Loading...
PC staff report fpr 7-17-18 - updated 8-3-18CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: July 17, 2018 CC DATE: August 13, 2018 REVIEW DEADLINE: August 15 CASE # 2018-12 BY: KA PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Rural Residential. LOCATION: 7141 Galpin Boulevard APPLICANT: U.S. Home Corporation, d/b/a Lennar PRESENT ZONING: RR Rural Residential 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1.2 – 4 units an acre ACREAGE: Approximately 188 acres gross DENSITY: 2.26 units an acre net 88 acres net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting conceptual review to consider rezoning from Agricultural Estate PUD Residential. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The Planning Commission is providing the City Council with comments and direction on the Concept Planned Unit Development. Notice was sent to adjacent properties within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan review for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is currently zoned Rural Residential. BACKGROUND In November 2017 the property was listed for sale by Comerica Bank; Trust NA, as personal representatives of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprises. On several occasions the seller’s agents and members of Lennar have met with city staff to begin reviewing the zoning standards and the best use for the property. In May of 2018 U.S. Home Corporation entered into an Option Agreement to purchase the property. (from the developer’s narrative) PROPOSED ACTION: The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback to the City Council on the Concept Planned Unit Development. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 2 of 13 Map of property Parcel and Site Information Parcel ID Taxpayer GIS Acreage Land Use Current Zoning 256900030 PRN 8.95 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900020 PRN 149.0 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100100 Paisley Park Enterprises Inc. 3.23 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 256900010 PRN 20.78 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential 250100200 PRN 6.62 Low Density 1.2-4 units/acre Rural Residential Total 188.58 Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 3 of 13 The surrounding land uses are included in the following table: Subdivision Zoning Land Use Notes South Royal Oaks RSF Low Density 13 acres-33 lots West Woods at Long Acres PUD Low Density 97 acres-115 lots Wynsong - shoreland district PUD Low Density 9.4 acres 4 units North Ashling Meadows RSF Low Density 40 acres-51 units Lake Lucy Ridge RSF Low Density 9 acres-17 units East Lake Ann Recreational not applicable not applicable Undeveloped Adjacent LAND South Gorra Property Zoning Land Use Notes Rural Residential Low Density 38 (25 net) acres- 50 units Rural Residential Low/Medium 34 acres – 204 units Rural Residential Medium Density 46 acres - 276 units Rural Residential High Density 28 acres -336 units The main access point to the development will be of off Galpin Boulevard. The plan proposes connections from the Ashling Meadows subdivision streets of Topaz Drive, Ruby Lane and Lucy Ridge Lane. An existing home that is on 2.62 acres at 7011 Galpin Boulevard is not included in the subdivision. ZONING DISTRICT Low-density zoning options 1.2-4 Units an acre Residential Single Family (RSF) requires 15,000 square foot lots. This zoning district would cause the most the environmental impact to the site. In order to achieve the desire for a larger preservation area next to the lakes, the most appropriate zoning would be either a planned unit development (PUD) or residential-low and medium density (RLM). Both of these districts require preservation of environmental features. It will be the city’s goals to ensure that the request for either zoning meets the intent. ARTICLE VIII. – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DIVISION 1. – GENERALLY Sec. 20-501. – Intent. Planned Unit Developments (PUD) offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers 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 use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the city’s expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 4 of 13 The applicant is pursuing the PUD Zoning. In their narrative, they have stated, “The use of the PUD zoning also allows for greater specificity in the types, location and sizes of uses. The city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would be the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated by the city’s goals.” Concept PUD – What is required? Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article VIII. – Planned Unit Development District, Division 2. – Procedures Sec. 20-517. - General concept plan. (a) In order to receive guidance in the design of a PUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large PUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following information appropriate to the type of development, e.g., commercial, industrial or residential: (1) Approximate building areas, pedestrian ways and road locations; (2) Height, bulk and square footage of buildings; (3) Type, number or square footage or intensities of specific land uses; (4) Number of dwelling units; (5) Generalized development plan showing areas to be developed or preserved; and (6) Staging and timing of the development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior thereto to owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider and comment on the concept plan. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 5 of 13 The PUD process provides an opportunity to receive observation and feedback from other jurisdictions, Planning Commission, City Council and residents of Chanhassen. Summary of Request The applicant proposal is requesting the Low Density Residential PUD Zoning. Site Analysis Gross area 188 acres • Wetland Area 49 acres • Galpin Boulevard ROW Area 1 acre • Dedicated Public Park Area 50 area ( upland) Net acres 88 Manage 1 Wetland Standards • Buffer 30 feet • Building Setback for Buffer 25 feet • Accessory Building setback from the Buffer 15 feet Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 6 of 13 Proposed Lot standards: North lots - Shoreline Overlay non-riparian lots 45 Width 90 feet Area 15,000 sq. feet OHW 75 foot setback Bluff 30 foot setback Local street ROW setback 30 feet Impervious Surface 25 % lots with in the Shoreland District Central Lots 102 Width 65 feet Area 8,450 sq. feet Front setback 25 feet Rear setback 25 feet Side setback 5 feet and 10 feet Lot Coverage 35 % South Lots 52 Width 55 feet Area 6,000 sq. feet Front setback 25 feet Rear setback 25 feet Side setback 5 feet and 10 feet Lot Coverage 35 % The developer has submitted a plan that uses the RSF Zoning District. While the plan is not consistent with the Park Comprehensive Plan, the Developer has shown what they could achieve applying the RSF (15,000 square foot minimum) zoning district. The total lots under this proposal is 20. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 7 of 13 Planning Departments Comments Provide a variety of housing types. Attached are Lennar’s Home Plans. Engineering Comments These comments are intended to identify major considerations for PUD plan approval based upon a review by the Engineering department in response to a development plan submitted by Lennar and received June 15, 2018. Engineering supports the “density transfer” plan. • Tie the development design into the reconstruction project along Galpin Blvd. The city is considering significantly changing the profile of roadway between Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr. The city would add an underpass in this area and adjust the existing profile by filling between the higher areas near the intersections. • Evaluate safe intersection design requirements and sight distances along Galpin Blvd. • Detail trail connections through the development to Galpin Blvd and the existing park system. • Consider an access for city vehicles to the well house site along Galpin Blvd. • Propose and coordinate property swap near the well site to facility proposed layout. • Consider access along the MCES interceptor and their permanent easement to facilitate maintenance of the sanitary pipeline. Show the permanent easement on the site plan. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 8 of 13 • Evaluate and maintain bluff stability along the northeast side of the site adjacent to Lake Lucy. • Communicate plan for bluff areas along north grouping of homes (90 lot area). • Develop and communicate a detailed storm water plan. • Identify sanitary and water planning meeting the city’s comprehensive plans. • Identify wetland areas intended to be mitigated. Communicate plan to address mitigation requirements. • Detail right-of-way and street widths. • Document proposed street grades. • Detail areas intended for use of retaining wall systems and proposed wall heights. Include information regarding intended block systems. • Show building pad setbacks. • Document mass grading intentions and site balancing. • Identify grading coordination with the neighboring properties. • Identify soil stockpile areas left after mass grading. • Show streams and water flow conveyances along with their protection. • Evaluate coordination with the proposed street connections to Topaz Dr. • Identify naturally occurring features intended to be preserved. • Provide traffic impact study in conjunction with the developer’s proposal. • There is outstanding Assessments for the Lake Ann Interceptor Water Resources Comments • Water resources is strongly supportive of density transfer to preserve connected wetland and woodland areas. • An open space preservation narrative should also discuss wetland and water resource protection. The importance of these spaces to the community goes beyond regulatory and stormwater requirements. • HOA (Master Association) required to maintain open spaces including permanent stormwater best management practices, and buffers. • Must include an open space preservation plan and permanent funding mechanism to ensure maintenance and preservation of open spaces. • Drain tile must be installed back of curb and all sumps connected per Chanhassen Standards and Specifications. • Developer is responsible for completing MnRAM assessments for all wetlands on the property. MnRAMs must be approved by Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD). • Approved MnRAMs are required to determine wetland buffer requirements, impacts, and assessments. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 9 of 13 • Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) process must be completed for all proposed impacts. A Notice of Decision for Boundary and Type is the only Decision that has been issued at this time. • All WCA conditions of approval must be completed prior to issuing a grading permit. • All buffers and setbacks must be shown on plans. • Buffer averaging must be shown on all plans. • All lots must meet minimum buffer and setback requirements. • All water resources, and water resource impacts must be shown on plans including creeks, streams, riverines, and natural drainage ways. Not all water resources are identified on the Wetland Delineation. • The creek at the northwest corner connecting Wetland 2 to Wetland 1 must be preserved as an open channel. No filling or piping is permitted. • Crossings of natural channels must be in the form of bridges to allow for passage of wildlife and native vegetation preservation. • Shoreline and streambank restorations shall be incorporated into the plan whenever possible. • Wetlands, buffers, water resources, and stormwater BMPs must be placed in outlots Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 10 of 13 • All pervious surfaces must utilize native vegetative cover, deep rooted low mow/no mow/turf alternatives, or approved landscape plantings. Landscape plantings include woody vegetation, annual and perennial forbs, ornamental grasses, fruit/vegetable gardens, and mulch. • Irrigation systems are discouraged unless they prioritize stormwater re-use. • Identify how green design practices will be prioritized to reduce environmental impact. • Tree preservation and native habitat preservation credits should be discussed further with the city and RPBCWD. • Identify all wildlife corridors, and opportunities to incorporate wildlife corridors into plans. • No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 3 feet above the 100 year flood elevation or emergency overflow of any water resource. Note this standard varies slightly from the RPBCWD standard. • Every effort should be made to locate any wet detention basins in low visibility locations. Residents do not find these hard working, pollutant removal devices appealing. They are critical to environmental health, function and public safety, however, these are not “water features.” • Consider aeration in wet detention basins to increase evaporation and reduce algal growth. • A master grading plan will be reviewed and approved for the development. Each lot should also be reviewed by builder and staff to identify missed opportunities to improve grading, drainage, erosion and sediment control, including impacts to adjacent lots. • Provide pet waste facilities throughout the development that include biodegradable bags, disposal containers, educational signage. Facilities must not be directly adjacent to water resources. Facilities will be owned and maintained by HOA. • Identify all public and private stormwater infrastructure, water resources, and drainage pathways on adjacent properties. • The proposed maximum lot coverage of 25% (shoreland overlay district), and 35% (all other lots) is acceptable, however, the developer should limit this to 20% and 30% respectively during the initial development of each lot. This will allow residents 5% lot coverage to utilize for future patios, pathways, sheds, fireplaces, etc. This is a significant issue in the city. • Identify opportunities to incorporate pervious surfaces into lot coverage during development. • Applicant must provide the annual runoff volumes to each wetland for the pre- and post- project conditions. • The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. • It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). • Project must meet all stormwater requirements of the city and RPBCWD. • Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development review and permitting process. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 11 of 13 • The city is in agreement with the RPBCWD comments identified in the Memorandum dated June 29, 2018 titled ‘Proposed Single Family Residential Development Galpin Boulevard Planning Case 2018-12.’ Any deviation from those comments are noted in this document. Landscaping Comments/ Tree Preservation Existing conditions on site include maple/basswood (Big Woods) forest in the eastern and northern sections of the property, a lowland floodplain forest in the center area, a mesic oak forest in the central western half and mixed hardwood forest in the southwestern corner of the site. The wooded areas cover a significant portion of the site. Aggressive understory species, such as buckthorn, are present in the western half of the site and are starting to move into the eastern half. There are significant, mature trees in all wooded areas with some of the largest trees being white and red oaks and some maples. Tree Preservation comments: • Applicant will be required to provide a tree inventory for all wooded areas within/near construction limits. Areas of preservation will not need to be inventoried. • In either Scenario, the applicant will need to meet canopy coverage requirements for the development. Preservation within the construction limits (small areas of tree groupings) should be pursued in order to meet requirements. However, oak and maples are sensitive to grade changes and if there is significant grading on site, then Scenario 2 would be highly preferable for tree preservation. • In either Scenario tree preservation along the north and south property lines adjacent to residential areas will be recommended. • The maple basswood in the eastern half of the site is of a better quality than the wooded areas on the west side of the property due to a lesser impact by invasive species. Protecting this forested area should be a priority and staff strongly recommends Scenario Two for tree preservation for future generations. • Linking wooded areas from Lake Ann and Greenwood Shores parks to the western side of the lake will be highly beneficial for forest health, wildlife protection and habitat. Landscaping Comments: • Tree Preservation/Canopy Coverage requirements may incur reforestation requirements for the developer, depending on preservation. · When re-planting, the applicant shall use a diverse mix of species • Bufferyard requirements will need to be met for the north, south, west and internal areas, depending on density differences. • Foundation plantings will be required for the Villa homes. • In common areas/HOA lots: · Preferable to have minimum mowed turf areas. Use prairie or no mow mixes in low use areas · Employ capture-and-use irrigation systems Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 12 of 13 Park Comments At their June 26th meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council acknowledged the Lennar Concept Plan 07 dated June 1, 2018 depicting 199 lots clustered to the west central and north central quadrants of the property and preserving 50+/- acres of public park area utilizing a density transfer and park dedication in the eastern quadrant of the property as the preferred starting point for the design of a preliminary plat for the proposed development. Arguably, the now pending subdivision and development of this parcel of land has been one of the most highly anticipated opportunities to create a quality housing community while simultaneously preserving a large tract of public open space that guarantees the character and integrity of Lake Ann Park will be preserved. More than a half dozen potential developers met with city staff prior to considering how they would propose to develop this property and how much they would offer the sellers as a purchase price. Lennar stated in that initial meeting that it was their desire to bring forward a plan that was both viable and met the goals and requirements of the city's guiding plans and ordinances. Now that Lennar has secured an option to purchase the property, they have delivered two concepts for developing the parcel to the city. It is staff's position that Concept Plan 07 succinctly captures the dual goals of creating a quality housing community while simultaneously preserving a large tract of public open space. Planning Commission Galpin Property Concept Planned Unit Development – Planning Case 2018-12 July 17, 2018 Page 13 of 13 Park and Recreation System Initiatives – from the System Plan: While the objectives and policies offer broad guidelines for park and recreation system development, the following initiatives have been identified by city staff, the Park and Recreation Commission, and citizens as key to completing the system and improving existing facilities to meet needs today and over the next 25 years. Numbered initiatives correspond to efforts depicted in Figure 6-8. Parks and Recreation Facilities: P-1. Expand Lake Ann Park to create a premier community park. Expansion of the park would incorporate natural woodlands west of Lake Ann and would preserve views across the lake, protect wildlife habitat, and preserve the community’s natural heritage. The expansion would also allow for a loop trail around Lake Ann and a connection to Lake Lucy. P-2. Create a new ball field complex to meet demands created by increasing population. P-3. Create neighborhood parks in the general locations identified on Figure 6-8 along with development. Fire Department • Cul-de-sacs to deviate from minimum sizes for fire apparatus roads in fire code (96 feet). • Fire hydrants put into area per code. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission provides observations and feedback on the Concept Planned Unit Development along with the following comments: 1. With the Preliminary PUD, the developer shall address the comments in the staff report from a. City Engineering b. Water Resources Coordinator c. Environmental Resources Specialist d. Parks and Recreation e. Building f. Planning g. Watershed District g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-12 galpin development - lennar\concept staff report.doc