in this community. About .32 children per household. And the last product that we're presenting here is our club homes. We offer three floor plans in our club home communities here as well. The square footage on here varies from about 1,222 square feet and we also put 3 homes per building in here as well. The square footage varies in these homes because we offer them with one level, as well as some of the homes will have a basement. And the buyers that we've seen most recently are deciding to finish their lower levels so the square footage goes up as well as the finish price, which will range from about $145,000 to $220,000. These cater mostly to our active adult communities. Average age is around 55. This is typically their last house that they're going to purchase or they're just nearing retirement and just preparing for it. They're seeking, the primary goal is seeking that one level living as well as the ground maintenance, association care. And we typically don't see very, see very, very few children in here. About. 15 children per household and those range in age of 15 years and older so living at home or just getting prepared to move out of home. So those are the four communities. All homes presented to you this evening, we have they'll all be predetermined exterior color packages and we can discuss that as well. All the elevations you see have brick. Typically it's all maintenance free products that we install in there between brick, vinyl siding, aluminum soffit, facia, and shingles as well so, with that I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this community and questions on product, we can either hold those or have Jim present the rental townhomes first and then we can discuss it. Joyce: Why don't you present the rental townhomes and then questions. Jim Deanovic: Hello, my name is Jim Deanovic. The part of the development that I am responsible for is right in here, and Met Council would speak to affordability, life style and integration and those would be affordable rental townhomes. A majority would be 50% of median income and the elevations would be very, very similar to Pulte's elevations on their two story models that are three building, four building units. The colors would be very similar to that. We just feel real strongly that we go from a rental to a start up to the life style that they've set forth in their plan. Joyce: Any questions for the applicant at this time? Kind: I guess not. I was, I want to ask materials questions but maybe that's the next phase. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Yeah. That's something that the staff has talked about. Certainly we feel again it's on the comer of TH 5 and 41. It needs to be wow. Brick. More articulation. Certainly. We're looking for direction from you on it too. Joyce: I think that's something that we should comment on. At the comment stage. Kind: Well I don't have any questions of the applicant. But I do have comments. Joyce: Any other questions? Dennis Griswold: Yes, I would ifI may, like to make a couple comments. While I have it up on the board. This is the artist rendering of that comer of TH 5 and 41 with the units in the background. There would be the pond with the boulder treatment behind it and the fence and the landscaping behind that so that's kind of the preliminary concept of what we were looking for there and would be happy to work with you on refining that. Joyce: I did have a question. Now what's, give me some insight on the fence. Does the fence go all the way around this, the southern half of this development? Dennis Griswold: It starts at this point. Right where, there's actually a little wetland right here and the fence would tuck into the existing trees and it kind of...and it would be angular in areas, working it's way around behind the pond. Angling in certain areas and die off at this point. And at that point it tie into a mass of evergreens and other plant materials and berming and plant materials...here and along the sides of... That's the concept. Joyce: Could you explain, could you give me a little...decorative or is it functional. Dennis Griswold: It's a decorative fence that would probably be 6 feet high. It would not be...more of a decorative fence... Give some separation... That's the thought. The other thing I wanted to comment on was that our concept of what Pulte at least is proposing on this site in terms of density is to use the guide of the 4 units per acre and the 4 to 8 units per acre through the site. And use that as the determiner for our unit count and our density on this site. We are purchasing the portion of the Savaryn property east of County Road 41 only, and we're purchasing the Mill's property which is all east of TH 41. We have no control at all on the portion west of TH 41, even though it is the same tax number and it's being reviewed with this development, we're not trying to ask for any density transfer from that. That is Mr. Deanovic's property and we have no claim to that. Aanenson: Can I make a comment on that? That's a big concern of the staffand it's been pointed out in the first meeting. It is part of the same tax parcel. It has a primary zone on the majority of the property. There's nowhere to transfer that density. This is an area we've identified that we want to preserve. If Mr. Savaryn or Mr. Deanovic picked up Mr. Savaryn's property, we think it's good planning practices to address that now. They choose not to transfer the density, fine. But then look to the conservation easement but I think it needs to be addressed 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 as part of this project. Whether they choose to include it or not, because if it's just split off, given the later density, there's nowhere to transfer it. I don't think that's good planning. Jim Deanovic's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Aanenson: Which is the reason why we supported this as part of the PUD. Conrad: What's your vision for the commercial area? Dennis Griswold: Right now the vision is limited basically that it is a comer of the property that we feel would be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial area being at that intersection and it could tie to the property to the east. We understand that the access recommendation is that there be a combined access onto the frontage road for those two properties with a righMn, right-out onto the north/south portion. So we are, we haven't at this point shown any site plan because we don't have a specific user in mind but we feel that that would be an appropriate location for it. I know there was some discussion tonight and at other times about would the property west of that access point be appropriate for it and it's an area that is low. MnDOT was looking at it for a holding pond. We would like to work with them on that location for their ponding requirement and actually turn that into a feature by having a fountain in that area. And have the backdrop of the trees and landscaping coming up the hill behind it so as you look towards the northwest from TH 5, there would be a pond there with... While that side would more directly connect for pedestrians coming down to that neighborhood commercial, it is contemplated that there would be a path system all around that area and that we feel that it would be more appropriate on the other side of the access point. Aanenson: Can I just comment. That goes back to your original question and Dave pointed out in his...will be a signalized comer... Conrad: Kate, what do you think we should expect when they come back in terms of flushing out a little bit the commercial layout? Right now it's a box. It's a block and we don't know. Is that, will you have at least some, will you require at least a little bit of planning on that commercial site after we approve or disapprove the PUD? Aanenson: Certainly. I think it'd be similar to what we did on Mission Hills and that there is commercial zoning adjacent to 101. We put together a laundry list that everybody was comfortable with. That became the uses permitted. Or conditional.. And then we also put design guidelines so pitched roofs, materials, all that would also be, you know whether you want this to relate to what neighborhoods. I think that would also be part of the specific standards for that commercial district, and how it relates to the other piece. It should be one of the conditions. I can double check to see. Yes, number 23. I think that can be further articulated by saying address the adjacent property and how that relates. Joyce: I like the idea of having conditional uses like you were saying. A list of that so that's something we can look at as far as...I think Ladd brings up a good point. A little better pin pointed. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for Kate. You're asking us to look at you know broad picture tonight. Sounds like they're in some disagreement at this point as to whether this parcel west of TH 41 is going to be included. To me that sounds like basic step number one is define your area. Are you comfortable with where you are right now? Or do we need to wait until we get a little better defined area before we move forward with this? Aanenson: Well it's the staff's recommendation that, while they believe they're not benefiting from the density transfer of that piece is approximately 12 acres. It would be guided when it 'came in you know residential low density, up to 4 units an acre. However many they could get on there based on the primary zone. The staff's position is there's nowhere to transfer it elsewhere on that property. It's not big enough. There is property on the other side and because it's, we're saying you can't segment the two. Blackowiak: Right, because they're the same tax number. Aanenson: Right. And they're doing it with the project and whether they benefit, if they're getting increased density, then that's a benefit to the PUD. They could choose to use that. But I think the staff's recommendation would be to leave it as part of the PUD and I think, what I thought I heard was that they were not receiving benefit as far as density from it. And while that may be true. Blackowiak: It's part of the property. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: So, what is your feeling? I mean do we need to tell you to go back and talk to them and iron out step number one? Aanenson: Give them some direction. Blackowiak: Define your property area and then come and talk to us. Have a little more information. Aanenson: I would just say, just leave it as a condition. That's how we had it, yeah. Do you want it included or not, and then you send the marching orders. If you don't, right. I mean they can, if they don't want to do it, that's sending clear your direction. Jim Deanovic: Can I speak to this? Joyce: Come on up to the podium. Jim Deanovic: You know I don't want to, if we eliminate that density on that piece, that piece goes to a value of zero. You know if we're not utilizing the density, which I know we are not on the other piece, I don't think that that's fair. It's as simple as that. I understand the conservation 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 and all the trees and everything else and I think that that has to be taken into account on a separate, whatever would happen to that piece after that. I mean the owner is here, let him speak to it. Joyce: I'll let him. Paul Savaryn: My name's Paul Savaryn. It's been a family farm for 30 years and just address that triangular piece. I'd recommend you drive by there but Kate's wrong on her characterization of it. It's 12 acres gross. Tanadoona Boulevard is on the north side of it. We've had that rented out for crops for the past 30 years and we receive rent on 7 acres so over half of it is tilled. And the trees, although they're dense and they're on the triangular, the steep triangular angle, there's nothing especially spectacular. It's just a dense growth of trees and I think any development in that would probably want to make use of it, but the fact is, as it gets narrower, there's less and less you can do on that southern end. So as far as that piece of property goes, I think it should have a use for itself and I have many in mind that probably could work there but it is now sold to, in the works to Mr. Deanovic. Aanenson: Okay, let me just rephrase the issue. We've got a piece that's a part of it and they want to segment something off. You have to assign it something. We can't just leave it there. Joyce: I think what we've got here is, it's nice that we're going through this conceptual PUD. Iron this out...area of this but I think what Alison said, I think they need some direction. I hear what Kate is saying. It's not whether we segment this off or not, and then give them some direction so they can come back to Kate... I'm not going to get hung up on this right now tonight. We need to proceed forward because we have a whole project here that...one segmented property. Although it's noted that it is an issue. Fair enough? Okay, let's get a motion to open this up for a public hearing then. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission at this point. Step forward. Bud Olson: Mr. Chairman, public safety commissioners. I'm Bud Olson. I live at 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard and my piece of land, let's see does it show on that? Okay. My piece is right here and my neighbor Bruce Geske is also here and he's just north of me by one parcel there. He'd be right there. Just some of my, I'm kind of pleased by the fact that it's not going to be Mill's Fleet Farm so I appreciate the fact that we're working on some other kind of concept for this comer. Some of my concerns are, first of all sewer and water considerations. Bruce and I are just kind of a couple of loners out there right now. Lundgren's got their project in over at Longacres and we didn't have much, we didn't know about it. So when we look at the future of our properties we're looking at, where's the sewer and water coming in for our two properties. My home is 30 years old. It's got septic and well. I don't know how much longer this is going to work for us so one of the considerations that I have in this whole project is how will you address the two loners that are sitting out there regarding the project. I know the church has petitioned 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 for that sewer line to go across and I just don't want to be forgotten. So that's one of my considerations. A couple others that I have is directly behind my parcel is a 2 ~ acre spot that is part of this land process and it is part of this project. Aanenson: It's topographically separated. It's on the other side of the wetland. They can't get a road to it. The Olson's property is in front of it. It's land locked. Bud Olson: Right, and I was waiting to hear some concept ideas for this whole thing and so that piece concerns me. Across the road is the 12 acres that is part of this discussion already that we've had. I have a consideration or concern for what we do on that side because that directly impacts the front of my property across the road there. Those are a couple other concerns. Being in the law enforcement profession I have a deep concern about this density when you consider the frontage road that's coming out to TH 41. As you drive that I'm sure you know there's a curve right into that road and I'm sure MNDOT's done studies and looked at that but I still have a car density issue. That TH 5 and 41 is a high traffic area. We have a lot of crashes there. It's another intersection here where we're going to add a large volume of traffic into that neighborhood so I have some considerations about is that traffic controlled? Is that going to be traffic controlled there for the purposes of getting in and out of that neighborhood. That is a consideration of mine. Future usage of Highway 41. With this density and this number of families and we've got kids that are going to be in this neighborhood. We have a school district that the school is already maxed out over at Bluff Creek. How will that impact this neighborhood and where do my children go? Where do the children of Longacres go? And this project some considerations for the school district. Also, there are parks but I don't see much green space here. I'm looking for where do all these kids go on their bikes? Where are they going to travel to? Where's the park system going to be involved in this process here, so that's another consideration I have great interest in. The rental units, I'm curious to see if there's going to be any on-site management there. We know in law enforcement that on-site management does a lot to control what happens on that property, so again from the law enforcement perspective I think it's important to know, will we have on-site management that will be watching those properties? I think that pretty much handles it. I am concerned about the usage of Highway 41. Will the trail system come north? If it does, it will come right through my front yard and how much impact that will have on the pedestrian bike traffic that comes by my neighborhood. So those are some of my considerations on this. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Dave, is there any comment on the...? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. That is one of the items that we've requested the applicant to do is petition the city for extension of sewer service to the area. We have received the petition from the Westwood Church group for that. We'll be in the process later this fall of putting together a feasibility study for the Westwood, what I'll call, what I call a th th , frontage road is West 78 Street. Or the extension of West 78 Street. And we 11 be putting together a feasibility study for that later this fall, early winter. In that review we will take a look at all the adjacent parcels that are included in the sewer district. Mr. Olson's property and the property owner to the north were excluded from the Lundgren development to the north because 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 they were outside of the sewer district based on the comprehensive plan so those parcels will all be looked at with this new area coming on line here in the year 2000. Joyce: Actually that touches off another comment. I'm just wondering, do we have a traffic study going on for this development? Is that something that's a necessary consideration? Hempel: That is a point that we did think about. I guess as far as access points along there, we did try to consolidate some of the access points and create a looped road system in our comments. That's why we probably need a little more detail than a conceptual review than usual because we did want to flush out a lot of issues to make the applicant aware that there are some issues out there with regards to traffic, sidewalks and so forth. Those will be reviewed as the plans get further detailed. Look at sight lines, spacings, working with MnDOT on the turn lanes for the intersections and whether or not they need to be traffic control warranted for those intersections. And so forth. All be coming down the line as the project... Joyce: It's an expense obviously. Hempel: Correct. Joyce: But it might be something that... Aanenson: Right, and again this project is predicated on the upgrade of Highway 5 and the frontage road and there will be signals with that. Joyce: Okay. Blackowiak: Kate, when you say predicated upon, in other words when Highway 5 is upgraded before this begins? Aanenson: That's what we're saying. Their time frame was 2000 and we're saying that the water would go in as a part of the road, then sewer also would need to be in place before we issue permits so it's pretty optimistic to say they'll be under construction in the year 2000. Blackowiak: So you're saying that Highway 5 needs to be in completed. Aanenson: The frontage road, which is the first, because the frontage road gets built first. That's access the by-pass during the construction of Highway 5. Blackowiak: Correct. So could conceivably the builder come in and start building while we're being by-passed from a frontage road or no? Hempel: Highly unlikely. Aanenson: Highly unlikely. It's very optimistic, yeah. I don't think so. That was something that. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: Big picture I mean. Big tracks. Lots of traffic. That doesn't sound like a good combination. Joyce: This is still open for a public hearing so if anyone else would like to come up. Seeing none, close the public hearing. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll throw out my comments. I think we've had a good overall discussion so far. Direction for staff...maybe make a few comments about a few points... I guess my general comments are I like the project. I like the mix of products. However I do have some concerns with the village homes and the court homes, that area. Individually the village homes... that layout that I've seen...I'd like to see the road shifted around maybe to create different angles. I have a feeling...more towards the center as far as the...in the development mainly because I'm concerned with the height. That it would give the appearance of more apartment like structures. Because we're not going to have a lot of vegetation.., for many, many years to give screening and buffering for this comer of TH 41 and 5. I guess I'm concerned about the massiveness of those buildings. I'd prefer to...if that would be possible. Also not really...pond at that comer. I guess there have been discussions about more vegetation and I would encourage more berming in that area for the sake of the residents because it will be very noisy on that comer so I guess I'd like to beef up more of a buffer and green space on that 41 and 5 area. Also I think just the basic layout needs to have more...green space .... manor home area is great the way it's laid out. Something that appeals to me...I'm sure that can be worked on. Feel comfortable with the amount of commercial...preserving what is there worked out really well. Joyce: Great, thanks. Good comments. Anyone else? Kind: Mr. Chairman. I agree with LuAnn and I won't repeat, echo many of my feelings, but I want to add to the comments with the village homes. I'm really not thrilled about the idea of a three story home with single car garages. And no double garages worked in here. I like the idea of mixing the lower priced units physically with the double car units. The more expensive units like we did in Walnut Grove where they're mixed in and not segregated off to the side. And I think that we can have...single car units that's being recommended here. The court homes are much more appealing to me. They start at $112,000 and I think would meet our affordability requirements. The court home style versus the three story, single car garage village homes. I really want to emphasize LuAnn's point about the contiguous green space. I think the spaces are wasted by having those village homes looking at the open courtyard. Nobody else gets to benefit by that...and it sure would be nice if some nice sight lines from Highway 5 to see some green space. Let's see what else? And I do have some comments, I guess it would be more along the lines of direction for what I would like to see in the next stage regarding I guess architecture. I really encourage the Pulte folks to go take a look at Walnut Grove. I think that there's some real nice things being done there, and my favorite things about Walnut Grove are that each style of building has kind ora unique look to itself. It's not each building looking unique but each style. 4O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 So all the court homes have kind of a similar look about them. Not each individual building. I am not a big fan of changing color of roofs on each building or changing the color of siding on each building to make it look like a single family detached, because it's not. And I really prefer subtle color pallets and one of the things I like about Walnut Grove is how there's a unified roof color and materials are common but have a unique look to each type of home. The craftsmen style, it's a classic style that I like. I'm not suggesting that this also be a craftsmen but I think we really need to be careful of picking a style that's going to look dated and trendy. And the open gazebo space at Walnut Grove is really neat and maybe that's more appropriate than a totlot. I don't know. I think that's it. Burton: Mr. Chairman I have just a couple short comments. I guess'I commented a little bit earlier and the comments have been echoed. I think that we need to have more green space and to preserve it and I think a lot of it could be achieved with the layout. It just seems so dense to me. Especially in the southwest comer. Then one of the audience comments was about recreation areas and I do see that there are recreation areas for tots. I don't see that there are any other recreation areas and it would be nice to see other options like perhaps ice rinks or basketball courts or something like that so the other older kids, and the adults too have other things to do there. I guess and then the wetland issue I would like to make sure that as we go forward that we stringently adhere to the setback requirements and not make exceptions since we're so early and they can get plenty of notice that that would be the case. I'd like to strongly enforce that. And to also preserve the natural features as much as possible. I think that's it. Blackowiak: Well yeah, I think I'd like to start out by saying that I strongly support what Kate said about treating not only this parcel but also the triangular parcel west of TH 41 as the PUD area. I would like to see that. The PUD area defined as such. I don't feel that leaving that little sliver of the parcel is appropriate. We need to plan accordingly, and whether, I'm not talking benefits. I'm not talking density transfer but I think it's good planning to put it all together. One tax ID number. That's how it is. Treat it as such. Secondly, overall I think you need to look at the commercial and make sure that it is attached or works with some way the parcel directly to the east so that we don't just leave a couple little commercial here and a little commercial there because that doesn't make a lot of sense. When we're looking at PUDs we keep saying higher design standards. What is the community getting and I think that we need to do some real basic planning before we even start getting into the whether we like the village home versus the court home versus you know. That's all fine and good and that's...but like I said, overriding, I think we need to define this parcel as, including the west of TH 41. And specifically the commercial. Village homes, boy. Awfully dense and I use the word intense and I think they're very intense for that comer. I would question whether it will even meet the parking requirements Kate. I'm not sure. One garage per unit doesn't sound quite right to me. So I just don't know if that's the place for it. I agree with what Matt said about the recreation opportunities. I heard all these low numbers for tots. You know. 16 per unit or something so they're not going to be playing there. We need to have something for the people that are going to be there so gardens, basketball courts, gazebos, open green space areas. Something for the other people because according to, what I'm hearing there aren't going to be lots of tots there. And finally, I don't know about the primary zone but I would really encourage us to look at where the primary and secondary zones fall and get a real good idea of distances from things and what we're trying to accomplish. What 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 we're trying to save up along this north end. And what we're going to do with this little land locked just east of the Olson property, because that really needs, I'm just assuming we're just leaving it. So if we're all comfortable with that. And let's take a look at that...carefully along the north end and see what we can do. See what we want to accomplish there and maybe there can be some passive recreation opportunities in that area to be addressed. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Actually I was hoping this was going to come in all commercial so probably, and I'm serious. This is a commercial site and I'm sure the neighbors like single family. I'm sure, but it's a commercial site where we could make some money. I'm vacillating back and forth. I basically like what's been presented. If we care at all about affordability in Chanhassen, it's an opportunity. Even the 3 or 4 of the, well 3 of the home plans are affordable so it's hard to make affordable housing. So we should all check on that. I think some of the, every time we see density then we worry about is it looking good but then boy, then get rid of our comprehensive plan. Tell them how to make affordable housing. That doesn't negate what the rest of the commission has said however. So it's not easy to give direction on stuff like this. Offer affordability and I think Pulte's a good name. They do make a good product... A couple concerns I have. Given I give up my commercial need there, given I give that up, you've got to make the TH 5 and 41 intersection at. tractive. You've just got to. I'm not going to tell you how to do it. You've got to tie it to the Arboretum and make it look, probably staff has a good sense. You've got to make, I really, I think what we all react to is the blocks, especially inthe village home. It does look stamped out. That's how you make money. It does look very predictable and that bothers me but that's what a builder like you can do very well, ~o I know that's your strength. From a conceptual standpoint, it bothers me a little bit. I'd like some variation in there. I think the connectivity in that area is real important and that one I'll make sure you do. The rest you'll probably persuade me one way or another but I just don't want block. You've got to solve that one. You heard some comments about the three stories and I don't know. I think we've got to put, that's how you bring affordable housing in and you bring affordable housing in not by putting it next to Lundgrens, but by putting it right here. So there's got to be a check up here, but I think you can do some of the things. The connectivity, I know you can do. I know you can make some green aisles going through here. I know you can. I know you can do some pathways. I don't want a pond just to be a pond because of the highway, MnDOT says we need drainage. It sounded like you were doing it so I heard that, make it work for the people that are there. Not just a fountain. Make it work. That commercial, for sure you've got to, there's such nice neighborhood commercial things that I've seen that integrate in and that's why I really don't like it across the road. It's a little bit of a barrier and it stops. It makes people drive versus walk, but maybe we have to have it where you got it. I would like to see how your schematic of how you might be laying that out back Kate. I'm not going to approve it just a box. I have to at least have a good faith estimate of where we're going with that. I'm not necessarily and I'm not sure what we zoned it for so now I'm winging it but I really, it's just got to integrate. If we allow gas stations, it's not a SuperAmerica. It's one that's sort of integrated with the family type atmosphere that we might have at a market or whatever. It has to be really a true neighborhood type of commercial center. I don't care how you solve the land to the west. I'll contradict maybe the rest, some of the commissioners and staff. I don't know legally how we deal with it. I wish 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 you could use the density transfer. That's a great way that we have to get what we want and help you and if that doesn't' work, I don't know how we do it. You heard we don't want so much density so I don't know. I don't know how to size that. I think some of the other things they said here are pretty good. Even though you only have 50 kids in this site, I'm surprised the Park and Rec didn't give any. Aanenson: They put 2 ½ acres they wanted totlots, right. Conrad: They felt comfortable, okay well I guess you're hearing some challenges to that so they have their opinion and we have ours and it looks like a lot of parcels and where's the park. I think if you didn't put the word tot in here we would have been comfortable. To be determined whether. Yeah, that's my. I think what we're getting is some good, well constructed, affordable, predictable, good builder stuff here. If we start knocking out some of the things where they've, the higher density stuff, then we're screwing around with affordable housing in Chanhassen so it's your opportunity, our opportunity to get it. Again, I don't know, but I think you've got to solve some of those other things that you heard up here. Those are important. If you can show me how you can vary the predictability of those neighbors close, you know the village homes. I kind of like how you, I like the green space between them. I think that's kind of neat but I think you've got to do something there to help us put a lot of folks in there. In terms of walking. That's all. Joyce: ...I think your initial presentation is nice. I like, it's well organized. Nice materials. It's laid out real nice for us so that's helpful so next time around you know...in that regard. I don't have a lot to add. The only thing I can say is when I look at this, the part to the north of the frontage road seems okay and this part always bothers me. I mean it's just as simple as that. So it's kind of a flow of the project. We went to seminars and stuff Kate where we had the neoclassical looks and things like that where we really condensed some of these higher density buildings into one area to leave green space and I think that's kind of what we're saying because it really looks chopped up. Aanenson: Well that's what we tried to do with the village but you're already seeing resistance because it's different. We're trying to compress some of that towards the front. Try to keep it, make that transition from Longacres. Joyce: I challenge Pulte to give us some sort of, something like that. I think both Deb and LuAnn made some good points. LuAnn saying the elevation on those things. I think you can alleviate that by what LuAnn said maybe blending the court homes. I didn't like, I personally think you can work on the elevations as far as the articulation on those village homes. I think more gables, more bayed out windows, things like that gives it a little more...look. I think it was plain looking. This is just personal stuff I'm throwing out there but yeah, I mean I'm just saying what everyone else is saying. It's just you've got these cookie cutter blocks and if there's some way of pushing all this density into one area to take advantage of some green space, yeah. It'd be different but I think you get more benefit out of it. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Can I just get some feedback from you. If we push the taller ones toward the middle, you're going up in elevation. You're going to see them more. That's why the staffpushed them towards the intersection to give a sense of entrance so maybe it might be helpful to come back with a couple different, before we spend a lot of time at the next evolution. Joyce: I mean if we had a couple of options. Did we do that with Walnut Grove? Aanenson: Oh yeah. A year of options. Joyce: I mean they gave us some options. They came in and they said here's 2 or 3 ideas, what do you guys, and you know you got the response back. People liked it. Aanenson: Yeah, because what I'm saying is, if we're going this way I think you have to realize, you're trading one thing for another and I want to make sure we understand what we're trading. That was a concern that we had. That by pushing them up, you're going to see more of them. And keeping them as a lower profile but maybe we can come back in an open discussion and come back with some different versions as we move this along. Joyce: I think we have a concept. Now it's a matter of working with it. Yeah, it's going to take some time but I think thought and scratched and we got that Walnut Grove thing and I live next to it... We finally came to everyone agreeing to it and shaking hands and being happy. Conrad: Kevin, what's the price range down there? Joyce: More than my house I'll tell you that. Conrad: Yeah. Kind: They have some units... Joyce: Yeah you're talking about, but I'm talking about, we're talking about, see when we started with those zero lot homes, they were, they looked like mobile homes. And what they turned into are these bungalows and they're gone. For $250,000. If you're talking affordability, yeah. I agree. But you've got also the $80,000 homes next to those nice homes and you've got some affordability. Kind: That's what I like. They're mixed in within. Not just segregated off. Joyce: Yeah there was, the neighborhood blended in from single family to very nice bungalows to some affordability. Conrad: The price range is pretty compressed, and so again as you went from 1 to 150 to 180 to 210 to 240, I heard some ranges that were between 100 and 150 for most of their product. I was pretty impressed so, I don't know. I'm not trying to argue affordable. I still like commercial. 44 Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1999 What we get here...the density's okay. Figure out how to push it one way or another but do we like, or do we want to cut density by 50%. Joyce: Kate had a good point. You've got 100 acres. There's not much density you can cut. How much density can you cut? Aanenson: Well there's a wetlands in there. I mean you have to take out, there's gross and net. Joyce: ...80 acres. Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: You're going to have 350. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. You're getting 400 units on there so it's how you want to segment those. That's the $64,000 question. What I'm hearing is we need to come back with a couple different iterations for you. I mean we spent, staff and Pulte, this is the third or fourth iteration. Our recommendation, they were thinking all one product. We should try to get some different product. Joyce: What I'm saying is, I think this comer has to be worked on. That's my personal opinion. I think I heard from everyone else they have a problem with that. It's a gateway into the city. Aanenson: Right, and we tried, again the staff's position, just so you understand is we tried to make a transition. Similar to Walnut Grove. Stepping the density towards the highway, which was given the higher density, and tried to do that but what I'm hearing is just some of the other issues. Open space. How the, as Ladd said, the predictability. Some of that issues and I think w.e can come back with some different, before they go too much further, come back with some other. It may be even before council. Conrad: Yeah, this shouldn't be a dialogue between us but you're okay with the density there. You just don't like how it's mixed around. Joyce: What I don't mind about the density is that you have, you don't have homes up here either though that are, I mean it's, this right on Highway 5. It's probably, I'd review it. I agree with the fact that yeah, it seems like it's an industrial property...outgide of the downtown so I disagree with commercial. Conrad: Or office would be fine. Joyce; This would be a better office. If you had an office thing in front of me, yeah. I'd be happier. Blackowiak: Yeah, office in the southwest quadrant. Leave the homes up here as they are. I mean that to me that would be ideal. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: That would be ideal. But this is going to be developed one way or the other and we could just toss out the whole idea. I don't find it really offensive, I just have a problem with this comer I guess is what we're trying to say. Conrad: But that's a tough comer. Do you not like so many units on it? Are we trying to strip out units from this comer? Joyce: What it looks like, to give it a better flow, yeah. We'll leave it at that. Like I know what I like and I can't tell you what I like but I don't like this right now. Conrad: But what they'd like to hear is if we want to strip out units some. That's the point of this conceptual deal. If we think it's got 20% too many units or we think 5 more acres should be commercial, let's tell them right now. They don't want to come back and we say well, yeah. So are we comfortable with the density? Joyce: You know what, I think that if they use a little imagination they wouldn't have, if they've got to strip out 5% of them to make it look nicer, it might be worth their while. Conrad: But they could have the 36 units from across Highway 41. Where are those? Aanenson: Good question. Conrad: We've got to give them those units I guess. They have a right to but anyway, it shouldn't be a dialogue but. Kind: Mr. Chairman? Joyce: Yes. Kind: To answer Ladd's question, I'd like to see less density in that lower area. What I'm hearing from Kate that we in the comp plan have promised that 400 units could be on this. Aanenson: No. They...get that many, no. I'm saying if you look at it on the gross, that's approximately what they could get. It would be lower density on the north side of the frontage road and it would be even higher on the south side, up to 8 units an acre. What I'm saying that right now it's averaging about 4. They still probably maybe 2 ½, maybe closer to 5. Conrad: It's low density folks. It's low density and you're trying to strip it out. Aanenson: The 80. I added the 12 on the other side in. Conrad: It doesn't look pretty and high density doesn't look necessarily as pretty as single family. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Well I think it could be more imaginative. I think you can be creative with this, and that's what I want them to come back with. Something a little creative. I think if you have some options, and work with the staff because Kate has an idea here. It's brewing that she might be able to offer you, and I hear what she's saying. That we don't want these big massive three structure buildings up on a hill. I can see a problem with that. I think I'm just going to leave it at that. We're going to bring this, we'll vote on this right now? Aanenson: Yes. You can go a lot of different ways. Conceptual, you have to make a recommendation to planning. I mean to the council, excuse me. Conrad: The concept. How could I summarize what we just said? Aanenson: You have three options. Table it, recommend denial or recommend approval with conditions. Joyce: I need a motion then. If everyone's done. Conrad: Are we making the motion, yeah. So this is going to the City Council for a conceptual plan review Kate? Aanenson: Correct. It says, and I can quote, the PUD ordinance. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing, report it's findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Conrad: I've never done this before. Aanenson: Yes you have. Conrad: I never have, so you're making me go into waters that just, on a concept plan it's give them some direction. ' Aanenson: Yes you have. Conrad: These are very specific things that probably I haven't reviewed because they look too detailed for a concept plan. Therefore I'm real uncomfortable saying I agree with all these. What I do agree with some of the directions that we gave up here. So I think, because it will come back, I don't know what. Kate, you've got to tell me what's legal. If we need a motion on it, then I'll make the motion. If that's what the ordinance says, I heard we had to process this with the 120 day deal. Aanenson: No. You've got three options. You can table. Conrad: Previous deal, okay. Aanenson: You can table it. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Make the motion. Conrad: I don't have to but I may want to. Aanenson: That's fine. Or you can change the recommendations. Those are, staffput those in for guidelines. If you want to put something different, make them broad brush, that's fine. Conrad: I would recommend, I'll make the motion. That the Planning Commission, do we have to do approval? Aanenson: No. You can table or deny it. Conrad: Yeah, but we don't want to do those. There's no point in doing those. Aanenson: You have to make a recommendation. Blackowiak: Unless we want to see some other options. Conrad: That's right. Blackowiak: I mean conceptually, are you in agreement with it? Conrad: Well the validity of a concept plan is to get everybOdy's perspective. The developers would like to know what everybody's thinking, especially the City Council. They make the last decision. I have no need to keep it here and have us screw around with it and then have the City Council say that's not really what I want. We agreed Ladd with you that it should be all commercial. Don't need to do that. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they review the conceptual planned unit development #99-2 for the Arboretum Village and the comprehensive land use plan amendment subject, reviewing the conditions in the staff report dated September 1, 1999 with the following additions. After 31, I put all my notes away. That 32 says the Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. Planning Commission is looking, next condition 33. For a creative approach to the intersection of TH 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site. I've got to leave the chunk of TH 41 off of my motion. It is in the staff report. I don't know how to deal with that. They've recommended it be considered part of that and I don't know that I can contradict or counteract that or contradict it right now so I'm going to leave that in. That was the other issue. Parenthetically we did note the comments from the public so we're not ignoring, I think everybody heard what you were saying and they're good points. That's my motion. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Does anyone want to second that? Kind: Thinking about it. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Joyce: Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they review the Conceptual Planning Unit Development #99-2 for Arboretum Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment reviewing the following conditions presented by staff and the Planning Commission: 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and 'formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 4 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 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. 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. 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 the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater 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 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 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. o 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. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 11. 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 for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. The applicant shall incorporate berming into the plans adjacent to West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5 per city code. Additional buffering/screening should also be considered along TH 5 and TH 41 for noise abatement. 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 Corridor Study. 13. 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. 14. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. 15. The applicant/property owner shall petition the City for sanitary sewer service. 16. 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. 17. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Blvd. and a full shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 The exact location of the access points are subject to City and MnDOT review at time of site plan review. Cross access agreement will be required at time of final platting 18. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Blvd., TH 41 and TH 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5 project. 19. Provide a public street and sidewalk/trail system south of West 78th Street which will loop back out to West 78th Street. Sidewalk/trails shall also be provided along the public streets north of West 78th Street. Eliminate the trails along the wetland in the easterly portion of the site. Provide trail connections to TH 5 trail and future trail connection to TH 41 between West 78th Street and TH 5. 20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted 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. 21. Future extension of the north/south street is not needed. Shorten street to minimize impacts to wetlands and trees provide cul-de-sac. 22. Each housing area become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics. 23. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. Neighborhood uses are those goods necessary to meet daily needs. 24. A road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order. 25. The applicant shall be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans are submitted. 26. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area before a setback can be established. 27. Preservation of the wood lots on the property. 28. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. 29. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction. 30. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. 3 I. The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2-1/2 acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 32. The Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. 33. The Planning Commission is looking for a creative approach to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. 34. The Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. 35. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. 36. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: ALTERATIONS IN THE BLUFF ZONE, REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER ORDINANCE, AND YARD (PORCH) REGULATIONS. Aanenson: It'd been around. Joyce: It's been around the block. I missed a couple meetings hoping it would go away. Blackowiak: How much time do we have in our work session? Aanenson: I think that'd probably be better. Blackowiak: Would that be appropriate to discuss this. Burton: Do we keep them? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: Why don't we do that. Blackowiak: I'm just thinking that personally I'm getting. Aanenson: Well it's the first day of school for you. Blackowiak: Yeah. Would we have a better discussion if we have a little more time or do we have a full agenda that night? Joyce: Do we have a work session coming up? Aanenson: Yes. First meeting in October. 52