The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Conceptual PUD for low, medium and high density dwelling units East of Hwy 101 and north and south of Wes 86th St. .1 c CITY O F PC DATE: 10/20/93 ......--•"' ', CC DATE: 11/22/93 CIIA)7HASSE N � CASE #: 93-4 PUD I By: Al- Jaff/Krauss/Hempel / 1 STAFF REPORT 1 , , 1 PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Approval for low, medium, and high density (208 or 204) dwelling units, and neighborhood commercial I Z uses. . I U Q LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street. J APPLICANT: Tandem Properties I ° 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Q� Q Bloomington, MN 55439 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family I ACREAGE: Approximately 62.05 acres (gross) 39.74 acres (net) PP Y (&' 1 2.17 a Multi-Family 8.105 a net DENSITY: Single-Family u/ ul y u/ (net) 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm 1 E.:5 S - Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family Q . E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor Subdivision 1 W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family W WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site. 1 (n PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently being farmed. It contains three wetland areas. I 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ( Commercial -High Density Residential), Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential II / i r Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 2 1 Note: There were many changes made to the Mission Hills plans. Rather than giving the City Council an update, staff wrote a new report. 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY This is a Planned Unit Development concept request to create a mixed use (commercial and ' mixed density residential) development. Tandem Properties will be the developer of Mission Hills. The site is located east of existing Highway 101 and north of proposed Highway 212. West 86th Street, which is a gravel road, bisects the site in the middle. A horse farm is located ' to the north of the site. To the east of Mission Hills is Rice Lake Manor, which is a large lot subdivision zoned Residential Single Family, containing 8 parcels, served with city sewer and equipped with on -site water wells. ' The site is located within the MUSA line. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Mission Hills site from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the ' site into 4 blocks and 1 outlot. The entire Mission Hills property is approximately 62.05 acres which includes a 7.72 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial uses, 25.46 acres for multi- family housing, and 9.06 acres for single family housing. Block 1 ' is proposed to have 4 four - plexes, 4 six- plexes, 6 eight - plexes, and 4 twelve - plexes. All proposed units within Block 1 are two story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 16 single family lots and will act as a buffer between the medium/high density units and Rice Lake Manor ' subdivision. Block 4 is proposed to contain 8 four - plexes and 3 eight - plexes. All proposed units within block 4 are single story. The total proposed units on the site have increased from 190 units as was shown on the plans reviewed on August 18, 1993, to 204 units with a possibility ' of adding another 4 units depending on the alignment of Highway 101. This will be discussed in detail further in the report. Development concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this . submittal. This is an area of concern to staff who views the site as supporting only future neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. We have ' met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type uses, although he believes ' commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The commercial site is located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212 interchange. The proposal is for a PUD so that the city can establish a range of allowable uses 1 and design parameters. The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The net density is 2.17 units /acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is 20,010 square feet which has been increased from the previous submittal that reflected an average of 16,400 square feet. This was achieved by eliminating 2 single family lots. i 111 Mission Hills PUD 1 October 20, 1993 Page 3 1 The Comprehensive Plan shows the area in the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland and south of 86th Street) guided for 4 to 8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre which exceeds the district's density by 0.6. In order to meet the required density, the applicant must reduce the number of units from 58 to 54 units. This could be accomplished by moving those units west of the pond. The remainder of the site has a density that is below 1 the permitted density. Staff feels comfortable with recommending approval of the 8.6 units per acre in the southeast portion of the site. The overall layout of the units blend well. Furthermore, this density could be transferred west of the site, which would result in packing some units closer 1 together. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The proposed multi- family will generate a total of 44.2% of hard surface coverage in Block 1, and 43.2% hard surface coverage in Block 4. The PUD ordinance allows a maximum of 50% hard surface coverage, which is below the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The site is impacted by the adjacent right -of -way of Hwy. 101 and future Hwy. 212. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the site. Highway 101 is located to the west of the site. This highway will provide a major link between proposed Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 5. Increased trips on Hwy. 101 will be inevitable once Hwy. 212 is completed. MnDOT will be responsible for the development of Highway 212. Existing Highway 101, however, was classified by MnDOT as a temporary highway in the 1930s. Therefore, State funds cannot be appropriated for any improvements with the exception of absolute minimum safety improvements. Recognizing that the city needed to be proactive if appropriate planning was to be done for Hwy. 101, the city commissioned a study in 1988. Prepared by Fred Hoisington, this study established proposed new development, four different possible alignments with sidewalks and berms, and design parameters. It also suggested land uses for the area. These recommendations, which called for a new alignment east of old Hwy. 101 with a 4 lane plus trail design were incorporated into the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the road near Hwy. 5 have already been constructed in accordance with the plan. 1 Due to MnDOT's design refinements on the Hwy. 212 Plan and approval of the ISTEA legislation, the City Council/HRA determined that the study should be updated. Urban design 1 improvements promoted under the ISTEA regulations could diminish impacts and improve the design. Consequently, Fred Hoisington is currently working with staff to update his original study. This work has yet to be completed and the ultimate alignment will have a bearing on the design of the western edge of the PUD. The plans did not effectively take the four proposed alignments for Hwy. 101 into consideration. 1 Staff brought this issue to the applicant's attention and accordingly, the applicant prepared an alternative concept plan which will accommodate alternative #3. We cautioned the applicant that the City Council has not voted on an alignment yet, therefore, it is speculative on their part to submit plans that would accommodate one alignment only. Staff has included a condition recommending approval of the plans contingent upon the City Council adopting alternative #3 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 1 Page 4 as the official alignment for Highway 101 as prepared by Fred Hoisington. The applicant was able to accommodate alternative #3 alignment by shifting the exterior lot line bordering existing Highway 101 further to the southeast, which resulted in reducing the number of units in Block 4 from 56 to 52 units, and reduced the neighborhood commercial area from 9.33 acres to 7.72 1 acres. This alignment will result in the removal of two houses located north of the proposed Mission Hills. Staff conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on November 17, 1993, to discuss the Highway 101 alignment with residents. The Planning Commission is expected to review this alignment at their January 5, 1994, meeting. Staff will then forward the plans to the City Council at their January 24, 1994, meeting. The applicant may proceed with plans received October 26, 1993, if an alignment for Highway ' 101 has been chosen and the applicant can demonstrate that the plans submitted October 26, 1993, can accommodate the road, sidewalks, and berms. ' The project generally conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as we currently understand them. Grading plans of the site indicate that proposed highway elevations have been taken into consideration during the plan preparation stage. The area impacted the most ' by the highways will be the outlot containing the commercial uses. This is the location where the highways are proposed to intersect, although final plans for this intersection have not been adopted yet. Based upon the foregoing, the applicant will develop the outlot last. Types of ' commercial uses permitted in the outlot will be outlined later in the report. As mentioned earlier, West 86th Street is a gravel road. This road provides the only access to ' Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor have an easement for the public right - of -way of this road. When Rice Lake Manor was approved, it was believed that this was a temporary situation and that once the area surrounding the subdivision develops, West 86th Street 1 would be realigned and improved. The applicant is requesting the alignment of West 86th Street be changed by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy. 101. This will provide for better sight distance and alignment. The existing intersection will be eliminated which will allow for 1 improved development coordination and traffic safety. The right -of -way on all public streets in the proposal have been shown at 60 feet with the exception of the most westerly right -of -way ' of 86th Street, to allow for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes as West 86th Street as it approaches Hwy. 101, and a sidewalk that would connect this proposal with parks and trail in the vicinity. Staff anticipates that additional right -of -way might still be required. The street 1 servicing the single family lots is shown terminated along the northern property line of the site, with a possible future extension when the property to the north develops. This street alignment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The roads servicing Blocks 1 and 4 are proposed to be private roads maintained by a homeowners association. 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD 1 October 20, 1993 Page 5 1 Staff has been meeting with the developer since late spring. We believe that they have produced a concept that, while still quite rough, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We further note that it provides a mix of housing types that we believe to be in short supply in our community and appears to provide much needed, moderate cost housing. We believe that with continued refinements it can meet or exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community. There are, however, a series of concerns that must be addressed before the project comes back for formal approval. These include the following: 1. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission and City Council's input. 1 2. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. Mass grading of the multi- family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. 3. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development 1 plan is submitted. 4. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 5. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 1 Page 6 Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the PUD Concept Plan be approved. This approval should be contingent upon responding to the issues outlined above and elsewhere in this report as well as those raised at the Planning Commission meeting. 1 Site Characteristics This site contains rolling hills and three wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site that need to be located and identified at the time of formal plan submittal of the PUD. 1 The site is bordered by two major right -of -ways, Hwy. 101 to the west and Hwy. 212 to the south. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the subject site. Highway 212 is proposed to be built with four lanes by the year 2000. Subsequently, this will increase the number of trips on Hwy. 101 and push the need for improving this substandard highway. The city has retained Hoisington - Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best alignment for Hwy. 101. Background The parcels that are included in this plan include areas that were studied in depth during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city in 1991. The site is identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan as mixed use (commercial - high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. ' On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with numerous changes as outlined in staff's report and as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated August 18, 1993. The applicant significantly revised the plans to respond to these issues as well as those raised by area residents. Staff and the applicant felt that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to review these changes before we forward the plans to the City Council. On October 20, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the changes and recommended some additional minor changes which the applicant has incorporated into the new submittal. We commend the applicant for his willingness to facilitate this opportunity. The following staff report has been amended as necessary to account for the revisions. The issues that were identified by the Planning Commission and the residents are as follow: 1 Issue: The residents of Rice Lake Manor requested that the number of single family lots be reduced, the size of the lots be larger, and a form of barrier be created between the two developments. The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The PP g Y P average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the 1 1. Mission Hills PUD 11. October 20, 1993 Page 7 applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two subdivisions to prevent trespassing. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high and requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the reduction of hard surface coverage on the site. The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four - plexes along the north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West 86th Street. Under this new site layout, 14 new multi - family units have been added and 2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50%. The hard surface of the site is in compliance with the ordinance with the exception of Block 4, shown in the Alternate Concept Plan. The plan indicates a 55.83% hard surface coverage. This plan was prepared after the Planning Commission meeting. It accommodates alternative #3 for Highway 101, as prepared by Fred Hoisington. This plan must be revised to meet the 50% hard surface coverage required by ordinance. The density of the southeast portion of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4-8 units per acre. The density as proposed by the applicant is 8.6 units per acre. However, the north and southwest portions of the site are guided for 8 -16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units per acre in Block 4. The overall density of the site is below that required by ordinance. Furthermore, the PUD ordinance allows transfer of density within a PUD if the overall density does not exceed the density 1 shown on the comprehensive plan. Based upon the following, staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to maintain the existing site layout. Issue: The lans lacked park and trail facilities. P The applicant has converted one of the four -plex unit building sites into a private recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of the lot is quite small, however, in the range of one -half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site 1 paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. This box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 8 east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff have been concerned over the type of uses in the commercial portion of the site. Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial 1 type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The type of uses that were agreed upon are low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses. At the October 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Mancino indicated that the Highway 5 design standards should be incorporated within the commercial district of this site. Staff incorporated these standards in the standards and I design section. Issue: The site is being mass graded. This still remains an issue. The applicant has not revised the grading plans, nor has he submitted new ones. Staff is recommending that the grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site. Issue: The previous plan showed private driveways and curbcuts accessing off of West 86th 1 Street. The plans have been revised to allow all units to access off of an interior street. Issue: Landscaping and berming was lacking on the original plans. The applicant has revised the plans to allow berming along the west and south side of the site. Also, trees have been added along both north and south sides of West 86th street. 1 Issue: Building elevations were missing with the first submittal. 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD 1 October 20, 1993 Page 9 The applicants have submitted the elevations of the units for review. They are of high quality and meet the standards established in the guidelines for the PUD. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 62.05 acres from RSF, Residential Single 1 Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the 1 relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive 1 environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There are significant rolling hills throughout the site. Also, there are three g g g wetlands on the site. Grading plans indicate that those hills will be extensively graded. The applicant will place the units on a relatively flat terrain as a result of site grading except on the street and court providing access to the single family units. The grading plan should be revised to maintain the existing topography to the extent possible and minimize impact on the hills. The wetlands on the site are proposed to remain intact with the exception of the wetland located north of 86th Street. According to the National Wetlands Inventory map and a site inspection, this wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow). The City of Chanhassen would classify this wetland as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.07 acre and will be filled as a result of the 1 • 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 10 1 proposed development. Mitigation measures should be provided to replace this wetland. This issue is discussed in more detail under the subtitle "wetlands." 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. 1 Finding. The site is guided for mixed use commercial/high density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. The advantage in the PUD proposal is 1 that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individual parcels, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both ' existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The plans and narrative submitted by the applicants propose to build different types of multi - housing units that will be architecturally compatible. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The way the proposed plan is designed is reasonable. Low density, detached single family housing separates the existing subdivision to the east from the proposed multi- housing. This also creates a buffer between the two densities. A landscaping 1 buffer is proposed by the applicant along the Hwy. 101 right -of -way. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use, commercial-high R p gtu , co g density residential, medium density residential, and low density residential. This area is adjacent to two major right -of -ways that are proposed to intersect along the southwest corner of the subject site. The proposed uses are appropriate for such an area. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and 1 overall trail plan. 1 1 Mission Hills PUD . 11. October 20, 1993 Page 11 Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this application. To meet their requirements, the applicant is providing a tot -lot and sidewalks through the site. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with P g �' P the PUD. Finding. The variety of housing types offered within this proposal has been identified in several studies as a need in the City of Chanhassen. For example, in 1989, the city conducted an open ended Senior Needs Study. As people age, they lose their mobility, especially stair climbing. One of the main deficiencies identified was the lack of one story housing units, which this proposal is offering. A second study involved employees within the city's business community. Staff contacted several businesses in the city to find out where employees in Chanhassen come from. The results indicate that more than 90% of employees surveyed live outside the city and commute to work. The main reason was the lack of first time home buyer housing. The city could consider creating a housing district within this project and initiate a First Time Home Buyer program or other similar programs. The proposal indicates different types of units pertaining to size. This will cause the units to sell at different prices and will appeal to different income groups. 1 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Findine. Chanhassen is developing an intensive trail system in the city. The Public Transit study for the city, which was prepared by Southwest Metro Transit, identifies the site south of proposed Hwy. 212, and across from the subject site, as a Park and Ride lot that will be improved concurrently with Hwy. 212. Sidewalks should connect the site to this Park and Ride lot. 1 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. 1 Finding. Access to this site will be from Trunk Highway 101. The existing West 86th Street is a dirt road and the city does not have ownership of the right -of -way. The intersection of Hwy. 101 and West 86th will be improved considerably with this proposal by improving roadway geometries, right -of -way dedication, and paving the street. The city has retained Hoisington - Koegler Group, Inc. to prepare a study showing passable alignments for Hwy. 101. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Also, staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right -of -way as well as traffic lanes and signalization if applicable along 86th Street. 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 12 Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Screening of undesirable view of potential loading areas within the commercial district Preservation of desirable site characteristics (rolling hills and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts ' Improved pretreatment of storm water An offering of mixed income housing General Site Plan/Architecture The concept site plan proposes two different types of uses on the site, commercial and residential. No information regarding the commercial portion of the site has been submitted with this proposal which tends to concern staff. Staff will provide some guidelines and standards under which the development can occur. The residential/multi-family portion of the site is described in the proposal summary submitted Y P P P ��'Y by the applicant. The material on the building exterior is a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is proposed to be generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two story windows. On a similar project in Eden Prairie, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia and gray velour buck. Detailed plans showing the facades of all buildings is enclosed with the plans and appears attractive. Each unit has an enclosed attached garage. PROPOSED PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 13 1 while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses 1 • The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar uses. 1 c. Setbacks Applicant's Proposal. The applicant p e app cant is proposing to have all buildings setback 50 feet from the exterior parcel line of the PUD and 30 feet from the interior lines. This setback is consistent with the setback requirement of the PUD ordinance. Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right -of -way. The Planning Commission recommended the standards in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This will result in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101 and 212, and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on the outlot must meet these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. Staff is recommending the following setbacks. Residential Commercial Street Commercial Residential Parking Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Setback 1 Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' 50' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' 50' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' 50' 1 1 1 1 •1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 1 Page 14 d. Development Standards Tabulation Box 1 BLOCK USE Net Lot Density* H a r d Area Surface I Outlot Commercial 7.72 acres Chew 1 136 Multi- Family units 14.36 acres 10.03 44.2% I 2 &3 16 Single - Family units 7.35 acres 2.17 4 56 Multi- Family Units 9.06 acres 6.18 43.2% 4 Alternate Plan 52 Multi- Family Units 7.54 acres 6.9 55.83* I ROW Street and court 1.17 acres West 86th St Right-of-Way 2.17 acres Hwy 212 and 101 Right -of -Way 18.68 acres 1 TOTAL AREA 62.12 I * The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for commercial uses, 30% for medium and 50% for high density residential. The applicant must revise the Alternate Concept Plan to meet the 50% hard surface coverage required by 1 ordinance. * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium i density, 4 -8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units 1 per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to this transfer. Lot Lot Home Home I Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 1 10' sides BLOCK 2 I Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 NOTE: 1 Lot 4 Cannot be computed based upon provided concept. Lot 5 However, all criteria should be exceeded. 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD 1 October 20, 1993 Page 15 1 Lot 6 Lot 7 1 BLOCK 3 Lott 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 1 e. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that the building's exterior material be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two -story windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher g eq P g quality of architectural standards and site design. 1 COMMERCIAL 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be 1 used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 1 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 1 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 16 1 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 1 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 1 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 1 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. 9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum 1 siding and brick. 2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story 1 units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. 3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell 1 white, etc.). 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. 5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal. The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a 1 strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living ' areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. 1 Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right -of -way. These berms shall be 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 17 1 seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 21 inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1. All open spaces and non- parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas 1 proposed for future development. g. Signage 1 COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. None. Finding. Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one 1 monument sign for the residential section of the PUD. 1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument 1 signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall 1 mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet). 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 1 6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section 1 of the PUD. 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 18 1 7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height. 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on 1 the sign. RESIDENTIAL One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. 1 h. Lighting 1 Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1 candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. g P g 1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The previous grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the multiple and single - family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 904 and 907 which is relatively uniform in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety in elevation will maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today. The area lying north of 86th Street, 1 the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered in order to be compatible with future 1 1 1' Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 19 proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted in elevation to give some variety and different appearance. The plans also propose on grading single - family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split -entry to walkout -type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right -of- ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of • Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The entire development proposes three storm water drainage basins designed to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. These NURP ponds are necessary to pre -treat stormwater prior to discharging into the wetlands. The conceptual plan has not yet specified the stormwater drainage patterns that will direct runoff to the drainage basins. Staff will require storm sewer and runoff calculations and ponding data prior to final platting. As a rule, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the pre- developed runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event through the use of stormwater detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10 -year storm event. Staff will also require calculations of pre - development runoff rates to the existing wetland basins in order to compare runoff rates to these basins after the site has been fully developed. The fmal plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 20 maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP) ponds be left in the homeowner associations hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. UTILITIES 1 Back in February of 1992, the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed, it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this 1 project as well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz (Lake Riley Hills) and the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the sewer from the adjacent 1 property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and/or be limited in service area due to 1 downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8 -inch water line extended east from Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12 -inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require ' oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street If the applicant included installation of the 12- inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements, the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between ' an 8 -inch watermain and 12 -inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right -of -way and "A" Street is be ' assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD " October 20, 1993 Page 21 1 Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10 -year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th 1 Street east of Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right -of -way or easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and, therefore, the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The concept plan proposes on dedicating a 60 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single - family) that the 60 -foot wide right -of -way may be insufficient. The right -of -way for 86th street appears to widen as it approaches Highway 101. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right -of -way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staff's initial reaction is that an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60 -foot wide right -of -way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32 -foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36 -foot, if not 44-foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th Street and Trunk Highway 101. 1 The plans have been revised to eliminate individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units with the exception of the curb cut immediately west of "A" Street. Staff recommends the individual access be eliminated and the driveway be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street as shown in Attachment 3. As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th Street 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 22 alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant is Y P PP showing a trail and/or sidewalks along 86th Street and the pond south of 86th Street. ' Prior to final lat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and P FP P �l formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant 1 to MnDOT standards /comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way will require a permit from MnDOT. Wetlands and Proposed Alterations The property appears to contain three wetlands and one of the wetlands will be filled as a ' consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is located just south of the proposed location for 86th Street and is classified as a semi- permanently flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBF; Circular 39 Type 5 inland open freshwater). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 2.4 acres. The street should be realigned to avoid impact to the wetland. Basin B - Basin B is partially located in the southeast corner of the property and is classified' as a partially ditched/drained seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBCd; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural and urban development impacts. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland does not appear to be filled as a 1 result of the proposed development. Basin C - Basin C is located in the northwest comer of the property at an approximate elevation of 908 feet. According to the National Wetlands Inventory map and a site inspection, this wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow). The City of Chanhassen would classify this wetland as an ' agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 0.07 acre and will be filled as a result of the proposed development. The following table summarizes the estimated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of the 1 proposed development: 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 23 , Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Identification Type (acres) Area to be Altered (acres) 1 A Ag/Urban 2.4 0 B Ag/Urban 0.5 0 1 C Ag/Urban 0.07 0.07 TOTAL 2.97 0.07 1 Since the total amount of fill to wetlands appears to be less than 0.5 acre, a section 404 permit 1 from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is not necessary, however, notification should be made to the Corps requiring an approval to the rule interpretation. The Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA), on the other hand, will require a permit including a proposal for 1:1 mitigation before December 31, 1993 and 2:1 mitigation after January 1, 1994 for the filling of any size wetland. The City is the local governmental unit responsible for administering the WCA. 1 Mitigation Mitigation or restoration of the wetland filled will be required by the WCA. An appropriate 1 design plan for the mitigation will be necessary for review. Staff recommends that the wetlands be delineated by a wetlands consultant and included on the survey for review. 1 Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths 1 are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Ag/Urban 0 -30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft The amount of native vegetation within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 1 Page 24 buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with I a city approved monument on each lot. Erosion Control 1 Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All areas I disturbed as a result of construction activity shall comply with the City's construction site erosion and sediment control Best Management Practice Handbook. 1 MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best I Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. 1 The applicant should be aware that, in conjunction with the public improvements for this development, it will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide . financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the 1 conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be subject 1 to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. 1 The applicant should dedicate on the fmal plat the necessary right -of -way for future extension of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. I During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 1 PARK AND RECREATION I The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying in park deficiency area #2 (see map and Zone 2 narrative). The 2000 Land Use Plan identified a 20± acre site to the east of the proposed subdivision as future park/open space (see attachments). A design study for this future park/open I space has not been completed, thus it cannot be predicted what type of facilities could be developed on this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212 and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified the land in this area lying in I Eden Prairie as future open space. They are planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east of this location. A second proposed park site was identified in the southeast quadrant of this 1 1 Mission Hills PUD 1 October 20, 1993 Page 25 zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. This future park, if acquired and developed however, would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212. 1 During initial conversations with the applicant and a representative of Rottlund Homes, the future builder concerns that a recreational amenity of some sort had not been included in a plan to develop 190 dwellings which will assumedly house in excess of 400 new residents were expressed. The general response received centered on two things: 1) the applicant asserted that the targeted demographics of the development will not require park space, specifically play equipment, and 2) an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order to produce an affordable end result. The position that the people who would eventually purchase these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment and/or other park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value open space /parks and recreational amenities. The city's recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan states that park and open space fulfill three primary functions. "First they meet positive human needs both physically and psychologically. The second function of parks and open space is to enhance and protect the resource space. The third function of parks and open space concerns economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate values." A suggestion has been made to convert Lot 6, Block 1 from a four -plex unit into a recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of Lot 6, Block 1 is quite small, however, in the range of one -half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: 1 The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important " middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. This type of trail would typically be constructed with a bituminous surface and its construction would be considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the Engineering 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 1 Page 26 Department. Sidewalks do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission 1 and are not considered for trail fee credits. These concepts of a park space interrelated with a sidewalk/trail are depicted on the attached plan. The presence of the neighborhood commercial area would benefit greatly from such a system. RECOMMENDATION 1 CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the conceptual PUD #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, revised September 4, and November 12, 1993, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right -of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate. 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street ' improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to - the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the 1 retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 1 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. 1 1 1 Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 27 In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to determine if there is excess I capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the 1 applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watennain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs I shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. , 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and I water facilities to service this site and the adoption of alternative #3 for Highway 101 alignment. If a different alignment is selected, these plans will be null and void and the I applicant shall be required to resubmit the application and procedure process (to Planning Commission and City Council). 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk 1 Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a drain -tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with fmal platting, the necessary right -of -way determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. I .1 I Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 28 I 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the 1 staff report. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These 1 figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street,. along 1 Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 1 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. I A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. 1 B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th I Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the I ' sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with 1 documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the 1 rate then in force. 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square 1 footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership 1 is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the 1 community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 1 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage in the Alternative Concept Plan for Block 4, is 1 1 Mission Hills PUD t- October 20, 1993 Page 29 1 55.83 %. Plans must be revised to reduce it to a maximum of 50%. Mass grading of the multi- family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. 1 19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 1 20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped to have it completed by now. By the time formal 1 approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 1 21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3. 23. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the 1 multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street. 24. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 25. The applicant may proceed with plans received October 26, 1993, if an alignment for ' Highway 101 has been chosen and the applicant can demonstrate that the plans submitted October 26, 1993, can accommodate the road, sidewalks, and berms." 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Dick Putnam dated October 4, 1993. 2. Letter from Dick Putnam to Neighbors of the proposed Development of Mission Hills. 3. Letter from staff to Mr. David Nicholay dated October 21, 1993. 1 4. Site Data. 5. Units design and elevations. 1 I Mission Hills PUD October 20, 1993 Page 30 I 6. Letter from David Nagel dated September 13, 1993. 7. Letter from David Nicholay dated September 13, 1993. I 8. Letter from Keith and Carol Bartz dated October 8, 1993. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1993. 10. Staff report dated August 18, 1993. I 11. Planning Commission minutes dated October 20, 1993. 12. Plans received October 26, 1993, and November 12, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 TANDEM James L. Ostenson PROPERTIES Richard A. Putnam � BROKERS • PLANNERS • DEVELOPERS To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Members Date: October 4, 1993 From: Tandem Properties and Rottlund Homes Subject: Revised P.U.D. Concept Plan - Mission Hills Ladies and Gentlemen, We thank ou for the opportunity to revise our P.U.D. sketch plan for Y PP tY Mission Hills before its review by the Chanhassen City Council. The August 18th meeting pointed out a number of issues and site plan deficiencies which the neighbors and commission member wished changed. We believe that your review was correct on many points and we asked the staff to allow us to rethink the site plan and come • back to the staff, commission and neighbors with a plan that attempts to respond to the suggestions. 1 A. Roadway Issues i 1) 86th Street - The plan now includes an 80' R.O.W. from new 101 to the commercial entrance to allow for turn lanes if required in the future when 101/212 is upgraded and the commercial area plan is finalized. 1 2) 86th Street - The plan now reflects no encroachment into the wetland on the south edge of the road. 86th will be platted as a 60' ' R.O.W. constructed to city standards with a trail on the south side from new 101 to the east property line. 3) T.H. 101 (new) - The plan provides a 200' R.O.W. for construction of the new street. This R.O.W. will provide a 50' buffer for landscaping /berming adjacent to old 101 for separation for the existing home along the lake. The R.O.W. is slightly different in the degree of curve around the commercial area, but should meet design standards. The 101 R.O.W. will be platted as an outlot with purchase by the government responsible for 101/212 construction. 1 4) Single Family Street to North - The plan has moved the north /south street 25' to 40' west to allow deeper lots abutting Tigua 1 1 La. homes. The staff asked that a sidewalk be included with in the R.O.W. B. Single Family Lots ' 1) In response to the planning commission's request that the lots bordering Tigua be larger, we have increased the lots to 20,000 sq. ft. This required taking one lot out on the east side and removing ' another lot around the cul-de -sac. The total lots are reduced from 18 to 16. ' 2) The issues of relocating the n/s street to the property line with the Larson, Nagel and, Nickolayproperties was discussed with one of the owners. The purpose would be to provide a barrier and provide for the future subdivision of Tigua Lane lots. We did not agree that such a configuration would be beneficial to their lots. After some discussions of the pro /con; a low fence to define the existing lots from the new lots may be more appropriate. C. Garden Homes North of 86th The plan reflects a significant change in the unit mix and orientation. ' The plan now has 82% of the buildings as 4 unit structures and only 2 with 8 units. Also, all the buildings have been turned to have ends facing 101 and 86th and the driveways are connected to the internal private drive. These site plan changes have allowed a continuous landscaped berm along 101 and 86th. This will create an attractive streetscape. The attached floor plans and building elevations illustrate these newly designed Garden Homes by Rottlund. The current plan is 56 units, a reduction of 4 units from the 6 -21 -93 plan. The attached Data Summary illustrates the average and density. D. Villa Homes South of 86th The plan changes for the Villa site deal with 7 issues brought up at ' the August 18th Commission meeting: need for small private association tot lot/park, pedestrian trails, more variety in building, ' reduce building size /density in southeast corner, reduce driveways to 86th Street, create better buffers to 86th, the commercial & 212 and lastly to reduce the density /number of units. 1) Park &Trails - The Park Commission recommended a small private association space be included in the plan near the central • 1 } 1 1 pond. The plan provides a "vest pocket park" adjacent to the pond connected with a trail around the pond to the public trail on 86th. The space will include a tot lot, picnic and sitting areas designed for small kids and passive adult activities. Space for volleyball /bad- minton or lawn games is also included. If the future City Park abutts our east property line a trail connection can be planned from our project around the wetland. i 2) Building Variety - The original plan had about 65% of the buildings as the 12 unit Villa, whereas the revised plan has only 1 2096 of the 12 unit buildings. In order to reduce the mass of the units and create a different building style, 4 and 6 unit townhouse units are proposed. The attached building elevations illustrate their design. These will be the first units of this design constructed by Rottlund Homes. The variety of 4 building types on the site will 1 provide a diversity of building size and shape with an integrated design. , 3) Southeastern Corner - The plan reflects a completely different approach to the area south of 86th adjacent to the eastern wetland. To reduce the building impact on 86th Street and Tigua Lane Homes we have oriented only ends of buildings toward the street and added a 4 unit Villa. We believe this change plus the landscape berm will present an attractive view from 86th Street and homes to the north. 1 4) Driveways & Buffers - The plan does a much better job of creating space for berms and landscaping on the perimeter of the 1 site. By eliminating all driveways to 86th we can provide a landscaped street feel rather than "driveways and garage doors." Landscaped berms between 212 and the future commercial area will provide a good and attractive separation. 5) Density - The number of units in the Villa area increased from 112 to 144. This increase of 32 units is a result of shifting the south property line slightly, adding some area on the west by the commercial and by better utilizing the site with four building types and better building orientations. The data sheet illustrates the gross ' and net densities. 1 1 - i 1 1 6) Commercial Area - The commercial area is about the same size as the last plan, however, the access has been improved. An in /out from future north bound 101 is provided midway between 86th Street and the freeway ramp intersection. Also, the access from 86th Street has been moved closer to 101 and aligns with the Garden Home entrance. Extra R.O.W. is provided in 86th to accommodate extra turn lanes that may be needed. Mr. Klingelhutz has discussed the uses with City Staff. The site's neighborhood commercial use is acceptable to both the City and Mr. Klingelhutz. These uses will be incorporated into the P.U.D. concept approval for the site. Conclusion - Mission Hills revised plan reflects our sincere effort to meet the concerns and suggestions of our neighbors, City staff and commissions. Rottlund Homes and Tandem Properties hope to provide a quality housing development which meets the objective of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, the city's housing goals, ordinances ' and the neighborhood expectations. We look forward to discussing our revised Mission Hills project with you. 1 Thank you, • Dick Putnam, Tandem Properties 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TANDEM James L. Osten/ PROPERTIES Richard A. Putnam BROKERS • PLANNERS • DEVELOPERS 1. 1 • le—i , .— ILL R 1. Vie1/41419>mizvt it44.44ict4 1 121.1 10/5/. 1 *H Puel (+ • 1 4eliter)- ► 1 \ia tekle1w.,04 it.t„ t a-Igazot 6+144. i vev -'r PA i Ai t 1 oto\ litnz. 54saveiz... rIn es 1 ±1/0 .12Y -i-tu i l e r4.2°N i 10/4 s 4rAimikt .k 1 - pi, -9zir - }xs . 1 hop- 1 h'1ktioo oIf U �1r �o 4cw Ve.. + I w oar Dn�-' p)214 • e qtege. uAto ed/21 4144, 147' /40/04/' - Oget? uAl �-. y � 1 6 ,0 . E 4•1;eSill 2765 Casco Point Road • Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Office & Fax (612) 471 -0573 7808 Creekridge Circle • Suite 310 • Bloomington, Minnesota 55439 • Office (612) 941 -7805 • Fax (612) 941 -7853 II CITY OF c - ` r PA I itiv, ChAlli1ASSEll I % .__. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 October 21, 1993 I Mr. d Mrs. David Ni an a Nickolay 1 8500 Tigua Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nickolay: This is in response to your letter dated October 17, 1993. I am sorry you feel that staff has not I responded to your suggestions and needs. However, on behalf of all staff members involved in the Mission Hills project, I can safely say that we have devoted many hours of our very busy schedules to the residents of Rice Lake Manor to answer questions they might have. On many occasions, I met in my office with your neighbors, Mrs. Joanne Larson and Mr. David Nagel, to answer questions about the development. .1 have always made myself available by I telephone and as you know, we have spoken on three occasions to respond to some of your questions. I After our October 18, 1993, telephone conversation, when you requested that I respond to your questions in writing, I informed you that I would send you a copy of the staff report where many of the issues that you had raised had been addressed. You are still requesting that I respond in 1 writing to your concerns which are as follows: 1. This type of High Density Development is too high for this area of Chanhassen. I In re arin the year 2000 guide plan and comprehensive plan, this area was studied in P P g y 8m P P P detail before it was designated as a mixed commercial/high, medium, and low density 1 residential. _ .. - ' 2. There is an inadequate transition between the proposed development and Rice Lake Manor. I The applicant has reduced the number of single family lots from 18 to 16 Lots separating Rice Lake Manor subdivision from the higher density units. Also, the lots abutting Rice Lake Manor have been increased in size from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. 1 1 1 1 Mr. and Mrs. David Nickolay October 21, 1993 Page 2 3. There are not enough parks provided for the number of people. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application and determined that the area to the east of Rice Lake Manor is guided for a future park. At this time, they felt no need to acquire any additional park land and have recommended approval of the plan. Plans have been revised to include the staff requested private park. 1 4. A large portion of the proposed plan is based on the new Highway 212 which may never be built. 1 Highway 212 has been in the planning stage for decades and as you know, funding limitations have again delayed construction. However, the Environmental Impact ' Statement has been completed and accepted. Construction at the east end is scheduled to start in November, 1996. In any event, development at this site is not contingent upon the highway. Rather, it is consistent with city plans. Construction of any commercial component is more closely linked to community and neighborhood needs than to the highway. No construction is being proposed for this area at this time and its development 1 schedule remains open. 5. The current Highway 101 is not equipped to handle the traffic from this type of development. Highway 101 is a state route. The city has little legal right to prevent development based upon its condition or status when we are making the developer liable for safety improvements such as turn lanes. Land is being set aside for the future upgrading of Hwy. 101. The city is also working with other agencies to promote its upgrading, but this does not appear to be likely in the near term. As I have stated before, I am always available by telephone and will always return calls. Also, as I offered on the telephone, I will be glad to meet with you and your neighborhood to explain the planning process and the steps required to approve an application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 1 Sincerely, Sharmin Al -Jaff 1 Planner I pc: Planning Commission 1 City Council C '+Y OF CNANF:!3::"1 II GC Mission Hills - Site Data 0 ',i''',` 1 C!; ' ,,! ASSEii FLAMING DEPT. Total Site Area (less Hwy. 101) `+ - 46.18±Ac. Total Local R.O.W. (less Hwy. 101) - 3.6 ±Ac. II Total Commercial -Gross Area (incl. } -86th street) - 9.33 tAc. -Net Area (less 86th) - 8.97 tAc. 1 Total Residential - Gross Area (incl. local streets) - 36.85 ±Ac. - Total Units (SF & MF) - 216 II -Gross Density - 5.86 U /Ac. II Block 1 - Villas Townhomes - Gross Area - 17.90 ±Ac. II -Local R.O.W. (} of 86th St.) - 0.70 ±Ac. - Wetland Area 2.84 ±Ac. -Net Area (less R.O.W. /Wetland) - 14.36 ±Ac. - Total Units - 144 II -Net Density -10.03 U /Ac. - Hard Surface Coverage 44.22 (2 of net area- bldgs. /drives) II ' Blocks 2 & 3 - Single Family - Gross Area - 9.06 ±Ac. -Total Units - 16 I -Gross Site Density - 1.76 U /Ac. - Local R.O.W. - 1.71 tAc. -Net Area (less R.O.W.) - 7.35 ±Ac. II -Net Density - 2.17 U /Ac. II Block 4 - Garden Homes -Gross area - 9.89 ±Ac. II -Local R.O. W. (} of 86th Street) - 0.83 ±Ac. - Net Area (less R.O.W.) - 9.06 ±Ac. - Total Units - 56 II -Net Density - 6.18 U /Ac. - Hard Surface Coverage (Z of net area -- -43.2% bldgs. /drives) II II II • 4 or 6 Unit Villa Town House .. 4- I • 1 \ !; ; ` � -' ,e ^ _ pw: 411$: «�.'��t■y{�■■ _ •r✓�p1} 44- s .. ] . t.-7 17474 . r . ' 1� o�n000 a i iri, . �;I n �DnD�o.- • I ! -- �i rn ,rl Q o o�t�a _ mss - T DaI o!»nrDnn❑ ' ■ � !'' r� oQ c +000Q L DD�,oanDa �' . � r�� %Ili r1 ■onr i -� ■, I _o =- DDJDnDnD 1 I -1 i ,.. '''',......— • _ • Front Elevation �r f oon ---- : ------------ -,-.-' _ ` ■ ..-,- ' ...:..- ,,,,,.., 01 -,*- /.11 M_ 'II - - . ......- - - 7. T i, Ft i :.__________ .th .n I \=�� `5' _�'�- -• : Side Elevation — -3• = i ■■� I ■ Aiwa = will= as 1nrllnm —' " 1 ° _' (r° ri� 'l is • I - - 11 11 .� ieec T al el .. m psi 111 Mil L "- �I111■ 11 = u w■ n .m.. a t1 all __ - • - - ..... r . c' =.0 T •rte' _ I � �r�r 1• if-f 1 . ii,„; � n. lu � '1 I i�■r� Ol ini I,I �i I I n .I i n 1n n I • , i i t III mind 11 ' S l ng 11 11 /11111 C I igi C � _ ■ n ■ r �r i g; ■ m oll a■ ■ ■■ n!u n n nI {n % ........ 4 I -p' u1111in1 � yy p --- 1 IIIII:iif= 1 ...J11MF. -- i 1 iiil, i Ii E lia III��■1:::A ri 1 e∎ 4VIV ■� .ice I.Ir - J. I', • Rear Elevation **ow t ' - i• n it • Mission Hills No me i s sse� M- nn�e� E um ow iI ow ■m N. — ow — or 1m ow 1 — � r r l - Master Bedroom MI Master E edroom L Oft �� I �► of �r� CI �� 1 .....] 3 '- .. Y61 exi �q, ►r .... . `1 Loft 1 — is - -� • .r,"0/- r 8r if. ALIBe Bedroom 1 ' 1 — t ryv Unit A 1 Unit B I I ILI U pper Level Plan % 1 - = Pa tio 1 1 /� — — — \ ' :414-0 / ` I s 1 0 - 0 L '" Kitchen . I . -r- -- Aa I 1 Dining 1 — : - Kitchen , •�' Laundry IOr 2 -' , - - ; - Dining \ 1-=-1a.1.1141 I i 1' JJ Living Living ; I Garage `r • Garage• - I' r I8 r2.0 II. 20 I 1L . Ent �� elaitry _ 1 Unit A Unit B Main Level Plan ..y +' 1 vNK vNK 4 or 6 Unit Villa Town House '� � ` .__, Floor Plans 8 or 4 Unit Garden Home ., / .4 ,• ,...,r.e •-• , .� • 1 �� .,�• O :p• y'.d,.y,L • .r, r4r■1 v0i M+•rOMK v - - r^0'• r IMr.t L.OV{ Ole' -...« d /IM•.S v , Y11• i �,' y - j � 1 • L. :,..•. •1i.s•. 4.400. •.• V. 0. 4/0.41 • b .vh -sue 1.s.) t- J . , • \ .: .....4%*, 'O. :G n. wa.✓ NA.++ ^•4. i.... wv: t -•y- i� yS. .. it r— � _ __. �- - 4 -7,-......-, am+— ( - - rr • r...+ x. - 1 ' •.�� ,, X ii � � I✓K _ _ . I � � �r�r fi ^ _ =r= � ■■■ £ a • •' (■� _ = r . = i • 4,,.- aI __ Ei =. - �_� _ __, ■ c � ' =jC"a_,� ✓as•- � i ll __ II 11 i I _ I . - ' = il i _ F 1� I �� =t _ I �� `� ■ F , � �. �.�_ �• _ r>t> _ L ' Sl- _ _ I1 Vi m = _ :-1 ' 3 J' w`: 3_. —� �r�w� - -__,: i :.e -r.n ,. war . M , 91 .M./,F 2IL,•41ay.nwr \p /»M .,,:ce• , ■r.■.. of P Ne+2N wc:k, Unit A , Unit A 1011 art ar' I re vows' ffe,g. /i 0. .n A ' , N`�"aj1iN0L * Unit A Unit A 1+L/ ?111 - Front Rear Elevation in^-r. - • Side Elevation_ o� - 4 Unit Building • :re .0. 1 e,� # `o.►t1 ./. ., X00 . i.0 f .. - ; X - r,, /_ i1 M 1 /Aabx ./•M■•> "•'l. 1.:Y.t y 1y} r -..7, ,,,:...... I ,.. -4eig 2....4._. _ � ■ 1 _. 57.1• r i - _ � ry = I H 1 1 ■ •1c 1N ■1■" nib■ �'S ua■I in ip ' in n� F Gl': ■n a■w■:• ' .1L; , q . , "at ": kilt- - � o �C ■ �■ ��■a� ■mwLal ■ = i • �■ t wwn �_ =_ ��■1� 1 u_ • .—.�.. J° 'iui i�i ■ i = �en2 -pmIK- =';, . — ■■ 1 = LL s I l''' I . ■■� L .KrT y = 1■I■II� = ■I ■1 a _ C i 2,: ;, I.,. w. .� •_ L;r� Han � ■�, N1 � 1_ � . _ t .1 I ^ Ml � /'A.M..i ii, I. • O�I� - ■1 1. . / ■IL• I . ■a■ Y 'LL �1_ 1 I F " I ■■I .■ - � i . • ., n = .,. .�• - ■■ F I r- — � ■�II �.ffllL _ r i �l ��.l■1 � �.�1. �... 1 � ' r - L� �.._ " � "3JJ-- JJ i--- �� - � irra`". II F17 c n ■ � — (`I'�f— E I_ �...a.. - = �' _: -� _, ..- ••.c..•..r 4,114... �,.,. N .,v ....wr�. -). '3:: -^1.4.....-..7 .::w.'rcu� r (`I' E .,ye, iwo w.1,,P.lrt) \ v +tRr +Pdw. • � }� 184144...t.-.... "..y s�..•vr,• Unit B I Unit -."."'"''''''''• UnitA Unit A .� Front Rear Elevation vs--1,4» , 'R'1V: L 'QY'iVG •-- • S Unit Building .. - 1 _ . - 1111 111111 lik NI • Miss Hills • ' BIP Chanhassen, Minnesota - j NM MN INN MINI 11111 NM NM INS NMI IMO MIN INS NM rilliellieillii IMO NMI INIII MI MI • ME — i OM OM NM ROI ME — ME um I• sr um t Imo O✓ n -.4 1 J Y� . G4' w�tr(t 5 ' �. c yc .. ,..:7‘,..4.0.4.1. ' .i .da�i 2 , P. rh•+t,C 1 1 �' i - T Ir j �, . -�- r L n.- l� r"* �- - - 1-1'w,-.7" - y L /i tG n , d, - _- ✓ ma y - - - _ V1 i - Pe. :I . u.. v ,, 1 .- ' ,- - HMI. 4 i 1� Q l___ B ath Q' _s t %.. K itchen ( „r ,..E ,4y 1 — �= ---:- r"- ' , - �' Kt ."? IC • uwd: 1 �- `+ i 1 1 Ha , 1 . , J --0.— z -%- -/ n I. I I + I �r�' I�. - Mech. . i . 4, / �� = _ 1 _ , Master Bedroom . ts p ,- ° • 77`.1...e! Dining �` v % 1 ! m hq d� t G+d-. -- 7 : G. C n r I I /L r �P7 1 / `; Den/Bedroom y I s,,, e 121 i` 0 . 4 I 1. 0 • Garage a I - - - %'.a.e \I hs.190 $ yc.} iN'vi T om ,/ / .. L -2•�•h+rrs --} Living _ 'v ' pt1 gail = r ,s o.,A• �,h - . 1 °- d1 � , -- si, . rDFi ' I.'" r: I G►'b•!96 "`49 1 / ^ ar7vb~ -4,4/1.1",..1.6.; 111 ? F . 1 c II `‘ 'Porch Nov 'i gt 'I t I s 14410 • — 2 L1 04• ,V ;� ! " v — _v t'i,14 f - 2..)0 i' 1 Ne M7• - d 1!.NA70 .....�..�.......... ♦ •, a, . --� . # � s ^ n 1 Foyer : 10 7 I i 7 0 u"- I j 1 ' i o 1- t O1 # ••• 4- Aft. .."ti.,pT /„...._____r_. 1 1I ,'+✓+.. � w► G— — — — + - N ©i 1 -/ VAN n* - Main Level Plan 8 or 4 Unit Garden Home - Floor Plans . ... 8 Unit Villa . . . it fli■.• 4: T.,••• I, fi Vf* I Ill 4 ■ . - ------ P---- • r ...._, 1 . )._ , i n; r -.. # -'71.1.". ' • ''''''''''''''''' . •••• 1.4,44 L, ' I C ....4 „, 1 ,..--• ......, . ' 2 1 v. .1. ■2. , .................../1 , -...,_ I --. :A• 1 r V. P ....% ••.•••••• ••■• •• ■ - • — 1 i A i i . Go Wi----- 1,4 • ._. . . 1 r -.... ;:lr \ L :r , I , i J 1 1 - F - .I:! ,-, !ft •-i. ! au' ---...........,..—______- .k.s.^ •-.., * 1 I ! I I i V-Jte gellati, L.., SIDE ELEVATION I Cente e , Lin Oak(' 'NV te ; i unit_ . .. . .. . ill E i - - . 1 6 , __ __ o I .er I t ,..“ ' c:o uT.....•_ ,„ o/ • rTI 'P MCIOr •n. r•••., 1 T• P Ili v,...I ..... ilr P. •:•••v'T . - 1.- r13 1 . . .e.. • • • II , .„._ „ MU I L. 1 Mall L 4 • 144,-•••.• -.4-- 1 1 -4- L..r.! Mt SAbOJE • BEWO Pe A* •%;% Z..- 4 ik. • ovrotirs - ,.., Amour , ,:. , .i - 7 0 ' wiriii ro I .. I.. I= ,, 1. I a • ii 11. • ... ...... . . lato. es22.4,4, e vea 0 1 I• IMMO - MOM C . -- ^■ - 1:141CiallZ , maim --- — -."'"- :Il I i -. 7 ! V ,' • - • - -- . .- - • • - dellif WI 'Lit r. limas , El .... •—• -. .)- .. 7 1 . - lir 11 TIT :U . 111=1111 rif l' *., 4 •.tdecilr 7 . 1 •: Itresee '444 3 111:111 - - • .. - 1"6.4t. ON iloPPIT , i 11:: ! Li _ 1.tvr ? IP! ! T 1 ,.. so • U " :._:: :• I : :.! ..:. . : . 11 . .../. ..a...■.....■.• 1 . . .. 1 .11 .i. _e. • ' i ' 7.7” . . . --4.-..1.- " - 4 ' i ii L .. i 01010N. Egt:40 -- • - " • A- .... :ft rowca •••■•14o . pati MOP - _ - .10ffe flii..I.lw iiw000. we P 0 .08.. 1• .4.41. er MO. Mit JfEtwo. mow ••.• "i Po4 '‘.. *ICING. ...4411111102W . ......... soma iltOrt 10P or • watirtou. trin Mission Hills _ . _ FRONT & REAR ELEVATION .........• ..,--,--- . - , ,.. k.. .1., .,• i . Chanhassen, Minnesota . Ns on ir .. alm — — ow s• am . INE Er NE RIM • NMI MI pm_ Ix = —= am am EN am — = um — r Milli 1 - OM Ilitir _1 T n -d k - ._ fi l t.4 t f_d . '' 3 +, ;' °_ it% 9 I I ; 's t N Pw►O CELL (e7 ,. 2to' a.-- • o n , 5 11 ® X 51 k . c, i a e+'Ar. 'tu. �R ? P 1 • (p tf. '• may. N b ' \ w • - • m , ; 1 l e e f C 8 ?Fr r 7 N a. vii • do g i ..L.. t 3 k -1 X -5/ - _. G J s' 1 - -mil � e / IF - - Q, k s. I N.' • # id` a 1 l r ° 7 Z - . t 12 . ■ �© 70- l i g 4 It . �1 F9ctZ / e r �1t �c I-- li Ei I 1 1J Ii �V r ' �1l i • •. T � R 1 , 2 • 4 w� C o z L - -- - -- - -- W mr n. ? 6.. s i I 1 ilD 1 • — 1 GI .. x ZZ O dd II'- a 1 9,!,ri ` ..•. • 12 or 8 Unit Villa • .,' --r [ L___ j L . Floor Plan ' ...._........ _____.6.34___Ry6 _______ • • VILLAS Mission Hills i of Chanhassen 4 � V _ }f 'l f t • 1 I SIP' �t • R•• �.. � � r r C t / 1 � kVA .� • ` r ��1/.f �� \• w `T��I` ~• t Y: � ',' [- �r � ,r71�I i } '� • t 4 d ' t ' , • • 1.7:!• r Its l ,= r ) t .; ' YS • i t11�4'� -1 ,, •'M1i I , ) ` .'!� •I �1 �+ Ct ^• " Nt _, ,. 'tiy3 ' ` f! 'r {' 4 . 1, 3 .il7 t rl ' �"J 1 , • ,ti . C Y� .� ,� �1� t om_ ' • /I, 51 "' { . t ) = r 'OK� L J•i r . �" i • �JCp•�'. / �f • � ` `,� F t � t ' • ? �' � f - },t r ° '" ,,. / { :1 ,.,. its r .S __r_ ;; ui 7 ; ��ff. r� •P t• ;¢ l f` ' r ,� cr. l• r i ,= ' v . :-i•r - k :- '-*:-7:74:-..'"h sj £ - 1. t T �I..• ` t y f . W �•{ fl- +)?_ t , S h i I r. t •%,,. �1 I; � :�. '� ! Si A . L {ii i.hp T J I•; .4 I ' *7 . , # t} LL illy, J 7 •~ i a si i: 6 - "s s_:frr — : . . -- = . T :- 1° - l '7 .. i '_.. : = 7,. k ....-: nr. t; "i : •as e ` i . • . _ s :la.' _R'iTf�t. i I i. ' it t I tE '�.. [1 _ r • { - ..11 r '•i 1 Jr � .. � +4 I p _ i _ I � , 1 : S ? ; . ; T iter._, --: :. =,-- ••,1 . -- s_ ' Ilk_ ' • 7,.t �•� t �*F _ tr -i : , • .�+(. lam_' • l I / J o -I_ , "iii' .1 it _ __ .'1, , JJ I I I f �` !I ... r�.� �l Wl W j � 1��i : a la i. j = Y `W � PS..�l� c,' ... '1 \ ' . • • •t ♦ Tye . ••. I «.� ;,1 1∎(r.'1∎i . ' . wl .. 1 • I • `' �y ‘ � � '1"1 , alb '�C1�. - .. + • ,� 1i';J� " '•1 ■ � ` ' r , ". ` +i�I' j " 1 r :1,, - FI. W A . , , , t � �i,. 1'Y ^ I ++ "+ .t.., 1, •,� "'' t^ � I ''I.-- Ir ;rill • roll! Builder orLt l Artist concepl only. R (T = T See builder for actual detail on landscaping and plans. L Miler LA13 199 III am i■ I No um — am I■ = — ■r -- No r J. EN 1 ., O O [F . 1 j 1 , i II IBC! , WIMP ■ r NE _ ® Offm .=111 � � W I ■■ DINING ROOM O\ _ , l;i 111 Ii D I �, L _ J MASTER BEDROOM LIVING ROOM • GARAGE BEDROOM • ■ ■U■A■ SECOND FLOOR 1 ten 4 Breckenridge Floor Plan : ,.!•;• :••..•: FIRST FLOOR • lluilder orl r Artist concept only. ROTTLUND See builder la actual detail on landscaping and plans. The Rottlund Company. Inc. ©Copyright 1991. MN Builder License 01335 HOMES Miss Hi GARDEN HOMES 0 ( 6 1 `� nor .,,,,,,- � i r 1 ......... -1.- - .J IIM BATH � 1 KITCHEN LAUNDRY 1 l I 'e.) MASTER 0 BEDROOM DINING ROOM , BEDROOM GARAGE LIVING PATIO / ROOM -..) PORCH ;� 1 FOYER THE BALSAM (GARAGE RIGHT) Your Builder ; for L? fe OCOPYRIGI If, 1991 EE B 'HIE ROIILUND COMPANY, INC. MN BUIIDERUCENSE *1335 SEE BUILDER FOR RFOR ACI UAI. CMIA II€Y11LIJIND AU. FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY WHIR SEE BUI DETAILS ON RUl RUND COMPANY, INC. COPYRIGHT INFltINGEMEPIi COULD RESULT IN PING AND PLANS. L = OPPORTUNITY N G HOMES TM 1 ------ r-- - . '.--"--- -,..e Mission Hills -.''• _,..t. ir. rei. .,419,4. 4.7171-' -t it - 11 GARDEN HOMES -• „ii iphf r ilpie, , 0 r P • , Aft :: . .....,„. 1' il lik4 • tat . . f" . •'1 144;4.: - .k. , - . v 7-4-' 1 Ile .■ •' .. ,, t , . ■ l• s • • • • TA r • -. / /.. . ■ , 111. 1 „,. • a #411 '•,, ' , .. , , . • 4 \ # 'r *-.' 'it r; . 1 1 • u . ' . .41 I ( - s.. . --. ' I ... . I. . i ' ` ' (0 11 1 • ' 4 ,'' -• p A _ ..... .... 11 ...4 ott • ....... • _ ,„„,,,.....-.........„,„ ••• -',""- r- '...... - - • ' • :Oi .,. 1 1 , . .........._ ,....„...... ..„_ „„„....-.......* eni■ ,Ea,--- - ---- A• . . '' ..094 f■i 0 • _,.....,;„ ..........•14.-1; • - ------' -- - •=4.'--....--.-- •. -• .7.-' 1■•••-= -- .A.... 4 • _ .. , ., . "t" -- --- : ...,-- .' .:-.:.. .,_:,_. ..,.... - ,..,....-, . .E ,...,,_, i , f . 1.44 . 1 4 fr .., .r, . • . i 2. t r wo... . ,....4 ,, ,.. . ,..„. _ __ _ ..„..,&,....„_„,.....„,-.._-. -.....- .-,.......--■ III. ;1 - - . -- -.1.t..... i. z•-•.: -_:-....- -------- ..-...... .- _ _ ig . . ‘■ if ' . ' ' i, ,, . . 4. 1., i.... . 2+ : -,-.--; -:-..-..',.=.,.... ----1: ` -= '-- -7 -'•.......z1,- -- .===a-..VY . - •• • ::.---.:. - Q -----i--.7.-=-•'-a-7n '''' :1"":;: " . " ---- " --- -'---- ---4-7:- -..'.---'----7---'"--.%. ------""-----. - . . ..: . go, • . 1,1 •, i .--,........„_551.... s7.1-_...--,_„„,..., ..............., ..: :: :, --_ --l .- .-- ,..-,-- ,.. c c ....,:z.. : . ..,..t., ......, ..„,--____. .0.1 i , 71- --...... _... •-•,,, ,...,_______ 2..4:4 .., :: : _ - ..-- -, .....1,-,.....„-.74.„:;_.4........: „ . -,- 4 .,,.. :, , ...7 . ..t..... ,. ...i..dr."--.7- - --Z.7.,...., =L . .. . '''i i •■■•aim.--•-- di' !I ' ..4?-1.--.-_---z-,--,._.,".....-.' " 1: . 4••••• • • '•• ■ •I '' ' ' '' '''',' I ‘'il. ! „,.....,,,,,... , 0 4111...1,1t. 7.--.-.........11L.7 -- * - -- 47 ■•••■••••- --="--..-- ,- -•-•••• .'---:1-7--;. " ' ; 1. . 7 4.....-■- -- o Ofi f u■ii 1;1'4 Iet ,4-..4,1, ._,..tg ,•.,.. ,,,,„ , = ii ` !' !': ' tw - '''' 7 •: - ^. . e t Fa' .11C'''' r i:" h■ • =7.1,1,, 7. . 4 . '.. - a . ow ! , t .., .' .....!..m......• ,.. I; --":777._:--.'"-- ,11= ` . .",----,.,==` -'''' 7.Z.-= .-.._•_.7r- - ..:". .4;= NowL I, ir . .,„.....,,,.,____„____..............._„„____.„,..._,,...„.._...........„....,_„. ' ---- . .: 7 • 7 4 7, Irriowir% i I' 41/111/.1. •&,-', nom: a i , ''''".•• ,T.' ', - 7•7 7_77. - _--; - -2-2..-..•'..-.••••• , - .......... .. • ... ...t. ---_ .•:,,,_. - _ ,i ______ 11 .."/".N... ; • ' `MI. a , T.:_-,- --•-..- •••••.- • •-=, .... .• - --..:: --........--; . - -- 1-z - . --.':•-•:' , 1 '■•••11 FF.- 11.1 1 1 . i as ' , , v•-••••= •■.:--...- ..... tt, .7,-. - ''••••••• --- . ..... . ...:011 ' e- • - --..--...- -x;i1 ' 'Er ,, .'" i ; , ; i 1 1 •••■■••••■••■ ' )1; 41111111111.1... = 1 .......!.. - ,,, . , ..., , .._.&ifti, :,...„ _41=4 ' ■ -, - -......- • - ,, - ............., .....= .. - - --- - - 11/110/■••• -- SI! - -- ' ; . 1 1= ■ ..............■. 1 i ■'„' lt ■ 1 ; ..... ... ".""'"'"..." 1717 " . 1. ri: . --, : II , ....... .■I = i 11 .■ •,- , MI.. 1.11_11.1.1 NJ' g 111 . Amman ■ ...W.“... A ,.;.,,••.,•.,...„,,_.,!:::.,,,,., .1.,, .,......_._ ...:,:, ,:.•...,........ ...,L ... ...............„ _1011 '' A I 'Ii a! 0 ,! .-: , , _,....• ..., g ii , „,,, _ _,_ . -;-, ..... i 1 1 j ;11 1.1 ' ..v1 I ...:,'• = =JIM''' r ,,:‘,.- .. • ..... • . , r " , ,, , ‘..,_,.. =., • , I LI-- 1; 1 Li .?1' -, -- 2 1 • 11' ,■-1°..-"m"--"-- 1 1.1. ::HE i 1 i i.: E= 1 1 F.E. l ' - ' s Ncfirs- :.'s s .4= • - . A III • Ill ail 1 :; := ..... ;-,- 1 .-..: , . .I. all. -* - "I - .• 1 . "" le■ • - •' - = = . I . 1 ' i." ' '''''' III :-.7.i al • . •1 ': II • - • .'• : = I ' V ..W X-......7-:, .,F. .... 1 3 _ 1 ; , • :1••••....,. = - - - 1 - , - = r.; ' III = ...._'.. .- - um : 1 MN MI • . I , : j. i' a 1111 IMPO ill i•A .: , 1 6". i " • ' • • B- a mi , ., i ir....__... .. ....., , ,. .. -,- --,- ma. - ■ ..... i =::: 1-- :4.'-': Nil .111°L-jn .7. , -L. ::41 4.4461.44- V -1.-.-:-"-::. \ : fi ' v l li 14 ' • ..,- '14 "1, l' .4 ' - P. !.. "..".../, lo •-••••• - NU . • LI* ... ..". Is 1 1 I Ini %It ' ' I . 1 --'.. OM ........... ''''...' .' . ....-- ii I 1 1 ra el 1 'rj # j.. kmmr ".2 . "1 ”.- 0 • • 0 CIL P ".4.;14471r' ' I 1 ' 1 7 . . f: IP% .. ••■ st ' 4 ' 'I l' i ll li t "•••••' ::"--'-■"' j■ ------- - e V* : VIIIIM t•M` t... f ,... , • .. - . q,:lli ■ t li iiit u , ., 'I, ki - I 1, 101's'i iff, \ . ,,,. iofr■--- ,...------,-.. ...;---%. -•:,!.. - 1 , N .;:. ' 1 ' ''''''' ° ' 1 I 1 1 rl t . ll I* -Ad , ■■ k 01: ■ At ' ' d 0 i I I 1 h ( i "l il(!ll I I I I I IP/ ' 111 Ii1 - rcl'f , _ , , 1 . 1 . ■ . . i • . . 4 4! blip ...... II ..Vitil 111111 1 I 1. • , s N I 11 '1 1 1 ' ' 1 .19411 " 1 ll ' 0 ligi • et ' 1 It I „„ 1.'''`V-4-,.„ • Itu . 1 I yin Ilthlii 1 1 ! .:, .. 0- . . ......, rs... 11 14'4 I I I 10% All% 4 1 i li 1 01111P 0 1 \ , . , 1 I 7. 4.. , litti 1 1 1 ii :414 11.1 , 114 01 olt101110 t v■ ,, . . n 1 A i.rili, . y/raP , Y011/ Milkier for Life OCOP1RIGIEL 1993 All1S1S CONCEPT ONLY. ROTTLUND 11IE R0111.1 IND COMPANY, INC. MN BUILDER LICENSE #1335 SEE BUIIDER FOR ACTUAL DETAILS ON ALL FLOOR MANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE TIIE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF 111E IANDSCAPING AND PIANS. ROTIIUND COMPANY, INC. C.OPYRIGIIT INFRINGEMENT COULD RESULT IN LEGAL PROSECUTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYIUGHT IAW. r t l EQUAL HOUSING ailinlit'IMMIIIP""11.1'1111 °P .IM INIT illi iiii Mill MINI • • Wig 51 1111111 I= i 1 II }or THE ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC, BuilderforLife ROTTLUND VILLAS_ AT LINDEN PLACE _ ; HOMES May 15, 1992 ,: .� f 4 ' A DIVLSIOV Of ;J i i THE ROTTLUND COMPANY. INC. ':.f S ' 1 i Sales Office: •? iodel;H '.. ': ",_ Main Office: 571 -0304 ` • 1 -7 p ;1a': Mbz - Thiirs Agents: 12 -5 p.m. Fridays II • -:,;! 12 -5 p r:_ .Sat & Sun t ASPEN APPROX. SQ FT 1240 BRECKENRIDGE . APPROX. SQ FT 1100 - II *PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE* Extensive Landscaping II Private Streets and Common Areas City Sewer, Water, Natural Gas & Underground Utilities II Underground Sprinkler System Individual Gas & Electrical Services 100 AMP Service • 40 Gallon Gas Water Heater II Carrier Electronic Ignition Furnace w /Outside Air Electrical Service for Range & Dryer Telephone & Cable Rough -ins Central Air Conditioning II 1 Water Spigot in Garage ' 1 Concrete Patio, size per plan Asphalt Driveway 1 Aluminum Siding, Soffit, Fascia & Trim Exterior Brick per plan High Premium Asphalt Shingles II Total Ceiling Insulation R-38 Total Wall Insulation R -20.5 Double Pane Glider Windows II Metal Entry and Service Door Panel Garage Door 2 Coats of Off -White Latex Paint (interior) Prefinished Ranch Oak Trim through -out II Interior Oak Rails Oak Passage & Closet Doors Oak Veneer Cabinets & Vanities II Stainless Steel Kitchen Sink Formica Countertops in Kitchen Cultured Marble Bathroom Vanity I 4" Backsplash on Countertops Vanity Wide by 48" High Mirrors per Vanity Wood Clothes Hanger /Shelf per Closet Sheetrocked Gas Fireplace w/ Gas Logs & Glass Doors II Smoke Detector & Bath Fans White Bath Fixtures - Deluxe Light Fixtures II Range, Range Hood, Refrigerator, Dishwasher, Disposal, Washer /Dryer Choice of 2 Inte=ioz Color Packages (carpet, - vinyl, countertops) III Assessments 1 LINDEN PLACE VILLAS WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 136 HOMES ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET - 1992 1 Prepared by The Rottlund Company, Inc. • 1 REVENUE 136 Names Monthly Ant. Association Fees *122,400.00 575.00 II EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 1 Management Fee 59,792.00 56.00 Tax Returns 5310.08 50.19 Legal 1505.92 50.31 Membership Meetings 5816.00 50.50 1 Office Expenses 5816.00 50.50 INSURANCE EXPENSES Dwelling only b Common Area Liability 19,792.00 56.00 II UTILITIES Water /Sewer 526,928.00 516.50 Electricity (Street Lights) 1864.96 50.53 1 SANITATION SERVICE Trash Collection 113,872.00 18.50 1 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES Lawn Care /Snow Removal 126,112.00 516.00 Irrigation System 1848.64 10.52 Miscellaneous 5375.36 50.23 1 Fire Sprinkler Monitoring 8 Rental 54,896.00 53.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 195,928.96 558.78 I CONTINGENCY FUND (1.5X) 51,436.16 50.88 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE 53,264.00 52.00 II RESERVE FOR REPLACEMENT 121,770.88 113.34 TOTAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES 5122,400.00 175.00 1 1 1 1 1 Page 1 1 1 - 5 PT 13 ,4e 4e4_ 4 1L „A-tc.erPttt 41)24ret .4 ./147 t 4t cgdeeee _31444 6f-rei.44,4 1 • d12 A44 cern.ce __Atz/t_ cfr& _ „rn-tct • zee chs -4,1, ,zWe, c't ..40.144,4 a d-ati'derWill/t - _,xiet a Vi _ieer / te_tirt /1' —,W.cal 9 41, t if iq _ . 4..kt _06 ait6 CeeLeicAktoitt eii&Pr 7 i /kLe4.13466-" p et4J .4r,t6 IFIlt _44+ a 1 1 1 . , 7Z/: .. . 2 ! / T._ / - • • ' - ..v _ _51,4;*1.t_ii .... , _I... _.„ . . _1 - 1 d-et"e-$4.g4,t;4. 1 aime,e fiz-c-_, , it,eJdre f __44 i .45.1,16; _.,ece.et,c_ __ 1 I -4 ,4 * 4 - 4 -e 4 e 4 ZTV'S-e-4, ---41.411,e--i If 1 1 C -41 -A441 ef,'Ketkf _____15r -77411 .7 1 lc .44freilt4.41,),______Driii____Aett,_. _521.t e i, , __Aet_co-74.t. 1 !._,tu-1, ..404.440 _ 4rff 4 1 1 CA- fi _ jr4t 4 11 ei___./ --a_/_..Ac__ 1 i 444..p.i.z ' ( 1/:_ 044/ cz - _,,i.ee,ec4. , i 1 ,,k 44 /,0/7 44.____..4 ei-ot, ai ,_A/L.14,t id I 1 1 _ _ ..C44,__,AtIl-afee44 ___ 4 __ie,t___10144444A4sf___CoY2“444,44.1A,- -i—RiZe __. _______ vi:vudtract,erit I C-t-e-tkizA-Lect _,Xer- __ecci <A44- lil-cr4t, , ast,e. __ 1 i - 4 1 1- 1 1 3 ♦.' • j c;6- _iet4t4e __44,-e-dt, • 1 - 1 E / ..fe-' i f t ,c t )e. n e ,tea- a.,- duyEzi _.Z44 ate, ouAr cyl- /inf-sx,ei-e.A..4- _ p laNt— r cee".01.4 c att-t 1 .1'14i / ,A:64141, ✓ .,dam ‘Apizt.t 66:0, a _ -► aL- p 4itit .6.74 . , , a' CJ"�-Ctti(.C.e. 9tt 4 /LE c( Z- oilAte c- -.- .J /LG: 44u4 4 • y _ a %,t e /ik _17tAt__Y1/14-44: —0 _Ce2ocizrzt,, 1 d-O-d-144- ,2;64 tt_ i 1 1 . i 1 ' �. ,� _. , J 1 ti/Le, . � _�� -� _ _ � f - _ 4 _ _ � __i_ _ - - -'----- '- --' ----- -- -- &' --- ---'---- - ----ba- i -- ` a. I '----- - - '- -____4.A.,_ i ' -, �r -- �� - _ == - , ----- 1 i ,.. .pziet. ..crh, __zze4e-A _0/___.,t-, ii .r.vt .r/4.6gte,4._.Q.eat,- _C .a_,_ __ceimvuiy.t-1204.2 1 1 cexeefrer 4fe.c.&-te e4tee_.._40-K..xiv!reftizee_...44.AeZ i / ��°� ~ � �_ .0 � e i �' � I ' 1 1"/rJ'tlif 1 . . _-'--- t Cu4 �~ «i2,/ --------�--- --� 1 i �� ~��,� � � �� '�y�� &f 1 - ---- _----__' - _-- _ _--____-_----- �� q31-/ ~~� �� ~_ . '-_- ~�� *� �� -- 1 � 1 . __ H ` - - 1 - - - --- ---- -- -- --- 1 1 8 5 0 o T RECEIVED SEP 13 1993 CITY Of ct1P I t1ASSEN 1 .,42±e-enbilD /7 fa- _ _ 1 1 .Ac',t) /Y1�scdyv W a e- L) 1 3 (1q3. _ --F - - . - 1 , 4w.�t 1? ) t' l,3 J 1 a e.4 et C- ^1 6.3 0•O (71.4 ULt-e-G.: G6 0-0.) - es" #12A_ ,f9c 41—eikeL - &LoesA U c� 1 cam.•, -Q J vJZ4t 61.1 a.., ti.1.4.t -,,, &, . r Issztr 1 1 ,_ ) 2_ 1 ..._) t, £,t 4 e, 1 ) G)e_, c4 - 6D AP-Lid __-4 -tykt, -OLL 6, _ _.70-0 .1 1 cv - cL.a.rt_ 04 1 a) A-9-0 tiAg- V 'L1) o&Z.0 1 o-,--eQ., 76-tfc 4.4_4e.A._ / a v . p,4,-t • cr\.) te...c, tN,t,-,-, ft_e-a)Ze, lt,-t Gt;,eiz, 4 ,4:4.0 q) -- ikt_ 4-7-XA-C, 1 ki-c- lACC . P-ck.- Axrxet2 0-�t --ttu2, • 11*t&V"-\ _,e4--4- ,zrtsatiLL -t37 bk,...„, i ,St.C, J4/. - at) 4, A- - retE ,t0-64. 1 u.-,) I - t t , A , c , , , , v . 4 - , X + . 1 4 - & 7 1 1 0 1 L P•g't Aria-S- - to .frui--42 2e VAL 3 004 0 C4,4.3) tt• 1 czw-,(.. lil&- tr-v 6-tv-eZetr.ta—it . ile (A,4c, AiltAi2-A - &-wit -- tier-04, 1 ixe__ &A-,,ig-k, crl. S 24* ) :tokye.R4, ttJ a.-- 1 04- ! i 1 -- ith.es c„tt 11,•_„.46-,..,....) v ,..ca„.) 12(k_ dLe . 1 1 1 I Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 19 1 preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer's office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against 11 the parcel. 6. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2 1/2 inches in diameter at the time of installation, and selected from the city's recommended species list. 1 • All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIRED HIGH DESNITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 ACRES OF 1 PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND VCATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND NORTH AND SOUTH OF 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. 1 Public Present: Name Address 1 Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Gene Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Mark & Lori Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Bruce Engel 8699 Chan Hills Dr. No. Jeff Williamson 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Randy Fresett 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Joe & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle A.W.(Mike) & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle Joanne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 1 } 11 Planning Commission Meeting IF August 18, 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: When you say...are you talking about commercial there... Al -Jaff: Well it isn't...the guide plan guides it for commercial as well as residential. It's a mixed use. We don't know what the applicant is proposing within the commercial district. 1 Farmakes: Typically a mixed use, is that not low type commercial use? It's not a Target type situation. Krauss: It's really not specifically addressed in the comprehensive plan. It says mixed use. It's mixed commercial and high density residential. It's really open to some ' interpretation as is...We think we know the scale...PUD process is even though commercial development there is premature, I think it's probably something that wouldn't happen until Highway 212 was a little more eminent. The PUD process allows you to send very solid, firm guidelines...development that happens here. Just rezoning the land, you have no controls at all and that's not something we recommend. Just to touch on what Sharmin was mentioning. This is a PUD concept plan. This is the first time through with this. As these things usually are, it's somewhat rough. We've been working closely with the applicant over the ' summer. There are some changes that have been incorporated into it. Some of the responses. But this level of detail is more of a fact finding mission frankly. To see what kind of issues need 1 to be addressed when the formal documentation is submitted. We've raised a series of questions that we'd like to have addressed. We assume you'll...assume that some of the residents in the area will do the same as well. That's the purpose of this meeting. A PUD concept is a non - binding review. It has to be formally brought back through the process. Go through the public hearing for official action so that's still in the offing. So I guess you should...with a goal of refining the plan and laying your issues out on the table. At the other end of the spectrum, we shouldn't expect everything to be resolved to nth degree at this stage. That's not what this type of review's for. Farmakes: Taking that in mind, the 9.2 acres there on the commercial site. Do you envision that large enough to...strip mall or do you envision that large enough for a light use service type useage. Dry cleaners. Fun and run type. Gas station. Krauss: Well the thing that obviously concerns us is, 9.2 acres is almost exactly what Target is. Mancino: That's not neighborhood commercial. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 21 Krauss: That's clearly neighborhood nei hborhood commercial. I mean we could tell you what we think and we're asking the applicant, for them to tell us what they think it is and reach some accommodation with that. What we'd like to see is something that's, as Sharmin said, of use to the neighborhood. That includes the gammit from small multi- tenant office space to a daycare center to small service commercial. Those kinds of things that are used on a daily basis. It is going to be sitting on a major interchange, and I know it's hard to visualize. Well yeah...year 2000 now or something. Batzli: Oh really? I saw '97 last time. It's delayed again. Mancino: What happens if 212 doesn't get built? That could happen couldn't it? Krauss: Well, it hasn't been built for 35 years so I guess 1 anything's possible. The project is moving forward. It's kind of hard to say. Mancino: But the reason why we zoned it mixed use to begin with was because we thought 212 would go in. Krauss: There's an official map highway corridor there. • 1 Mancino: If there's not 212, do we really want to have a mixed. use in that area or do we want to have? Krauss: Honestly that becomes arguable. I mean when that section of the city will probably ultimately have enough population that you'll want something. Would you want as much as you would if you had a highway interchange? Probably not. Our comprehensive plan is predicated on MnDot doing what they say they're going to do and they're buying up right -of -way slowly. Farmakes: Well, from a political standpoint as businesses go in there, which they are. As people subdivide and start building these types of roads. From a political standpoint, so comes the highway... Krauss: It's an approved project. I mean the State has 1 scheduled to let contracts on the east end of it. Batzli: The people will come in and complain that a highway's ' going in next to them. That's what will happen. Scott: Also with TH 101 being kind of like the highway that 1 isn't. Roughly, is it a chicken before the egg where this development is going to drive the city's expenditure of upgrading 11 Planning Commission Meeting li t August 18, 1993 - Page 22 TH 101? I've read here about that particular classification for that highway and what kind of bill are we talking about? If ' MnDot isn't going to pay for it. Krauss: We have no idea. First of all, I mean we do have, there is a state highway. The only improvements that are made to Highway 101 since the 1930's are safety related. There's no... Clearly the road is in terrible shape. Clearly it's inadequate. Clearly the city have acted as though they're a state government ' in trying to respond to what the State by default isn't doing. The reason why we commissioned a study 4 years ago, 5 years ago to decide how to upgrade things between Highway 5 and 212, which is also why the city has already spent considerable dollars 11 upgrading Market Blvd /TH 101 intersection and rebuild it down to the creek. We net with the I guess it's Chuck, the chief engineer. And we were asking him. Harberts: No, he's the metro district engineer. 1 Krauss: We had a meal with them a month ago trying to get this item on the agenda and...was that we ought to keep talking on it and they're may be some method wherein the highway is turned back to county or city jurisdiction...pot of funds that MnDot has called turnback dollars. We're hoping of meeting next week with the city of Eden Prairie, Carver County, Hennepin County, MnDot staff to try and set the ground rules for it but it's a very big issue and it's beyond one development tripping or not tripping. I don't know where the straw that breaks the camel's back. We realize that it's not a good situation. That's why the city's already committed to doing so much. Harberts: Is there a proposed dollar value though? What kind of money are we talking about here? 1 Krauss: I don't know. We did have some rough estimates. In fact Fred Hoisington is here to be on your agenda last tonight, and ' maybe tomorrow now. And he was going to give you an overview of some of the preliminary work he did with realignments and his original study I think had some preliminary cost but that was 5 years ago. We haven't updated that yet. Harberts: ...looking at alignments, yeah. Krauss: Now MnDot is scheduled, with the construction of Highway 212, MnDot is scheduling to rebuild TH 101 from Lyman Blvd up to 86th Street. That's part of the highway project. 1 Mancino: Whenever that. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 23 1 Krauss: Exactly. Scott: And wherever 86th Street ends up going. Krauss: That's true too. 1 Mancino: Is there a formula in the comprehensive plan, I mean I read the whole housing section but is there a formula in the comprehensive plan that is mixed use on anything? I mean like is there a formula for how much of a mixed use should be commercial and how much high density? No guidance? Krauss: No. Mancino: So that's why we're ending up with the 9.2... 1 Krauss: Well the...corresponds to where the lines were put on on the official city map. But it is open to some interpretation. Conrad: Any other things? Any other comments right now? We'll open it up. If the developer has some comments. I think from a Planning Commission standpoint, the key word here is conceptual. This is a concept plan. It will come back. Some of the staff recommendations are kind of specific so it gets you carried away into looking at specifics but again this is the time that we can tell a developer what we're thinking and for them to tune into where we're going and then they can take their calculated risk or gamble if they want to go a little bit against what we're recommending. But again, it's their opportunity to see where we are. I think as we get close to a recommendation, again there are some specifics and I think that's, they really get kind of specific but I think we have to be kind of general in our approach. With that, if the developer is here and would like to make a presentation, we'd sure entertain that at this time. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of 1 the partners of Tandem Properties. My partner Jim Ostenson in the pink shirt is here also. Dennis Marhula and Greg Koskey from Westwood Engineering are the engineers and planners inthe project. They're both here this evening and we'll ask Greg to give you a very short explanation of some of the site plan issues. Don Jenson who is the manager of land development for Rottlund Homes is here sitting in the front row and he'll be able to explain the unit types that they're proposing and answer any questions you might have. We received the staff report. As the staff said, we've been talking with both the engineering staff and the planning staff primarily for quite a length of time. Also with Mr. Hoisington about the road realignment. The impact of that and so forth. I might just tell you how we're purchasing 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 4 August 18, 1993 - Page 24 the property. We're buying the land on a contingent purchase agreement essentially. If the project's approved, acceptable to what we need to do, then we would buy the land from the two underlying owners, Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Bartz. Mr. Klingelhutz will retain the commercial area and we aren't involved in that other than it's included in the planned development at this point ' so as Mr. Krauss said, he and Al I think have had some discussions about what that outlot will be and what size it should be and that's an issue we're kind of responding to on what's presented to us. If it's 10 acres or 5 acres or what have you. We'd work around that. I guess what I'd like to do at this point, we did have a neighborhood meeting last night with just a few people there and they brought up some good questions. Good issues. Good suggestions of what changes we might be able to make. In reading some of the letters, it's pretty clear however that there seems to be a real basic underlying dispute with the comprehensive plan in that commercial and higher density and medium density housing that happens to be proposed for this site. And it's nothing we have any control over. I guess we looked at the plan and talked with staff and highway planners and proceeded accordingly. What I'd like to do at this point is ask Greg come up and maybe explain very briefly since the staff did a pretty good job on outlining it, for what the plan entails and Don, to explain the units for you and then we'd be able to answer any questions that are raised in the staff report after that if you'd like. 1 Greg Koskey: Since the staff did a very thorough explanation at the beginning here I'll just keep my comments fairly brief here and touch on some points that I'd like to emphasize. One was that we had met with the staff early on to review the Comp Plan and various site issues. To that end we developed a site plan that was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan in ' terms of general areas and uses that would define the commercial multiple family and single family areas. The multiple family that we're proposing is generally lower density than might be allowed by that comprehensive plan. We also took into consideration the alignments for Highway 101 and 212 as defined by MnDot and that the Hoisington Group is working on for the 101 alignments. Knowing that wetlands is that ever important issue that we have to recognize, we did field delineate the wetlands. Had our wildlife biologist go out there and stake them and field survey them so that we can work around them. The intent certainly is to avoid any contact with them. I know that there was comment in the staff report about impact, potential impact from 86th. The intent certainly is that we stay out of it recognizing that there are serious repercussions if we start dealing with that particular issue. When we got into the specific site planning of the property, we took a look at how the 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 25 1 use relationships were going to work. We naturally wanted to get a single family buffer here adjacent to the residential to the east. Recognizing that 212 is going to be a fairly major roadway coming out of a freeway thoroughfare, we wanted to get a little bit higher density type units to this area and working with a slightly denser, lower type impact unit up here. The units down in this area are 2 story. They're generally 4, 8 and 12 unit buildings. We have a density in this area of around 9 units to the acre. Up in this particular area we're looking at one story units generally before and...in our buildings. We've also worked with private roads running through this site. We wanted to keep things generally in a curvalinear manner. Keeping straight sections fairly short. Attempting to use the variety of sizes of units and the arrangement of roads to help create an interest so as you move along you don't see long lines of buildings that look very monotonous. We're trying to create some interest here with the way that we arrange units either at angles, moving along so that you're seeing the buildings from different forms, different directions and not seeing the same thing all the time. Overall density for the site, including the residential. We're looking at something around 4 1/2 units to the acre. Again averaging 9 units here. About 6.7 units for the one story units and about 2 1/2 units per acre for the single family residential. 86th Street 1 is, as you see intended to be realigned up at this point here. Working with reasonable setbacks here and working with the plans for 101 that the Hoisington Group has worked with, there is also a proposed connection to the existing Highway 101 at that point. The street right through the single family residential is intended to loop north and come back up to TH 101 at some point in the future. When that area develops. The grading, we've worked with in a fashion that's generally consistent with the site. The one inherent consideration that you have with any type of residential, multiple family residential is there is only so much grade that you can work with on these sites so they do have a tendency to flatten to some degree but we are attempting to retain as much of that existing character as we possibly can. We are also with the site drainage patterns, creating areas of where quality ponding prior to discharging waters into the wetlands. Generally we're routing water through the site in a southeasterly direction that will ultimately end up moving down towards the Riley Lake area. The utilities to the site are being serviced with sanitary sewer up north of this site. There is watermain that will have to be extended into the site from other areas through a public works project to service this particular property. Landscaping is one where in the multiple family area we're generally working with the density of about 2 1/2 degrees per unit which is a little bit higher than you'll typically find in a single family residential area. We're trying to also work with shrub massings around foundations and elsewhere throughout 11 11 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting } August 18, 1993 - Page 26 some of the critical site areas. By appropriate massings of these trees we can buffer areas along TH 101, along 86th Street. Buffer along 212 in conjunction with the berming that we're proposing along 212 and 101. We're also trying to arrange landscaping throughout the areas to help define open spaces, shape of buildings, soften the massings of the buildings and help provide for the privacy of the individual units. Where they have their individual gathering areas. I think with that I'd like to pass it along to Don. Don Jenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. It's been a while since our company's been before you. We are in the process of developing our own ' single family subdivision...I'm looking forward to working with Tandem here. We are the builder in this particular development, which means that they're developing the property for us. They're taking care of the streets, utilities, the land development ' approval process. We're the end user and that, in this particular case that means we're looking forward to bringing more of the single family houses such as what we're buildling at Windmill Run, down to single family lots. We are looking at providing market rate housing that staff eluded to, regarding first time home buyer product. That is what we are intending to provide on the southern end of the property adjacent to 212 is ' the Rottlund Villa. Some of you may have friends or business associates that live in some of those. There's approximately 1,400 of the villa units now built in the Twin Cities. All quadrants of the Twin Cities. It has sold, depending on the city and the development costs, as our newsletters would say, anywhere from the high $50,000.00's in the very first years, up to the low ' $90,000.00's in some communities. All of those things are driven by conditions and decisions of the various elected bodies. Planning Commissions, etc and how those things impact development costs. I think there's goals of the city to have housing that's more affordable. Then you can influence those through your decisions regarding conditions on any given approval of the project. We're also excited about bringing a very new product ' for us, which are called our garden homes. They are the one story product and I'll flip over this sheet to those in a moment. This would be a somewhat more detailed and perhaps the cart before the horse but we wanted to give you an idea of what will be here regardless of the site plan. Assuming that you approve it. With that I'll move to the other side of the microphone. Farmakes: We're looking at a fourplex here? Don Jenson: What you're looking at right now is the back to back ' unit which means that any given side, if there were 8 of them on the footprint looking in plan view, which is. 1 3 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 27 1 Farmakes: ...multiple. Don Jenson: You multiple it, correct. So you'd see on an 8 unit 1 building, you're only going to see 4 units on any one given side. Farmakes: How many am I looking at right here? 1 Don Jenson: You're looking at 4. Farmakes: 4. So it's a 4 plex. Don Jenson: It's an 8. But you're looking at. 1 Farmakes: 4 on one side and 4 on the other side. Don Jenson: Correct. Now the site plan that you saw as part of ' the plan has combinations of 4 unit buildings, 8 unit buildings and 12 unit buildings, and I'll show you exactly where each unit is. 1 Farmakes: I'm seeing 3 garages here. Where's the fourth garage? Don Jenson: You're actually seeing 4. You have one building. , One unit is right here and it has, all end homes have 2 car garages. • Harberts: Oh end homes so the centers have singles. Don Jenson: The centers are single so here's your other unit. And that should be in your packets, although it may be on a sheet that's quite small to read regarding floorplan. They're all roughly about the same size. These are about 1,150 square feet typically. The center one is a little bit smaller. It's around 1,100 square feet and then that pattern is just reversed. What you have on the site plan then for a 4 unit building, of which I believe there was one roughly in the center of Block 1 next to the wetland, is you have a combination of two ends. What we're done with this particular building style is the end home has a step roof, meaning that we have a vaulted ceiling space over on 11 this side and then you've got a full 2 story space on the other side. So it's roughly compatible with how a lot of single family homes from the end view are built. The building itself is about 72 feet wide on the end view, which is not a whole lot wider than a lot of single family homes that have a wide or a triple car garage. About 40 foot wide house, depending on where the garage occurs, and 80 to 90 foot wide lot. You almost have the same... when you're looking at the end use building, especially when it steps up. It's no greater or no more visually a concern, depending on a person's perspective, than a 2 story home is on Planning Commission Meeting I ► August 18, 1993 - Page 28 the street. And depending on how a person views the sketch plan that the developers have put together here, the pattern that you see from the street, whereas you look over the wetland coming down to 86th into the Villa development on the south side, is a series of building masses and roadways which are about 1 1/2 times thinner than some single family neighborhoods. In other words, you might have a 70 foot wide, or excuse me. A 50 foot wide home and you've got your side setbacks and you're going to have another single family home with it's 2 car, 3 car garage. Your side setbacks of 10 and 10 perhaps or 15 and 15 from another home. In this case you have a building mass and then you have at least a 20 foot wide long driveway plus a street, private or public. Another driveway area so you're going to have about an 65 to 70 feet between buildings. Again that's more detailed in the next part of the site plan but to get to the building style, • that's what we're proposing in this area. What we believe is that encourages...you have created an awful lot of jobs in Chanhassen. Adjacent to Chaska. Eden Prairie. You have a lot of manufacturing, a lot of service sector employment. You're now ' seeing it across the street out here and in the retail developments that you've been successful in attracting and a lot of those jobs simply don't pay the high prices. High wages that ' are there purchasing the family homes. Farmakes: Materials on this particular model here. The outside clapboard. I see you have some. Don Jenson: No. I'll tell you what the outside building materials are. They're brick around the garages. Now that's ' usually around our entries to the homes. Places where a lot of hands get touched so it's around the doorways. Usually we have some type of turning corner. Where we turn the corners, we carry ' the materials around so it's just not like a fireplace where it's just in the front of the face. So we're carrying it around the corners. It's also on all garage tops so if a vehicle would miss the garage door for some reason, it's not going to dent the ' building. It's going to have something solid there. The siding is all an aluminum product. This all has a lifetime, similar to most single family homes that are being built today of about 25- 30 year life. The roofing materials, same thing. When we put together homeowner associations for these types of neighborhoods that we've been building in the Twin Cities, we're trying to make sure that they don't have big costs that they're going to have to worry about. Some of the associations on different housing projects, different housing types, in the 70's. Late 60's, early 80's used a lot of wood products. They used them when wood products had a little bit better quality but still high maintenance. The redwoods, the cedars, they..paint very frequently and quite often and if you have a single family home Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 29 that still has a lot of wood, it's a job you dread doing. You 7 Y g end up hiring it away after the first time you do it yourself in most cases. So what we would like to is the low maintenance, long life exterior products. Farmakes: The trim, the windows? 1 Don Jenson: The trims are all aluminum or aluminum clad. In some cases various types of metal composites on the...windows. That's the building product. They all, I could furnish you with additional sheets. It's a detailed inventory of what comes with the home but again it's about 1,150 square feet, at a minimum. A little bit larger on the end. About 1,180 in some cases. That will fluctuate a little bit depending on how we treat the window areas. It is lofted, lofted space. Gas fireplace. All the appliances come in. This particular neighborhood that we're looking at, we are going to shoot for providing housing that is under $80,000.00 for a first time buyer. Now you'll see a spread on all of our promotional material. If you look in the newspaper every Sunday you would see that a lot of our advertising we talk about how much the interior unit costs because a 1 car garage versus a 2 car garage, you can expect some savings there. There's usually in most of our neighborhoods, surprisingly a $6,000.00 spread between the 1 car garage and the slightly smaller square footage and the end home with it's 2 car garage and lofted ceiling space. Farmakes: Is the garage door also aluminum? Don Jenson: The garage doors have been primarily wood. They're painted. There have been some shifts, it depends on our suppliers and the particular development, neighborhood that they're in. So there's some shifts there. The standard exterior patio which is usually at least 10 x 10. You might not be able to measure that by looking at the plan. All of these homes have standard air conditioning, standard...we feel they're important. Will also affect that purchase price. Staff has eluded to an idea that they might want to try some type of special district where there might be various other incentives, either to Tandem or to an end builder like the Rottlund Company to do x in exchange for x, of which I don't know what those ideas might be. Farmakes: You're using the word range. Is that the average price then or is that the base price? Don Jenson: Well you've got 2 different styles of homes with, it's usually a spread of about $6,000.00 and you'll find that the very first subdivisions we did, if you wanted to research them up at Brooklyn Park or Coon Rapids, had land costs and other • 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 30 development costs that allowed those to come to the marketplace in the low 60's. We recently completed a project in Bloomington and Eden Prairie where some of the end units, and they were adjacent to a woods and they were adjacent to very large oak ' trees, some of those end homes sold for a little over $90,000.00. So it's subjective. It depends on the location and it depends on the neighborhood and the various conditions of the development. Mancino: Would this be comparable to the property that you just developed east of Dell Road and south of TH 5? Don Jenson: From a neighborhood image on the exterior in terms of what we are now doing for our landscaping program, for our signage programs, our directional signs...at Dell Road and TH 5. ' How people are directed to their homes and how the project looks from the exterior in terms of the landscaping. It would be similar. The building facade itself is different. What we are ' trying to do there is that was also very high. That was above the number that staff was looking for. Those sold in the high 80's and low 90's. And what we're finding is that there's a lot of people left behind. There's a lot of people who still can't qualify at that level. There's a lot of singles, for whatever reason, and most of our neighborhoods are women who are looking to buy. About 50% in most cases are single women. That doesn't ' mean you have children that you're tagging along. It just means that there's women in the workforce that are looking to buy a home and get started themselves and so without a partner and ' that's just what our demographics and our buying patterns show. Then on the end house we're finding that there's couples. It's primarily younger people and it's primarily the first time home buying market. We also see about 10% of any given neighborhood, ' and most of them are anywhere from 70 units up to 170 units so this one fits squarely in the middle at 112 units. That about • 10% of those have been historically older buyers where price was ' important...I'm going to classify that as people over 50. They're coming out of another home or they may not have even owned a home yet. They're simply trying to get homeownership in this state, with it's high tax. You get one benefit on your tax form and that's if you own a home for the most part. What we found then is we could develop another product and that's what we have along the street and we're calling those our garden homes. ' We've taken the same square footage, which is approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet and instead of two levels, we've got it all on one level. This does mean that it needs, and it will fall ' under the '88 guidelines for home construction meaning that doorways, hallways are wider than the 2 1/2 feet that you see in most cases. They're all 3 foot wide doors. Hallways are wider. There's more of a requirement to have a flat site because you 1 can't have more than 4 units without meeting some of the federal 1 i Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 31 r guidelines for accessibility. What we have then again is the same concept. The end home. The 2 car garage and our current concept plan is 1,220 square feet so you've got your dining area, you have your garage area and you have your laundry and kitchen. You have a master bathroom, half bath, master bedroom and then kind of a den /bedroom and a porch. We found that the 4 season porch, or however builders like to classify it in Minnesota, it's still a big plus. It keeps the mosquitoes away and in areas, and especially neighborhoods where you have more wetlands or where long grass is close by, the mosquito populations are going to be up so you need to get away from those. But there again this is a fairly efficient home. Like all of the Rottlund products, we have accessibility to be straight out of the garage into the homes. You don't need to close the garage door and go outside and back into the front door. That's one of the reasons that the townhome design and the villa product has been so popular with women. It's real secure entry system. We've also taken then the idea of a single car garage has merit. There's a lot of older buyers that no longer have a mate, or maybe never had one. They 1 only have one car. There's no reason that you need a 2 car • garage just to store boxes. So we've taken the 2 car garage away. The 2 car garage again as part of the plan. It's a little bit smaller unit. It's 1,117 square feet and again a similar concept. You have your 4 season porch in the center. A patio space, master bedroom, and you have one master bath. This does not have a second bathroom in it so that's one of the places the square footage is increased. The end home has 1 1/2 bath system with 2 car garage. The interior homes 1 bath and then the laundry and kitchen area have a direct entry straight out of the garage. It has a total building height of 23 feet. The villa is around 28 feet so there's not a tremendous amount of difference between the roof height pitches. It's a 5/12 roof pitch. Similar building materials again. It's aluminum products on the exterior. In some cases some of the vinyl manufacturers have been pursuing us for vinyl siding. It kind of depends on your personal taste whether you see one or another having more merit. That particular siding industry has improved in how their quality of their siding. You're seeing it on homes all the way up through a quarter million, $300,000.00 so. It has an ability to hold color for long periods of time...bleaching out like previous projects did in the clapboards, etc. Metal trim and typically that's in a white. Scott: So in this particular plan, basically what we see here is unit A and unit B. Those two actually would be, you could put them together and that's basically how they would be? , Don Jenson: That's exactly how they are. If you were to push these 2 together, that's how they show up on this plan. What's 1 k } Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 32 colored over here on the right side. - ' Scott: Okay. So the indentation back there is the patio and then the 4 season porch adjacent to the side of the garage of unit A. ' Don Jenson: Here's your porch. Here's your entry area. In this particular building product, building design also has more of a ' vestibule or covered entry area so as you're standing at the front door as a guest, whatever and it's raining as this year every other day, you can stay out of it...get in the front door. ...garage and have direct access to entry that way. Single ' family homes, which we hope to be the end builder there as well. Your minimum lot standards here are being applied to the PUD plan. It's a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. That's going to translate into a move up style home or perhaps upper end...but it wouldn't be unlike neighborhoods we're starting to build up on CR 117. I'd be happy to answer any questions for you ' regarding the housing project but other than that, that's the overview. It's the first time home buyer and it is an empty nester. People who are looking to downsize or in some cases people who are looking to get into first time home buying on a ' modest scale. Don't need all the square footage. It's all on one level. And we think that there's a strong...for that in the western suburbs and particularly out in Chanhassen. Western Eden ' Prairie market area because you've done such a good job of getting service sector...and jobs here. It will keep people off the roads so they won't be driving a half hour to get to work... ' Mancino: What's the occupancy rate of the one in Eden Prairie? Have those all been sold? Don Jenson: It's all been sold. There's been several resales and people that have been resaling have been getting their equity out and paying their broker and making a profit so we're leaving ' something on the table, definitely. Development just had it's... 2 weeks ago which means we're still in our warranty period for that neighborhood. That one was sold out very quickly. Most of them, for 112 units, interest rates not going through the roof, ' we would expect that once we started marketing and selling, that we would be able to move through a development plan like this in, sell through and build that whole neighborhood is about a year. ' So if you were to approve this plan sometime in the near future, and the streets were to start next year, by the end of the year 1995 you would see a completed neighborhood. We would expect the similar pattern to occur for the garden homes. We're starting our first neighborhood of that particular home design in Eagan. We haven't broken ground on a structure yet and it's got tremendous acceptance. It's half sold out right now...provide 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 33 1 the modest home with what people want and that part of the market is served. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman; in quick summary I might just refer ' to the two recommendation sections in the staff report of the engineer and also the planner. I think by and large we can work with them on really all of the recommendations. One recommendation about a traffic study, we're a little in the dark about. I assume that pertains to the commercial area. Is that correct? ' Hempel: That would reflect the intersection there with necessary turn lanes and so forth. The intended use there, trips being generated from multiple and commercial use. So it's kind of a combination of both areas. Dick Putnam: Okay. The last item is item 11 where it indicates ' the applicant shall dedicate to the City in the final platting the necessary right -of -way determined from a traffic study for the future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th. In our meetings with the staff since day one we've indicated...we would be dedicating . right -of -way whatever's necessary. We indicated from day one however that TH 101, which takes up, depending upon what you count, anywhere from 7 to 11 acres of property is not something that we're prepared to dedicate nor are the underlying owners. At no time at this point short of reading this report has anyone suggested to us that that would be a condition of approval. I guess I'd ask Paul perhaps before the next meeting to check with the City Attorney and the Plymouth case and some others that seem to indicate that in our previous discussions that that would not be the position of the city of Chanhassen for dedication of a state trunk highway or county road or whatever so that would be the only one that we don't feel would meet in working with staff and for the design. Conrad: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any other public comments? ' Al Klingelhutz: Members of the Planning Commission and staff. I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd, Chanhassen, 11 Minnesota. I just recently received the staff report on this and I did try to get ahold of city hall today to discuss a few items in here. One of the main items that I wanted to discuss was the right -of -way for Highway 101. When you look at that map and see that the piece of property that I don't think there would be anything happening to until at least the year 2000, the 9.2 acres, and expect dedication of a 200 foot right -of -way plus a , • Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 34 berm between the old TH 101 and proposed new TH 101, which would 1 constitute between 5 and 6 acres of property. Without reasonable access from TH 101 to that commercial property would be asking for an awful lot. I think I mentioned at one time not too long ago, over my dead body or I'll go all the way to the Supreme Court. And I mean it. I just can't see it. As far as the state building a new TH 101, I don't think there will be any, I mean to 86th Street, there won't be any dollars other than city of ' Chanhassen's pocket. By letting the state acquire that portion of that right -of -way. It's a major collector street. Proposed to be a 4 lane highway. Proposed to take the traffic from having 1 a major interchange on Highway 212 to downtown Chanhassen and I even believe the first portion of that road was purchased and already built...landowner. I cannot proceed having that road being such a major...being donated by the developer or the landowner. I'm speaking also for Mr. Bartz who lives down in Kentucky. He called me today and asked that I should represent him. He feels very strongly about this as I do. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Al. Other comments. ' Dave Nickolay: Members of the Commission, my name is Dave Nickolay. I live at Rice Lake Manor. 8500 Tigua Circle, otherwise known as Lot 6, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. We have the ' largest piece of property to the east of the proposed development. The map up there in no way I believe does it justice. That line that Sharmin just drew goes all the way back to the black line of the back of the pond. That's a 4 1/2 acre ' piece of land and I guess I just want to start out by saying that my wife and I are not opposed to development in Chanhasen, or development on this property. We directed a letter to you at ' very short notice. I worked on that letter until midnight on Sunday night because we just got home on Saturday night. We did not receive adequate notice from anybody. No one from the staff. ' No one from the development company. No one has talked to us prior. The last time any discussion that I'm aware of took place on the land was back in 1990 when the comprehensive plan was discussed. And I talked with Sharmin a little bit about that ' today but I feel that a development of this magnitude next to the development I live in, and...I'd just like to walk through a few of those real quickly with you if I could. The first and most ' major concern is dealing with the issue of the 190 units that are being proposed, and I've learned something here tonight that I don't believe my wife was told and the members of our community of Rice Marsh were told, the other night at the neighborhood ' meeting. The 190 units are really going on about 40 acres of actual land. The development of Rice Lake Manor was developed I don't know, about 15 years. We've been there about 12 years now. 1 We were the third ones to build in that development. We have 7 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 35 1 units on 40 acres about, recognizing you've got to take the streets out of 40 acres and we've got significant amount of land in the marsh which is a wildlife easement. So somebody will have to tell me and I did talk to Sharmin a little bit about it today but I'm not here to get into the specifics of what's built but I think the fact is, we're looking at 190 units next to 7 units at this point. We have one open lot at this stage. There will be 8 units there someday. My most major concern is that there's no transitional planning here to go from this size lot, acreage. I had a choice. There were only two lots sold when I purchased this particular site. I purchased it because of the wooded nature and just the whole aesthetics of that lot, and I built a house on it appropriate to the site. Some of you, as I understand, took a walk yesterday through the area. I'd be more than welcome to invite you to my home to show you what I've got there in terms of what's being proposed. There's no transition here. To go from what we originally bought into in this area to what's being proposed. This is going to totally change the whole purpose of what we did back 12 years ago. It's probably longer... My second point is, deals with the fact that Lot 6 in the Block 1 there, I think will be significantly impacted for a number of reasons, and I'm not going to bore you with all the details. I 1 think I outlined there that the property to the east, or I'm sorry, to the west of me will not be what I would consider conforming to the property that I own. And I think that's going to have an impact on what I have there. Another major concern • that I have, which I'm not holding anybody responsible for this but the contour of the land's been adjusted on the horse farm over the last 10 years. The horse farm's been allowed to dump their horse manure on the land and that has created a drainage problem. All the land to the west of me, where what used to be the corral up on top of that property, and then slightly to the south, all drains through my property now. It does not run any longer off to the back of the marsh because that was filled in with the horse farm's manure. And so that has created a problem for me and I won't speak for one of my neighbors but it's created a problem for him. It's created a problem for both of us in terms of the water drainage. In the most recent heavy rains, only the second time in the 12 years I've lived in Chanhassen, my house is on a slab. The water table got high enough. I have good underground...that filled with water. I had to have that pumped out. The area that it's draining into, the culvert under my driveway wasn't meant to drain all the water from the west across my property. And that isn't I don't believe how the original land contours laid out. The third point is the fact that...with 11 the large wooded area that I have on my property. It's directly adjacent to the single family homes and the people who were just up before me, I have a strong feeling there's going to be a large number of young families in this area. There's no park in that 1 1 1 i Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 36 area. My children play in that woods along with a few other children in the neighborhood. I think it will be an attracter. There's a treehouse in the woods right now. I can't, how am I going to chase children off my property? I have them myself. ' The property line which is on the west side of my land, is all treed and I planted some of those trees. There's oak trees there. There's an ash tree there and then there's a variety of other foliage on that line. I would sincerely ask you that none ' of those woods, if you're going to approve this plan, that none of that growth be destroyed in any manner and you'll have to determine what's reasonable in that regard. It doesn't make any ' sense to me if you're going to approve this, to tear out something and the landscaping in preparation of this site, only to plant something back, if it's already there. And some of you ' took a look at that. So I'll let you be the judges of that. The last point under the impact is, what I would consider the northern 1/3 of my property, on the very bottom of the hill - behind my house is a main trunk line for the sewer system. For one of them. It is not a trail. It is used by, when I say it's being used. It's not being trespassed at this stage but I have reason to believe that it's going to become an easy access point off of this development. There's no place for them to go here. They're not going to go walk out on TH 101, as you're well aware. They're going to work their way, for recreational purposes. There's a pond on the back of my property. There's a nice marsh ' out on Rice Marsh. I have reason to believe that this is going to be an area where I'm just not going to be able to protect until such time as the city would put a trail in or use that ' property for some other reason. Quickly moving on to my point 3. West 86th Street. I told Sharmin that she should go out there this morning after the rain. You would have truly gotten a feel for what West 86th Street turns into after a good rain. Was it 2 winters ago or in the spring, there is no base underneath that road. That road heaves up. It does what it wants to do when it wants to do. It was originally designed as a farm access road. That is not a city street. The city doesn't maintain it as a city street. And so West 86th Street should not be considered a street by Chanhassen standards. It is in need of major upgrading. ' Two cars cannot pass...on that road the way it exists right now. We have children and a number of the other neighbors have children. A school bus cannot pull out onto Highway 101 without crossing both lanes. If you're heading south out of that road, ' you cannot head south. It's a blind access. You're taking chances. We go down the left lane until we clear ourselves. We look to the corner first and then we go out. West 86th Street, if ' you approve this plan, has to be upgraded. With the realignment into the new spot that they're showing in the dark color area on the map, it cannot be left as it is with this kind of traffic on that road. It's a hazard for us right now. The fourth and fifth Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 18, 1993 - Page 37 i points are the wetlands issue. I encourage you because of this, the high density of this development to have an environmental 1 impact study done by the appropriate state or local, I'm not sure who actually does that. It's too major of an area there in all regards and I would encourage you to have that looked into. My sixth and final point is that the, at the hearing in, it was in September, 1990. We were told about another development, Klingelhutz development which was going to be over by Riley Lake. Or Lake Riley. And they were going to connect the sewer and the water and bring it down the side of West 86th Street and then take it to the south. And we were told at that time, and I testified at that meeting and I told Sharmin to check the Minutes and I don't remember what I said at that meeting, but we were going to be connected to the city water at that stage. And at that point they didn't, the staff did not even realize that we had the underground connections in place. So they took our fire hydrants, but we haven't really needed them but somebody took them. We have them capped off but I guess my point is that any, the residents of Rice Lake Marsh, and I will speak for myself. I'll let my neighbors speak for themselves, is I don't believe that we should have to pay for any connections or upgrades to this area. I believe we've paid for that once before and I believe I testified to that effect back in 1990. I never heard back. The staff that were here then, or that were there then, are not here now and that still remains an open issue. I'll close by saying I have two requests. One, all of the issues that I had addressed and I'd like all of the issues that my neighbors addressed, we have a good group of people there. We get along. That all those issues be addressed in writing to you and to us. And my final request is that, if you're going to approve this type of development next to my property, and I won't speak for anyone else in my area, I feel I should be given consideration for what I have there and how it's going to change. I don't know what that is...I was not going to be here tonight but I changed my evening work schedule so I could be here. I just feel this is being rushed. I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about this. I'm not feeling good about it. Staff, I did get in this morning. In view of the 35W upheavel and I couldn't get to work, I was able to talk to Sharmin a little bit this morning so I'm feeling a little better but I'm really concerned about this and no one has talked to me, or my wife. So with that I thank you for your time and consideration and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Good, thanks David. I think you're probably talking, or finding out about it. You may feel you're behind things but as ' we said in the beginning, this is a concept. It is the beginning I guess and there is time for you to be involved so I don't think you should be frustrated that way. A lot of valid points that 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 38 1 you bring up and hopefully as we express our thoughts. Again, it's a real tricky issue when you get into a concept. We're talking, we should be talking general things. Not specifics. You may be concerned with some specifics. We may ignore them right now. We may touch on them. It depends on the preference ' of the commissioners. But again, I think what we want to, what I personally want to focus on is the overall global direction and provide the developer our insights so they know where we're going 1 before they commit a whole lot of time and effort to a project. They already have but this is their way to find out what we're thinking. So anyway, hopefully we'll get back to some of your 1 points a little bit later. Any other public input? Joanne Larson: My name is Joanne Larson and I live at'8590 Tigua and there's a couple, I hope you all have my letter but there's some concerns. I'll just go over the most important ones that... One thing I'd like to bring to your attention...is the developer stated tonight that the purchase of this land is contingent upon ' the approval of this and I'm just frighten that maybe if we say okay, this is just a concept. Let's approve the concept. He comes back and says, hey I purchased this land. You approved the concept. Now you're telling me I have to make changes. I think 1 the commission should be careful about that. We just got back from vacation on Sunday night and found out about this and didn't have too much time to prepare so I called a developer friend of ' mine and I go, I'm going crazy you know. What do you think? And so I got a little advice from him also and I thought it was good advice...not all of them are from here. The density is way too ' high and the transition is not good. Single family homes should be extended to the south. I feel that single family homes should be extended to the south here. Also I'm concerned about what's going to happen over here. We have high density in the back 1 along this line. When this developer comes in, will he be able to rezone this to high density? So my first point, the density is way too high. And then transition is good at all. In fact the 1 developer has not even provided an area of transition from a single family home to the 12plexes right across the road here... I also feel no driveways should enter off West 86th Street. On the land here there are a lot of driveways that butt up to West 1 86th Street and can enter, you know turn right off of West 86th Street right at that driveway. All entrances to the multi - family dwellings should be kept to the west end of the large pond. 1 Personally I'd like to see from the middle of the pond here multi dwellings just this side of the pond. I feel that the entrances to these multi dwellings should only be on this side of the pond 1 and that's it. No entrances any further to the east. I'd also like to see this myself, single family here. I think we can split this up to quite a few good lots single family. 1 1 i Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 39 1 Batzli: Excuse me, ma'am. Do you have a justification for why there should only be entrances to the west of the pond? Joanne Larson: I just feel for the transition, that's why. I think it would be a nice transition. Also I don't know what you're going to plan on doing for West 86th Street but it would become a collector street and should be widened to 30 feet. I don't know, maybe that would keep some of the traffic down..: support the aesthetic affect and has a real nice, I mean if they just sort of were separated. If the single family homes were extended south. I commented a couple things on the villas. I like this style of the villas. I've seen them off Dell Road. I'm really happy with those. I'd like to see the ones in Chanhassen upgraded to the same architectural design as the ones off Dell Road. They have gables over the windows and I like, I would prefer vinyl siding. I think it gives a little softer look. I'll pass over the...The last thing I'll just touch on again is that we ask that the city not rezone or approve any concepts at this time because MnDot's not even sure that highway 212 will be built. We need to see more alternatives. We need to know if 86th Street. I'd like to know if it's going to dead end there at Tigua Circle or are you planning in the future to extend it all the way to Eden Prairie. I'm also concerned, like I mentioned earlier, is that development right to the south of Tigua Circle, east of the plan...What's that going to be developed into? Can that be rezoned to high density? Is it high density right next to it? It's just all too over powering I feel. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? David Nagel: My name is David Nagel and I live at 6551 Tigua Circle. I don't know how to say this but I had to come back from vacation for this. As you can see on there, I have on that plan there's 5 lots that abut up to mine and I don't feel like I should have to sacrifice my lot for all those. I think that they can somehow they can get like 2 lots in there or 3 but I think 5 is ridiculous. Everything that Dave, my neighbor touched on I think I agree with 100 %. The people in there will not have a place to go. They will be coming across into my backyard and I have trees that I planted in there too. I think my backyard will end up being a playground. If anything I'd like to see somewhat of a high fence put up, and I'm not talking chainlink. I think something on the order of like a 6 1/2 foot cedar privacy fence. Another point of mine is, are we going to be assessed, the homeowners in that area, for like Dave says the water hook -up because everything is in the street now. And the road. I came from Minnetonka originally and we got assessed for road improvements that didn't even affect us. I'm afraid that's going 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 40 to happen here. And to me this development is not an improvement. pp o m p I mean I saw people out there, the Planning Commission walking ' yesterday when I came back from up north. And they can see what it's like out there. Now I don't thinkt his is an improvement so when it comes to paying anymore money for a so called improvement, I wouldn't go along with that. That's about all I have. My main concern though is the 5 lots that abut up against mine. I feel that is really, it's going to screw my yard up. Dave has 2 1/2. Larson's have 1 3/4 and I have 5. I think that's a bit unfair. That's all I have, thank you. Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. You know there are a ' lot of, there's a tendency to get frustrated because we may not be responding to some of your specific questions. And I really don't want to right now because I'm trying to get into the concept stuff versus the particulars. I think there's probably a good reason for having a neighborhood meeting with the developer and some of the people that have been on vacation so, and probably in attendance with city staff so some of these questions can be answered. I know you get nervous about that. It's a big development going in. Right now again, I don't want to, this meeting could last for hours and there are a couple other items ' on the agenda. I'm not trying to cut short the comments because we want them. Yet on the other hand, it's sort of, we haven't even started to talk yet and as commissioners and we have our own opinions too and this could take, it could take a fair amount of time. But anyway, your specific questions will be answered and we'll make you feel comfortable with it. May not always be the answer you want to hear but at least we'll be talking to you. 1 Other neighborhood comments. Mike Mulligan: My name is Mike Mulligan and I also live on Tigua Circle. I'm in the first lot east of the Dave Nickolay's lot there. I've not been there quite as long as Dave. About 9 years. 10 years since I bought my lot. Obviously we're all ' speaking for ourselves and we're not professionally organized and we haven't been doing this for 2 years, working on this. But I think you feel the general theme that's running through these comments. Is that we feel that the intensity of the development is not only too great for our neighborhood. I haven't done the numbers...but it's pretty self evident that it's too intense for the neighborhood we're in. The short notice we got. Every single person who lives in those 7 occupied lots there has been on vacation and some of us were not able to be here tonight. Have not returned. We would respectfully ask for enough delays so that we can get our act together and make some sort of ' cohesive statement. 1 1 ► 1 Planning Commission Meeting { August 18, 1993 - Page 41 1 Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Again, this is a concept review and you're going to have plenty of time to do that. Other 1 comments. Bruce Engel: Hi. My name is Bruce Engel. I live at 8699 Chanhassen Hills Drive North in the Chanhassen Hills development, which is across TH 101 on the west side of this proposed development. I just have a few brief comments. It appears to me that the plans for TH 101 and 212 should be finalized prior to this type of a project being approved. It may fit nicely with the 212 and 101 when they're completed but it would look kind of silly out there if say 212 wasn't ever built. In addition, the Highway 101 traffic is, once this happens, the traffic will be greatly increased, which it has, we've all seen it go up a great deal since these past few years and the ease of access and egress for residents will be decreased and I think we're additionally concerned about the future safety risks. The safety considerations on TH 101 for all of us. I think if you drive that, more and more concerned. Again as the staff report 1 addressed, this PUD, planned unit development for the total... total plan should utilize the environment and apparently there is some additional concern and I'd like to see, make sure that there is a great deal of attention placed (a), to the grading and make sure the wetlands aren't jeopardized. And finally, my final feeling on this is regarding this commercial area. 9.2 acres seems to be, well it's too big. I don't think you need a space of that, for this size of development that is as large or almost as large as a Target. I don't think we need a Fleet Farm in there. I think we should keep our commercial. Major commercial development along the Highway 5 corridor. Thank you very much. Conrad: Other comments. Joe Hautman: My name is Joe Hautman and I live in Rice Lake Manor. Rice Lake Manor could put those 8 lots together and compise about 40 acres. 8 lots for 40 acres compared to the 190 units here. So if we came in together, the 8 of us, applying a formula used here, we could ask for a subdivision with 216+ units. Now that would be extremely profitable for us. But that would be lousy planning. That really would wouldn't it. You're not going to agree if the 8 of us decided to sell out and plan like that. Well the same thing somewhat applies next door. This is not a good plan for that neighborhood. The density is too high. The reason is, that is the topography does not lend itself to multiple units. We've already heard tonight from the developers. How they're going to have to straighten...It's simply the wrong development for that topography and that is a concept. The reason that one of the people suggested that the driveways for the multiple should be west of the pond is, as 1 1 1 �• Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 42 you've heard tonight, t designed for first owners. g kings that are de igne o Hers. Single people without children. So it makes sense to have the 1 entry to the, from the busiest sections west of the ponds because the single family's going to have children. So it makes sense to separate the traffic pattern. Have the single family where there won't be children. Have a separate entrance there and keep the higher traffic areas with no children have their own separate entrance west of the pond. An important point for all of us is the special assessments. When we bought there we had all the special assessments in and paid for. We had...blacktop, storm sewer, catch basins, the whole works. Including the water. And we rely on you to protect us in that regard so that we don't end 1 up paying any further special assessments. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything? Okay, is there a ' motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was 1 closed. Conrad: Did Todd leave? Hoffman. Yeah, I was going to ask him 1 about parks. Krauss: I can tell you what we know, and...putting together his ' recommendation and I'm not privy to that. The comprehensive plan does describe a large park area due east, along the south side of Rice Marsh Lake. It's an extremely attractive area. Heavily forested and it's going to be severed from the balance of the property by the Highway 212 corridor. Access to it is a little problematic because we don't have public right -of -way going all the way through it. I had some preliminary conversations with the Eden Prairie Park Director. They are also planning a significant park in that area and are working with MnDot to get a trail underneath Highway 212 that would run north /south that would basically allow us to have a trail loop around 86th Street to the rest of the city. Through the park, underneath 212 and back along a new trail that was built along..Lake Riley Boulevard...specific recommendation to the Park Board? 1 Hoffman: No, the staff report is still being developed. It will take into consideration any comments brought out this evening... 8:00 a.m. meeting scheduled with the applicant tomorrow morning to discuss some issues. I have not had the opportunity today to get together and talk about trail alignments. Pedestrian movement through this site between the proposed park open space to the ' east and Highway 101 to the west. So you've got...recommendation in this regard for the park commission... 1 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 43 1 Conrad: Okay, good. Mancino: Can I ask Todd a question? I'd like to see a 1 neighborhood park in this development. I know that the trail around Rice Marsh Lake is going to be a community park. Correct? Hoffman: The basis of whether it'd be a community or neighborhood or a combination of both has not been addressed to date. In the 2000 Land Use Plan, the site is considerably wooded. It rises up above Rice Marsh much more than some of the property on the north side of the lake which is typically much more wooded vegetation type of wetland. So that issue has not been addressed but now would be an interest with 212 coming through and the land use will change in this area, we'll have to address what that park is actually going to look like. In regard to amenities, recreational amenities which the residents of the site can use in very close proximity, I made an indication to the applicant that I found it was unusual that there was not a community amenity such as a pool and play structure. Kind of support this type of location included somewhere in this development typical of what you find in many other multi - family development types of applications. So again, that will be addressed in my staff report. Comments in that regard will be heard from the Park Commission... Scott: Todd, does the Parks Department own any property in that area? Hoffman: To the north we own, the city owns 70+ acres which is delineated by these two parcels. The one just south of Hidden Valley and then the parcel which is larger just south of Chanhassen Estates. But again there's a small neighborhood park located right in this location. Access to this park from this development would need to come out onto TH 101 and then access the recently completed trail which travels then east along the toe of the slope or sandwiched between the wetlands and the homes which are in that area. Other than that, there's no neighborhood or community parks developed as of yet in this region of the city. However, the city does have land holdings of approximately 32 acres called the Bandimere Community Park site which is south. Scott: That's the recycling? Hoffman: Correct. Where the recycling center has been and that is south... Mancino: Todd, another question. When we have developers, well 1 we haven't had developments like this. But do you find that homeowners with children plus homeowners that are just single or Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 44 older, over 50, want parks as much as families that have children? ' Hoffman: It's a difficult question to answer because it's really an issue of personal taste. But typically people, whether it's active recreation, passive recreation through the enjoyment of open space and parks, access to trails, all those are amenities ' which the...regardless of age. So if you would like to see those incorporated, or at least access to them, it's accommodated through the site plan. ' Conrad: Okay, thanks Todd. Well, we'll go for planning comments and again, we can have at it folks in terms of details but again I'd sure like us to keep in general terms if we can. The staff does have a list of recommendations so I think you can react to those but I also think we should react in general terms to the overall site that we see and let the developer and staff know 1 what we're thinking so. With that intro, Jeff. Farmakes: Well I'm glad...In previous meetings that we've had... ' made comment to the homeowners that stood up here and he asked about the pricing of homes next to him and we didn't know what the price of the house was going to be. I think the standard comment that the city comes back and says we're not in the ' business of dictating that certain price house is going to be next to a certain price house directly. Indirectly obviously there's several other issues that come into play that the city I has minimum requirements. And being that you have a foot of land in Chanhassen and you have a dictated amount of cost to build something on it and strict requirements...medium price house and I I believe the medium price house now in Chanhassen is $110,000.00 to $120,000.00. Somewhere in there. Which basically says that that's the minimum requirement that we wind up with in this city. I'm a little disturbed that we come into a development targeting price totally from a governmental standpoint rather than letting the market do that. The reason that I'm uncomfortable with that is many of these large developments, the huge ones that you see ' in town and so on are dictated somewhat by government requirements and political concerns versus marketing concerns. Marketing always seems to work out better... I realize that there are other considerations that we've talked about here ' tonight. Providing housing for factory type work. For businesses in Chanhassen and so on. Entry level homes. Single family. Single parent type and I think that's...I'm wondering if the ' scope here, if what we're attempting to do is solve all our problems with one developer. I find the scope of this, for this particular area, with it's surrounding properties, may get a 1 little tunnel visioned to solving the problem that we talked about. Providing housing in Chanhassen due to the deficit for a 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1, August 18, 1993 - Page 45 1 certain type of housing. I would like to see some more moderation that's been talked about here to the east of the property. Perhaps in Block 2 larger lots. Between 8 and 1. I would also perhaps like to see bringing single family down into the areas of 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8. Somewhere and perhaps they're duplexes buffering before you get to the 4 and 8plexes. I realize obviously that that will lower the amount of density but I do think that the homeowners that have come forward here are making a legitimate concerns. This is not a buffered area. - There is not a transition, even if it's one row of houses. Again, that refers back to the tunnel vision type of approach of solving a problem by taking into consideration...Certainly units 11 and 12 that are on 86th Street, the people who purchase the homes for Lots 1 and 2 on Block 3, they're certainly going to be adjacent to large density development of single family homes. Again I think that's compounding the problem. Overall, I'm going to make my comment general from this point. I think with the development overall, the scope for high density is too big. I'd like to see some more moderation in the transition. Again I feel uncomfortable dictating the size of the units and say that these should be duplexes and this should be 4plexes. I know that's a market of what generates those types of developments. Except where the city or the federal government comes into play. I.know that in the case of Eden Prairie, some of the developments that the village homes, particularly I'm thinking of Centex, they've done quite an exemplary job in terms of making a transition. The prices however on those units as I recall were in the high 90's to the low 100's so we're talking about a step up here from where this targeted amount is. The grading that Sharmin talked about earlier, I would support that. I'd like to see whatever development comes in here that we try to maintain that. It's been something that we try to maintain on any of our developments that we've tried to...Whatever happens here, I also am concerned about the scope of our parks to look at these things. I'm talking about neighborhood parks. There is, quite a lot that can be done in these types of developments. Areas that are referred to as common areas or areas where there's a small scale park and I'm thinking of perhaps Block 1, Lot 6. The 4plex kind of tucked in there in the middle of much higher density. Perhaps an area like that...The outlot, I'm still concern at the size of the outlot. I realize of course there's a lot of concern that 101 and 212 may not happen, and...any highway projects type costs. But it would seem pretty reasonable if that case we're having here, the pressure that we're having to the south now, that highway's going to happen in the relative near future. Where it goes exactly, the preliminary work has been done for that and it may vary somewhat and I am again somewhat concerned. If there's commercial going in there, that works into our long term development. We look at the proposed commercial area that was at 1 1 , Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 46 1 TH 41 and TH 5. I responded in the task force in that development ' to propose commercial development there by the Mills property and the response was there that we had enough commercial of a half a million square feet in the downtown development that that's suffice for our population. I am concerned about the size of ' this commercial development. It's almost as large as the Target area and I would not like to leave that as an open ended thing. By allowing that much space as commercial, I would not like to ' see that go beyond the scope to providing services. Dry cleaning, daycare, the type of thing that you would not envision in the typical strip mall with more servicing higher residential area. I'm concerned about the size of that. It's so large that it would seem to me that it's bordering on being another strip mall. And if that's the case...should be discussed. So I'd like to see more information there on the size of that. On the area of safety ' and traffic, I'm assuming that that can't be, that the cost of traffic studies and so on until you come up with a relative plan that you feel has been narrowed down somewhat that we're going to ' get a professional response...Obviously there's this amount of density being put into this area, there's going to be a considerable amount of additional traffic in that area... ' Mancino: I don't want to repeat all of Jeff's...I do agree with all of Jeff's comments. I'll try to add to the big picture one. Paul, when is Fred's study going to be done? The updated 101 1 alignment so that we actually have the final 101 alignment. Krauss: I will defer to Fred on that one. Fred Hoisington: Nancy we will, almost all the information is in now so we would expect to perhaps, time permitting on the agendas and so forth, to have something that we'll be at least ' recommending. So we're not that far away from having a recommendation to make to you and to the City Council. ' Mancino: And your recommendation may'not be this alignment? Fred Hoisington: It's possible that it won't be but my understanding is this plan takes into account any possible 1 alignment. Krauss: If I could address. The alignment does affect portions ' of this property to a greater or lesser extent. But it's not significant. It can be accommodated so it's. ' Mancino: Would it not add to this outlot size? Krauss: It would add or subtract. More likely it will subtract. But it's got to be made clear that when we the city's alignment 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 47 1 study and bring it to the neighborhood and get the City Council ' to approve it, nobody's going to be out there with a...in the foreseeable future. There is no project to upgrade the highway. We're working with people in trying to put something together but clearly that's a ways off so I don't want to mislead anybody that a quick solution to the Highway 101 issue is in the offing. What we're trying to do, in lieu of the safety with the proper planning processes of where this road's going to go, we're trying to put the city and it's residents in the drivers seat so we know what the solution is and we can work towards that on behalf of everybody that's agreed to it. ' Mancino: This comment that I have is, I would like to see a neighborhood park in this development. With this high a density, I think it would serve the people well that would live in it. And I also have a concern for the property owners to the east knowing that, I think they're very right that a lot of the people will be, a lot of these people that live in this development will be going there or using their property so I would like to see some sort of a park here. I would also want to make sure that the wetlands aren't infringed on at all. In fact, if anything, if they could be...especially wetland #15. The commercial area of the outlot, to me I would like to see neighborhood commercial, not highway commercial. I would like us to have it be so that it does serve the neighborhood and not the community When I see it being maybe half the size of what it is right now. I think it's too big. What else did Jeff say that I thought was very good? The Block 1, in that lower, the southeast corner abuts single family and I would not like to see, that is not in this development. I would not like to see the high density abutting single family to the east. So I'd like to see more of a medium density put in that area and that would be Block 1 where units 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are around wetland 18. Or excuse me, wetland 13. I think that's it for now. Conrad: Okay thanks Nancy. Brian. Batzli: I agree. I think some sort of amenities need to be provided. Whether that's totlot, play area, tennis courts. I think neighborhood park probably has a unique connotation to the Park and Rec Commission and I don't know that it's really what we're asking for. A neighborhood park is I think pretty substantial. Isn't it about 40 acres typically? Hoffman: Less than that. Typically 10... Batzli: Okay. But I think what we're looking for is amenities in an area, you know totlot kind of stuff. Tennis courts. Those ' type of things. Not necessarily a place where you can build a • Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 48 11 dozen ballfiels. I think in general, I agree with Jeff's comments and I missed some of them but he sketched them out here ' for me and I appreciate that and I agree with virtually all of them as well as Nancy's. Some of her detailed comments. Just in no particular order to highlight some of them. I agree, I don't believe there should be drives as currently shown off of 86th ' Street. I think there needs to be more consideration for the land form to minimize the grading. I understand that's a problem with some of these. There's going to be a mobility type homes put ' in. Low mobility or handicap accessible, whatever. And I understand that but maybe more care needs to be taken regarding that location and the landforms that exist. Something struck me ' and I need to comment on this. My gut feeling. Someone said that Rottlund was the end user and I disagree with that. The residents of Chanhassen, both current and future are the end users. Not Rottlund and that notion needs to be disabused here. Sump pumps ' only along city streets. I'll get you yet on that Dave. I think homeowners association obviously is a requirement in this kind of thing and that will happen. Drainage problems need to be taken care of. The intensity of the development needs to be toned down a little bit, especially in the southeast corner. I guess I don't, I understand why this would be guided PUD but I don't think that they're paying enough attention to some of the things that we would normally look for in a PUD, especially those concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Clearly our condition 13, recommendations of the ' staff report include that and those are the types of things that I'm going to be looking at and I hope the developer read that condition 13 carefully because they didn't comment on it. But yet if they submit a plan consistent with those recommendations with numbers 1 thru 7, yeah. I'd go along with that then. Mancino: How do you feel about the commercial size on the ' outlot? Batzli: I agree that it should probably be neighborhood ' commercial. However, it's not entirely clear to me how large a trunk highway 101 is going to be and if this is really a major commercial intersection, I might be convinced that it's appropriate to have a little bit larger commercial sector here. ' Scott: I'll address my comments specifically to the commercial outlot. I think it needs to be downsized. Restricted to ' neighborhood commercial. I don't think we need, because of the central business district that we have, about less than a mile from the site, I don't think it's necessary to have anything but local services or neighborhood services. And I won't belabor any other point. I'm in full agreement with the other commissioners so I really don't have anything extra to add. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting I/ August 18, 1993 - Page 49 Harberts: I have a strong support for a lot of the previous comments. A couple of, two additions I believe. They touched a little bit on, I hope this is global. On just the space. Maybe it's the amenities. Maybe, you know you get your joggers. You get your walkers. Just taking that into account. Maybe we'll see that. Some of the high points is certainly that transition and reducing the density so maybe some of that will come out. I would strongly urge that under the recommendations that because of the intensity of the number of people, even the fact that some of the target markets that the developer works in concert with the public transit authority to ensure that this is transit friendly. I'll also note that a park and ride lot is at the interchange. It has been already mapped at the interchange of 101 and 212. So I suspect that we'll see a lot of transit riders, both locally as well as commuters to Minneapolis. So I would strongly recommend to see a condition that they work with the public transit authority. Batzli: When would something like that park and ride lot be constructed though? Harberts: MnDot's going to build it when they build 212. 1 Batzli: So maybe not for 10 -20 years. Harberts: But I think with the current density that's being ' proposed and even working with them, that there will be circulators and buses on 101 as soon as the development goes in. So that will, you know we are talking about a park and ride lot somewhere on TH 5 as well so traffic is going to be generated. That's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Diane. I'll try to make mine quickly too. , I again, I am just not sure about the commercial size of that property. I just, I don't want to limit it right now but it seems large I guess and we somehow have to get our hands around whether that is too big for a neighborhood type of use. I don't want to close it out. I don't want to downsize it right now but I certainly have my, I guess I need a better vision and I don't have one right now. We haven't talked about 101 dedication and maybe we're not, Paul. Krauss: Well, if I could clear that up. Al Klingelhutz has no ' need to go to the Supreme Court, it's already been done. It's interpretation, and maybe Elliott can possibly comment on that, our City Attorney. Design...is probably correct. There may be a different slant...if the city winds up owning TH 101... 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 50 Conrad: It does seem reasonable. So if we make any kind of motions tonight I think that one condition in the staff report about dedication of TH 101, I don't know. Somebody should note ' that that is probably not what should be done. I'm concerned with internal parks. Like everybody else has said, I think there should be some kind of parks or something, on a very small basis ' in here. The transition to the east, the neighborhood who has represented themselves here tonight, yeah. There's no doubt. I don't like 15,000 square foot lots bordering that property. It's ' not a transition. That's not what a PUD is all about. A PUD is transition and in this case we haven't done it. Now I am confused with what the rest of the Planning Commission has said. You've really talked about the going to single family to the ' southeast. • Mancino: Or medium density. ' Conrad: And I really am not sure why. Why is that? ' Batzli: It's guided low density to the east. Conrad: So you're just trying to make a transition there. Even though the wetland is there and that is a transition. I guess ' that, I have a problem with that. Batzli: I'm not sure of where the wetland goes based on this map. All of it and I was assuming that there's going to be homes here and there is no transition if in fact you develop single family to the east of the property. Conrad: Ah, okay. Farmakes: My comments Ladd is that if 12 became, if they ' increased that Biock 2 between 8 and 1, came up to about 20,000 square feet. Block 3 remains somewhat as it is. Block 1, 11, 10 and 9, went down to single family 15 square feet, and 12 became a larger lot. Wetlands again, that would create a barrier that would have, 8 could be a duplex. 7 could remain as it is. 5 could remain as it is. I'd like to see 6 as a commons area or some...I think that that would create something of a barrier ' visually. Because I think not only looking at it this way but I also think when you're physically on the site looking, building to the east, you have homes to the east, visually what you see ' too... Conrad: Why don't we just play around with Lot 12 on Biock 1? Why are the other 3 or 4 lots important? ., 1 '. I/ Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: I'm just throwing that out as a buffer and I'm agreeable to listen to whatever ever anyone else is suggesting. Conrad: Well what I'm trying to do for the developers here is try to get, and they have, obviously those of you that are here, this goes to City Council.• City Council will have their cut at this too so when we talk concepts, it's our concepts and then the City council will have concepts so somehow the developer's... , Farmakes: ...throw this thing out, obviously the developer's going to have a better feel for his market but as a buyer I can give you my opinion. I would not want to buy Lots 1 of Block 2 or Block 3 because that'd be adjacent to high density across the street. That's not a buffer for me. I would expect a larger lot single family with a smaller lot single family, a duplex, a 4plex to an 8 to a 12. Krauss: There's another aspect of what happens in that southeast corner. There is a large wetland, or there is a wetland there. We have to double check MnDot's plans but I seem to recall MnDot had intended to buy out that parcel and use it for drainage purposes. So there may in fact be nothing ever in that corner but we can double check that with MnDot. Of course they don't own it yet. • Conrad: Now a lot of you did not really say anything about transitions on the northeast side but that's pretty consistent. Aren't we concerned about that or am I putting words in our ' mouth. Harberts: I think you're putting words in the mouth. I thought the general discussion was that there needed to be more transition. That this wasn't going to do it and that I think Jeff kind of coined it right away when he said to reduce the number of lots on that whole Block 2. 1 Mancino: To 20,000 minimum. Scott: Cut them in half. ' Harberts: That's the way I understood him. Conrad: Okay. Well you're supporting that? Okay. Harberts: Yeah. That's what I was supporting. 1 Conrad: I think that is important. I don't think that if this plan came back to us again, and we didn't see some transition, I don't think it's going to pass if we don't see a better • Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 52 ' 't o transi i n to the property to the east. That s eems to be essential. Obviously you're hearing some concerns about the ' transitions to the southeast so I think we've got to, I'm not sure what our consensus is on that but I think there has to be something, some attention paid to the southeast part. Generally I like some of the, a lot of things I see here. For those of you who, we have to take discredit for some of this I guess as a Planning Commission. We have said this is, should be some higher ' density areas. We've said that in the past. We did that when we did a comprehensive so we're not, we can't dodge the issue by saying, hey this is just too, we never anticipated this. We did. And now it's just seeing if we still believe that and see ' how it fits and make it work with existing neighborhoods. The only other things that we haven't really reacted to was the staff comment on the EAW. Is there a feeling that we should request an EAW on this or not? Anybody? Harberts: What is the EAW going to give us? What can we expect ' to learn from it? Conrad: That we won't get., right. ' Krauss: Well, my personal feeling is it doesn't give you much that you couldn't get anyway. We have a specific request for some traffic information. That's something that an EAW might ' already give you. We have some requests for defining wetland issues. We have the best wetland ordinance in the State. I mean it really doesn't add that much to the process. I don't know. I mean I can't honestly say that it would add that much to the ' dialogue. I think it's a lot easier oftentimes to just specifically state, I've got an interest in this particular concern. It comes back to us with information on it. I think ' we've pretty much done that. 1 Mancino: Paul...let's say 212 goes to the south. Comes in here. Will it tell us how much berming we should have because of noise levels that will be affected in the southern part of this development. ' Krauss: MnDot is right now, a few weeks ago they were supposed to have a meeting and they were meeting on projected noise levels with the highway. Where they were going to build noise walls. ' Where they're not. They only build noise walls for residential development that's existing at the date of which they get what's called...Permit and that's this September. Now we told them about this development hopefully to get our foot in the door but this development does include significant berming up against the highway and the highway...That information's available. They have noise... 1 1 1� I/ Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 53 Mike Mulligan: Can I speak to that please? 1 Conrad: Okay. Mike Mulligan: The Environmental Impact Statement that was done 1 on 212 did address that issue but as of today, as of last week, MnDot has no noise berming whatsoever in any part of Chanhassen. I missed that meeting. I called Evan. He sent me the drawing last week. Krauss: Yeah, I don't know if, I mean Evan's clearly the person, Evan Green of MnDot is clearly the person who's doing it. I ,. would...We do have some scattered other developments that I hope would happen...for neighbors with MnDot and get as much protection as we possibly can. Conrad: SO, are there any votes for here in terms of an EAW? It's sounding like we're, with Paul's comments. 1 Harberts: We're covered. Conrad: It's sounding like that. I guess if there's somebody in the audience that feels that that is an essential part of this, I guess I don't know that we're going to move that that happens tonight but if you feel it is important, that maybe you bring it up to the City Council when it gets there in a couple of weeks. Traffic. Dave. Now how do we know. You've asked for some traffic studies. We built that in but that traffic study is, how do we tailor that to a commercial use which we don't know what it is yet? Hempel: That is a difficult question to answer. I guess the 1 traffic study would not be done until we get through preliminary plat stage where it's a little more defined for the use of that outlot. So we can give some direction to a consultant what to 1 anticipate for trip generation...At this stage it's pretty unclear. Conrad: But the way the developer is handling this, they don't 1 have to tell us what that outlot is going to be used for. Hempel: Our projection that it would be a worst case scenario, 1 most intense use of that outlot. Krauss: Keep in mind that under the PUD you have the ability, whether or not, I won't say whether or not the property owner wants to, but you have the ability to establish parameters for what's going to happen there. We'd like to work cooperatively with the developer and the owner to do some projections so that • 1 I Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 54 1 it makes sense for everybody. But yes, you can in a worst case ' analysis... Conrad: Paul, how do we get a handle? I don't want to drag this ' up but how do we get a handle on the outlot? Krauss: Well at this point I think you've made the concerns that we have that have been...come back in when formal submittals are developed that that be resolved, or at least brought to a stage that you can intelligently talk about it. It's quite similar I guess in a way to what happened with Opus /Steiner came in...You basically laid down the guidelines or the project wasn't going anywhere until we had some definitions... 1 Harberts: What about those special assessments? I'm uncomfortable what to expect. What the city residents can expect. Will they be subject to assessments or all the costs going to be picked up by the, based on the development of this parcel. Is that still 1 up in the air? Krauss: They do have service from city sewer. It's not an unusual ' relationship to have water in pipes in the street but they're not connected to them. ' Batzli: They have wells. Krauss: Right. And I honestly, I mean Dave do you know what they've paid for? 1 Hempel: They did pay for the installation of their own lateral lines in front of the property. Over the last feasibility study ' that was conducted for bringing trunk water facilities into this area to service, we've adopted a rate of...$1,275.00 per unit. One unit being assessed for each one of those individual property owners...until some future point when they decide to subdivide further, additional units would be assessed in the process of a connection of a hook -up charge. ' Scott: Is that the same assessment for the x number of units that are to be added in the development? Same kind of thing? Hempel: Right... Krauss: It needs to be made clear though that that was a feasibility study. That was approved by the Council...ordered the project but it never was built. We're not in the process of reassessing how that should be done. There are developments coming in south of 212 on Lyman that will have an even, the assessment, the feasibility study needs to be recomputed, 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 55 refigured. As far as the roadway goes, I guess I envision 86th Street being built by the developer. Harberts: Am I understanding that at this point that it's possible that the existing homeowners in that Rice, whatever it is. Sorry, that they probably will not be any assessments as a result of this subdivision? Krauss: Well, keep in mind the feasibility study that Dave is quoting, this development was existing in nobody's imagination at this time. This was rallying water on kind of a mini - regeional basis for the city serving the whole south Rice Marsh Lake area down to Lake Riley. And that was what that assessment was developed under. Now we never built that. Now I think what Dave's saying is probably reasonable to think that it may be somewhat in the same ballpark but we don't know exactly what it's going to be. I want to assure everybody though that it's a very public process. There are usually many hearings on those kind of things at the City Council. Harberts: So it's opportunity for the residents to provide maybe 'L more additional information so they can be better prepared. Krauss: Oh no question about it, yeah. ' Conrad: Okay. Harberts: One other question I have, and this was brought up. I think it was a good point and I'm a little uncomfortable. As the first gentleman said from Tandem, that this is a contingency and my understanding that you have to have so much building here in order to make it feasible. If we were to approve it in concept, if they went out and bought the land and then because of our discussion that it reduces the number and the cost there, is it feasible for them to build this, they're the ones at risk? Krauss: This is not an uncommon practice. Virtually all the ' developments that are brought before you are a contingent purchase deal. Now if the developer picks some arbitrary number of units they expect to get, it's encumbant upon you to provide it... Scott: So it's preliminary plat approval. Conrad: What we say tonight, I don't think the developer's going to go out and sign anything based on what we're doing tonight. Harberts: Well no, because as I understand it, if we approve it, it's non - binding on both parties. 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 56 Scott: Or if we don't like what we see, which it- sounds like we don't, we need to table or reschedule to get something back from the direction that the applicant has received from us and do the whole process over again. ' Krauss: You're not, I mean the City's not bound to perform until you have a project you actually preliminarily approve. ' Scott: There you go. Conrad: Anything else? I think you react not only to the staff ' report, but also if you can give a summary of the key considerations that you heard the Planning Commission. If you think it represents the majority of the commissioners to include in that motion. So the conceptual approval has 16 points and if want to react to any of those 16 plus all the additional comments that we've made. ' Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #93 -4 shown on plans dated June 23, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth 1 in the staff report. Condition 11 which reads, the applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting reasonable right- of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right -of- way for 86th Street. Obviously that needs to be reviewed by City Attorney for appropriate language, that condition. Conditions 12 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 13 would read. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the ' staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) in the engineer's memo. Conditions 14 and 15 ' remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 16 to read, incorporate conditions of the Park and Rec Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. Condition 17. Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Condition 18. Let me ask this before I talk about condition 18. Where do we talk about coming back in the PUD process with the neighborhood commercial? Have you talked about that as conditions 1 thru 7 or did you actually include that as a condition and I missed it here? 1 Al -Jaff: It's only in the body of the staff report... Batzli: Okay. Then condition 18 would read, the applicant shall provide detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. That's it. 1 } IF Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 57 Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Discussion. ' • Harberts: I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 19 that the applicant work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding the public transit in this area. Batzli: Does the applicant actually do that or does the City do that? Harberts: Both. Batzli: I accept that. , Harberts: Thank you. Conrad: Any other discussion? Mancino: My only question is, is the thing about the topography, leaving the preservation of the existing topography? Batzli: I thought that was set forth in those conditions 1 -7. 1 Mancino: Yes, number 1. Okay. Conrad: Any other discussion? 1 Batzli moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #93 -4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting 11 the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of- way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate. 1 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the city to review and formally 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 58 1 approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. ' 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP ' standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to ' the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 1 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in • accorance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If ' interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City wil authorize /perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 1 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain,the city shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire ' hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. ' 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 ' year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the rention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be construted to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 59 1 shall work with the city in implementing the best location for said ponding. 1 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent uponthe City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 1 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting reasonable right -of -way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right -of -way for 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) and Engineer's memo. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highwayl0l right - of -ways and betweenthe area separating commercial and residential lots. 1 16. Incorporate conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. 17. Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 60 11 18. The applicant shall provide a detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. 19. The applicant shall Mork with Southwest Metro Transit ' regarding public transit needs in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I We'll move Is anybody here ton' Conr a 11 m eon a little bit. I a y y tonight interested in the John Pryzmus item on the agenda, because I don't think we're going to get to that. And our preference is to table it and talk another night. So if there's nobody here that sat through 3 hours of fun conversation. I guess Planning 1 Commissioners, I think I'd like a motion to table action on item number 5, item number 6, item number 10 Paul? 10, you need reaction to 9 and 11 right? ' Krauss: Right. Conrad: Okay. 5, 6 and 10. I had it right. Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to table items 5, John Pryzmus Interim Use Permit; item 6, Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lot sizes; and item number 10, update on the Highway 101 alignment study, due to the meeting curfew. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned chairing the meeting over to Brian Batzli. ' JMS DEVELOPMENT FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 6.1 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, WEST OF ' 7ROENDLE CIRCLE, EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE AND NORTH OF LAKE LUCY JOAD, TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: ' Name Address Shanon Graef 855 Pleasant View Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road Timothy Foster 6370 Pleasant View Cove David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road Mike Meuwissen 6500 Troendle Circle Larry Moloney 150 Fifth St. Tower, S13500, Mpls Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road 1 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inr.. . 14180 Trunk Hwy 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 June 21, 1993 612-937-5150 FAX 612- 937 -5822 ' MISSION HILLS PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Ref. 93321 ' PROJECT SUMMARY ' PROJECT NAME Mission Hills (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Highway 101 at 86th Street West 1 OWNERS ' Al and Mary Jane Klmgelhutz Keith D. and Carol S. Bartz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and 2209 Acorn Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lexington, KY 40516 -9645 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SITE PLANNERSURVEYOR, AND ENGINEER 1 Tandem Properties Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Bloomington, MN 55439 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1 (612) 941 -7805 (612) 937 -5150 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ' Arteka Natural Green 15195 Martin Drive ' Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 934 -2200 1 e Wenwood Pmt. uoni Semces. fnc n en epuei opponundy employer 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,+ The northerly 800 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, and: 1 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 3, of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway #101 and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence on 1 an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 519.26 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 300.00 fret; thence South 30 degrees, 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 489.69 feet to the centerline of State Trunk Highway #101 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following parcel: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 1 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of said southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 519.26 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 187.31 feet; thence South 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 239.59 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 143.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 265.45 feet to the point of beginning. 1 1 1 1 Page 2 1 '1 l Ill DEVELOPMENT DATA 1 ZONING: 1 Existing Zoning: Agricultural Guided: RSF I Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: I Outlot (C • ercial) 9.2 Ac. Block 1 ( du Multi - Family) 14.76 Ac. Block 2 (8 du Single - Family) 2.89 Ac. I Block 3 (10 du Single- Family) 4.09 Ac. Block 4 (60 du Multi- Family) 8.92 Ac. R.O.W. A street and A court 1.34 Ac. I 86th Street R.O.W. 2.17 Ac. TOTAL AREA* 43.37 Ac. 1 * Using estimated new R.O.W. for Highways 101 and 212 • TOTAL AREA (including Planned R.O.W. for 101 and 212): ±62.05 Ac. 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: I Outlot: Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Site is largely governed by adjacent R.O.W.s (not yet acquired) 1 Approximately 9.2 acres Block 1: I 1 - 4 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 3 - 8 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 7 - 12 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 1 Block 2: 8 single family lots 1 Block 3: 10 single family lots 1 Block 4: 5 - 4 du (garden units) attached residential buildings I 5 - 8 du (garden units) attached residential buildings 1 Pane 3 1 PROPOSED DENSITY: Multi - Family 172 du on 23.68 ac. 7.26 du/ac net 1 Single - Family 18 du on 6.98 ac. 2.58 du/ac net Lot Size Minimum: 15,000 s.f. Range: 15- 21,500 s.f. Average: 16,400 s.f. Combined 190 du on 43.37 ac. 4.38 du/ac gross PHASING: Phasing will begin at the north and east working south and west. 1 Phase I Block 2 and 3 (single family) East half of Block 4 Half of Block 1 Phase II Balance of Block 4 Balance of Block 1 Phase III 1 Commercial piece (Outlot) PROJECT NARRATIVE ' EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 The proposed project is a 43.37 acre parcel of rolling open agricultural -use land located east of Trunk Highway 101 and north of the proposed Highway 212. The site area is substantially impacted by the realignment of T.H. 101 and the proposed Highway 212 right of way. 86th Street West, which bisects the site, is currently a gravel road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 The proposed project follows very closely the pending land use guide plan prepared by Hoisington - Koegler Group, Inc. The proposed outlot and Block 1 south of 86th Street West, proposes Neighborhood/Highway Commercial along T.H. 101 and Medium Density Residential along the south and east surrounding a preserved wetland and open water pond area. The residential units in Block 1 are 2 story condominium style units in 11 buildings of 4 to 12 units each. 1 Page4 1 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (continued) Blocks 2 and 3 consist of 18 single family lots which act as a buffer along the east side of the project. Block 4 consists of 10 medium density garden style (single level) attached residential units varying from 4 - 8 units each. ' All attached residential units will be owner occupied and the surrounding yard area will be in common ownership. In final platting the units may become condominiums. Association covenants will be developed ' to govern the two areas. At this time, the nature of the proposed Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial parcel remains ' subject to a number of other planning issues. This will probably be the last piece to develop. Its perimeter, being formed by highway right -of -way and residential developments, will clarify the shape, size and access options of this parcel. At this time, no architectural character proposals or site plan concepts are available. The site plan respects the proposed alignments of T.H. 101 and 212. 86th Street as the site access, will be realigned to meet both the existing and future alignment of T.H. 101. This will require a vacation and replatting of a portion of 86th on the new alignment. PARKING 1 Each unit will have a 1 or 2 car garages and a 1 or 2 car wide bituminous driveway of at least 20 feet from the garage door to the access drive aisle. This will provide for two to four parking spaces per unit. Additionally, off - street parking spaces have been proposed to equal 1/2 space/unit. ' PLANTINGS The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor 1 private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. 1 ARCHITECTURE Two styles of attached residential units are proposed - Villas (south of 86th) and Garden Homes (north of 86th). The Villas are two story units and the Garden Homes are single story. The exterior materials for both styles will be similar, i.e., a combination of 5" aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the garden homes and horizontal transom windows over the villas' windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray 1 siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. 1 1 Page 5 1. GRADING The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site 1 grading with the proposed grades of Highway 101 and Highway 212 in consideration and tried to buffer the site from their impact. The site drainage will be directed through 5 sedimentation throughout the site which are strategically located above the recognized wetland areas. These sedimentation ponds will pre- treat the storm water, recharge the wetland areas, and flow in the natural existing direction. UTILITIES 1 The water main service will be connected to the proposed trunk water main extension by the City of Chanhassen in the southerly right of way of Highway 101. 8" and 6" D.I.P. water main will be constructed throughout the site area with 6" hydrants as required. The 8" water main along 86th Street is proposed to be looped to the east to provide the necessary fire protection. The sanitary sewer service will be connected to an existing manhole located in the southerly right of way of Highway 101 near the residential lots on the southeast shore of Lake Susan. 8" P.V.C. sanitary sewer will be constructed throughout the site to serve the proposed buildings. 6" leads will be stubbed out for each multiple -unit building and 4" wyes for the single- family homes. STREETS Bituminous aved streets will be constructed throughout the development as shown on the site plan. p gh p s p The width of proposed 86th Street (public) will be 32' wide with the remainder of the streets being 28 feet and 20 feet wide (public "A" street and "A" Court and private streets). All streets shall be built with concrete curbs. The alignment of 86th Street is proposed to be revised as shown on the preliminary plat. Access to the site will be at existing Highway 101 until the new highway construction is completed. PROJECT PHASING The first phase of the project will begin with the east end of the project and include all the single family lots (Blocks 2 and 3) and roughly 1/2 of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 2 will consist of the balance of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). 1 Phase 3 will consist of the commercial site at T.H. 101. WETLANDS 1 Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on June 2, 1993 using the Federal Manual for Identifvina and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979). 1 Page 6 'r • The site includes part or all of three wetland basins. The two wetlands recognized by the City of Chanhassen and located south of 86th Street have been designated as A24 -2(1) and A24 -3(1) and classified as PEMF ( Palustrine emergent semipermanently flooded; Type 4 deep marsh) and PEMB (Palustrine emergent saturated; Type 2 wet meadow) wetlands, respectively. ' With the exception of a small area of unavoidable linear encroachment to wetland A24 -2(1), which will be due to the upgrading of 86th street, these wetlands will be totally avoided. West 86th street excepted, the site plan will also comply with the buffer zones and structural setbacks applicable to these Ag -Urban ' wetlands under the current Chanhassen wetland ordinance. Because existing 86th Street flanks the wetland edge with no buffer zone or space for improvements, the wetland can not possibly be avoided without substantial changes to the road alignment. The five sedimentation basins proposed will provide more than ' 1 to 1 wetland replacement for the anticipated encroachment, and will also provide pretreatment for storm water draining to wetlands. ' The third wetland basin, which is located north of 86th Street, is not shown on the official Chanhassen City Wetland Map, but is shown on National Wetland Inventory Mapping. The applicant understands that City staff have indicated they do not consider this basin a City - regulated wetland. In addition, the applicant ' submits that, because this basin is a Type 2 (PEMB) wetland less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land, it is covered under exemption 8 of the interim program of the Wetland Conservation Act. Because this 0.42 -acre isolated basin encompasses less than 0.5 acres, it is covered under Section 404 1 nationwide permit 26 without predischarge notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, the proposed development will comply with all applicable wetland regulations. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 1 • • RECEIVED AUG 1 1993 111 Y OF CHANI-IASSEIS /0 4Y27J9 26 AK Pt-44,i I, CoA4A4 6570 A/ / Court/cu. A 4 f flL 5 AitiO W IIOM .44 A'( CO Al ceRA/ -1- 45 A Ham 601,4 al 771 pizoPeersil OA/ THE Alogni BoueR O T11 6 PRoPo3CP 7AA/PEA4 PRoP&RTIE5 peue E ARC iieRY ,A ocH I E BE 140A4 6 5/ TE5 DORDELZ IA/6 WR pkopeRrii, aou 6/1r r H'6 Z-1 col? Hou56 4 • ow** A-Aip K1.1 7 .6D 1400565 / A4161/ r 50A46 DIA-f-' • (35 Butz-7" 0AI TH 4,AA/P i mL out? /volf/ rem-7 7 . Tmie /145 com t,fr HAfre 5a Rto 67(..26 6A1PIA/G ThJ A upcw 1/iEtt,/,1 T PRO PoSCP PLAN 1A6"- G rHAT 5uct/ A ti/oli 12/!5/r aic owl , DE5 AJeT / (-ct 7 r15 eti F 77115 41?6-4 (oft f-niz 7 (W15 A4A0 RE-51 PEA/ T141.- (i iv/ T 1.4e)(21,P 7 c2FIA ft rely' Rum) T 56R6 w rc( OP • rt41, Alz6A( 1 1 trzy bytporn-A-A/r coAicobvi 1 OF o -(5 - OtVa 5O IC /,/c7 OF v 2 • 136TL Oo/Z Lo A-VP T//5 pkoposp o7 Xi/ P/ E14// pie P/zo�ceZ7 PIA -,!/ ( ve 555 5 A/ety 1-07 Bog r76 oc� I t Are 17 , TH/5 CAA/ 50A4677 A46 GRE.4T1 1 U &laY 5TR65 t'/ L- s, TUA T/o4/ fc72 25 � w/-f 6 / Coy /pfokTnZ Cam/ T/-/ Sv c H 1 / 5 C1-1/LP86A/ U5 /Ave C R 7Alz17 Ai A PL 4y 6lzoun/p, j7ob 5 1Zoo+Ac 1 / r° D 0(2 1 YARD po VE &c,4rg .QNP v ,4 LL 1 o.� cc�'R PalI t/E f56L 7� ,/ ��O �o� 1 t�xr r1 tor i f,j5 orz cISR / N G 7"H& Plzo &D 176 toP. 4 &iv r. L L b F 6 �� ,� .;- � Tit 5 � cis / ?7 {/ 5 Al616W R' ltnoa 6,45 r C9f PRoPos Pov6WPAt o-,'r i Nor HA-ve airy 1 c,v Ar 6 R , 7 6 Gott 2 L-/A/55 6 /4/ nix i 5rg66T, Rv7 NOT TooKeP UP 1`O 7 UJ V (.v -I 156P C 'R tor, rite PA-t D 1 :F©R 71-11 5, 04 171 1 Pao Po5 tp 17Gls &-i cwv 1 10 : e M j /1! G . !ti & AR 6 FOR C t7 7 p.1 �d1Z HOO K (..)P rtit. 1 Lt./6 L�� , r7 Ar rtti 5 1 E, 1 • . • AL 5 0 C-04/Ce/Z/V/A/ / 5 ,41z64 r-htt ST - &ilaDec To i &&P PAY JQ, 7 - 115 6RAve r?oA-P l tADI A I G Miro T1-115 1c//61-/13.1/00.12 15' 1 L 7 05T - ,P1A/6 (4, M.) (L'5 r1/51oc ir-o? 46A14/ Com5/c)E-Tiztr:P ey rat arty ,AA/P THE . . EV Ai ,w "imPfKottA A /7 ...tve F561- THAr iF rAN EA4 4.41t/1 to Del/ 6 .-- z.op rw Pf EC.F, C7-) L_c.Ary7- TU& y Cou Po f5 7 7 1 -- A Ctom PAT6 rife p'ef2z6 Piec5/vr y 410/44 Oefft**, /V 171/5 A - R EA lAr6 .4140 J6 G 71-MT A UL. 1-Ad t 1•A _•LtAr - - 0 • t A T1-05 Coc, R5o1213 THI COs ANY Al5E /14 eNr5 l_cfr/CP A/A/ 1 656," 5 PROP/Zry otr, A/ xte To r 6RA-1. , jF TAIvP6.44 41u5T DiSRL) Pr Tit Th/ ARFA 7 11 - E /..._F;Acr rttey cot o • FoR y 5104, ,rm rH ( PIAT P•9/v" 1444iv ryi 1 -40J44 v NG our I-0)5E 1v,A _ 1 E j FF 1_0s compAR150,0 14.4t,g pAy&-o 1-1/ 491- / &/"? TIMA/ r y6 y mQV - - II • II :1 .11 /A //T T c p 111/ht/6 TM /5 AR -&-A b4 -7 it .• .1 ez)p I, T Hl H.45 Lr-,01/ 5/1477 1 I Al cavce-usiov 1 OP AN NO z_72 5- 40c, 6 - 1 U.A- f-bc-'5i' RATH6(e ,7W-4,Y OL JAN 77 ry 1-toc95/Ai e)i Dt5CAR 0/5 MA/ tD4 ez 4/ 0 A A 04 a' iv AP L- I / /C 't1of //v.Por R0/9 1)5, LA. & u'ou LP 1 _ I.. 0 2 1 • 9 3 q Ll - i n6UA CIRCIe I i ........ . C (--1/1 ANA ctf;6A/ /14 'V 5 3 / -7 1 17,5, / r11 t_00(<1 A / 6 /1--T ,f 5 pQ( TH15 17 eti&eop.A4 r /7 pi. C 1O. 5 6/ A Com-PAg150/V c 4 6S 70 Pt/ 1 • TWE' v cuie&tinv 5T4A/P • TAA/Pem FizoPee17e F/4-5 cieoLA-(26 190 III • • RE 9 / t76N riAt UIV/T5 w ro 6 z AGR gj oP I 1- .A A / - t - ti &)Q T1 A/G 4M/6g-13o(?14001? I-1 VC Al HAS 5eve,‘,/ floA46; ,4// P avc 1 , CA4 prY tor oy 4'O A-ceu, 7-11/5 1_5Azoi • A 5(26716 prp,ielZA-A/Ct DeN5/ rf/ / reatag_tion/ 70 rte Cco5'6/W5S of TH 5 PRO 56cr, To D9 L3 /,(14 f1o.A4 r cpcAlv 464atiii VUZ A4u0 ApPEcTE PR0Po36.0 9 EV et-op Ty' 5 *PPP eg. ANC5 fit/ DE-A / ( 4./A-KR EN r; Cz-056/< 1-9'z 1cti-15 TP F DevetoPA4Eavr 13 r j 1 PUAN Al /A/ 6 CDA/m41.55/0A/.. 1 1 1 _1 1 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H I( " g MEMO To: Paul Krauss and Sharmin Al -Jaff From: Fred Hoisington, 'Planning Consultant Subject: Meeting on 7 -13-93 Re: Mission Hills Date: 7 -14-93 Present: Don Ashworth ' Paul Krauss Michael Schroeder Fred Hoisington 1 Mission Hills will be on the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission Agenda. I am to call Mission Hills and explain the following: 1. The proposed new interchange alignment at TH 212 /101 is acceptable. 2. Mission Hills must be able to accommodate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 until such time as one can be selected. • Don Ashworth authorized the cultural resources analysis so that the Highway 101 alignment study can be completed. Paul Krauss suggested gg that we do some additional land use analysis as part of the Highway 101 study to get a better grasp of the uses that may be allowed at the TH 212/101 interchange. If at all possible, some input should be available for the August 18 Planning Commission meeting. We are scheduled to present the Highway 101 Alignment Study at the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. 1 Sharmin, I called Dick Putnam on July 14, 1993 to explain the above. He was agreeable but asked for a letter status report (enclosed). 1 1 Land Use / Environmental • Planning /Design 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 • (612) 835 -9960 • Fax: (612) 835 -3160 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H 1( g July 14, 1993 • 1 Mr. Dick Putnam Tandem Corporation 2765 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Re: Status of Highway 101 Alignment Study Dear Mr. Putnam: Per our discussion on Wednesday, July 14, 1993, I submit this letter as a summary of the current status of the Highway 101 Alignment Study as it relates to the Mission Hills project. We fully expected to have an alignment established by this time but after discussions with MnDOT, it became apparent that the Study would have to be expanded to include the delineation of wetlands and a cultural resources study. The 1 wetlands have been identified and staked but the cultural resources study was delayed pending a meeting with MnDOT on July 7, 1993. Since then, we have received authorization from the City to proceed with the Study. Once it is complete, 1 we will be able to finish our evaluation and establish an alignment that will become the subject of official mapping. What this means to Mission Hills is that it must build some contingencies into its plans. You can assume that the reconfigured interchange is acceptable but you should incorporate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 into your plans for the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. We should be able to give you an answer on an alignment by August or September at which point your plans should be modified to reflect the selected or preferred alignment. We are sorry that the process to select an alternative has taken so long. As you probably already know, the letting of TH 212 has also been pushed further into the future so the urgency in establishing a Highway 101 alignment is less acute. Your project is forcing the resolution of some issues that would normally not need to be addressed until a later date given MnDOTs revised schedule. 1 1 Land Use / Environmental • planning /Design 7300 Metro Boulevard /Suite 525 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 • (612) 835 -9960 • Fax: (612) 835 -3160 I hope this gives you a better indication of the Highway 101 Alignment Study status while providing you with an option to proceed with your project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Fred Hoisington, AICP Planning Consultant FLH /glh cc Al Klingelhutz Keith Bartz Paul Krauss Dennis Marhula Sharmin Al -jaff 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , °‘ NI 0 A a:Y ;Ic+�'') • _ 1 , Il �i (.4 N if/ , `j►l i 1� .1; / / i� ? -- 1/ ,. Study Area OMrtWary • i tr ` EXISTING 101 i ' '�yk ,�, r b., Lake Susan ALIGNMENT� , J �. f wo• R.O.W. ' A.- / - , r / � .- - `` / • . • :"\_ . -,,,„1, r .._ , y---1 . .4 All ..„.....„._., .7, A iyi " • lil .- 1 * \ , . \ k• + � y � l . f � i / � � ; i:: a / /� - � �\ i. r ,, , �� -� 1 • �/ Vi i/ WW ? %' J e o / '.17 ` - - . : ' F . �i d ❑ mi l,... - � 17 ❑ , �` ;L - / / . 9C 1� r . . 1 `,' ..� v. t -) ,,..�� ;_, �� o` 11 ;3 d � i Iv ,. �,•- ,., o ,.- ' ��r,� �� 1 - i / �.. ,i s• �` �, .. �, � 1 � � � `+ r �,r---, , ~� -�_ ,• / - ~� �J ''�i� k\, }JJ Sluay Ara, A Q • •J t �/�' -.._. �_ 111t� \ _1 � \;\ - .... .; if r . /.i %� �'1' • ,-)/ - - P RI • ::a,4' X 111 4 ( ) � - ,,, . � ...._ u p �� = ' 1 , Vi i' 7 __".i:.`;' d, vv 1 1 � . 0 c••" i�l , �� = ALTERNATIVES ® & g 1 �� CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 1 k � _ `' ( -Q. L �' �.__ UPDATE FOR 1 • -- t ;.:.__ ' ?_ •` -- ' 1;z:___ - HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELtMNARY ALIGNMENT -- AND LAND USE STUDY • l• )4/ - __ _ - �� . Lonta -- HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP Oadia. IOU 1 1 --..__. (--., : 4 , - t ; ' ..,.. . ■;;.. Lc \ A ' S ' . ' - - ••• • • . . \••4' : 11 I ‘ 't ■ `. ttr■S. r • ( i..., \. ,,,; - r-----. ... \ . •;., )k s7 .:A. - i j i ..6 ,, i l vii .s..,,,,_... - i • _ _..,_., . 1.. ... \c. _ 1 - ..,--- . •,..,,a • - - - , o, . Ile. Pi '-...,.i e ' ; s :: \ - s._. .-- , _ „.... _ I ..._,.- ,,, . 1 . .,:_-____,,,,- -_ ,-• , 1 4, i ,... / cylijr . -... . • , , . _ ......_.: ,,,-..,-... N ,,-,___- -• . fi, ..... ..., /F- r 1 .7 :-<- ,.....i-, ..,. ,• " ,-.-/.-,- -- ,.----/ . .' 4 :. , • . - ---•• -,...---- ■f. -• .____; 7: • - -'''. 1, --.-- • • \ , ;)/ ' • a , I -- • a '\,....h/. . &■,,.:.. ' . ,'■ , ___ v.; . 7\_0••-: Study Avis Boundaty I Se.. t . 4 • lit• ••• I • I AT i 1.. /,' ' 1 • • . 4 - lIkri • ' \,:`-.. ;; .■ IX": . -3 ':\ \f; ti \ N 111A - aiis e. ,V :Jo. AL I 1 Lake Susan wow . 10C FLA ' t, 6.' .... ' 1A‘ ■■■1‘...11,-. r 4,1- -1.\‘.....711e,Sk.- . . . \ . \ ■ I ,....• "0../ sh . --,.., . 4,, :L . __ __ ,. .___ _ _-_--- f -_, •,; . .. ,. ,- zy 7 '.ttt,7 :9 .: 1 - i7 ' , .:2- - -- - ------ -=f -- - ' - . . . is ", ..,, .,../---\ ,.. .- / , . . I , ,, ., • ,„,, ; 1 : , \ - 5 . i , ,- *Ai'Skre"-;: ttt ' II IL At 7 .- - , . : --„ lt ,,, • ... ---- k ,„, -. ..;. i..: , Yaf ' 2 4: if t . - . 'MIF,7"",•.:,t101/4' V" "----.‘ \ /.,..-• . , ,, . ---.... ,77 , /--.......1 N.. ,/ --.=•>\.,.....„ 111 :: lito. 1 7 ' N 144e - A\ MI ), h ■ r.7 * N rtitl"t = ' - ' - ‘ ; , 1j i‘i , ,,ttii;::• vToiv *VIP -- . korgt-v z- I Pi- - ,■....5.A.T. ' - ' "- — -4(47.-" 4."-- _"( -' -,,, - -'. - ..-",'• — --\.! ,O 0 a..,r- - 4 - 1 .• :•. k, 7 . _ _ .•, pi jr--- ' *r . ° .. %,- a ; ....-..' ' A it . • --- .-.:, '--- 0 , ., I .,. 4 -.0 - --1, „-- '- '" - --- -1, ‘\,...%• ... - -; i___A c: 11 ) ,c1 f ...., .11 .\\ .... .............. ")., - _-_,:/ :- L- .., • , .... _.N. . ..--"" . •-.1.-1 r ,„, i e i ._, : ,•• • ,•__:. _..„..... --___a ‘ J,-- k • /- $ r° - s q-il 1111n,.....•-• _ r%;,..',. Q ,... , ..... . air• ..•. ..441-.•Allei % 1 rt • -...1.--- .. .. •,...15";";:rii!•-:.(1-. '''V..."%'''.--k ' )...... • 11 T AI sestuoudy.,";•s; " - 0 . ° - 14 . , , i m.1 p4 ‘, . % ll. ............,CS\N ........1*- . . : ■ Or/ i 1 1.. - 1 • ril 1 1 '' % „, ., • ...., ,......„ • ,,,.,.. g tiff( • . . , s. „ sa... _0,1 it , 1...- .„-h:::,...- _ -...-...‘Itt, At if .... . • K ' • 4- ..--__-_= . '4 r •---. 7' - r ,i „........,„ ..), ,-..7.:„ fr C 4iti )4 oft. r i 37 ,/, .,..... ,/j/\-:- ' '0• . 4 .. 1 ' t... ..,... i 2....„- - ___,.... ,iiiriN '' _....--....„, r-Z ,/,4- .. N Va AP . — 'Att,-..... •or...L _ ' ..,.. ig, / 1 ) . - - ,,,,- .........-,:-._,..„,. c., Li w• 1 - 1 i ' \ ,.I,,. / < .-' 7 -7, 1 ! ALTERNATIVES '3 & . is / 0 . --_ :=_.= -.._:.-.-_,,-. -.., 1 e7( __.. . d ric - 16, I i 1 ... ....,‘ .), • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 Ir ..•• 11 ” § .. . t j ?", i, ' .. I ‘ \ .. q i t II \ 1.... .0.1 41 I 'rlatiz*" ---■-- -_- — ,Nr - HIGHWAYS 101/6 PRELIMNARV ALIGNMENT , .AND LAND USE STUDY ---.... , 1 A,N --------- -'------ . .._ - " ------- "f , •cf- _ - - ----- - --•:.----- _ - HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP _.. z... _ =_. - .., • NA ■.:. . ./I :4445‘ariaaair=1::. ''' ." 4C•• ,,, Z- , :••••=-.. - : ' ,11%,- , . 110.•%. 11•113 - . 1 . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ..', fr' SI\ --' '•*,' \ 1 #.\''t Q i ., ' . ii \ . • , , iiiiNk .'.‘ I i ( 41' .L-_ I .....,.1 . .c. 7#_,_ 91 7 , il , - '!'i)- . -t-:=-=--/ - ; - i . 1 1 � : � ■•. O'". story Area Boundary , . a \ : 1 17 (14 „._ v, Lake Susan 100' R.• r . � tN 1_ — - II iti.,,,,,■ei-- \ i ' -"4/4f.. "Al. ,..... .";;;=D ,/ 1 I 411111111: 1 v ,,; /.., , ..., • 4 . ,,,,,,„....._‘,„......, if--( . G • i ' r , . 7 ti „ k 460--..... .(iilli I t .„0 .. . - .. :.„.:. ..,„ 0:6 \L. ,......" ,, .. , 1, .,..,, j/ ,,..to‘,,,,, .,, .4( , ,',...-; ,- ill i l l /.� il\ �� %��`L f � _ i �r �� ' 1��l �� ! . - 4 . b �s l . _ `,- J i�. ..r...,, . , - vim' �' t' _ _ - - - Y�"� �_� 0 is. ..„, ,___,_,,_,,,,,__....... ‘,.„...., ..u. io\..., . • Study Alai 7 ` ` / ��I - 7 - ' ? -" 1 l `\ ! ` Boundary ?_ � > ° � ,11U I ` }. • r, ��-c-i :* 1) N l ...:. WfAi . Viri l lit 4 . ‘ Et 1 • * ar 1 , i , . . /.....‘ - A.,74 1 4 1 - 11 — . 41. .4? If/ . j r ? i I MI . IV? -%/24 ---,.----- . _ . q ....._. • r ...._ ,..,,,z.„.....,1___,„_4: . v .. . ... I V11:4•71 ;0 1 :.;.•WZ • • ft . 1 : 17 <Z P .... //0\-\,..: _ .... 0 " ....... 414 /.....- -4 . IMP • I ' 411.-- a 2- . r .... .........,,,,,,,,, c....- ,..... 44 ' _..---.....-, r"...'---=*--z. 1 / •'' 441C' , ' 2 > > ' i ' , '_-= ALTERNATIVES 131& 4 ) .t l ( h i I I r � CITY OF CHANHASSEN rg.... •(/ ( f ,(1 lit UPDATE FOR , ' Iiii __ _ _ "" — HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT 1 ��rlt y ._: ��_�� . ; AND LAND USE STUDY --A? 1 �_ - 366 1 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 1 I .1 CITYOF -I __, ., ,. ., , ,_ . ,---' ik j %,"' ,--- . ,44 CHANHASSEN 1- , , 7,..: „......: _.., ,,,..., ,..___ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 _ (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 •i I MEMORANDUM •. I TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1 DATE: August 9, 1993 I SUBJ: Planning Case #93-4 PUD & 93 -5 VAC Mission Hills I have<reviewed the concept plan for the proposed Mission Hills project, and basically the I only item that would need attention at this time would be a second means of access to the development, at least a secondary emergency entrance/exit. As the project develops the concerns will be determinin` which buildings will be fire sprinldered, the addition and relocating of fire hydrants, to Parking, Fire Lane" signage, access during construction, proposed names, and bfiilding identification numbers. I These requirements will be forthcoming as the project develops. v c ` ; Z - _ 7.41 K Z. '1=r474.27 % s t.:it ---:.! lie -,,,, t , z-,-- - ::. C.* '*• ---' - .--, - 1 b l.. I 1 Ilk t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1- CITYOF 1 . ,, „,,.,, CHANHASSEN i Y • . ' ' ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • • P.O. BOX 147 • • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,.. L (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1 k rif FROM: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official k ., 1 DATE: August 6, 1993 1 SUBJ: 93 -4 PUD & 93 -5 VAC (Mission Hills by Tandem Properties) I have been asked for comments on the above rerenced Planning Department application. g P PP Background: / ° ` 1 City Ordinance #82 adopted in October, 1987 adopted appendix chapter 38 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Appendix Chapter <38 provides more comprehensive fire sprinldering I requirements for buildings than UBC Chapter 38. . . Analysis: it 1 Buildings _. • ki 1 1. UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the Minneta State Building Code (MSBC) requires R -1 occupancies of 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area to be fire III sprinklered. +ISBCurthergstateshatieseif mixed occupancy the threshold number o e;mostrestrietwe pancy pp e o t tti ding. T e buildings as S3 shown on `��irelirninary plat would all be classified as a mixed occcc y upancy; R -1 and M -1. Floor plans showing „ area were not provided, but it appears that.-build of more than four units will exceed 8500 sq: ft -aiid, as s h, 1eq ed to be fire sprinklered. 0" 2. Minnesota Rules Parts 1800.5000 -570 t k is at which buildings must be designed by professional designers. R -1 occupancies <. - • ' g 5000 sq. ft. are required to be designed by professionals. It appears these builcggs will exceed the 5000 sq. ft. threshold. 1 1 " II t f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 111 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 6, 1993 Page 2 Site Proposed street names need to be submitted to the Public Safety Department for review in order to insure no duplication or confusing names occur. Recommendations: 1. Buildings must comply with UBC g p y Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by MSBC 1305.6905. 2. Structures must be designed by an architect and structural engineer. 3. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department for review before final plat approval. 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 TANDEM PROPERTIES James L.Ostenso Richard A. Put. BROKERS • PLANNERS • DEVELOPERS • 1 1 June 21, 1993 1 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Gary Warren 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Watermain Extension Honorable Mayor r May and City Council Members: We hereby petition for municipal water service to our pro ert described as per attached. We have also attached a map showing the location of the property. We respectfully request that the previous study (Project 90 -10) be 1 updated to comply with this project. Sincerely, r ,� - Al K1incC! "'utz Jirr Ostenson, Tandem Properties 1 • • 1 1 1 2765 Casco Point Road • Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Office & Fax (612) 471 -0573 7808 Creekridge Circle • Suite 310 • Bloomington, Minnesota 55439 • Office (612) 941-7805 • Fax (612) 941 -7853 111 ) . I1 CITYOF , i , ..4e,,', ,,,„ , i,,,,, 1 ;.:� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ~ 1 r 4 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I I FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer S DATE: August 12, 1993 1 SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Mission Hills - Project No. 93 -23 1 Upon review of the preliminary plat and s' plans dated June 21, 1993 prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following .« •mments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE Ii,,,-, 1- I The site consists of generally rolling to _ ' • and4s currently employed in agricultural practices. The proposed grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the m • le and single - family dwelling units. 1 Elevations of the existing ground co tears lying north «f 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. 11,6 plan pro E building floor elevations north 1 of 86th Street between. 904 and 9,07 which is relatively • orm in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground .. �'ntours lying south of th • roposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. The proposed bu hdmg floor elevations of the ••• ltiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety intevation will maintain the rollin 4 • • effect which currently exist 1 today. The area yingno _ 86i tr. a . e e _ •• oll (924 contour), is being significantly to red y in; o de . - . ' • , • • •Q sed, 'rusk Highway 101 grades. Staff dog" p • lieve the multiple dwellings on • e no • si a O'F - 86 £; eet could be I adjusted in elevation to a `e •me variety and different appearance. . The plans also propose on grading single-f. u • • y • ong "A" Street and Court. The plans I propose the lots to be a variety of split -en '; • alkout -type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pa t . through the site. The grading plans do not I propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the 1 development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be 1 1 11` Sharmin Al -Jaff August 12, 1993 1 Page 2 constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along gh Y g P Po g Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right -of -ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The plans propose a series of pretreatment ponds for storm water runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. These pretreatment ponds should be constructed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for water quality and quantity purposes. The plans also propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff in to the pretreatment ponds. The proposed retention ponds will be further addressed once a preliminary plat is submitted with storm drainage calculations. The retention ponds should be designed and built in accordance to the City's storm water management plan (NURP standards). The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each . pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review 1 process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP) ponds be left in the homeowner association's hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. UTILITIES 1 Back in February of 1992 the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this project t well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz 1 :11 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 3 1 (Lake Riley Hills) as well as the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the L extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk 1 Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the 1 sewer from the adjacent property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and /or be limited in service area due to downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available 1 in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8 -inch water line extended east from ;Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12 -inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street. If the applicant included installation of the 12 -inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between an 8 -inch watermain and 12 -inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right -of -way and "A" Street is be assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10 -year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding tY P PocY g g drain tile 1 behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 4 where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS 1 The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24 -foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right -of -way or 1 easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and therefore the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. 1 The preliminary plat proposes on dedicating a 60 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single- family) that the 60 -foot wide right -of -way may be insufficient. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right -of- way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staffs initial reaction is that an 80 -foot wide right -of -way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60 -foot wide right -of -way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32 -foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36- foot if not 44 -foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th. Street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose a number of individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units. Staff is concerned with the number of individual access points along 86th Street. Staff strongly recommends these individual access points be eliminated and the driveways be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street. 1 As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th 1 Street alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant should be aware that a trail and /or sidewalks will most likely be required along 86th Street due to anticipated pedestrian traffic. 1 Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with Sharmin Al -Jaff August 12, 1993 1 Page 5 the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards /comments. All utility and street construction 1 within the Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way will require a permit from MnDOT. MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's 1 Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. ' The applicant should be aware that in conjunction with the public improvements for this development the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and ' compliance with the conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be 1 subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way for future 1 extension of Trunk Highway 101 as well as 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant ■ shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tiqua ■ Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. 2. Individual driveway access from the multiple y p dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th 1 Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. ' 3. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right - of -way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right -of -way is inadequate. 1 4. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 1 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff 1 August 12, 1993 Page 6 1 The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary 1 permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 1 6. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. 7. All water uali treatment ponds shall include Q ty p outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 8. Most likely the he Crty will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance 111 access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. 9. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. , 10. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's I sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize /perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 1 11. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 -inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 -inch) watermain, the City shall credit the 1 applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 -inch watermain and a 12 -inch watermain. 1 12. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Il 13. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be I designed for a 10 -year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm 1 ., 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 12, 1993 1 Page 7 event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan ' provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. ' 14. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 15. The applicant should rovide a buffer area between the development and proposed p p posed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist 1 of both landscaping materials and berming. 1 16. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 1 17. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. 1 18. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. ktm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 Keith D. Bartz 2209 Acorn Court North Pointe Lexington, Kentucky 40516 -9645 606- 299 -2003 11 1 1 October 8, 1993 Planning Department Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Public Hearing Scheduled for October 20, 1993 , regrarding the Mission Hills development- written comments to be presented for us in our absence please. Progress is inevitable in a beautiful rural community like Chanhassen- especially as close as it is to our metropolitan area. We have viewed the Mission Hills development plan and find it incorporates a logical layout, good traffic flow design, well landscaped sheltering and quality housing. 1 As adjacent landowners we are pleased to welcome such an attractive utilization of Tandem Properties land. Sincerely, , /4& /9 Keith D. Bartz Carol S. Bartz r, ' ., 0 C 1 2 1993 vr 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. 1 5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 1 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards. I 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's 1 water quality standards (NURP). 8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and I provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 1 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1 1993. 11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues 1 raised in the staff report. I All voted in favor and the motion carried. I PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 I ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: I Name Address 1 16 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Dick Putnam Tandem Properties Don Jenson Rottlund Homes - Greg Pskekke Westwood Professional Services Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional Services Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica Lane Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Jo and Mike Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Bob Armstrong 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Mark Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. One of the partners in Tandem Properties. Don Jenson from Rottlund Homes is here this evening and can explain a little bit about the unit types, particularly the new townhouse version that's been added to the plan. Greg Pksekke and Dennis Marhula are here also from Westwood Engineering if there's any technical questions. Al Klingelhutz who's one of the underlying owners of the property is here also and would be the owner that retains the commercial site. I think to make my presentation go fairly quickly, because I think the staff report highlighted a number of things. 1 What I'd like to do, if I could, is point out to you briefly the changes between the first site plan, which is right here, and the second one. It's sort of the good news, bad news joke. The good news is, we've made a number of the changes. I think we've improved the plan 1 dramatically. The bad news is, we have more units. And someone asked, well how do you do that? Is it a slight of hand or smoke and mirrors? What it is is looking at the boundaries of the site. Unlike most sites that you have that can't expand and contract. Because we have a freeway on our south side and TH 101, or the proposed new TH 101 on our west side, and 86th Street can move because it's going to be relocated, we have the luxury of I guess efficiently moving some boundary lines around a little bit to work. That plus adding a third unit type in the townhouses allowed us to utilize the site much better than before. If you noticed before there were a number of, because of the way the buildings laid in there geometrically. If you think of using a square peg in a round hole, that's sort of the situation. Whereas this one, by changing the buildings and using different types, we were able to make it work a little bit better. If I could just start and sort of refer to the letter of October 4th that we had written. The changes, let's take the road changes first of all. 86th Street in the previous plan looked like it was into the wetland area. This one has been moved and the sidewalks so there will be no construction in the wetland area...to the north. Highway 101. 1 17 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 What was shown in the original plan was a 250 right -of -way in width. And this curve right here, on the commercial area was of a particular degree. What this plan reflects is a 200 foot right -of -way for TH 101, leaving a 50 foot buffer strip from the existing right -of -way and 150 foot for the new roadway. In talking with the engineering staff and with Mr. Hoisington, that dimension works. The reason it was 250 before was to take in slope easement and construction. Well, we'll be doing that before the road is built so that wasn't necessary. Also the curve in this location has been changed slightly on the commercial and actually it's straight now for a distance coming up from the intersection. Rather than starting a curve like 1 you see here. And then the curve proceeds up this way. Another thing that was done is the access we believe to the commercial site was greatly improved, both from the city's standpoint and also for the property owner Mr. Klingelhutz. We've added an in/out about 1 halfway between freeway ramps and 86th Street. Mr. Klingelhutz has reviewed that I believe with the staff and also with the State Highway Department and that's acceptable to them. Likewise we moved the access into the commercial area off of 86th Street. Before it was pulled way back and shared the access with the residential street. It's not been moved up to this location and has it's own access point in. One of the things that was brought up in the staff report before was that in the original plan they weren't sure that there was enough right - of -way and room for additional turn lanes if they were necessary because the commercial in this one which we're showing is a 80 foot right -of -way to the commercial entrance and then a 60 foot that goes down to Tigua and the balance of the property. The 80 foot would allow more than adequate spacing for the turn lanes that may or may not be needed. Internally the road system, before there was a central loop that you see on the north side and a loop on the south side. That has been retained but we've done it in a little different manner. The street that runs to the north, and we'll just call it our new residential street, was pulled over slightly. Anywhere from 25 to 40 feet to make the lots adjacent to the 3 lots along Tigua deeper and ' allow us, at the last meeting the suggestion was made that we should look at using a 20,000 square foot lot instead of a 15,000 square foot adjacent to the existing home. We've done that we, in the process, took one lot out of here and one lot out of this area and these lots ' will now be 20,000 square feet. Also relative to that we had conversations with a couple of the homeowners there that expressed some concerns about the way the single family worked with it and maybe if I could just quickly use the overhead. This is just a plat of the Tigua Lane area and then approximately how our road system coming off of 86th Street going north would fit in with that. One of the issues that was raised was would it make more sense for these 3 homeowners to bring the north/south street over to their boundary line as a buffer or separation with their homes. And possibly the opportunity to subdivide if we needed to in the future. I discussed that with two of the owners. I think the conclusion was that maybe that wasn't as good an idea as it sounded so instead what was discussed with one of the owners 1 and if all would like, is really putting in a low security fence like a chain link fence, 4 foot tall or whatever, that really defines their property and keeps the trespass issue out. It wouldn't be something that sticks out. Do it out of the black material so it doesn't stick out 18 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 and would provide that separation. I think the issue of bringing the road over though, I'm 1 assuming at least was sort of resolved and probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. With that, if you see, just an excerpt of the comprehensive plan. This north/south street is right here. This is Tigua. The intent of that is to connect back over to TH 101 through the adjacent parcel and that's something that can work and happen. Presently we just have a temporary cul -de -sac there and in the future it could be extended by that property owner. One of the things, and I might just as well jump forward here. One of the beauties of your concept stage is we can make changes real quickly. As the staff had discussed, in the villa home area it was brought to our attention that because it was medium density, the 30% site coverage was required. We looked at that. Also I had a conversation with the property owner adjacent to us here about eliminating a driveway that was proposed here and here and said we could do that and that would allow a berm to wrap around that area. What, in just 1 talking with the staff in the last day actually, and dealing with the site coverage issue. What I guess we would propose to do is a couple things. It solves a couple issues that were raised. The Larsons that live here had a concern just what their view as of the units that were there. 1 What we did is pulled out the 8 unit villa home and we took out a 8 unit villa home here - also. Again, by adding the townhouses which Don Jenson will talk about a little bit, it's given us a lot of flexibility to mix very compatible housing types that are all different sizes 1 and shapes. That allows us I think to do some things. So what this shows is two 4 unit townhouse buildings here with an access off of the internal street and then one 4 unit building here, access off the internal street. That opens up an area that's about half the size of a football field as part of an open space area and allows the trail connection through this location to go into the land adjacent to us that may be city park in the future and continues that trail out of this open space area and the center of the site with totlot and benches and picnic area. That would reduce the density from 144 units total to 136 and would bring this area into that 8 unit medium density category and would meet that intent. I think it also, it improves the plan. I mean there's no question. I again adds more open space around the pond and then the marsh that's there and puts the townhouse units up a little bit closer. Getting into the changes in the plan itself and I think they're quite numerous when you look at them. The comments were made at the previous meeting, that were very valid, that 86th • Street was functioning as a driveway for these multi- family buildings by having driveways going out to it. There's really no way to do much screening or softening of those buildings with that kind of a plan. So we turned around and in fact changed the whole idea of it. Oriented everything internal on both sites and were able to have the berating and landscaping along both TH 212 and Highway 101 which were proposed before. But also extend that now with a combination of ponds and berms, landscaped, what have you, along both sides of 86th Street. With the ends of the buildings in most cases adjacent to the road. Here there's the townhouse units and here. It should present really a very nice boulevard entrance road. And I guess we felt that that was a good criticism of the previous plan that we could work to alleviate. And I think that's done a pretty good job of that. The same thing holds true to TH 19 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 101. The buildings in this location n TH wi g again are end loaded to 101 with the berm so that you get what I think will be a nice boulevard appearance. The wetlands provide, that are adjacent to 86th now, provide just a real nice separation and something the units can orient to. And if you retain that and make it an asset to the site, it should be real positive. One of the things that we also tried to do was to reduce the number of the larger buildings. I think in here it ' talks about the percentages but for example on the north side of the road there were 5 of the 8 unit buildings, or the larger buildings and let's see, 5 of the smaller, 4 unit buildings. What we've done with this plan is reduced the number of the large buildings to 2 and increased the number of the smaller buildings, the 4 unit buildings, 10 of those versus 2. So we've broken down the large number of buildings and made them smaller buildings. Likewise we've done the same thing on the south site. If I get this right, I think there are four 12 unit buildings now. The 8 unit buildings are these and then we've added now it would be, I should count these. 32 townhouse units. I think we just increase that by doing this. 38. So there's ' slightly more of those. I think when, I'll ask Don to maybe explain to you briefly what that unit looks like and how it works. It allows us to do some things that we weren't able to do with the larger buildings on this site just because of the tightness. Sandwiched between the ' freeway and the pond and the pond and the commercial area. All of that allowed us to really I think do a better job of site planning. The commercial area, I believe that staff has met with Mr. Klingelhutz and I think they have a meeting of the minds as to what is actually ' envisioned on this site. It's a waiting game for all of us to see when 212 is actually scheduled. When 101 is improved in those areas and I think he's certainly amenable to waiting to have that occur. In the meantime the wetland that is located right in this area, which was the one referred to that was being filled, we aren't filling it. Neither is Mr. Klingelhutz. The only way that's really going to be filled is if 101 goes through it and that won't be us doing it so we're not mitigating a wetland because we aren't filling it. Our 1 construction won't do anything to that at this point. In fact it's a good way to tell where 86th Street will come in in the future if you go out and look at where that little depression is. 86th today the intersection is way down here so the new one's up here. I guess at this point I'd be 1 happy to answer any questions that you might have. Or entertain any suggestions before I turn it over to Don to just briefly show you the new units. 1 Harberts: I have a question for staff. Paul can you, the park and ride lot that's mapped on 101 and 212, is that just south of that outlot? 1 Krauss: It's on the south side of the highway. If you imagine a clover leaf interchange, this is the northeast quadrant. The park and ride is in the southeast. 1 Harberts: I think it's mapped for what, 200 cars? 1 Krauss: I honestly don't know the size. That sounds about right. It's honestly in a state of 20 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 flux. MnDot's got a few designs that they're trying to work out with Jim Curry who owns the property. _ Harberts: Okay, thanks. Mancino: Sharmin where is the, on Block 3, Lot 3 to the west of that is this lot that's already here with an existing home. What's the access to that home? It's on the north side of, do you see where I mean? Al -Jaff: Where the horse farm is? Mancino: Yeah. 1 Al -Jaff: It's off of 101. Mancino: It is off of 101, okay. Y Farmakes: The trails that you have showing are on there that show up in the...is that, who's 1 going to be maintaining those? Is that part of the developed project or is that? Al -Jaff: Homeowners Association. 1 Farmakes: Okay. So that's not a park issue? Al -Jaff: No. Dick Putnam: The only trails that fall into the public I guess would be the one along 86th , Street and then the one going north on the new north/south street. And whatever happens if that parkland develops to the east of us. 1 Mancino: Another question about that. Well first about, is there enough parking? Excess parking for this plan as it exist? I mean I don't see a lot of extra parking. Do we know if we're close? Dick Putnam: We'll meet or exceed your ordinance because a number of these units have 2 1 car garages. Al -Jaff: And then there is off, on the street parking as well. Dick Putnam: That's what these little perpendicular stalls that you see kind of scattered 21 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 I around indicate, is the off street parking. 1 Mancino: Thank you. Dick Putnam: Guest. Those are actually the guest spaces as opposed to the garage and the 1 space in front. Let me ask Don to real quickly explain to you the difference in the townhouse units that they develop. Don Jenson: Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. What we passed out in the folder is our latest newsletter which came out since our last meeting. It highlights the project that we I have in Inver Grove Heights where this particular product that we're also utilizing on this site was first introduced for us. We did see a need for it. Rottlund did come up with a blend of I the back to back that still worked with our villa line of housing and that's what the villa townhome has done. Both in the Mission Hills as well as other neighborhoods. The garden home itself, which is what we feel is a strong replacement for a housing need, is also profiled I in the newsletter in the center. And then we had a graphic that was highlighted which showed really the scale of the end elevation, the side elevation if you will, from the villa building in the back to back form. The garden home which is still back to back design and I the single family which of course is all part of this master plan. In response to the Planning Commission and in response also to some of the neighborhood, there was a question of well, shouldn't we have a slightly more different mix here and we were a little bit concerned of I trying to make sure we could reach a wide spectrum of potential buyers. So we agreed that we would see how well this particular product works. It's not been built yet. It is one that we hope will be well received in the marketplace. It is the, it provides if you will then four I different unit size types. We still have within the back to back villa design and these locations through here. Units that are a little bit over 1,050 square feet in the interior home and about 1,080 square feet in the end home. One car garage, two car garages. When we go I with the buildings that are being called the villa townhome in this plan, they jump up about another 1,000 square feet apiece so that the interior dwelling unit, which still has a one car garage, is about 1,185 square feet as it starts out and we're up to about 1,250 square feet on I the end home again with a two car garage. So instead of having one or the either building type, trying to reach both markets, what we're able to do is have 4 different interior floor plans. The added benefit that we get with this particular building, from a planning 1 perspective is that we then turn the patios to the flip side of the building so instead of back to back, which has a back wall, we then have a facade on the outside. That of course increases the obvious price of the dwelling itself but we felt with some of the amenities that we had on 1 this particular site, both with the wetlands to the east as well the center wetland here. Minimizing the amount of impervious surface, separating the driveways...done to the site plan I and the locations and the main entry points through here as well as our ability to buffer and 22 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 deal with some of the dimensional constraints that we had, is that it provided an excellent 1 opportunity for the front facades on the internal streets match. That was our intent and goal so that driving through there's not a perception of a great deal of difference between the dwelling units. Once you get inside, the buyers have a reasonable choice and what we have with that mix at this revised total of 132 dwelling units, is we still have close to 100 of our back to back buildings. Roughly 92 if my math was correct. And we still have about 48 of this new villa townhome. So there's going to be, instead of a price gap, which is really relative to land use but everybody always ask, it's going to create about 4 different tiers of pricing for us and I think that that's what allows this to be in the neighborhood and still be a real comfortable mix as far as we're concerned as the builder and that we would be able to have success in moving through the neighborhood and getting it completed in a reasonable time frame. The one element that is missing in terms of a unit mix, on the north the site plan is benefitted by looking at the majority of the end units is that we're not able to bring as many one car garages in the garden home plan forward and we'll have to look at another site in order to accomplish that. Our buyer that we're looking for for that particular product with the one car garage is really widower or a widow, someone who's never married. They're really pretty set. It's an older buyer and there's not really a need to force a 2 car garage onto those particular segment of the population. It's not necessary and price is real important to people as they're downsizing. Regardless, I think it's a good chance for us to bring a new product. We did, as we mentioned last time, find that about 10% to 15% of all the buyers that came to any given neighborhood of our villas, which would be on what we're having on 1 the south, were people of a little bit older age bracket and primarily they were buying on price. They wanted the newer bathroom facilities. Newer kitchen facilities. They wanted to make sure they had a...priced home under $100,000.00. In most cases under $80,000.00. 1 They wanted the maintenance done for themselves. They didn't want to shovel snow or take care of the lawn. Any of that anymore. I'm sure Centex plans the same thing. And so what we were able to do with the garden home is stay within that square footage total and 1 hopefully...building products pricing in line with that so the people could get one level living, rather than two level living, and that's the whole reason for the garden home being created at Rottlund. So I guess that highlights our changes. Of course the scale of this building on the villa townhome. It's narrower. It's really not a whole lot different than single family home in it's overall width. The overall height-about 35 feet. Not a whole lot different than a two story walkout type home from the back. Patio's on the back side looking at the amenities to the site. Interior floor plans. Four different ones for this particular unit. We do have the other elevations behind here if you wanted to be reminded of it but we had the photograph of the back to back in the packet there that we used previously and how well this happens to fit with it. This does have a little bit more of the gable ends which was a focus for some folks as to what the exterior facades ought to be. 1 Scott: Any comments from the Planning Commission? 1 23 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Farmakes: Can we be brought up to speed again on park commitment in relationship to the park? I believe the park issue was forfeited in this case, correct? Not forfeited but, could 1 you just go over that again where that stands currently. Al -Jaff: When the Park and Recreation Commission looked at this, they said yes. This area is park deficient. However, the area east of Mission Hills is designated for future park and they didn't see any need to take any parkland on this specific site. Mancino: I think we were the ones that requested some sort of an amenity. Farmakes: I like what happened down, I'll save that for my comments. Krauss: The Park Board also did request that there were some private recreational facilities added and that's been addressed. Scott: Okay. This is a public hearing so if there are members of the general public who ' would like to ask questions, please come forward. State your name and your address in the microphone and ask away. Or comment away. l Bob Armstrong: My name is Bob Armstrong. I live at 8400 Great Plains Boulevard and I was wondering what, I'd like to talk specifically about the north side of this project that comes up to TH 101. I was wondering how it was decided to put this 200 feet from the old Highway 101. Scott: I guess my thought is that's just the recommended route of the new, yet to be built, 1 Highway 101. Krauss: Well, yeah. I mean we're in a position of MnDot isn't as far along as the city or as ' individual property owners are and we worked with MnDot to do an analysis of where TH 101 should be. It was completed 4 1/2 years ago, 5 years ago. We're currently in the process of updating that a little bit and we worked with MnDot in the intervening years to refine the interchange design which kind of orients everything. And what this project is based upon the current...of MnDot's current design status of...which is the one that's going through the EIS and this is where they're at right now. This is what they plan to do. And to ' an extent the way development occurs along there is going to tell MnDot, or whoever builds TH 101, this is where it's going to be. We don't have a quarter mile on either side. Bob Armstrong: And that's kind of where I was getting at. About 4 1/2 years ago we decided, through one of these processes, that Highway 101, the new alignment was going to 1 go farther east. This project now has pushed it north. 24 i 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: This project isn't pushing anything anywhere but what changed in the intervening 1 years is when MnDot was aligned, was doing final design. Final preliminary design, or whatever MnDot calls it, for the interchange, they changed the orientation of it a little bit and it's the alignment of how TH 101 crosses the 212 corridor and how the off ramps connect onto those. Bob Armstrong: You're saying you have a better curves and accesses to 212? Is that why this is being pushed this way? Krauss: In part. They refine how the ramps were coming off of 212. They refined how intersections would occur with 86th Street and would eliminate Lake Susan Hills and it basically reoriented the interchange by a few degrees. Where the roadway goes from that point or north of 86th Street up to what we built last year down by the creek, that's open to some analysis right now. We've got four alternatives on the board that we're looking at, any of which can be built in what's being proposed here. Bob Armstrong: This project here doesn't give any of those 4 alternatives. This cuts you down to 1. There is no alternative if this thing goes through the way it is. To 101. Krauss: No, I don't think that's true. We've had, Fred Hoisington is working on developing those 4 alternatives for us as is planned and has dealt with us on that. Bob Armstrong: And I could be wrong but I think that this thing only lets you come, you know when you're saying we're not going to be doing the wetland. Originally that road was going to go between those two pieces of wetland. Now you're forcing the road to go through that wetland and these houses are being taken another 50 feet away than I am and reduce that 1 ...by warrant. And here's another vicarious little problem. There are two people that are going to lose their homes because of this deal. If this road now is pushed over that way. At least. 1 Krauss: No, that's not the case. Well, they may in fact lose their homes... Then what going to say to those Wh are they losing Armstrong: The at are you g g y se y ey g their homes? Krauss: They may in fact lose their homes depending on which alignment is taken. They're considerably north of here and where this is being shown over here has no bearing and you could still pick any of the 4 alternatives that are being looked at. It's just a matter of bending back to the west and getting onto the original alignment or the existing 101 alignment or the 25 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 other two alternatives that are being looked at. This alternative, this development is not limiting those choices at all. Scott: Paul, would it be appropriate, at least my understanding is that MnDot is basically going to call the shots for the location of and foot the bill for the portion of 101 that goes from the 212 /101 interchange up to 86th. Krauss: That's correct. Scott: And then what happens after that, we're obviously trying to partner with them. We don't know. The city of Chanhassen may have to pay for it. Krauss: We're trying to put the city, as residents, in the driver's seat of deciding where the city thinks it's going to go because I think what's going to happen is MnDot's going to punt on it and it's largely going to be a local decision. Scott: Yeah. And that's because even though it's called State Highway 101, the State of Minnesota considers it to be a temporary highway, is that the? Krauss: Since 1934. Scott: Yeah, so it's not something that they want to have responsibility for so that's why it puts us in kind of a strange situation as far as funding and siting and locating the section north of 86th. Or where 86th will now be. Krauss: The intent or the crux of the question, this is not limiting our alternatives but we can certainly provide that information when this comes back again. We'll overlay the alternatives. In fact we're trying to have some additional meetings with the neighborhood on that with Fred Hoisington so that's in the process too. Bob Armstrong: Then I guess that's my point. I would really like to see how, what this does to your options for 101 and you've got it down to a pretty tight corridor there towards that industrial complex. Scott: In looking at it, it looks like there's about, and I'm just going to eyeball it here. It looks like there's about 700 feet from the intersection of 86th Street to the northern border of the project and I, perhaps the folks from Tandem can correct me. I'm just kind of eye balling. Say there's a 200 foot easement for the highway. So that's a relatively small section when you consider what's going to be happening north of that. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Al -Jaff: Correct. I would also like to point out that Rice Lake Manor is built residential single family. Therefore under the zoning ordinance they could, if they should hook up to water and if they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, they could subdivide their lots. Mancino: So all 7 lots could subdivide? Al -Jaff: If they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, yes they can. Scott: Next question is a related question. Being the transition between the development and Rice Lake Manor. So basically what we're saying is we've got residential single family over at Rice Lake. And then we have residential single family here and then kitty corner we're talking about medium density. Al -Jaff: Correct. Scott: So your comments on the transition. Al -Jaff: The applicant has reduced the number of units from 18 to 16. The ordinance would allow them to put in 15,000 square foot lots. They are providing 20,000 square foot lots. Single family separating single family from a higher density is an adequate transitional area. Mancino: Well and actually, the single family on the east or Rice Lake Manor could subdivide to even smaller lot sizes than what we have seen proposed? Al -Jaff: Correct. If they meet. Mancino: If they wanted to. At a future date if those 7 lots wanted to subdivide, they could subdivide into 15,000, is that correct? Krauss: That is true. We're not sure if all the lots have that ability depending on where the homes are but there are some. I also think you've got to keep in perspective, Chanhassen had one of the largest single family lot sizes in the Twin Cities. We take a lot of hits relative to regional issues about the elitism of having half acre lots or quarter, third acre lots as a requirement. Now it's something that the community feels real strongly about and it's a characteristic that we've maintained. Well I guess I get a little bit concerned when we hear well that's still not big enough. It ought to be bigger and it ought to be bigger by nature of the fact that it's next door to somebody else if the ordinance applies, unless you happen to be next to somebody with a different situation. We can't apply ordinances like that. I mean the standard lot dimension in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet. The lot's being proposed exceed that. We're buffering a single family neighborhood with a single family neighborhood. I 31 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 think that to the extent that the traditional planning approach calls for a hierarchy of uses, you have a case right there where it's being done. Scott: And then also the impetus for the change from the 15,000 square foot lots that we saw in August to the 20,000 is basically about public input, Planning Commission input and so 1 forth. And then also too, basically from what I understand. One lot was removed from Block 2. The street was shifted to increase the lot size. And then the trail was added due to input from the Park and Rec. That was another issue. Now as far as the Park and Rec 1 Department has determined that this meets their park and rec requirement with the trail around the nature wetland. The picnic area if you will there. What is the status, does the City of Chanhassen own the property that is, they're in negotiation? ' Krauss: No, I wouldn't even say that. We met with the owner of the property a couple of Y P PAY P ' times and it's, to the best of my knowledge all of the land was designated, or most of it is actually connected through Lake Riley Hills Apartments. The same partnership that owns that and the adjacent property. That goes all the way up to Rice Marsh Lake. They know, in ' fact we had their attorney in here complaining about the comprehensive plan. They know that that area is designated for future park acquisition. I think we're in the mindset right now, unless the Park Board comes into a significant store of cash, which is unlikely, that while we're expecting 212 to be built in a somewhat reasonable time frame, as Mr. Nickolay �. points out, it keeps getting pushed back now. But 212 is going to sever the apartment from this property and make it fairly inaccessible. We have every expectation, or hope I should say, that we can work out an arrangement with MnDot where MnDot through the ' condemnation process would buy the entirety of that site because it has no legitimate developable access from the property owners and then in turn sell them to the city. Or that 1 we would be in a position to purchase that property. Scott: Okay. Are there any other comments from the public on this particular issue? ' Jo Larson: My name is Jo Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua Circle. I'm a little questionable, or unsure about whether the lots on Tigua Circle can subdivide or not. I know that you're saying if they meet the minimum lot standards but I think we may have covenants in our development. I'm not sure but one neighbor had mentioned to me once that they were told by the original developer that he made it so they cannot subdivide it. And so I don't know if it can or not be but I don't want you to assume that they can be subdivided because they not be able to. Another concern I have is, I don't quite understand about the land to the east. If that is designated for future parkland or not. I do know further east that the State does own ' land abutted right up to the Eden Prairie line. I know the State does own that and maybe in the future the city will be getting that back but I'm not too sure about the land right to the south of me and there's one parcel...more to the east. I'm not sure if that is planned for 32 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 1 future park or not at all and I just would like the developer to check on those. Scott: Can you respond to that Paul? 1 Krauss: To a point. I think the best thing we can do is bring maps to a future meeting or to the meeting with the neighbors because they're illustrated better. The park that we talked about is south of Rice Marsh Lake Park is designated. It is shown on the comprehensive plan. We do not own it. We would like to. We do not have access to it at this point. We would like to. Eden Prairie is working on a comparable park facility on their side of the city line which would form the east boundary of this park and they're working with MnDot to put a trail that comes around that Bear Path development. The golf course development and goes underneath the future 212 and would enter into the common property line of the park we're proposing and what they're looking at doing. The State does own some of the land on the Eden Prairie side and I think that was because there's a program called the RALF fund. It's an early buy program for protecting right -of -way. We also have that availability of funding here but we haven't been petitioned by property owners to do it. So we, the State does not own any of the land in Chanhassen. 1 Scott: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak as part of the public hearing? Yes sir. 1 Mark Jesberg: My name is Mark Jesberg. I live at 8407 Great Plains Blvd and I live in one of the houses that might be taken out if 101 is rerouted according to one of the alternatives 1 and I've just got a question. I think Mr. Putnam might be able to answer it. If, according to these three units, are they drawn up with the highway as proposed if it would take out one of those? Or could it go either way? Because when we bought the house last year they said that when Highway new 101 was going to go behind our house. And if it does, if they wouldn't stick to that, I don't know if they'd be able to put these three units in here. Harberts: Question. Who's they? Mark Jesberg: The developers. 1 Harberts: No, you said that when you bought your house they said that the road was going to go behind your house. Who are they? Mark Jesberg: That's where the road was platted out to go. 1 Krauss: I can expand on that. 1 33 1 •1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Mark Jesberg: And the realtor told us that and we saw a little map with the proposal and it was after we moved in that they came in with the new alternatives. 1 Krauss: Well, when this house was put on the market we got phone calls on this for a good year I think. Dave got them. I got them. Sharmin got them. The realtor put up a blue line I print I think in the house that showed what had been selected alternative routing. The selected route the city developed 5 years ago which went through the back yard basically of this house and we continually got questions, well how far does it wind up from the house and 1 the answer was, we really don't know. And I think a lot of buyers were dissuaded from that because of that reason. What's happened is, based upon the ISTEA program, the federal program that allows you to design more sensitively with landscaping and trails, based upon I MnDot's potential for revising of how the interchange is going to work, we took the initiative of saying, well maybe we ought to reassess what we had down on paper 5 year ago because it might not be completely appropriate. The process is not completed yet and one of the I alternatives does take this house, and another house, but off setting that is the fact that the road is a whole lot further away from the many more homes that are on Lake Riley. I mean so there's positive points and negative points for all the alternatives. One of the alternatives I is to do absolutely nothing, which is in all probability what would happen if we didn't take the proactive role, which means that ultimately you would have Highway 212 interchange dumping out onto old Highway 101, which is something that I think most people in the I community would find intolerable but MnDot may well be inclined to do if some initiative isn't taken. There are four alternatives. They're still in discussion. We have had one meeting with the neighborhood group. We're going to be having another one. Then that will 1 be coming through the Planning Commission and City Council for official mapping with it. • I don't know the answer to it but I do know that we're not limiting the options based upon this plat. I Mark Jesberg: Okay. So would some of these houses, or these three would they. g Y Y 1 Krauss: They would stay under any of the four alternatives. What happens is the roadway shifts away from this plat. If the alternatives that as I recall...moves it further to the west, are I selected, the roadway twists back over that way quicker and comes away from these three units that you're looking at. I Mark Jesberg: So if it goes behind my house, like when I bought it like they thought when we bought it, they would still. I Krauss: It should be able to stay right here. And we'll have the overlays for all those alternatives for this and demonstrate that for you. 1 34 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Mark Jesberg: So they didn't decide to change and make new alternatives because of the new development coming in? Krauss: Oh no. We started that process a year ago. In fact we've had continued discussions with MnDot over the last, well I've been with the city 4 1/2 years. That entire time frame. 1 Mark Jesberg: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good. Is there any other public comment? Mike Mulligan: Good evening. My name is Mike Mulligan. I live at 8501 Tigua Circle. A neighbor of David Nickolay's. Across the street from Jo Larson. My property is east of David's. Somebody mentioned the word elitism here a few minutes ago. I'd like to tell you that we're very sensitive to that sort of thing, recognizing we do live on large lots. I paid 1 $50,000.00 for my lot 10 years ago and you should know that over half of it is in the swamp. A good share of David's is in the swamp. The house south of me, formerly occupied by Tom Klingelhutz, probably a third of his lot is in the swamp. These lots are large in size but a good share of them, of those lots are unbuildable. We don't have 4 or 5 or 7 acres of dividable lots there. You or your predecessors allowed these lots to be platted like this and we do have a problem, as you can see that David explained very well. I think we do have a 1 responsibility to try to address this transition from the lots that we do have to something somewhat less dense than what we're looking at. With 4 to 8, did you say, living units per 111 acre. That's not what I see when I drive around the rest of Chanhassen, the new areas. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments for the public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to 1 close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and • 1 the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Harberts: A question I have for Dave. I didn't see in this pack letters from, or review by 1 public safety as we did in the last project. Have they looked at it? I guess some of my questions I have you know for instance you, what lot is this. The 6 units and 12 units just on this side of the pond. You know it goes to the end. Should there be turn arounds? Have they looked at this in terms of circulation and public safety? Hempel: Maybe Sharmin can address that one but. Harberts: I didn't see it in the pack and usually. 1 35 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 Hempel: We have looked at the access points. We were concerned about the individual 1 driveway access points that came out onto 86th Street. Those...were eliminated for the most part. 1 Harberts: But some of the. Hempel: Turn arounds and so forth? 1 Harberts: Yeah. I'm just surprised. 1 Scott: Well it's conceptual too. Harberts: I know but so was Centex and I guess I was a little surprised that that same 1 information, I didn't know if it was a matter of time or because there's been so much change and stuff but I certainly have an interest I guess more from the public safety, traffic i , management, that perspective. So I would just. " Al -Jaff: The Fire Marshal has reviewed this and he said at the resent time he is comfortable ortable . with what has been presented. ' Harberts: Really? Okay. Well I think you know, just broadly Y Y Y , � oadly speaking, I like this concept better than what we had originally seen. I like the, I don't know, I'll call them the collectors. The main collectors in each of the areas. When I look at this, you know the request is to rezone to a PUD and the idea with a PUD, as I understand it is that we give something to get something back which hopefully then as we try to see is in the better interest of the community. One of the things though I question is the preservation of desirable site characteristics. That's one of the things that we're supposed to be getting but yet in the staff I report it talks about the grading. The grading plan wasn't changed and the fact that this had the rolling hills and wetlands, can you just give me a little bit more insight in terms of why it wasn't changed. I Al -Jaff: The applicant didn't submit a grading plan. However, the applicant feels that they will have to mass grade the site in order to get the type of units that you see along the I northern portion of 86th Street. Staff is still trying to work with the applicant to make sure that we don't get as much as grading as they are showing. I Harberts: Okay and what I recollect from our last discussion point was that that was one of those points that we felt strong on to try and go with the topography of the land here. So I guess that would be one point that I would stick on. Or at least try to see some more I discussion occur. I certainly, I guess with my recent involvement, and we talked earlier Jeff I 36 I 1' Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 lamm�g g obe , �1 EAW. It's always the city's prerogative if you elected one. We typically haven't but you do have that prerogative. The project was getting close enough, I mean it's not that far away from the threshold...In my own experience it's equally effective and probably a little more efficient in terms of time and responsiveness to just state, we have concerns about traffic. We want information on it. We have concerns about, and if you did have concerns about wetland. That that be responded to. Filling out an EAW form is something that I think a lot of consultants have a fixed price on that one. EAW's are us kind of a thing. Scott: Highway 101's are us. Sorry Fred. Mancino: I had some questions and some thoughts on the recommendations. One of my thoughts was on the commercial on 17. Recommendation 17, which you also wanted to have some suggestions and the Planning Commission's input on the commercial area. And I would just like to add that I like the concept plans outlining the first sentence on 17. Recommendation 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts with alternatives, building masses, square footage limitations. I'd like to insert in there, grading, building materials, architectural design, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. So as a Highway 5 task force member, those were some of the specifics that we talked about in conceptual plans that we saw in some of the areas on Highway 5 and they were very helpful. So I would also like to see those included in conceptual plans for this commercial development that's part of it. Also, I'd like to see the Highway 5 design standards used here, and suggestion out there. And I think that's something we might want to think about in expanding to the 212 area. Using some of our design standards for Highway 5. I also am concerned about the grading. The massive grading that's done north of 86th Street so I would like to add that as a recommendation. That grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site. This pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street. Otherwise I am really pleased with all the additions. With what the developer's come back with. I think you've listened well to us and thank you. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: My turn? First of all I'd like to address some of the people who came up to Y Pane P speak. I know your homes are in this area and you're concerned about obviously what goes in there. Often times how this process works seems very busitine and I don't want to be parental or to sit up here. We're volunteers just like you are. We also have houses in the area. We're not paid for doing this. It is a volunteer type situation for people who are contributing to their community and a lot of times we get a difficult position where our neighbors come before us and they say we don't want this here. It's not a matter of us sitting up here and saying hey, we don't want it either. There are rules and regulations that we follow here, just like this process is a part of a process that's dictated by how our city is set 41 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 up and that is set up by how the state says our city can be set up. This process that we follow through that I think this letter here is talking about. It takes some study to figure out that process. It is a difficult and often busitine process. It takes a lot of times not being used to it because many people come in when there's a problem with their property. They don't, they'll follow it and then it's fresh to them to come in and see, not necessarily know who to ask or sometimes they wish they would have more notification or more information and certainly the staff is here for that benefit. If you need more information or you feel unclear on something, please ask them. For myself, I would like to have responded to your letter. Unfortunately I would like to do it over the phone. If you would call me, I'd encourage anybody to call anyone here on the commission. I hope you don't mind that. But I don't have a secretarial service and I don't, I would find it difficult to correspond in this type of situation. The city does not provide funds for that or services for that. But I'm happy to talk to you. This town is not that big that you can't just pick up the phone and call us. I would certainly be more than happy to talk to you what I know about it, the process and to try and see how you can resolve that but this is the process. The process doesn't take place someplace else. This is the matter of public hearing and record and so on and it does take some study to figure it out and to know how to best utilize that. As the Chairman has said here, we're an advisory group. We make recommendations to the City Council and they • make the decisions. Those are your elected officials. We make the recommendations based on how staff helps us with law and ordinance and what we can and cannot do. And a lot of times, sometimes you sit up here and you wish that you could do something but you know that you can't do it. Because you're simply not allowed to. The law doesn't work that way. And any of us who have dealt with some legal issues, we know sometimes that it seems very convoluted but that's the way the system's set up and unless we go through a political route, that isn't going to change. So I'd recommend if you have problems with this, that you contact your City Councilmen. Now the civic lesson has ended for today. I want to address the issue just briefly, I want to be comfortable that you understand that a single family residential is based on minimums in Chanhassen, and it has been for several years. And a lot of this started out with the Met Council pressuring tier suburbs to reduce the minimum size of these lots. Harberts: Why are you looking at me Jeff? Farmakes: Because we had a discussion here on a leader. Chanhassen at one time, I know Ladd said that in previous years entertained two tier single family zoning. That did not occur. There was pressure from the Met Council to get that down to city sized lots. We can go on at great lengths about the issue between metro politics and the fact that we all exist because Minneapolis and St. Paul are here and we all exist for them. But many of us do not hold that opinion. I wish in some cases that there could be more of a transition but I think clearly someone has to say that what we're dealing with here, the developer needn't increase 42 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. . 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site located south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds the permitted 30%. Mass grading of the multi- family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. 19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been 47 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1 actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hopped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of ' the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. ' 21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface coverage south of 86th Street and east of the wetland may not exceed 30% of site area. 23. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3." 24. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) ( g P g) ' PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF ' 1,000 CUBIC YARDS) ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET, BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order. Jim Hill: Jim Hill. Consultant for Charlie James. Scott: I'm sorry sir, I didn't get your name. 1 48 1