The URL can be used to link to this page

07-17-96 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIO WEDNESDAY,JULY 17, 1996, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance to the parking lot setback requirements and a sign plan review a 10,000 square foot retail facility on 1.06 acres of property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located at 501 West 78th Street,Hiway 5 Centre,Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey. 2. Wetland Alteration Permit for Coulter Blvd. Phase II, Improvement Project 93-26B to fill 0.72 acre Type 3 Ag/urban wetlands and mitigate by creating 1.42 acres of Type 3 natural wetland located between the Bluff Creek Elementary School and Audubon Road, City of Chanhassen. 3. Comprehensive Land use plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 307,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development; Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)findings; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds,Lotus Realty Services. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. CITY OF P.C. DATE: 7-17-96 CUAAC C.C. DATE: 7-12-96 ' CASE: 96-4 Site Plan BY: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A 13 foot parking lot setback variance and a sign plan review for a 10,000 square foot retail facility. I— ZLOCATION: North of Highway 5, West of Great Plains Boulevard, South of West 79th Street and East of the Chanhassen Inn ,.,,.1 APPLICANT : Roman Robs Mike Ramsey 1727 Green Crest Drive 22173 Harsdale Drive Victoria, MN 55386 Farmington Hills, MI Q 48335 (612)829-3848 (810)615-0959 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: 1.06 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-West 79th Street S-Highway 5 E -Holiday and Great Plains Boulevard, Highway Business W-Chanhassen Inn/Highway Business rD SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is fairly level, previously occupied by the Prairie House Restaurant Building. The building was demolished between April 3-10, 1996 to ;n prepare the site for future development. • 2000 LAND USE: Commercial _ea r IV: toiim •••'...ari figfrA0111 a \ot(CV1 illgr, . ..... ..,.47 �n_2.�ieli- ��s�:- , ira ulto,,,,,,,,� mac, iii ltai +�.�� '` '\11,,` �� ..._ '.•.�.a�i �into� �lia *��: �• ...ter, ..t I I Green . 0.4titilit --IP 1 ,, ,. N. opilil k. ; ` ,»...��`�� .,r� E �_i''JJ g_■111/ ��ii9 •g ` m .7211I,4 I. trod cial. - Puck :�1 ■11111a. N'1- 1 /tj�1� / '�; .tiftersift, viVAIIIIIL Voiilrlifielnteyrkt,„;: .11-1ri, t- .. i`� 4V.A:/u Lake iv.. pn #11.144 -.oar& 1110C2*. WiSIIMI 1101111i . ---- . 1116.4- 4 ril -.• \tp • t - Illks$,`' 4111 Poi mow : turf, . ,1, •iIr,ef I :1i1 4 .0 -* _ CI I� 4 Im tt. lw -Ilk;liairma.}----- smite". . - 16 44taitliell I% No. if I\N at 7-1 0 -6 Ft iii41 404(1 . ..:/;.• - . '1 14 T :Nin:1:6aVSTIri er 1 e,„, . 0 nu .e.rn r1 niu Es `U v. o ``g' ._1 ; rth 4 :©�� 9�' ,Yet_ t� uur @f=" ,;;:y ; a, city Hall - I l l l l II 1 I 1 '< �. I i ____1 -----".. 1i1ln.-- g- '''"-•.' ii;6- \ - �C � 1 Lill-Mi11l1. ill �00 1 ki 1 `Li ii-tkiNg 0 11.111,,t-----"- ipli 7, I -No 1 ,...r. gi 11141 e Dr ; : 4111111" �:' Chanhassen k-44i mil ' :4 -44016 \ A* !ilk' IV TAW/ ss to . -VeSte r, 0 ' S eV) i-rir ma e9 4e. State Hw 5 ` '�e��g � �i 11 EV di: ��1 • , 44; a 1P\--40 4.412 Mum alralog CA 7 4" lip 1111 Irk%t �� •;vs Olt es, _Ii- e • - • , ik. \ 1;-1 r10,..,!• teafilb., - . -.. k - - E rill go qv 4 " riglingalf 1111 . Maw t At -"kVRice Mar h �s Lake P k '. s Lake Susan Rice Illie >10 - A*-1111i ' arsh Lake Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On June 10, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan Review #96-4 for the Hiway 5 Centre as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, subject to conditions. The request was for a site plan review approval for the construction of a one story, multi-tenant retail building with an area of 10,000 square feet. It is proposed to be occupied by a bagel shop, a coffee shop, an optometrist, Dominos Pizza, and a sporting goods store. The site is zoned BH, Highway Business District and bordered by West 79th Street to the north, Highway 5 to the south, Holiday Service Station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east,and Chanhassen Inn to the west. The site was the location of the Prairie House Restaurant. It was demolished in April of 1996. The lot area for the site is 1.06 acres. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from West 79th Street. The zoning ordinance requires all parking lots within a BH District to maintain a 25 foot setback from a front property line. The applicant showed a parking lot setback of 12 feet from West 79th Street which requires a variance. Staff and the applicant hoped that this variance could be avoided. We instructed the applicant to revise the plans before the site plan request appeared before City Council. It was concluded that unless the building was reduced in size, the setback would not be met. Staff presented all the facts regarding the variance to the City Council in order for them to give us direction on whether they would be willing to approve it or not. We explained that if the direction was to approve the variance, then staff would publish this item for the next Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing and bring it before the City Council for official action. Meanwhile, we would issue the building permit for the applicant to start work on the project, contingent upon the City Council approving the variance no later than 30 days following building permit issuance. The City Council directed staff to take the variance application through the process. The second part of this application relates to signage on the building. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the signage criteria,however, the Planning Commission wanted to review the actual signage and approve it. BACKGROUND On June 10, 1996,the City Council approved Site Plan Review#96-4 for the Hiway 5 Centre as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 3 2. Signage criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed(24 square feet). c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. 3. Screening of parking lot and the south elevation must be increased. Screening may include berms, ornamental, and evergreen trees. A minimum of four to six trees will be planted along the south side of the patio area. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04-1991 (Fire Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 4 b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07-1991 (Pre-Fire plans), copy enclosed. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992, (Premise Identification), copy enclosed. d. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34-1993, (Water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36-1994, (Combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40-1995, (Fire Sprinkler systems), copy enclosed. g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve(P.I.V.) on the water service line. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 7. Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building. Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of the building as discussed in the attached Building Official memo. 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 9. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be warranted. 10. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the site. 11. Utility installation will require permits through the City's building department. Gate valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building. 12. Cross-access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot/drive aisle. 13. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the land located east of the subject site. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 5 14. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65%. 15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city property pending approval of the HRA. The applicant shall supply the staff and City Council with a detailed landscape plan of the patio area. 16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south unless the applicant applies for a variance. The City will issue the building permit for the applicant to start work on the project, contingent upon the City Council approving the variance no later than 30 days following building permit issuance. 17. The applicant shall try to integrate the Highway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel parking lot. This report will address condition#16 for a setback variance and explain the signage in detail. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning ordinance requires all parking lots to be setback a minimum of 25 feet from public right-of-way. The applicant is providing a 12 foot front yard parking setback. There is an additional eight foot green space area between the property line and the actual curb which gives the appearance of a wider front yard setback. FINDINGS The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them to meet this criteria. * The hardship in this case is created by the physical surroundings of the area which is Highway 5 to the south and West 79th to the north. The majority of the surrounding properties have a similar setback. Therefore, this variance will not create a Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 6 precedent in the area. The new development will be able to blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. * The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. * The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel but actually to allow the property owner to make better use of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. * The difficulty or hardship is not self-created. The hardship is a result of the physical surroundings of the area (Highway 5 and West 79th Street). The applicant has two lot frontages which would require two front yard setbacks. Staff would rather see the setback reduced form West 79th Street and maintain the required setback from Highway 5. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. * Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. * The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It will not increase the traffic. Staff is recommending approval of this variance based upon the findings listed above. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 7 SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 8 feet for parcels with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines. The proposed sign has an area of 24 square feet and a height of 6 feet. The sign is shown located 6 feet from the property line. The location of the sign must be moved so that it would maintain a 10 foot setback. One pylon sign is also permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet for parcels with a principal structure of less then 50,000 square feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines. The proposed sign has an area of 40 square feet and a height of 14 feet. The sign is shown located 6 feet from the property line. The location of the sign must be moved so that it would maintain a 10 foot setback. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 13%of the total area of the north or south building wall upon which the signs are mounted. The total area of the signs may not exceed 90 square feet. The total display area along the west elevation may not exceed 7%of the total area of the wall upon which the signs are mounted on. The total area of the signs may not exceed 224 square feet. The applicant is showing signage on three elevations. The ordinance specifically states that wall mounted signage shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. In this specific situation, the entryways into these stores will be along the west elevation. Staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to use this elevation, however, signage should be limited to two elevations only. Staff is recommending the following criteria be adopted: 1. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument 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 each wall 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 add an architectural accent to the building. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 8 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. Wall signs shall consist of individual dimensional letters and logos and be back-lit if illuminated. 7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a 13 foot front yard parking lot setback variance and a sign plan review for a 10,000 square foot retail facility, Hiway 5 Centre,with the following conditions: 1. All businesses shall share one monument sign. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 8 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property lines. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of each wall 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 add an architectural accent to the building. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. Wall signs shall consist of individual dimensional letters and logos and be back-lit if illuminated. Hiway 5 Centre July 17, 1996 Page 9 7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line. 10. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. Sign Plan. 2. Site Plan. I = = il,jI i 1= ,i. ti 1 1 j 1111:11 -I N _! 11111(� i E �1 w iicn a. ,s gin, ,, I ,_ : } a sl o N tt�,l!{; !l!t! , 1 3 Z a 12. t 8144 1 1 a Q W I 9 1 ; 4 11 i4 6 w i 4 C C Ial� :i :1 i I Ili F` �3i g 1 uri I !: to f i!i . ,i 3 1,:f! 2H 3i iie'iii 1.43! 7 iiiii Iea 3-a ill 11-: ilipi I 11cc 7r ti? T: I c Y. i#¢ ��Yi {f#1E T 9 s�in L> j L/6 LE Y P1 z;D ! 2.1aq k ( \ 1.1 f � ..IGnul a.7 .IIlTy� rt 1 1111111 I 1 t . III \ e •�. S�n � or— II l \ Ig 11111V ❑ III I ( a 1 " 'tool .171 . I _a .1111 '1 —mu —1R I. ill i O 1 II O • • -I 0 I • :I EI _< o [ IN iS • q . .PI!ii - k\\ '...---k.' . liil i❑ • , r ii a,\_.— , ) : nn: i `J i� o .j iii - rift iliit( C{ — II I It :#Li Ill o ( 4 nnr.:ul Fig m �U a muul , l�. ,- • ; . _ n11 � �I — mu �I e- -j o Ma c 111111 o wi Ilia EN 'EMI M Am ! _ .._ 1 ❑ 4114" ❑ 'T._-'7i- .-- 1%-in iiDI- elf -DEM 11111111 i uul�p a s• "ce4...........7- A.:'-:-. --,- - . . ‘,.. ,.. ..,,s,..., . . . ... ., --0 A�.4r Er. , ` .• - . a , :- . N - _ 2d ALUMI It 1 ,'' •..� t, 1' FRAME_ ' :ti•. � yr -•. • i. --A--- ' i = GiCsE�BLE B,4CKLT t- - -': _ 5f 314 PANEL ?-4-:', ._ - .. ' • ' : " 4 . AY3 CENTRE. ; - y,....:.t . •---'�1 -.. y` - �C !:'Lam'' ', .. t. `S.. r /;1.14: Eikit? --:•1.,.?,•_, -• ' t:P0 y f ^' • - '-O' - -,- ,. 2.. r--..*%'1 bf� ._.Y •••L� f., i,- P`.'LQN_=51GN EL VATIOS. ' • •• . C�! Tf. iELEV. tt *4 w8 • . -• ' , 1 .� • 1I411COY. �11.1. yy �r,r •-8= ltO�+•[L' 4??.L., `.1/•4- • '1'-�' • :,. . ,. •.r. • • Y �' •_"•'''• J - .:Vit... :t.• ' - ,�. a .LOCATE AT ACCESSIBLE 0,ARI JP T O" •-�.. - . STALLS.:SEE-CIVIL SITE PLAN:FOR . • -. • . • LOCATIONS'- fPROYJDE 3,DOUBLE-` ' • SIDED SIGNS:4 1 SINGLE-SIDE:SIGN —.14, -7. — . , ,• Eh . • ' METAL SIGN ACCOf f =' TC3 ALL STATE.. , • STATUTE_S 1 ♦ i ` ' ' :•`., PAA._ - DESIGNATED.VAN ACCESS=' ', • ON.Y. . • IBLE STALL SIGNS: . '; • - - WHITE LEGsEND.••AND.BORDER ;• • :"''•. ON SLUE:BACK ROUND, • - • �tw tram w. • FULLY REFLEC1 ORIZ ' � F ` 2,METAL SIGN TO MATCH . .6icAN ABOvE. " - • . • • 2" GALVmD STEEL • - TUBE =a • • 7 g•-.:—;••:•,-;---.GRADE.PAVING OR CONCRETE- -a�JJ. 1`. =.. ' • .. •w -$EE PLAN ,. •.� t .f• ---' ', . •' f1L• :. :�••_ is • t' I 4 _ 12"- . CONCR�ET�E'FOO ING .. :T0 24",BELOW GRADE;-; • 2 ,NCP $ICsN,DETAIL ' A0.1 1 a„I,_m” - .. ,. x. . • s •. -.s St •7. cv ! moX ' s _12.4. fite% Av•-•:,541:1-.e ry ,t.r--; �, b y �,r ': —." :�f .5, 1.4 `6 R ' .� 14r• S ' L 7 _V �y r 1-* Y-"--Z Via'•;• t. t•tii. t2:f .�rr r . - ':-. t'•?.. .. f a li;t ,dA.-;,X 20'3 i' • O 4 Z .q F/..•••• .* \ . -1;." Ike - • e .511111 UM itIt \ i ,. s er D �R �` ..... \ t....t li 1 t I. ' ‘i 1 i :.'2•01'.•.'-1 10411i*:41 240,5 lil . so, . _ .\ _ . . . ._ ,4 .. _ • . 11 _0�*04:4000eeaee v i SIO 7... aI ,_WA----I 1*----: t. g 02.0 �eee - O•ee�. i� 'x �. e�le �e , ee\\ J3 ee , -tom it3 •,...... II_/01,...alp IOW ISTIO tfi ee. 7 o, I \\\ \ P P o 0I "I9 x \ ' I t \ at I I I I •r i I I1 b o ve `rat � a lI IItI � li______T___________:01 m - - — gr . l , fN.— 1Z 1- 1 I 1 i 1 I I lilt L10.1 , 111Ei-�t�EMEIffii 4 • 1111 !F?'L1Iuu = i e kmEns ■ um y ■�� m fit; C 3 C 4 ME 4 .. EIi �i� wsti NOTICE OF PUBLIC :: �� mu 1111111 ■outicib 1��,�1 c9t��11' c HEARING - =III 1111111 1111Is!�` 1i111iiia-� PLANNING COMMISSION ••.- ,r,,,.::-:� MEETING ��s: . Wednesday, July 17, 1996 _ at 7:00 p.m. 11111.111111��i■ ',Fv'C0 11 City Hall Council Chambers _ • �� 690 Coulter Drive -.r%' so 100 02 Project: Site Plan Review State Hw 5 `�.�e!:�1� ■ Ati ��11i(a� ;i • Developer: Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey •c ft' 4n�. Ark Location: 501 West 79th Street =Mff, , tik,1111 ay alibi owiAitOiii°k �i�iW�1. �w r -� '" � lirir►� Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Roman Roos/Mike Ramsey, is requesting a variance to the parking lot setback requirements and sign plan review for a 10,000 square foot retail facility on 1.06 acres of property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located at 501 West 78th Street, Hiway 5 Centre. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 4, 1996. Chanhassen Inn Amoco American Oil Co. 531 West 79th Street Property Tax Dept. Waterfront Associates Chanhassen, MN 55317 200 E. Randolph Dr. MC 2408 440 Union Place Chicago, IL 60601-7125 Excelsior, MN 55331 Ralph Molnau& Ronald Dubbe B. C. Burdick Holiday Station Stores 356 3Y2 Street West 684 Excelsior Blvd. 4567 80th Street West Waconia, MN 55387 Excelsior, MN 55331 Bloomington, MN 55437 Brown's Standard Michael Sorenson Dr. Stephen Benson 7900 Great Plains Blvd. 7905 Great Plains Blvd. 500 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Kitchen & Bath Chanhassen Vet Clinic Cheers Wine & Spirits 440 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street 530 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Big A Auto Parts . • VIr. John Przymus • vew Revolutions 404 West 79th Street _ - -- 406 West 79th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 J, lo, CITY CF 0 4 CHANI1ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator DATE: July 17, 1996 SUBJ: Coulter Boulevard Phase II Wetland Alteration Permit 96-6 BACKGROUND This wetland alteration is part of an upgrade of a City project which will extend Coulter Boulevard from Bluff Creek Elementary School to McGlynn Road. This road extension will cross the Bluff Creek and Stone Creek both of which run north to south. The Bluff Creek crossing on Coulter Boulevard is proposed to be a 60 inch pipe to convey the creek under the road, Bluff Creek feeds into a larger wetland complex at this point,before continuing south. This wetland is a Type 2, seasonally flooded ag/urban basin. The impact to this wetland will be 0.60 acres. This permit application includes the impacts of an extension of Stone Creek Boulevard which will also cross the Bluff Creek. This proposed crossing would fill 0.12 acres of the same wetland affected by the proposed Coulter Boulevard extension. This road project would be completed as a separate project by a private developer. It is important to emphasize that this Wetland Alteration Permit includes impacts as the result of crossing the Bluff Creek and no additional impacts to the wetland are proposed with the construction of Stone Creek Boulevard. As a result of these wetland impacts, the City has proposed a wetland mitigation plan that would create acres of new wetlands along the creek north of the crossing, and completing the 2:1 mitigation requirement by a combination of upland buffers and Public Value Credits from the City's wetland bank. In addition to the wetland replacement,the plans would provide 0.90 acres of upland vegetation restoration and a rock weir structure to promote fish travel along the creek. WETLAND IMPACTS The proposed impacts of this project will affect a Type 2,Ag/urban wetland basin which is part of the Bluff Creek Watershed. This wetland is area that has previously been altered due to agricultural practices. It is now a partial drained wet meadow wetlands dominated by reed canary ----- , l .._J A . 'ii,, 1 II i Ce LA r,,..._,�_ .� ' I I A ..... ..... 11P midi <,), 1 415,- HARR,SON LAKE LUCY= LaKE .0,4 K Q: N 11111km.., LAKE ANN 4„„ =MN 4111111r r STONE IIi 4 BLUfF CREEK CREEK -----.----1---- ----2) �l _ _ _ Hwr 5 k_ , ,------ .•_,_ , .., , , , .. 1 ) „ .; , .. , ,. 4 .......„...„. PRO , 01 i, ��I1ECT 1 ! �f/ ///�0LOCATIO .'i I X!' . # .6 , �'� '� SID ADDITIc ' • 52NC -- PROPOSED CONS 'I .� ilh� \ I: '1-\1. -74 f \ osse� - ,,.�J �� I tk: cttr� ,, F ha�h � �� }� of n�� cc ., ,....,,, _ T_ C.S.AH. 18 • r db Indo, q�II °:11111111i111117;at%611 1 Q �Itot Vr• nr05 •.;aaI fo 4;040. 511( i 1.. AIFAIINI J C. A.H. 15 1 0 1 C 2CCC Scce to .feet illik I LOCAL-STATE-FEDERAL WATER RESOURCE PROJECT NOTIFICATION APPLICATION n Bonestroo Rosene • vil Anderlik & PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 Associates CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN K:\393\39335\39335w01.DWG MAY 1996 COMM. 39335 Coulter Boulevard July 9, 1996 Page 2 grass and clumps of sand bar willow that acts as an overflow for the Bluff Creek in this area. This wetland is approximately 5.6 acres in size. The impact as the result of this proposed project is 0.72 acres. As mentioned above,this proposed project impacts a wetland connected to the Bluff Creek. The Bluff Creek is approximately 6.6 miles long,beginning in the northwest corner of Chanhassen and exits into the Minnesota River floodplain. Currently the Bluff Creek Watershed is the subject of an intensive water resource management plan being prepared by a committee of concerned citizens, developers,watershed district representatives and City staff. The focus of the study is to develop a local vision for future development and natural resource management in the Bluff Creek Watershed . This study has proposed recommendations for this area to preserve its natural qualities as the surrounding areas become developed. ANALYSIS • In reviewing this plan, there are two areas City staff is concerned with; that the plan is consistent with the Surface Water Management Plan and the Wetland Conservation Act, and that the plan is consistent with the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan. Staff has reviewed this plan and has found that it meets the requirements of both the City's Surface Water Management Plan and the Wetland Conservation Act. The replacement of wetland loss will be provided at a ratio of 2:1. The wetland impacts of 0.72 acres will be replaced with the creation of 0.72 acres of new wetlands upstream of the proposed impacts,yet in the same wetland complex. The remaining 0.72 acres of wetland replacement will be completed with upland buffer and 0.18 acres of Public Value Credits from the City's wetland Bank. Although the project proposes to create 0.90 acres of upland restoration, WCA rules allow only 0.54 acres to be allowed as mitigation credits. The City has applied to the necessary regulating agencies, soliciting comments and permits where needed. Ideally,the City would like to see wetland impacts replaced with wetlands of equal or higher quality at a two to one ratio. This practice provides extra storage to the affected watershed, improves water quality in the City's watershed and replaces wetland areas filled by previous development. To accomplish this replacement at this site,we believe that other natural areas would be sacrificed. To preserve these natural areas,we recommend that the remaining 0.18 acres be mitigated through upland buffers and the City's wetland bank. In developing this plan the city has also considered recommendations by the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan. The plan recommended that this area be targeted for improvements in the forested areas as well as vegetation restoration. The proposed wetland mitigation will provide 0.90 acres of upland vegetation to improve the creek's buffer. The plan also proposes removal of existing reed canary grass and reestablishing emergent vegetation. At Coulter Boulevard July 9, 1996 Page 3 the request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, a rock weir structure will be constructed to promote fish travel and spawning in the creek. The management plan also recommends a wildlife travel corridor along the creek under Highway 5 and under roads crossing the creek. This plan provides a wildlife corridor east of the recommended area under the Stone Creek crossing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 96- 6 subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan requirements. 2. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, The DNR and the Bluff Creek Watershed district. 3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the existing wetlands. 4. The applicant review the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Watershed steering committee and incorporate the recommended improvements into this plan. Specifically, determine the best location for the proposed wildlife corridor." ATTACHMENT 1. Reduced plan. G:Seng\philliplwedandslpenmits\coltzwap.doc i �� 11', 0 p y uognpn y °civ° I -J� `J` .7*".ill., mQQQ W W ¢ 61° S I � �V .�I rJ lll/ W 1 W u c6' 6 (7 ��1--1 �a� C �;F _Z s o O's 0 31 � I, • 11 ge01 i:W i a' .2 i 000_olo o � (� y`�li��' U � i g2#„d g W i i t ,,10 l t<'< d :41 a W• 2 Z <a ( • 5 � \, i II ` . — ee o I � �111)V--.....:i C`Y • I 1 I -•\ �� 1)L__... 11 (1 I - - — -� , I I , � I I � 8701 ► WY OilV d' 1 I I I I II 111 1 7-------------"ou lL O � i .=.:. 'Igl,rrirjeat - tA';',.! \ ,;1 I ,,q'�' I I 1 4.. filY) 4 jpr 4 OZ I a ,..,„,.--F2l�l � � J�� I a 1 �l1 ip � 7 f 0 ,, 1 ate„-�r1�tr. I 4 Y ill • titil � � 2/ Ln ff� � A� ` 1OI11116 1 z 'T • - 1 vii''''' ---:'•-..I 6, Y..-, ;'A‘,--,,.--------'''' 0 - li....z. Ilk a\„„ ,,, ,,....4, .,1 ,. .. . 10,\,,01 ,. . . ..... ._: , 4,,,,.... ,..: ..,„,„; , : , ....::::, ,-:::::"X---------4-1 lk. - --0„ ?.1 :. .;--.. 11 I coa z 0 2 a tl ' '1...... ..L..''----...u..j— ::_ 4- a O - z • 1 _:_::I 41 < > 0) i. Q i= VI w U a G .1 ... :: ilii% .. I i: Ili • o• Q p = •,;."' _____A ..., I0 ,; I I � • i;li 4 co � G z ix li n J.J 4 Q •-^- •• aavn3inoe a3nno0 R,r .... •• .>.•.,.....•., OOJI "°8 V10S3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVH3 i— =r- • it !i - IN.40t b,lei 7i (;;t; it,* _________ Adillift kt. 11"", s s e is; -g� 11 =.11\1 1111 i It 1.g t i .1 • - • • • --- - • •• --- (--;iej /i 1 al gsX : a ; CO :d Is lir.F.Y / e i' 41 W 1..) O 1.1 € Yte : a.is : -co V x1 W 'coN a i•. �❖•�i � li 1010001L4P,,,,,46..* -.40.: li o g + S S' ' L .. Y y • O v W I �i•�(4::$:::4� !' 111 tr) z D ;m.. Z m VI 1,•••••• L•i•Q 5y / : g Y :.1 b L ! ! 4 w s z ti ►��'•.•[►yi i�•I .) v- W S A x 4 U U w oN� .��0.i Ar /�� f7/.ay', 9,c7....... a • CDS 4M••••;:• y ' /• e. " O. •• ,O ./ y 1• ti • 0. Aiiiitire . /540,,,i,'" W W 12 74,4%", IP 1 ilec7/.•S> I.6.1 CD W 0 f// 1,(61/1.4:1 2 LeC Fr :Z' filfrei ,, %/ f�let!: 4D CDO Z in z1111 �'�• 11 %.4:4 • Q N Q ,/41 %� .�••�•y\ VI WZ 0 iv ,'.:Ifs.11::\ 41 j gel 4004. ▪0• i 1111 ••f�i'41.04r• /,�� VVV��/��n•.�i�A'. - ��•.l '1, ' ..im\ , ,,-,•.;6.::.;.s. K.4:.!..-allik m, 1 I 1'.411'.1-Ye . ..•.•::::' ,i,::-. mi. ,,,,,, ,, „.4,..,,,,,, . 1 , Air 1 isid �� n oif ill ^psi!�� IULL1Wtf, ,.. ,I R .► - $, y --r — --Ye.. .;, ..I.1&I ,...a rt.1. �.... .s sa0en055y1.'_4► esz-t61oroad N ..—_ _ --Z..: Mr"'' ?..C' 9 'I'Iuopuv iiv130 813M 7U0H "V) auacoa`�(,� 421v�31f100 21311f10� , ooitsauop FT V10S3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVHO ,_ U I I -s- .,...? I 1>., I- Z W WL E., cc a A-,i.J t 1f rc na. A u 3 11.11 J 1 Cele- -7 2 R03Iv ab 2 P i�® -. A In Y - �111 -- . w U o CC 4.1111111 al Ix 0 _f_c 1 , ._____ _. (..._) V dill N 1 � z o2_ __ _____ % • 3 Y w N _ __. ___. a .a C- JIA 0 _ - ¢ o Q 3 U .a oa W J W a \.. W N ... N 1 — -c - IN ar :5• '0 IIII i no. U c„. .. - -- Ili z • fir) • U ai w k ''OP a qt... N V N N=o of a A `. I _ z - —o--—a -ry - ON _jll W a-< n 3 0.5 y 4.1-13C- Y �N W Q U rc z ,... ON P All as i ZWW Z 0 3=0 _11110 liajlini. _ J� .J U N _ SVZO= Yel III• ` Wo �` o; 4„deo/oo •ro :to iI O ce ZJl ` • ff OV>SZ• ' 00 � W co_,,_,, Cff _ tt _ N 1! II — .i V_—__— fgz z3ZZa t W oIIii z i Q 2, s°� _ • 0x ,0uoi o 41p.w Faoamv, Q• •- oz u• >a ---- ...—----- --- - —O - o ____ "4 f h N —_ I N d, , i ,L--,,,54, ii iiir 4, :. NOTICE OF PUBLIC �,` - , ali• le HEARING kW �� Awn PLANNING COMMISSION -� MEETING A .., Wednesday, July 17, 1996 1.. i e at7:00p.m. I t a. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Driver-T; :;7 • Project: Wetland Alteration Permit , ° ., EECT :� �� __ r. ._,,;___ LOC TIO' 1 I I �1�"' $ Developer: City of Chanhassen - PROP• o cons ••; Vail& AI ; c � ~, Location: Between Bluff Creek - =, ;'li i tee'' r Elementary School and :� `�� •s Audubon Road :s•. a:-.§,--b, t...:,..- • /i__Li Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, the City of Chanhassen is requesting a wetland alteration permit for Coulter Blvd. Phase II Improvement Project 93-26B. The project proposes to fill a 0.72 acre Type 3 ag/urban wetland and mitigate by creating 1.42 acres of Type 3 natural wetland. This work would be done as part of the proposed Coulter Blvd. Phase II road improvement project located between Bluff Creek Elementary School and Audubon Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Phillip at 937-1900, ext. 105. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 4, 1996. /(q1740 Hi Way 5 Partnership L. T. Conway Larry VanDeViere, et al do Dennis Dirlam 4415 Fremont Ave. 4980 County Road 10 15241 Creekside Court Minneapolis, MN 55409-1742 Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gray& Julie Maanum Richard Frasch James & Vicki Finley 8040 Acorn Lane 8000 Acorn Lane 8001 Acorn Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark Foster Ms. Liv Homeland Heritage Development 8020 Acorn Lane Land Group 450 E. County Road D Chanhassen, MN 55317 123 North Third Street, #300 St. Paul, MN 55117 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Mr. David Clough • Chaska School District#112 110600 Village Road Chaska, MN 55318 CITY O FCHANIIASSEN PC DATE: July 17, 1996 \\ CC DATE: August 12 1996 CASE #: 95-2 PUD, 96-LUP, . /--4 e STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for Comprehensive Land use plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 307,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 Z sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to Q PUD, Planned Unit Development; Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public 0 right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW) findings; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres. 0.. C-- LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services P (lRm. 215 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP and RSF ACREAGE: gross: 66 acres DENSITY: 322 residential units INTENSITY Commercial - 247,000 sq. ft /office - 203,600 sq. ft. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-BH, Highway 5 S - RSF E -BN and PUD W- IOP, Rosemount QWATER AND SEWER: Available to site [] PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Lowland hardwood forest, wetlands, steep slopes, significant elevatio'i change. W �--- 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial and Institutional north of Great Plains Boulevard; High Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul-de-sac; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard; Medium Density Residential and Office west of Highway 101 r--' | Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 307,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development; Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres. The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a commercial-office-residential (mixed use) activity center which compliments the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character,using both on and off-street and underground parking and traditional architecture of midwestern vernacular character. The village core(Sector I)will be characterized by small one and two story retail/office structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional,vernacular architecture. With the addition of upper level apartments, structures may be increased to three stories with street level office/retail. Buildings will have a mixture of pitched and flat roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the public way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls. The Highway 5(Sector II)component of the development proposes the use of smaller one story building pads of 5, 000 - 15,000 square feet with the exception of the motel/hotel building that will be up to three stories with a larger building footprint. The institutional (Sector III)component is located in the eastern part of the site portion of the site. The area is the relocation site for St. Hubert's Church and school. The building will consist of two stories and a total building area of 100,000 square feet at buildout. The residential/office(Sector IV)component of the development consists of condominium type high density on the western portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories, four plus a loft,with underground parking. An potential office site is located in the northern part of the site. The office building would be limited to two stories. As an alternative,the office building could be replaced with a third condominium. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 3 of the parcels, maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. An open space component exists in the southern portion of the site below the existing city trail system. The applicant is proposing that these areas be utilized for active recreational uses, tennis courts and a soccer field. Staff believes that a greater benefit would be achieved for the community if these areas were left in a more natural state, preserving the majority of the trees and the topography of the area. The applicant is proposing an environmentally sensitive development of the site that will retain major hardwoods,preserve steep slopes, and protect and enhance wetland areas. This will be accomplished through limitations on building pads,providing underground parking, vertical development of the structures, and the preservation of open spaces. Due to the scope of the project, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for this project. (The project scored a ratio of 2.5; scores in excess of 1.0 require mandatory EAW.) The project is just below the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (score of 0.96 with a mandatory EIS for scores in excess of 1.0). Summary of EAW Issues Project Description: The site is generally open space with the exception of TH 101/Market Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard and one existing residence. The site consists of a mixture of wetlands, brushland, woodland, and some open grassland. The site has been previously disturbed by human activity such as cultivation, grazing, logging, and road construction. Areas of significant slopes, in excess of 12 percent, are scattered throughout the property with two areas adjacent to Lake Susan that meet the city's bluff ordinance definition. Directly to the north of the site is TH 5 and downtown Chanhassen. Most of this area is developed with commercial uses. West of the site is developed with light industrial/office use. Lake Susan, Riley Creek, and Rice Marsh Lake are located south of the site along with single family residential lots. East of the site consists of single family residential and commercial developments. The proposed mixed use development incorporates office, retail, a church/school, hotel, restaurants and residential units within a village area. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses. Wetlands and storm water: A wetland delineation was completed in November 1995 using the 1987 Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Eight wetlands were identified within the site and delineated in the field. Based on the proposed master development plan, five wetlands would be impacted by the project, two of which would be completely filled. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 4 The site plan reduces wetland impacts by avoiding four wetlands and by incorporating several wetland areas into the site design. The two DNR Protected Waters, wetlands 3000 and 4000, will not be impacted by the project. Wetlands 1000 and 8000 will also be avoided. A total of 2.44 acres of wetland is impacted by the proposed project. Six storm water detention basins with an area of approximately two acres will be constructed on site. All of the pond areas are located adjacent to or upstream of existing wetlands. The storm water ponds will minimize water quality and quantity impacts to the wetland areas by controlling the amount of bounce, i.e., the rise in the water level during storm events, and by filtering nutrients and sediments in storm water runoff. Storm water treatment ponds are to be constructed in six locations to treat virtually all site runoff before entering into any wetlands, lakes or creek. Wetland mitigation is proposed at a ratio of 2:1 for the wetlands being impacted. Sequencing will need to be discussed with the permitting agencies and appropriate alternatives will need to be reviewed. On site mitigation areas are being considered for wetland replacement with the potential for the creation of 1.3 acres of wetland creation. These wetland mitigation areas will require the removal of existing tree canopy. Tree coverage: Young woodlands cover approximately 26 acres of the site. A tree inventory was completed for the site to determine the number and species of significant trees on site. A significant tree is defined by the City of Chanhassen as any tree greater than a 12 inch diameter at breast height(dbh). The survey identified 464 trees with a dbh of 12 inches or greater. The majority of these trees are cottonwood, poplar, willow or boxelder(51 percent). Roughly eight percent are red or bur oaks. The remaining trees are a mixture of elm, ash, basswood, red cedar, hackberry, and silver maple. The canopy coverage for the site was estimated based on 1994 aerial photography from DNR Forestry. The total canopy coverage was calculated at 26 acres which represents 42 percent of the site. Based on the city's tree preservation ordinance, development of the site would need to preserve a minimum of 10.4 acres of canopy area to avoid the tree replacement requirement. If less than the required minimum canopy coverage is preserved,than tree replacement plantings are required at a ratio of 1.2:1 for the canopy coverage area being removed with a planting requirement of 40 trees per acre. Due to the grade change of nearly 100 feet from north to south within the site, preserving existing trees while preparing the site for urban type development is difficult. The plan preserves canopy on the slopes adjacent to the lakes and creek-and just north of the trail. A total of 6.1 acres of canopy is area are being preserved. An additional one acre of canopy area is removed if wetland mitigation is done on site. Based on the city's tree preservation ordinance and without additional Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 5 tree preservation or loss, the development would be required to provide replacement plantings of 206 trees. Traffic: A traffic operation analysis of the proposed development was completed to document the intersections affected by the proposed development, to estimate the average daily traffic with the proposed development, to identify capacity limitations, and to identify potential mitigative measures. Regional access to the site is provided east and west by TH 5 and north and south by TH 101. Local site access is through TH 101 (Market Boulevard) on the west and Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East on the east. The analysis demonstrates that the change in operations from the existing conditions at the intersection along TH 5 are not solely due to the proposed development. The background traffic growth in the area accounts for 45 to 65 percent of the traffic forecast at the two TH 5 intersections. Even withouth the project generated traffic, traffic volumes are expected to be near or over capacity due to background traffic growth. The traffic analysis concluded that the predicted traffic generated by the site does not significantly change the level of service that would occur without the project. Mitigation measures suggested do not alleviate the problem. The source of traffic congestion is beyond the control of this project. Traffic mitigation would require the provision of an alternate traffic system o TH 5 such as proposed TH 212. Conclusion: There appear to be no significant environmental issues requiring further investigation prior to project commencement. Required on site utility and transportation improvements will be designed and constructed as part of the project. The wetland loss will be mitigated in full compliance with city, state, and federal requirements. Tree loss will be replaced pursuant to the city tree preservation ordinance and site plan landscaping requirements. The project has been planned to minimize future environmental impacts and will be constructed with significant emphasis on control of erosion and sedimentation control. Staff believes that there are numerous potential benefits for mixed use projects. A mixed use development would be unique to the city and would provide a focal point on the fringe of the downtown area and additional vitality to the community. The village concept provides a pedestrian friendly environment and the provision of transit services where people can live, work, and play, elements which are found in neotraditional development principals and the livable communities act. The applicant has prepared a well conceived, distinctive, creative and well balanced development proposal. However, the following issues still need to be addressed and articulated to more fully meet the goals of neotraditional, new urbanism ideas: Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 6 1. The building pads for the smaller commercial buildings in Sector II are not fully integrated into the development. These buildings should be located in closer proximity to the Sector I development, creating a secondary pedestrian plaza area parallel to Lake Drive. 2. Pedestrian circulation, especially in Sector II, is disjointed and inconvenient, being lost in a sea of parking. 3. Traffic control devices, road geometrics, and turning movements need to be more closely investigated. The city has submitted the traffic study prepared as part of the EAW to Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. for review and comment. 4. The areas proposed for soccer fields and tennis courts should remain in their natural state or be used for the benefit of the environment, not indiscriminately destroyed. We believe that an alternate location in closer proximity to the school is appropriate for the soccer field. 5. Additional wetland preservation can be achieved in wetland 2000 through redesign of this area. 6. Jurisdictional authority for Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 101 will need to be resolved before the public vacation of these areas can be processed. The comprehensive plan does not prohibit commercial development outside the existing central business area; rather, it states that fringe development would be minimized until the central business district was largely completed. Currently, there exists approximately 12 acres of vacant commercial land within the downtown area. Of this land, approximately eight acres is not currently under review for development in the near future (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition and Lot 2, Block 3, Park Addition, and Lot 1, Block 6, Hidden Valley Addition). In addition, there is approximately six acres of land that could be redeveloped. In 1991, the city had a supply of 118 acres of vacant commercial land within the Municipal Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. This 118 acres was anticipated to be adequate commercial land to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995. As can be seen,this land will be rapidly exhausted. The comprehensive plan goal is to provide a mixture of development assuring a high quality of life and reliable tax base. While there is no magic formula for determining the amount of commercial land that is appropriate for a community,the appropriate amount of commercial or industrial land for Chanhassen is a function of the community's vision, its needs, the ability to transition between uses, infrastructure availability, and the trade area. Based on staff review of other communities, it appears that the comprehensive plan has an insufficient amount of commercial land at the current rate of approximately 2 percent of the land area(272 acres). "The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future"(Land Use Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 7 Element page 24). A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3 and 5 percent commercial land area at buildout which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial land. While there is no definitive amount of commercial land that should be located in a community, based on staffs review of available literature, a target of approximately five percent commercial land may be a reasonable amount(The Community Builders Handbook, "Recent Land Use Trends in Forty-Eight Large American Cities"and "Bringing Land-Use Ratios into the `90s"). Currently, the city has approximately 2 percent of its land area guided for commercial uses. An additional 8 percent of the land area is guided for office and industrial uses. From a tax standpoint, non-residential development and land constitute approximately 15 percent of the total valuation in the city. Within Carver County, the 1995 valuation and taxes are distributed as follows: VALUATION TYPE VALUE PERCENT Residential $789,043,100 86% Apartments $ 11,117,000 1% Commercial $118,836,600 13% TOTAL $918,996,700 100% TAXES TYPE TAXES PERCENT Residential $12,524,126 69% Apartments $ 356,325 2% Commercial $ 5,282,228 29% TOTAL $18,162,679 100 Chanhassen's land use goal is to"achieve a mixture of development of mixture [sic] which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base." A specific policy states: "Recognizing that some uses pay their way in terms of the property taxes they generate and some uses do not, Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of development which will assure its financial well being." As can be seen by the above valuation and tax distribution, this mixture has not been reached. While the city is moving in a positive direction to achieve a reliable and mixed tax base and this gap will continue to be reduced based on vacant commercial and industrial land, we still remain overly dependent on residential development for taxes. The specific benefits that may accrue to the community through the expansion of commercial uses within the Ward property include expansion of the non-residential tax base,provision of additional commercial and service opportunities for Chanhassen residents, especially those south of Highway 5, creation of a unique development entity(mixed use development) within the Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 8 community, provision of opportunities for complementary commercial development for the downtown area, and maintenance of the downtown area as the commercial heart of the community. In order for the city to provide a full range of shopping opportunities for Chanhassen residents, additional retail space should fill niches that are not currently available in the community. Some examples are apparel and accessory stores, specialty stores, upscale restaurants,and personal services. In addition, within commercial areas, office users can be located. There are very few areas in the community where high density residential development could be done. Additionally, the multi-family within this development is strategically located adjacent to an office and commercial area. Staff believes that it will be somewhat easier to develop affordable for sale housing and very difficult to have rental housing built. Staff therefore believes that without a commitment to the provision of rental housing within the Villages proposal, then there is not sufficient benefit to the community to warrant the granting of a PUD for this project. Staff is recommending that the preliminary project approval be granted with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report. BACKGROUND On December 11, 1995, the City Council granted conceptual approval of PUD#92-1 Villages on the Pond sketch plan stamped received December 5, 1995 with the following conditions: 1. The retail/services uses shall be considered to be limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the building area within the 20 acre parcel located in the central portion of the site. The retail/service uses shall be support commercial to the office, residential, and institutional uses. 2. The uses for the 9.2 acre parcel of land adjacent to Lake Susan shall be limited to office and medium density residential uses. 3. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east-west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD or be used to meet non-impervious surface coverage for the entire project. 4. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 9 5. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, maximum building square footage, and the proposed specific uses. 6. The applicant shall better define the"vernacular"to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. 7. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. 8. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. 9. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 10. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. 11. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining public streets shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East will require an 80-foot wide right-of-way and the southerly loop street a 60-foot wide right-of- way. 12. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and approval. 13. The applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. 14. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 15. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 16. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 10 17. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. 18. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act(WCA)and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator,wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 19. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 20. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 21. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. 22. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development. 23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report. 24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density(4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density. 25. No big box users shall be permitted within the development. Site Characteristics The site has rolling terrain with elevation changes from 967 in the north to 879 in the south. There are several areas of steep slopes exceeding 10 percent that are located throughout the property. The site is covered by lowland hardwood forest species. Areas of mature trees are interspersed with young trees and open fields. Wetlands are located throughout the site with Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 11 Riley Creek connecting Lake Susan with Rice Marsh Lake running across the southern quarter of the parcel. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting the rezoning approximately 66 acres from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are four components to the PUD: commercial, office, multi- family and institutional. 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 developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The applicant has expressed the desire to develop the site in an environmentally sensitive manner to protect slopes, existing vegetation, and wetlands. They propose to accomplish this through the limitation on the size and location of building pads on site, through the use of vertical development of sites, and through the use of underground parking to fulfill part of the required parking requirements as well as through shared parking within the site and provision of transit opportunities. While the northern portion of the site will be mass graded to accommodate the proposed urban development, a trade-off should be made to leave a part of the site untouched. The area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety in its natural state. The preservation of this area not only benefits the entire Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 12 community, but permits other areas of the site to be developed more intensively. In addition, this area provides a wildlife corridor between the two lakes. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The applicant is proposing a true mixed use development incorporating commercial, office, and residential opportunities. There is significant potential for preservation of natural features on the site including wetland, slopes, and woodlands. Ingredients that should be well-incorporated into the recipe for success of Villages on the Pond include shaded sidewalks and parking, fountains, shrub and flower beds, hanging flower baskets and open space. Landscaping, architecture and the visual avoidance of parking lots all work to pull communities together both physically and mentally. On the whole, the Villages concept works diligently to encompass these qualities, however, a breakdown occurs along the northern edge of the development near Highway 5. Here, sidewalks are lost in parking lots and storefronts will be hidden behind cars. Any continuity in the landscape is interrupted by the design of this area and the rhythm of the boulevard trees and store fronts sorely misses the beat. If the building locations are to remain as proposed, staff recommends that a clearly defined, well-landscaped walkway be created to re-connect the Highway 5 uses with each other and the rest of the development. The proposed development attempts to incorporate many elements of what is termed neotraditional planning, new urbanism, livable communities, or sustainable development. These elements are: • Providing a mix of lifecycle and affordable housing, shops, work opportunities, civic facilities within walking distance of each other and accessible by transit. • Developing sufficient common, community spaces. • Using to the projects advantage the character, culture,history and amenities of the community. • Linking the development to other parts of the community, not only for car, but also for pedestrians and bicycles. • Integrating natural, topographical, and environmental features into the design of the project. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 13 Finding. The proposed development provides a gateway to the downtown area from southern Chanhassen. As such, special sensitivity will be required of the development including incorporating the natural features of the site with urban scale development. Transitions will be provided through the preservation of natural areas on the south of the parcel. Buffer yard plantings shall be provided between the development and the single family residential uses to the east. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The proposed development is consistent with parts of the comprehensive plan as well as inconsistent with part of the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan amendment adding commercial uses to the site and providing office development in residentially guided areas will be required for this development to be approved. 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The applicant is proposing the incorporation of an extensive trail system within the development. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in its entirety in a natural state. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The applicant has expressed an interest in providing housing"affordable to the average two-income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park occupants." Staff will work with the applicant to clarify and define the affordable housing opportunities. As a beginning, staff suggests that we look at providing 50 percent of the ownership housing and 35 percent of the rental housing as affordable. 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The clustering of development, the mixing of uses, and the use of shared parking provide energy conservation. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 14 Finding. The applicant is proposing the construction of Lake Drive East through the project. This facilitates traffic movement envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Additional traffic control devices and roadway geometrics will be required Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: • Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lakes, trees, topographical features) • Sensitive development in transitional areas • More efficient use of land • Development of a high quality project, unique to the community and the region • A planned, unified mixed use project incorporating elements of neotraditional planning GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a commercial-office-residential (mixed use)activity center which compliments the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character,using both on and off-street and underground parking and traditional architecture of midwestern vernacular character. The village core(Sector I)will be characterized by small one and two story retail/office structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional,vernacular architecture. With the addition of upper level apartments, structures may be increased to three stories with street level office/retail. Buildings will have a mixture of pitched and flat roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows, and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the public way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs,canopies and low walls. The Highway 5 (Sector II)component of the development proposes the use of smaller one story building pads of 5, 000 - 15,000 square feet with the exception of the motel/hotel building that will be up to three stories with a larger building footprint. The institutional(Sector III)component is located in the eastern part of the site portion of the site. The area is the relocation site for St. Hubert's Church and school. The building will consist of two stories and a total building area of 100,000 square feet at buildout. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 15 The residential/office(Sector IV)component of the development consists of condominium type high density on the western portion of the site and low density on the southern portion of the site. The high density development would be limited to two building pads built in multiple stories, four plus a loft, with underground parking. A potential office site is located in the northern part of the site. The office building would be limited to two stories. As an alternative, the office building could be replaced with a third condominium. Building pads will be located in open or plateau areas of the parcels,maintaining existing vegetation and sloped areas. Underground parking shall also be incorporated into the site design to lessen disruption of the site. An open space component exists in the southern portion of the site below the existing city trail system. The applicant is proposing that these areas be utilized for active recreational uses, tennis courts and a soccer field. Staff believes that a greater benefit would be achieved for the community if these areas were left in a more natural state,preserving the majority of the trees and the topography of the area. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional, office, and residential uses. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to office as defined below. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. No single user shall exceed 10,000 square feet on a single level of a building. Office. Professional and business office,non-retail activity except for showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. Personal Services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of a person or his or her personal goods or apparel. Institutional. Establishments that are public/semi-public in nature. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 16 Commercial/Retail. Establishments engaged in commercial operations including retail sales and services and hospitality industries. Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the commercial/office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50 percent of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units,the city has adopted a goal of 35 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. For the ownership housing,the city has adopted the goal of 50 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. Personal Services dry cleaning beauty or barbershop shoe repair photographic studio tax return preparation laundromat health club optical goods computer services day care center Apparel and Accessory Stores shoe stores electronic and music store and musical instruments restaurant - no drive through restaurant - fast food only if integrated into a building no freestanding fast food and no drive through drug store/pharmacy book/stationary jewelry store hobby/toy game gift novelty and souvenir sewing, needlework and piece good florist camera and photographic supply art and art supplies, gallery sporting goods video rental Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 17 food stores including bakery and confectionery hardware store computer store in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. on one lot hotel/motel Office bank/credit union finance, insurance and real estate health services - except nursing homes and hospitals engineering, accounting, research management and related services legal services Institutional Uses church library education services day care art gallery dance studio Prohibited Uses: auto related including auto sales,auto repair, gas stations home furnishings c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply: Building Parking Great Plains Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C, 0' 0' Market Blvd.: Buffer yard& Setback C, 50' 20' Hwy. 5: Buffer yard& Setback B, 50' 20' Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback NA, 0' 0' Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 18 1 East Perimeter Side Lot Line(adjacent to D, 50' 50' residential): Buffer yard& setback West Perimeter Side Lot Line(adjacent to B, 50 20 industrial): Buffer yard& setback Buffer yards are as specified in the City of Chanhassen Landscaping and Tree Removal Ordinance, Article XXV. No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector roads. d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent.. 2. More than one (1)principal structure may be placed on one(1) platted lot. 3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - three stories (with residential loft)/50 ft. (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to two stories/30 feet), Sector II - three stories/40 ft., Sector III -three stories/40 ft., exclusive of steeples and bell towers, and Sector IV - four stories/50 feet 4. The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelling TOTAL sq. ft. Retail (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Units Sector I 114,500 * 70,500 @ 0 154 185,000 Sector II 60,000 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector III 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector IV 0 32,000 @ 0 112 @ 32,000 TOTAL 174,500 116,500 100,000 266 391,000 @ As an alternative,the office/service could be increase by 13,000 square feet in Sector I if the 32,000 square foot office building is deleted in Sector IV and replaced with 56 additional dwelling units. * Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 19 e. Building Materials and Design (Staff will be working with the developer to provide pictures to further articulate the design standards and definitions.) 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, "traditional" village character and the atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological tools of modern times. The village elevations shown on the PUD drawings are to be used only as a general guideline and the reflection of the overall village image including the north-midwestern architectural vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in design and facade treatment. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone,glass, stucco,architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block,cedar siding, or approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes and shall not exceed 10 percent of a wall area. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted,or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder")blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen,and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery,tanks, etc.,are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations,or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 20 8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory structures. 9. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 10. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. 11. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures: Sector I - minimum 70 percent of roof area shall be sloped, Sector II - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, Sector III - minimum of 50 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, and Sector IV - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped. An exception to this requirement are roof areas designed for human use such as decks, garden areas, patios, etc., which will not be counted towards flat roof area. 12. The following design elements should be incorporated into individual structures: Building Accents Towers, silos, arches, columns,bosses, tiling, cloisters, colonnades, buttresses, loggias, marquees, minarets, portals, reveals. Roof Types Barrow, dome, gable, hip, flat. Roof Accents Cupolas, cornices,belfries, turrets,pinnacles, look-outs, gargoyles, parapets. Window Types Bay, single paned, multi-paned,angular, square, rectangular, half-round, round, italianate. Window Accents Plant boxes, shutters,balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 21 13. Street level windows shall be provided for a minimum of 50 percent of the ground level wall area. f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. 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. 2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza area, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited. 4. Undulating or angular berms 3'to 5' in height, south of Highway 5 and along Market Boulevard shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. g. Signage 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at each end of Lake Drive and at the south end of Main Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. One project identification sign, with a maximum height of 28 feet, designed as a gateway to the project shall be located at the north end of Main Street. Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. Pylon signs are prohibited. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 22 2. All signs require a separate sign permit. 3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business district. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. 4. Projecting signs are permitted along Main Street and Lake Drive subject to the conditions below. Signage Plan and Restrictions Wall Signs 1. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 15 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of three inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination, wood, or metal. 2. If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign shall be back lit with neon tube illumination or through surface mounted, downward focused light fixtures. Letter styles shall reflect the period style of the facades and/or corporate logos. 3. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Projecting Signs 1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign. 2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. 3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate,logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen(15)percent of the sign display area. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 23 4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may not be self-illuminated but may be lighted by surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade. 5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant and my not exceed six square feet with a maximum thickness of six inches. Projecting signs may not exceed two feet in height and three feet in width. Letters shall have a maximum height of 12 inches. 6. Projecting signs shall be centered above the tenant entrance door, a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project more than six feet from the building facade. 7. Plastic, plexi-glass, clear plex, or similar material projecting signs are prohibited. 8. Projecting signs may be painted, prefinished, or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non- corrosive or ono-oxidizing materials. Menu Signs 1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. 2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. 3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Festive Flags/Banners 1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. 2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited. 3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric. 4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 24 6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. 7. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory 1. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed four square feet. Pole Directory Sign 1. Two pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional arrows may be located at the intersection of Lake Drive and Main Street. 2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk. 4. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole. 5. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide. 6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous developments, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the street system. 2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with an ornamental, natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for area lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting may be used in plaza and sidewalk areas. 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 25 5. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet. i. Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever possible. 2. A minimum of 75 percent of a building's parking shall be located to the "rear"of the structure and in underground garages. 3. Sector I: Shall be treated as a integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand thereafter. Residential uses shall provide 1.5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visitor spaces provided as part of the commercial/office uses. Sectors II, III, and IV: shall comply with city ordinance requirement. SUBDIVISION REVIEW BLOCK LOT AREA(sq. ft.) USE 1 1 152,471 motel/commercial 1 2 92,397 commercial/office 1 3 232,646 commercial/office/residential 1 4 92,047 commercial/residential I 5 75,391 commercial 1 6 221,137 commercial/office/residential 1 7 63,902 commerciallresidential 1 8 39,578 commercial/office 1 9 112,820 office 1 10 349,699 institutional 1 11 100,179 soccer field 2 1 117,324 office or residential 2 2 235,470 residential Outlot A 302,608 Lake Dr.,Main St.,pond Outlot B 328,760 preservation Outlot C 156,246 open space Lake Drive East 31,193 ROW Market Hwy 101 365,026 ROW Boulevard Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 26 Staff believes that Lot 11,Block 1 should be combined with Outlot B and be preserved as a natural area through deed restrictions or public dedication. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Until 20+ years ago, the Ward property appears to have been pastured which kept most vegetation at bay save for a few mature trees on the south end of the property. Since that time, natural vegetation has reclaimed the site and created a 56%canopy coverage. Indigenous species on site include ash, cottonwood, elm,boxelder, willow, oak, hackberry, and linden. The three more valuable landscape species, oak, hackberry, and linden, are more numerous on the southern half of the property and the larger trees of these species are concentrated on the southern end and west of existing highway 101. The majority of the canopy coverage, 77%, will be removed as part of the grading for the site. The remaining 6.1 acres, 23%of the total canopy is located mainly along Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Susan as well as within existing wetlands. The remaining coverage is below ordinance requirements by 4.3 acres. This area, when multiplied by 1.2, will be required to be replaced as 5.2 acres or 208 trees. The proposed landscaping plan is a framework for future development. Most trees will be installed as part of the individual site plans using the conceptual landscape plan as a guide. Exact ordinance requirements for parking lot and landscaping standards will be reviewed at the time of site plan review for the individual uses. Boulevard plantings for the overall will be required at a rate of one every 30 feet. Considering the road system in the development, most of the required 208 trees will be used in boulevard plantings. It will be necessary for individual sites to satisfactorily meet the quality and intentions of the proposed landscaping plan. Important considerations in all future landscaping at individual sites is the use of shade trees to create an inviting and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Parking lots, too, should encompass energy conservation principles of shade and wind protection using shade and evergreen trees in appropriate locations. In the proposed plan, the boulevards and adjoining sidewalks are tree- lined and parking lots appear to provide most of the requisite landscaping. Well-planned landscaping can pull people out of their cars and onto sidewalks and into parks. Areas need to be instantly perceived as safe, attractive, and welcoming in order to be used by individuals As stated earlier, much of the existing vegetation that is preserved is located near the lakes and in wetlands. However, some of the most valuable wooded and natural areas occur in an area scheduled to be developed as a soccer field. This southernmost section of the development is currently a forested hill that supports not only red and white oaks, hackberry, and lindens but also serves as a filtering systems for water entering Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Susan. Together with the piece of land to the west of 101, it is also the only natural corridor between the two lakes benefiting people by providing beautiful scenery along the bike trail and aiding animals with habitat and food. In the future, it will be a scenic escape from Highway 101 and a physical and visual transition between Villages on the Pond and the solidly residential areas to the south. In Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 27 every case, the remaining natural areas in otherwise developed areas become integral to the character of the community and serve to greatly enhance the neighborhood. According to Peter Calthorpe, author of The Next American Metropolis, "Sensitive site planning should be encouraged so that natural habitats are protected and natural features become in integral part of the community. These resources should be treated as key amenities, rather that as edges to developments." Removing a unique topographic feature such as the knoll with its oaks, lindens, and hackberrys for a soccer field would be treating it as the edge of the development, another blank space that must be filled in. PARKS AND RECREATION The Park & Recreation Commission met on September 26, 1995. They recommended that no development take place south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel. MISCELLANEOUS The plans show a number of buildings with exterior walls placed less than 20' from the property line. The building code, in most cases,requires that openings in walls less than 20' from the property or less than 20' from the center of a public way be protected. The building code defines a public way as "any street,alley or similar parcel of land essentially unobstructed from the ground to the sky which is deeded,dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and having a clear width of not less than 10 feet." Private streets and parking lots shown on the proposed development, with the exception of Outlot A,don't comply with this definition. If the developer wishes to avoid requirements for protecting openings or requirements for fire- resistive construction of exterior walls,buildings should be set back from property lines or the center of public streets as prescribed in the building codes. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. WETLANDS There are eight wetland areas identified on this site covering an area of approximately 18 acres. These wetlands have been delineated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City. The largest wetlands are Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake, both located on the southern edge of this site. These lakes are identified as DNR protected waters and are connected by Riley Creek which is also a DNR protected water. The areas adjoining these lakes are mostly undisturbed trees and wetland vegetation. Figure 1 identifies Rice Marsh Lake as Wetland 3000 and is located in the southeast corner of the site plan. Lake Susan is identified as Wetland 4000 directly west of Rice Marsh Lake. Neither of these wetland areas are to be impacted in the proposed plan. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 28 Additionally, upland buffer areas will be preserved adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining wetlands on site have been identified as ag/urban wetlands that are seasonally or temporarily inundated with woodland and/or herbaceous vegetation. Wetlands 1000 and 2000 are located at the north end of the site and receive overflow drainage from Trunk Highway 5. There are catch basins located in these areas to control the water levels which are connected to the trunk storm sewer system along Trunk Highway 5. Both of these wetlands currently have standing water and numerous dead trees located in their borders. We believe that historically this area had been effectively drained by draintiles. The proposed plan fills portions of Wetland 2000 and removes the dead trees and vegetation from this wetland and creates a open water permanently flooded-type wetland. The total proposed impact of Wetland 2000 is 1.13 acres. This wetland will continue to receive runoff from Trunk Highway 5 and also receives stormwater from the developed site. Runoff from the site will first be pre-treated in water quality ponds. There are no impacts proposed to Wetland 1000. Wetland 5000 is a small isolated basin on the north edge of the farmstead next to the driveway leading to Rosemount. This Type 1 ag/urban basin is 0.06 acres and appears to have been altered as the result of past construction. Wetlands 6000 and 7000 are also degraded ag/urban wetlands located in the center of the proposed development. These wetlands would be filled under the proposed plan. The largest of these wetlands, Wetland 7000, is a Type 1 basin that is connected to Wetland 6000 by a narrow ditch. Wetland 6000 has a 12-inch storm water pipe collecting runoff from Trunk Highway 101. Neither of these wetlands appear on either the City's Storm Water Management Plan's wetland inventory or the National Wetland Inventory Map. It is possible that they were created as runoff ditches for Trunk Highway 101. City staff recommends an investigation to their origin. Wetland 8000 is an ag/urban Type 1 wetland located on the northwest portion of the proposed development. Again, this wetland has similar characteristics as the other wetlands on site; degraded, previously drained due to agricultural activities on site. There are no impacts proposed to Wetland 8000. Riley Creek is a waterway which joins Lake Susan to Rice Marsh Lake. Currently, the existing Trunk Highway 101 crosses this waterway at a point where the stream runs west to east. The proposed re-alignment of this roadway, however, occurs at a point where the creek meanders from south to north. This proposed alignment will require significant mitigation or a sizable bridge to avoid impacts to this protected waterway. Because mitigation by realignment of the creek is a more practical solution than bridge construction, we recommend that a plan for development along this proposed roadway includes an area to accommodate creek realignment. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 29 Mitigation Summary The applicant has presented a site plan that proposes to fill 2.21 acres of wetlands in three separate basins. Of the wetlands proposed to be impacted, Wetlands 2000 and 6000 currently act as stormwater ponds, receiving runoff from Trunk Highways 5 and 101. The other wetland to be filled is Wetland 7000, which is a degraded ag/urban wetlands located in the center of the proposed development. These wetland impacts will fall under the jurisdiction of the Wetland • Conservation Act (WCA). Under WCA rules, the applicant must replace impacts to wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. Recent revisions to the WCA allow greater flexibility for wetland replacement. New wetlands must be created to replace the impacted area at 1:1 ratio, but the remaining replacement can be accomplished by a using public value credits, upland buffers, and stormwater treatment ponds. The applicant has presented a wetland replacement proposal that would create 1.21 acres of new wetlands on site, use 1.0 acre of new wetland credits from the City's wetland bank, create an upland buffer of 1.08 acres, and fulfill the remaining replacement with 1.13 acres of treatment pond credits. City staff has met with the applicant to resolve the wetland mitigation issues associated with this project. We believe that this project will benefit Chanhassen by providing a unique mixed use development. It is also City staffs' opinion that the wetlands proposed to be impacted are low quality wetlands that have been degraded as the result of previous use. It is because of these reasons that City wetland credits are being offered to accommodate wetland mitigation. In offering these credits we would also expect the applicant to preserve other natural features of the site and attempt to keep wetland impacts to a minimum. City staff will continue to work with the applicant provided unnecessary impacts to Wetland 2000 are avoided and a better effort is made to preserve natural areas to the south of the project. Buffer Strip Of the wetlands remaining on site, Wetlands 1000, 2,000, and 6000 are considered utilized wetlands with no buffer requirements. The buffer strip width for Wetland 5000 is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) Overview The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 30 storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use,and therefore,different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Because of the high percentage of impervious surface associated with this development,the water quality fees for this proposed development would be based on commercial land use rate of$5,909/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 41.8 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be$267,323.00. The applicant is providing 2 acres of NURP basins to treat runoff from this site. The construction of these ponds will reduce the water quality fee significantly. Final SWMP fees will be determined upon review of the final ponding and storm sewer calculations. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts,open channels,and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. High Density developments have a connection charge of$4,360 per developable acre. Parks and Open Spaces have a connection fee of$1,190 per acre. The calculated water quantity fees are based on 33.24 acres of high density development and 12 acres of parks/open spaces for a connection fee of $159,206.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The applicant will be charged SWMP fees for lots that are presented for final platting. Future phases of the development will be assessed charges when they are submitted for final platting. Erosion Control Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 31 Erosion control is high priority during the construction period. Staff requires an erosion control plan that meet the City's best management practices. Maintenance and upkeep of the erosion control system will be monitored and strictly enforced. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20-407) When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands through redesign of elements of the development. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands through revisions made to the plan to move structures and roadways away from wetlands. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storrnwater prior to entering the wetland. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 32 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. This wetland has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. GRADING The entire site with the exception of the development west of Trunk Highway 101 is proposed to be mass graded with Phase I to prepare the site for development. Site grading west of Trunk Highway 101 for the most part will not be able to occur until Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded and shifted to the east. The existing Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way is intended to be vacated in the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded, however, due to governmental jurisdictions (MnDOT), the actual turnback of the right-of-way may not occur until later this fall. This also holds true for Great Plains Boulevard. The proposed site grading appears warranted given the type of development proposed. However, there are a few areas on the site that need revisions. One area is along the east side of the development (Lot 10, Block 1 adjacent to Grandview Road). A series of retaining walls are proposed to contain the slope. In this area staff required a dedication of 17 feet of right-of-way for the future of upgrade of Grandview Road. This 17-foot wide area needs to be graded compatible with the future upgrade of Grandview Road. This results in shifting the slopes, retaining walls, and parking lot westerly approximately 25-30 feet. The plans also propose on grading a heavily vegetated knoll at the very south end of the project (Lot 11, Block 1) for a soccer field. Staff believes that this an inappropriate use for the property given the environmental status and topographic characteristics. In addition, there is no means of accessing the soccer field from a traffic standpoint. The nearest parking facility is approximately 450 feet away. Staff believes that this area should remain as an open space. The plans also propose to construct two tennis courts west of Trunk Highway 101 on the very southwesterly corner of the site adjacent Lake Susan(Outlot C). This area should be reserved for stormwater quality ponding to facilitate stormwater runoff from the development and future ponding needs from the south. The proposed building pad just north of the tennis courts on Lot 2,Block 2 proposes grading into the wooded hillside. Staff believes that this grading can be avoided by applying architectural design elements to the building such as a walkout-type structure or employing the use of retaining walls. The building immediately west of this building also has the same concerns. This building site is also adjacent to the bluff zone where bluff setbacks apply. Staff does realize that the applicant will be required to submit individual detailed Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 33 site plans for these lots at which time these issues may be further addressed and modified accordingly. The plans propose grading the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor which lies east of the existing Trunk Highway 101. Staff questions the grading impact to existing Trunk Highway 101 or is the intent to build this segment of Trunk Highway 101 at this time. Staff believes the upgrading of Trunk Highway 101 will be necessary with the buildout of the east side of Trunk Highway 101 (Block 1). The plans indicate that Trunk Highway 101 is to be improved by others assuming that this is the City, County, and/or State. The timeline for this construction may be five years down the road. Staff believes that a minimum of additional grading will be required along Trunk Highway 101 for auxiliary turn lanes, traffic signals, and/or storm sewer facilities to accommodate this development. This will be further discussed under"streets" in this report. At the south end of the parking lot on Lot 10, Block 1 (St. Hubert's Church/School site), a 12- foot highway retaining wall is proposed in an effort to save trees and grading south of the site. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered and building permits obtained through the City's Building Department. Construction of fencing on this high of a retaining wall is warranted and should be required. The grading for NURP Basin No. 4(Outlot C) along future Trunk Highway 101 will require rerouting a portion of Riley Creek and upgrading of Trunk Highway 101. This creek is the outlet for Lake Susan and drains into Lake Riley. This creek is protected waters and is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota DNR. The appropriate permits will be necessary for any alteration in this area. The City has an existing overland trail crossing Trunk Highway 101 just south of Great Plains Boulevard. With the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101 and development of the westerly portion of the site (Block 2), there may be an opportunity to construct a trail underneath Trunk Highway 101 to improve pedestrian traffic in the area. The grading plans should be revised accordingly to be compatible with this future improvement. A 20-foot wide trail easement should be conveyed to the City over the future trail alignment in conjunction with final platting. The plans also propose a series of stormwater treatment ponds which should be designed and constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for the first one foot of water depth or 4:1 side slopes overall. No berming shall be permitted in any public street or highway right-of-way. The City recently installed a 16-inch watermain along the east side of Trunk Highway 101. The applicant should verify with the project engineer that site grading will maintain a minimum of 7 feet of cover over the main. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 34 If draintiles are encountered during construction operations, the City Engineer should be notified to determine whether or not the draintile needs to be relocated, abandoned, or connected to the storm sewer system. DRAINAGE A series of stormwater pipes are proposed to convey stormwater runoff generated from the site to six stormwater quality ponds (NURP basins) for pretreatment prior to discharging into wetlands. Staff believes there may be an opportunity to combine NURP Pond No. 3 with NURP Pond No. 4 to reduce the number of ponds and provide more green space. This should be further evaluated by the applicant and staff in preparing a final grading and drainage plan. The plans propose on utilizing an existing storm sewer in Trunk Highway 101 at Lake Drive which conveys drainage temporarily to Wetland 6000. The intent is to reverse the flow of pipe and convert it to an outlet pipe for Wetland 6000. Currently, this storm sewer system is deadended just south of Lake Drive and will need to be extended along Trunk Highway 101 in order to function. Staff is also researching the wetland just south of Lake Drive and east of Trunk Highway 101. This wetland is not identified on the City's Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) or the National Wetland Inventory Map. This area may have been created as a result of the previous upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Currently, there is an existing stormwater pipe that discharges runoff from Trunk Highway 101 into the wetland which may have created the wetland characteristics. This will be further evaluated by staff prior to final plat approval. Detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations along with drainage maps for pre- and post- development conditions will be required for review and approval by the City prior to final plat consideration to ensure adequate storm drainage facilities are being provided. Storm drainage calculations should use a 10-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Ponding calculations should model for a 2-year, 10-year,and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Catch basin placement and ponding size will be further reviewed based on these calculations. Review of the drainage and ponding calculations may result in modifications to the drainage plan. The grading and drainage plans shall also include the high water levels of each NURP pond and wetland. City codes require the lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to these areas be a minimum of two feet above the high water level. Consideration should also be given for future stormwater to the site with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101 and Grandview Road. The northerly portion of Grandview Road will most like drain into this development given the topographic features. The applicant will be entitled to credits against their SWMP fees for the oversizing of the ponds and storm sewer system to accommodate future off-site runoff. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 35 The storm sewer system in this type of development is usually installed, owned, and maintained by the property owner and/or management group/homeowners association. However, given the size of the development and the impact to environmental features downstream, staff believes it would be prudent for the City to take over maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities and wetlands upon completion of the buildings on the site to ensure proper maintenance. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the ponds and wetlands and some of the trunk storm sewer system. Access to these ponding areas for maintenance purposes should also be considered. A minimum 20-foot wide drainage easement should be dedicated for access purposes. A drainage and utility easement should encompass the ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The remaining storm sewer facilities which lie outside public right-of-way or drainage and utility easement shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or their assignor. As proposed, NURP Basin No. 4 will not be able to be constructed until Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded and relocated to the east. The pond could be constructed with Phase I if the tennis courts are deleted. This NURP pond should also be sized to accommodate existing future runoff from the south along Trunk Highway 101. Again, credits will be applied to the applicant's SWMP for oversizing ponding areas. Credits will be calculated upon review of the final construction documents. The final grading plan should also include block numbers, lot lines, and proposed storm sewers with structure numbers. EROSION CONTROL The erosion control plan proposes silt fence around the perimeter of the site. Type III erosion control fence should be used adjacent to wetland areas and at the toe of steep slope areas such as at the south end of the grading limits. Consideration should also be given for temporary sediment basins during grading operations. Construction of the NURP basins should commence with the initial grading process to minimize impact to the wetlands. In some areas on the plan, the silt fence should be relocated to the grading limits to avoid unnecessary tree removal. Staff will be working with the applicant to relocate silt fence accordingly. Site restoration(topsoil, seed and disc mulched) should be a priority immediately upon completion of the site grading operation. Consideration should also be given to restore the steep slope area even before the remaining site grading has been completed to minimize erosion. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized on all slopes in excess of 3:1. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 36 UTILITIES Municipal utility service is available to the site from both Trunk Highway 101 and Great Plains Boulevard. A quick overview of the utility layout, specifically sanitary sewer and water lines, appears acceptable with a couple of adjustments. The proposed 8-inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of St. Hubert's Church should be extended along the secondary access road to the east property line for future extension along Grandview Road and looping of the water system. Since Grandview Road has a significant elevation difference from north to south, it is not feasible to serve the entire street from the south. It will be necessary to extend sanitary sewer service from Lake Drive. Sanitary sewer and water proposed in Lake Drive East adjacent to Lot 8, Block 1 shall also be extended to the northerly access to Grandview Road for future extension. Based on construction as-built drawings, sanitary sewer and water lines were extended in conjunction with Hidden Valley subdivision directly east of Grandview Road at the end of Dakota Lane to service the southern portion of Grandview Road. Typically, sanitary sewer and water lines in this type of development are owned and maintained by the applicant or property management group. However, given the size of the development and the impacts to the City's infrastructure and future service to Grandview Road residents, staff believes that all the sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building services should be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee compliance with the terms stipulated in the development contract. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final platting. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. Fire hydrant placement and revisions to the utility plan layout will occur during review of the construction plans and specifications. During construction of the utilities, the applicant's engineer shall provide on-site inspection services to certify upon completion that the utilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. As-built construction plans will also be required before acceptance of the utilities by the City. The site contains an existing home on Lot 1, Block 2 west of Trunk Highway 101. This structure will eventually be razed in conjunction with the development. The existing residential well will need to be abandoned per State health codes and sanitary service will also need to be disconnected at the main. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 37 Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the sanitary sewer and watermains. The easement width will depend on the depth of the sanitary sewer. At a minimum, a 20-foot drainage and utility easement should be dedicated over each line. STREETS Subdivision of this parcel will require the vacation of Great Plains Boulevard (Old Trunk Highway 101) and portions of Trunk Highway 101 (Market Boulevard). At this time, the City does not have the authority to vacate the right-of-ways since MnDOT has not formally turned back the road jurisdiction to the City and/or Carver County. The turnback involves a conglomerate of agreements that need to occur between MnDOT and Hennepin County, Carver County, Scott County, and the City of Chanhassen. These agreement are anticipated to be finalized and signed by MnDOT sometime this fall. Portions of this plat are dependent upon the vacation of these right-of-ways before being recorded. Streets within the subdivision are proposed to be private with the exceptions of Trunk Highway 101 (Market Boulevard) and a small portion of Lake Drive at the easterly end of the plat. During conceptual review of the development, staff indicated that Lake Drive is designated as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as listed as a Municipal State Aid Route. Therefore, the street would have to be built to State Aid standards. Given the issue of on-street parking and some unique aesthetic design elements, staff has re-evaluated its position. With the current design proposal, Lake Drive will actually function more as a main street for this development rather then a collector through street for the City. For this reason and given the type of unique pavement design, parking configurations and landscaping improvements, staff has decided to allow Lake Drive to be built, owned, and maintained as a private street. This will improve building setback requirements, construction costs for the applicant, and reduce maintenance demands on the City, i.e. snowplowing. As a result of this action, the City will need to request MnDOT to revoke the MSAS status. A small portion of Lake Drive at the easterly end of the project will be dedicated and built as a public street which will provide a new street access to Grandview Road. Currently, Grandview Road is a private gravel street serving six homes with the potential of further subdividing once sewer and water becomes available. A secondary access point is also being provided to Grandview Road through Lot 10, Block 1 (St. Hubert's Church site). The preliminary plat proposes to dedicate a 25-foot wide right-of-way along the east portion of the plat through Lot 8 and 10, Block 1. Upon review of the existing Grandview Road alignment, it appears the 25-foot wide right-of-way could be reduced to 17 feet, however, it needs to be extended southerly to parallel Grandview Road until Grandview Road turns easterly. This will impact the location of the retaining walls and parking as shown on Lot 10, Block 1. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 38 The preliminary plat is proposing to dedicate right-of-way for Lake Drive and the new access street to Grandview Road. Staff believes that the cul-de-sac street for Grandview Road can be reduced down to a 31-foot wide street with a temporary turnaround. The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36 feet wide, face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which access Grandview Road within the plat shall be construction to 31 feet wide,back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac with a 50- foot radius will also need to be constructed at the end of the public street (Grandview Road). Private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum 26-foot wide drive aisles. The development proposes to meet these drive aisle requirements with the except of the hotel/restaurant site where the narrative on the plans indicated 22-foot wide drive aisles in these areas. The drive aisles will need to be increased to facilitate turning movements, delivery vehicles, and public safety apparatuses. The plans are proposing full access points onto Trunk Highway 101 (Market Boulevard) at Lake Drive, Great Plains Boulevard (Main Street), and across from Rosemount's driveway. Staff has serious safety concerns with the full access across from existing Lake Drive given the close proximity to Trunk Highway 5 and existing roadway geometrics. Staff believes that a right-in, right-out only may be permitted after further traffic studies are compiled and reviewed by the City. A development of this size will require traffic control improvements along Trunk Highway 101 (Market Boulevard) and Great Plains Boulevard, as well as, Main Street. This includes constructing all or portions of future Trunk Highway 101 to four lanes with auxiliary turn lanes and traffic signals at Trunk Highway 101 and proposed Lake Drive. Staff is also concerned that eventually a traffic signal will also be warranted at Trunk Highway 101 and Main Street(access south of Lake Drive). Both traffic signals will require meeting a signal justification report prior to installation with MnDOT. All Trunk Highway 101 improvements will need to meet State Aid standards. MnDOT will also be required to approve all access points on Trunk Highway 101. A cost-sharing agreement for the installation of any traffic signals will need to be drafted. A breakdown of the cost participation would be based on jurisdictional entrance percentage. For example, a signal on Trunk Highway 101 at Lake Drive would be split 50% MnDOT, County or City, 37%Villages on the Pond, and Rosemount 12%. Depending on phasing of the development,traffic signals or improvements to Trunk Highway 101 may not immediately be warranted, therefore, staff recommends that the applicant set up a financial escrow account with the City to guarantee future modifications along Trunk Highway 101. The financial guarantee may be in the form of a letter of credit or certificate of deposit assuming that these improvements are not installed with Phase I. Upon review of the interior drive aisles and parking lots, staff has concerns with the northerly east/west drive aisle west of Main Street. This drive aisle will act as a thoroughfare for traffic. Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 39 The proposed parking stalls will create turning movements and pedestrian crossings which could lead to a potentially hazardous situation. Staff is recommending that the northerly parking stalls be eliminated and parking permitted only on the south side of the drive aisle adjacent to retail shops. These parking lot configurations will be further evaluated with the individual site plan submittals. For the most part, the main street drive aisle configurations throughout the development appears acceptable with the exception of drive aisles at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Great Plains Boulevard. At these intersections, the streets are narrowed down from 44 feet wide to 26 feet wide. Staff believes that an additional right turn lane will need to be incorporated which will increase the drive aisle width to 38 feet to accommodate the turn lanes. A right turn lane should also be constructed on northbound Lake Drive at Great Plains Boulevard. In conjunction with private streets, cross-access easements and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared by the applicant. The cross-access easements should also qualify the secondary access road for public use to Grandview Road. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for all public streets. The plans and specifications should be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and formal approval by City Council. Some of the plans indicate Lake Drive being dedicated with an 80-foot wide right-of-way. However, the preliminary plat indicates the street will fall within Outlot A which is proposed at 60 feet wide. This discrepancy should be resolved prior to final plat. Staff believes that Outlot A should be increased to 80 feet wide consistent with the site plan drawings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD#92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development(first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres subject to the following conditions: Villages on the Ponds July 17, 1996 Page 40 1. Applicant will be required to proved 208 trees as reforestation plantings. Trees are to be from the city's Approved Tree List. 2. All future site plans for the Villages on the Pond development will use the conceptual landscaping plan as a guide for numbers of placement of landscape plants including trees and shrubs. No individual uses will be allowed to provide less landscaping for the site than what has been included on the master landscaping plan. 3. Applicant shall provide a landscaped walkway between individual sites along highway 5 to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping if the building are not moved to the foreground of their parking lots. 4. The natural area and knoll in the southern part of the development and to the east of Highway 101 will be left as natural open space. 5. Minimum tree removal will be allowed for the tennis courts to the west of Highway 101. No clearings will be allowed for parking spaces. 6. The development shall comply with the development design standards included in the staff report and incorporated herein by reference. 7. The soccer field shall relocated to an area north of the proposed grading limits which are up the slope, north, from the existing city trail. This will require the reconfiguration of Lots 9 and 10, Block 1. 8. Grading shall be prohibited in the area between the bluff areas adjacent to Lake Susan. 9. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 foot intervals and fire hydrants shall be located at major intersections. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are known and how buildings are positioned on property. 10. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs_and yellow curbing. 12. The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 41 13. Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#29-1992 will be used as basic criteria for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project numbering on more than one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional signage. 14. Lot 11, Block 1 shall be combined with Outlot B and be preserved as a natural area through deed restrictions or public dedication. 15. Final grading plan shall incorporate the following changes: • Provide compatible site grades for the future upgrade of Grandview Road through Lots 8 and 10, Block I. • Delete soccer and tennis courts. • Relocate NURP Basin No. 4 westerly outside of existing Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way. Consider consolidation of NURP Basin No. 3 with NURP Basin No. 4 and oversize NURP Basin No. 4 to accommodate future stormwater runoff south of the development. • Adjust grading limits on Lot 2, Block 2 to avoid tree loss. • Phases of grading the development shall be shown. • Incorporate fencing with the construction of the 12-foot high retaining wall on Lot 10, Block 1. • Rerouting of Riley Creek shall be developed and approved by the DNR. • Revise grades along Trunk Highway 101 for a future trail underneath Trunk Highway 101. • All NURP basins shall be constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 inch at the normal water level for the first 1-foot of depth or 4:1 side slopes overall. • Add high water levels to all NURP basins and wetlands. • No berming allowed in any public right-of-way. • Maintain 7 feet of cover over City's watermain along Trunk Highway 101. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 42 • Include lot lines, lot numbers, block numbers, and storm sewers with structure numbers. 16. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon vacation of Great Plains Boulevard and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. 17. The lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to ponds and wetland shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 18. The City shall assume maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities and wetlands two years after completion of the site improvements. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over ponding areas and wetlands. The easements shall encompass the storm ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or its successors. 19. The proposed 8-inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of proposed St. Hubert's Church shall be extended along the secondary access road to the east property line. In addition, sanitary and storm sewer and water service shall be extended to the east property line of the plat through the northerly access road to Grandview Road via Lake Drive. 20. All sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building services shall be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. As-built construction plans will be required before the City accepts the utilities. 21. The existing house of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat is recorded and the appropriate demolition permits will be required through the City's Building Department. Existing wells and/septic systems on the site shall be abandoned per State health codes and City ordinance. 22. The final plat shall dedicate right-of-way for future Grandview Road over the easterly 17 feet of Lots 8 and 10, Block 1 paralleling existing Grandview Road. 23. All access points on to Trunk Highway 101 are subject to MnDOT approval. 24. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year and 100-year storm events along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post-runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 43 25. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of$159,206.00 and a water quality fee of $267,323.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing of the ponding facilities and oversizing of trunk storm sewer after review of the final construction plans and drainage/ponding calculations. The SWMP fees are payable at time of final plat. 26. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private and public streets. The applicant and City staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans. 27. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD/development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 28. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. 29. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents. 30. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR,Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department. 31. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. 32. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion control fence on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized on all slopes in excess of 3:1. 33. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 44 approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 34. The applicant reduce the impacts to Wetland 2000, create a larger on site mitigation area and present a sequencing plan showing reduced impact to effected wetlands. 35. City staff and the applicant shall investigate the origin of Wetland 6000 to determine if this area can be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. 36. Buffer strips shall be provided around Wetland 5000. The buffer strips shall be 10 to 30 feet in width with an average width of 20 feet. 37. The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36-feet wide face- to-face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which accesses Grandview Road within the plat shall be constructed to 31-feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac with a 25-foot radius shall be constructed at the end of the public street for Grandview Road. All private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum 26-foot wide drive aisles and built to 7-ton design. 38. Depending on the phasing of the project,Trunk Highway 101 may need to be upgraded to four lanes, as well as, turn lanes and traffic signals. This will be further evaluated contingent upon the outcome of the traffic study being reviewed by SRF. The applicant shall incorporate the necessary traffic improvements as recommended by SRF accordingly. Should the traffic signals not be required with the initial phase of development, the applicant will be required to escrow with the City their fair share of the cost for future installation. Security shall be a means of a letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. All Trunk Highway 101 improvements shall meet State Aid standards. The applicants responsibility for the traffic signals along Trunk Highway 101 shall be 37%of the total cost. A cost sharing agreement between the applicant and City shall be drafted for the installation of any traffic signals. 39. The applicant shall provide cross-access easements and maintenance agreements for use of the private streets. Cross-access easements should also qualify the secondary access road for public use to Grandview Road. 40. Final plat shall increase Outlot A's width to 80 feet wide. The applicant shall also convey to the City a trail easement over Lot 9,Block 1 and Outlots B and C once the trail alignment has been approved and constructed. Villages on the Ponds October 18, 1995 Revised November 22, 1995 Page 45 41. The applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way with the initial phase of development. 42. Park fees shall be paid in lieu of park dedication pursuant to city ordinance. 43. Development of Block 2 is contingent upon the upgrade of State Hwy. 101. 44. The developer shall create a schematic booklet depicting development design standards and definitions." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Site Narrative 3. Development Design Standards, dated June 19, 1996 revised June 26, 1996 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 6/27/94 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Sharmin Al-Jaff dated 7/8/96 6. Letter from David Hempel to Dennis Eiler dated 7/9/96 7. Memo from Bill Weckman to Sharmin Al-Jaff dated 6/28/96 8. Letter from Gregg Downing to Kate Aanenson dated 6/26/96 9. Dennis Cassano, "Revisiting Villages,"Star Tribune, Minneapolis Addition, June 24, 1996, A 1 and A6 10. Lotus Realty Services, Informational Open House Notice 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. OWNER: Ward Family ADDRESS: P.O . Box 235 ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-4538 TELEPHONE: 1. n Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. x Vacation of ROW/Easements £/ .(> 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. x Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. x Planned Unit Development —pci 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning c c-c-,/ ) 5 / 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs — 6,e 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. X Subdivision 4/4O TOTAL FEE $ '/j 3 0 /7 /j5 - 45 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Villages on the Ponds LOCATION SE Corner , Highway 5 & Market Blvd . LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached. PRESENT ZONING IOP/RSF REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RSF/RMed/O—Inst/O—Tndustrial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed Use PUD - Res, office, commercial , institutional . REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To create a mixed use, neotraditional addition to Downtown area of Chanhassen . This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _ ' =� o ICL. ..k,v(s Signature of A..licant D to Signature of Fee Owner Date `'-Z Application Received on lob )96/C° Fee Paid / 5.1) . Receipt No. 0313 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. JUN-21-96 FRI 12:08 ARCHDIOCESE STP NPLS FAX NO. 2901629 P. 01 Jun-20-96 01 :49P Brad Johnson 612-934-5472 P.03 PROJECT tIAME V x 11 ages on the Ponds LOCATION SE Corner, Highway 5 & Market B1vd- LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached. PRESENT ZONING IOP/RSE' REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION R - . •_ •- _ ' _ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed Use PUD - Res, off ice, cote e.-ciai, institutional . 6'EACO, FOR THIS REQUEST To create a mixed Use, neotradit io.na 1 Artrl i F i ran $ r REASON I THIS v . r Downtown area of Chanhassen. This application must be completed in lull and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by ali information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. t3efore tiling tints application. you should comer wnn the Planning Department to determine the specttic or0tnarCe and procedural requirements appllcatta to your apptcation. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and tna! I am responsible for cemptying •i rrllll tlX City 1:yVtr Cme llJ with Icgwr to this request. This appiita•ion rho ldbenrtceaeA In my name And am the Darty .. •► r:•. should , nt.N ro ardinw nny matter portalning tro Ihic annlirDiitA I have attached a copy of proof Of pIFVn, 1,1a Vy) should ..... .aw ,..bw.....a ....� ...�.._. Y� ... ....Q .- _..._ wwnnrchin leifher nwner.e rkiptirstA rnnifratA of tela Abstract of Title or I:t:rchase aOreetnen1), or I am the a„tnnrized perten to make Ihis application and the fee owner has also slOned this application. I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I tubber understand that additional lees may be charged for consulting tees,feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior id any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information i nave submitted are uuc an ccrrect to the beat of my t nowiedge. Signature of Applicant Date /7 Signafiire of'Fee Owner 7 Date Appiication Received on _ Fen raid i ce.pt 41c• The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be avaiiable on Friday prior to the mentinei. If not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's addretsl. 1 Post-It' Fax Note 7671 loated. a/ 1;a4c / n Co.i7 , I 1 yep:,1rAoY c-cS �« I ry-trc. A c cS y� IFa'" �_ 'c'3 72. 1IFaX4C7 C -/6 2-' 1/1 EXHIBIT A TRACT I Beginning at the Northeast corner of outlot I, "CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK", according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Outlot I and the Easterly line of Outlot J, said CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK" and the extension of said easterly line of said Outlot J to its intersection with the shoreline of Lake Susan; thence Easterly and Southerly along said shoreline to its intersection with the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 13, Township 116N, Range 23W; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot 2 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 101; thence Northerly along the said center line of said S.T.H. No. 101 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 5; thence Westerly along the center line of S.T.H. NO 5 to its intersection with the East line of said Outlot I extended Northerly; thence Southerly along the East line of said Outlot I extended Northerly to the point of beginning. TRACT II • All that part of the following described premises, viz: "Government Lot 2 and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 116N, Range 23W, Carver County, Minnesota, containing 77.50 acres, more or less, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, and known as the Emil Klein Farm" , not included within the premises as described in TRACT I above. SITE NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The highest portion of the site is at its northern end, where a ridge at an average elevation of 956 runs east/west across the site terminating at the highest elevation on site of 971 at the eastern property line. The grade slopes north toward low elevations of 950 near Highway 5 and south to a ridge line parallel to Rice Marsh and Lake Susan. Elevations near the lakes is typically 880±. There is also a significant wooded knoll at the south end of the property on the western edge of Rice Marsh Lake with a high point of elevation 905, approximately 30 feet above normal water level of 877. Highway 101 stretches north/south through the site and is proposed to be realigned and widened which will affect both existing tree canopy on site and usable land area. Highway 5 creates the northern most site boundary. Great Plains Boulevard runs from the northeast to the southwestern portion of the site. Wetlands are concentrated in southern and northern thirds of the site with the largest area encompassing Rice Marsh Lake and the creek connection to Lake Susan. A fairly large wetland is also located near Highway 5 at the top of the site. A fair portion of the site has existing tree canopy cover on it and an existing city trail runs east/west along the southern ridge on site. WETLANDS A wetland delineation was completed in November 1995 using the 1987 Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Eight wetlands were identified within the site and delineated in the field (Figure 2). Based on the proposed site plan, five wetlands would receive unavoidable impacts, two of which would be completely filled (Table 1, Figure 8). The site plan minimizes wetland impacts by avoiding three wetlands and by incorporating several wetland areas into the site design. The two DNR Protected Waters, Wetlands 3000 and 4000, will not be impacted by the project. Wetland 1000 will also be avoided. The main portion of Wetland 2000, roughly 2.0 acres, is designated as a storm water detention basin according to the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Approximately 1.3 acres of this 3.4 acre basin would be filled by the project. However, the center portion of the remaining basin will be excavated to provide the required storm water storage capacity in accordance with the SWMP. a235S2 1 TABLE 1 WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (6/3/96) BASIN C-39 TYPE SIZE IMPACT TYPE OF WETLAND (COWARDIN) ACRES ACRES IMPACT 1000 1 0.09 0 NA (PEMA/C) 2000 2/7 3.40 1.30 Parking/Bldg./ (PFO/PEMC/PSS) Road 3000 1/5 7.19 0 (Would be (PUBG/PEMC/PSS) impacted by TH 101 construction) 4000 1/5 3.46 0 NA (L1UBH/PEMC) 5000 1 /2 0.06 0.06 Parking (PEMA) 6000 1 0.36 0.13 Building (PFOA) 7000 1 0.95 0.95 Road/Parking/ (PFOA) Bldg. 8000 1 0.18 0.02 Bldg./Parking (PEMB/A) TOTAL 15.69 2.46 Six storm water detention basins, with an area of approximately two acres, would be constructed on site. All of the pond areas are located adjacent to or upstream from existing wetlands. The storm water ponds will minimize water quality and quantity impacts to these wetland areas by controlling the amount of bounce during storm events and by filtering nutrients and sediments in storm water runoff. Two on-site areas are being considered for wetland mitigation, with a potential of 1.3 acres of wetland creation. However, these wetland mitigation areas would require the removal of existing tree canopy, since both of these areas are wooded. The developer is currently reviewing the potential for off site wetland mitigation and will coordinate with regulating agencies during the permitting process. .Jis2 2 SHORELAND PROTECTION ZONE The southern two thirds of the site falls within the 1,000-foot Shoreland Management District for Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. The following zoning provisions are a part of the Shoreland Management District: Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake • Structure Setbacks from OHW 75 ft. 150 ft. • Parking Setbacks 75 ft. 150 ft. • Impervious surface maximum 25% of lot area 35% for medium/high density residential • Structure and Parking setback 50 ft. from Highway 101 right-of-way The required setbacks for parking and structures at the lake edge and along Highway 101 will be met by this project. The PUD Guidelines will relax the impervious surface requirements to allow for a slightly higher degree of development on this site. HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT The northern edge of the site bound by Highway 5 falls within an HC-1 (Highway Corridor) District. These guidelines typically dictate parking and building setbacks, architectural character and site landscaping and the project image when viewed from Highway 5. The building setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way line will be adhered to, the remaining standards for the HC-1 zoning will be addressed as part of the PUD Development Guidelines for the project. BUFFER YARDS As part of the City's PUD Guidelines, buffer yards are required when higher density uses interface with low density uses. Since low density residential development is east of this site, a landscaped buffer yard will be established adjacent to that neighborhood. A buffer yard is also required along both sides of the Highway 101 corridor. BLUFF AREAS Although there is a significant amount of grade change across this site only two small areas of the hillside adjacent to Lake Susan meet the City zoning criteria which define a bluff. No development is allowed within 30 feet of these designated areas of the site, and alteration of the vegetation within the bluff is not permitted. #23582 3 TREE PRESERVATION A tree survey is included as part of this PUD submission. It identifies significant groupings of trees 12-inch caliper and larger which exist on the site. Many of these are within the 12-inch to 18-inch caliper size and comprised of ash, cottonwood, box elder, and elm varieties often concentrated near wetland areas. There are also upland varieties such as oak and hackberry in the higher portions of the site. Some of the trees identified by the survey are 20 inches and greater in size. The existing or baseline canopy coverage was interpreted by review of an aerial photo of the site taken in October 1994. The resulting exhibit "Existing Tree Canopy Cover" outlines the various percentages of canopy cover which exist on site. These percentages represent both mature trees and saplings which could grow into a tree with a 20-foot or greater canopy. Excluding open space, the percent cover ranges from 5 percent along the north ridge of the site to pockets of 100 percent cover many of which are in the southern one third of the property. Upon calculating the percentage of existing canopy cover and the associated acreage, it was determined the site currently has 33.4 acres of canopy cover. After adjusting this figure for loss due to the Highway 101 realignment and deducting wetland areas (per code), the baseline canopy cover is 26.11 acres. Upon adjusting the site acreage to reflect the Highway 101 realignment and deducting wetlands and lakes (per code), the net site acreage is 47.06 acres. The site acreage and canopy cover were split east and west of 101 since the proposed site uses for these areas are different: residential west of 101 and commercial east. The corresponding figures were used to determine minimum canopy cover to remain. West of 101 East of 101 Site Acreage = 8.5 acres Site acreage = 38.56 acres Baseline Canopy Cover = 7.76 acres 18.4 acres Existing % Cover = 91% 48% Medium Density Residential Zoning: Commercial Zoning: 40% of canopy must remain or 20% of canopy must remain or 3.4 acres 7.7 acres 11.1 acres = the minimum canopy cover which must remain on site per the City of Chanhassen tree preservation requirements. The sum total of existing canopy-cover which will remain on site per the proposed site grading plans is 6.1 acres. The difference of five acres in tree canopy cover must be replaced at 1.2 to 1 which equals six acres of tree replacement or a total of 240 trees to meet the tree preservation requirements. Much of the tree canopy which will remain is located in the southern portion of #23582 4 the site near Lakes Susan and Rice Marsh, west of Highway 101 or within wetland areas remaining on site. The percentage of existing canopy cover in these areas was typically 100 percent as determined by the aerial photo calculations. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The site grading for the proposed project corresponds in great part to the direction of existing topography on site. Although it is proposed to lower grade to an approximate elevation of 950 where the ridge exists, it remains a "ridge line" with grade sloping north and south of it. It also establishes the street image of the project from Highway 5. Grade is held at a reasonably consistent elevation along the ridge to create a level storefront for buildings. The area to the north drains into sediment ponds prior to exiting into the wetland near Highway 5. A significant portion of this wetland has been altered to create the "Village Pond" as a central water feature and serve as runoff storage. As one moves south down Main Street grade drops at a consistent slope along storefronts to an elevation of 936 at the church plaza. From there is drops more significantly to meet the proposed grades along Highway 101. The church is proposed as a two level building and is a useful means of lowering site grade in an attempt to meet existing grade at the south end of the site. A retaining wall will still be required in this area since parking lot grades for the church have been kept at a 3 percent maximum slope. Ponding areas have been located to gather water in existing low areas near wetlands along Highway 101, as water features such as the "village pond" or an axis with St. Huberts Church; and, thirdly, in an effort to preserve tree canopy cover as in the placement of the two lower most ponds on site which are located within vacated right-of-ways. Retaining walls will be needed in certain areas near the periphery of the site since proposed and existing grade don't always match. These are also proposed in many cases to limit existing tree loss on site. Erosion control measures will be made as needed to prevent sediment runoff from site grading. SITE LANDSCAPE, HARD SCAPE, LIGHTING The site landscaping makes use of overstory trees in linear patterns to enhance the Village streetscape of the project while embellishing the architectural walls of Main Street and Lake Drive. These boulevard trees begin at the pedestrian and vehicular entry points of the site and draw visitors into the central portions of the village. Shrub plantings will also frame these boulevards, screen parking and soften store fronts within the village. Special accent paving outline routes into plazas and squares in the Center of the Village. Vehicular traffic from the south and Main Street will be calmed by the circular fountain/plaza at St. Huberts Church and the accent paving on Main Street. Pedestrian scale "period" lighting planter boxes and site furnishings will add an additional level of detail in creating the village character for the project. x23+82 5 Site lighting in the larger parking areas will most likely be from more efficient "shoe box" type fixtures. A thorough mix of plant materials which insets City requirements and goes beyond to establish this as a truly unique project will be used throughout this site. These plantings in many instances will work with the architectural edges of the project to establish green walls near buildings and parking. Wetland areas to remain will be planted with buffer areas as required by the City code. Buffer yards of a variety of planting will be used to screen and control views along the Highway 101 corridor and at the residential edge east of the site. SITE UTILITIES The Project Site is adjacent to an existing 12" main trunk line and a 16-inch main currently under construction along Highway 101. A future 20-inch branch is proposed by the City to run along the proposed Lake Drive East to tie into the existing line adjacent to Highway 5. This project will tie into the 16-inch main under construction and the future main in Lake Drive East. The water main will be looped with 8-inch pipe within the Project Site to obtain maximum flow capacity and improve the efficiency of the existing system layout. The primary sanitary sewer route is located under Lake Drive and crosses Highway 101. On the west side on Highway 101 the sewer connects to a sewer line adjacent to the west property line. This system under Lake Drive serves most of the development. A few of the parcels will need to be served separately to provide sufficient cover and slope on the sewer line. This sewer system is located under Main Street turns and runs parallel to Highway 101 until it connects into a major City trunk line. SITE LAYOUT Typical dimensions used in the site layout are 9' x 18' parking stalls with a 26' drive aisle. These typical dimensions are used for most of the site with the exception of the hotel and restaurant parcel. On this parcel, the typical stall dimension is 9' x 20' with a 22' drive aisle. Parking is provided along all the private streets that cross the site. 423582 6 the site near Lakes Susan and Rice Marsh, west of Highway 101 or within wetland areas remaining on site. The percentage of existing canopy cover in these areas was typically 100 percent as determined by the aerial photo calculations. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The site grading for the proposed project corresponds in great part to the direction of existing topography on site. Although it is proposed to lower grade to an approximate elevation of 950 where the ridge exists, it remains a "ridge line" with grade sloping north and south of it. It also establishes the street image of the project from Highway 5. Grade is held at a reasonably consistent elevation along the ridge to create a level storefront for buildings. The area to the north drains into sediment ponds prior to exiting into the wetland near Highway 5. A significant portion of this wetland has been altered to create the "Village Pond" as a central water feature and serve as runoff storage. As one moves south down Main Street grade drops at a consistent slope along storefronts to an elevation of 936 at the church plaza. From there is drops more significantly to meet the proposed grades along Highway 101. The church is proposed as a two level building and is a useful means of lowering site grade in an attempt to meet existing grade at the south end of the site. A retaining wall will still be required in this area since parking lot grades for the church have been kept at a 3 percent maximum slope. Ponding areas have been located to gather water in existing low areas near wetlands along Highway 101, as water features such as the "village pond" or an axis with St. Huberts Church; and, thirdly, in an effort to preserve tree canopy cover as in the placement of the two lower most ponds on site which are located within vacated right-of-ways. Retaining walls will be needed in certain areas near the periphery of the site since proposed and existing grade don't always match. These are also proposed in many cases to limit existing tree loss on site. Erosion control measures will be made as needed to prevent sediment runoff from site grading. SITE LANDSCAPE, HARD SCAPE, LIGHTING The site landscaping makes use of overstory trees in linear patterns to enhance the Village streetscape of the project while embellishing the architectural walls of Main Street and Lake Drive. These boulevard trees begin at the pedestrian and v vehicular entry points of the site and draw visitors into the central portions of the village. Shrub plantings will also frame these boulevards, screen parking and r soften store fronts within the village. Special accent paving outline routes into plazas and squares iwtthe Center of the Village. Vehicular traffic from the south ::.<1 and Main Street will be calmed by the circular fountain/plaza at St. Huberts Church and the accent paving on Main Street. Pedestrian scale "period" lighting planter boxes and site furnishings will add an additional level of detail in creating the village character for the project. #23552 5 Site lighting in the larger parking areas will most likely be from more efficient "shoe box" type fixtures. A thorough mix of plant materials which insets City requirements and goes beyond to establish this as a truly unique project will be used throughout this site. These plantings in many instances will work with the architectural edges of the project to establish green walls near buildings and parking. Wetland areas to remain will be planted with buffer areas as required by the City code. Buffer yards of a variety of planting will be used to screen and control views along the Highway 101 corridor and at the residential edge east of the site. SITE UTILITIES The Project Site is adjacent to an existing 12" main trunk line and a 16-inch main currently under construction along Highway 101. A future 20-inch branch is proposed by the City to run along the proposed Lake Drive East to tie into the existing line adjacent to Highway 5. This project will tie into the 16-inch main under construction and the future main in Lake Drive East. The water main will be looped with 8-inch pipe within the Project Site to obtain maximum flow capacity and improve the efficiency of the existing system layout. The primary sanitary sewer route is located under Lake Drive and crosses Highway 101. On the west side on Highway 101 the sewer connects to a sewer line adjacent to the west property line. This system under Lake Drive serves most of the development. A few of the parcels will need to be served separately to provide sufficient cover and slope on the sewer line. This sewer system is located under Main Street turns and runs parallel to Highway 101 until it connects into a major City trunk line. SITE LAYOUT Typical dimensions used in the site layout are 9' x 18' parking stalls with a 26' drive aisle. These typical dimensions are used for most of the site with the exception of the hotel and restaurant parcel. On this parcel, the typical stall dimension is 9' x 20' with a 22' drive aisle. Parking is provided along all the private streets that cross the site. #23582 6 SITE ACREAGE The total site acreage within the current property lines is approximately 63 acres. Since a portion of Highway 101 has been upgraded and realigned, it is assumed those improvements with extent south through the remaining portion of this project site in the near future. This realignment of Highway 101 to the east of its present location reduces the site acreage by approximately 3.2 acres. It is also assumed that the 2.2 acres of existing right-of-way for Highway 101 will be deeded over the applicant of this project. The resulting total site acreage per the proposed realignment is 62 acres. All site related drawings reflect the proposed realignment of Highway 101. $23552 7 im \A / r / MILD 250 PRAIRIE CTR. DRIVE. STE. 200 ARCHITECTURE EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344 hi Ai I ��- GROUP (612) 944-6242 • FAX (612) 942-7496 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS VILLAGES ON THE PONDS A Mixed Use, Neo-traditional Development for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota P.U.D. Submittal Package June 19, 1996 Revised June 26, 1996 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS • CONSULTING TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXHIBIT: DEVELOPMENT SECTORS KEY PLAN A. GENERAL 1 B. PERMITTED USES 1 C. BUILDING PLACEMENT AND CONFIGURATION 2 Sectors I, II, III and IV D. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 3 1. General 2. Sectors I, III, III, and IV E. SIGNAGE F. PARKING 7 G. LANDSCAPE AND SITE FURNISHINGS ii KEY PLAN Development Sectors l Sector II , v /► € , Highway 5 Frontage ---12) 1J Vp lAYS I HIGH ` ,._(III �� ' _ alp �� o ' i 6.' II Pond ) ' • - Arm -�;� = oe� � 1 :I i Sector I '".' ilk 2 ii •i$ 0'.4:, . Neo-Traditional k. - • 3,r.......,,3, ;'. (/).E-,_-.4_Ew7:E_,-_-•---,,,-i;';',,,.ii,i_-r..-s-a_,:-.r71I__L1,2— Village Core \ ' iy .,,...' .,.› \ z' - - - I cci = _ =! `►L 1r \\\ I-JrLTJ - \ \ = =rte' ./1 "-17-------1 --,„, ; __•=ili N., -.. E E 113' \ ..., ky,--, tr(fie. Ik.\ ' 1 _ I ir-- .... :. (.43. �� - III k p r u-,..7�I V1--" ,i , a ....,.......,.,I1L1 WI. 00010 p II vr 1^i, ��1�� t„ i Sector III Sector IV ___=______)) �s-- `Church/School -,..\\ • Lake Susan Area N Ei a i �� ' I `+ \\ y ' I 6 \`I I i _ � I I 3 _ ,fir , I;r.,----- - Ls 1 \ r ,_ A. GENERAL 1. These Standards shall regulate physical aspects of any development within the P.U.D. site area. They are to be reviewed in conjunction with all P.U.D. design documents, such as Use and Data Plan, Site Dimensional Plan and others. In case of conflict with any local, state or federal regulations, an interpretation and decision shall be provided by the City of Chanhassen. 2. For purposes of these Standards, the entire site has been divided in four sectors. Sector I represents the Village"core," grouped around the streets and plazas in the central area of the development. Due to its complexity, the density and the emphasis on the pedestrian character of its public spaces, this sector sets most of the design standards for the entire Village. The standards for the other three peripheral sectors contain some specific provisions that apply for each particular area. Sector II is a Highway 5- oriented development; Sector III covers the church and the school area; and Sector IV regulates Lake Susan oriented, predominantly residentially used land area west of Highway 101. B. PERMITTED USES 1. Refer to Use and Data Plan for general direction on uses that are permitted under this P.U.D. 2. As reflected in the Narrative Description, the uses can be mixed differently than shown on the plans (within allocated building area totals), both vertically and horizontally, and the buildings shall be adaptable to the ever-changing market conditions. The purpose is to create a vibrant, economically successful, quality-built environment that will preserve its vitality at all times. 3. Any new uses not identified in this P.U.D. and those that do not fall under any listed categories can be permitted only by amendment to this P.U.D. by the City of Chanhassen. 4. No uses shall be permitted that would have a negative impact on health and safety of residents, on the existing businesses and institutions within P.U.D. and neighboring communities. All uses shall also be reviewed in regard to the impact on the visual qualities and character of the Village. 1 C. BUILDING PLACEMENT AND CONFIGURATION Sector I I 1. Setbacks 1 Depth Buildings shall be placed in linear _ fashion along the streets to form "street wall" andP lazas as shown on P.U.D. plans. Minimum 85% of the building facade above the < first floor shall be 0' to 3' setback b ck w c from thet fron building ("build to") line. Maximum setback is 15'. a Building setback along Hwy. 101 is ci) 50'. The architectural appendixes, v e es balconies, etc. e c. canct J ro'e P up to 6' beyond building line. M cj- Building Line Street/Parking Curb 2. Height All buildings on Main Street and Lake Drive shall be not less than two stories in height. Maximum height allowed is three stories with loft, or 50'. Office and office/retail buildings along Highway 101 are allowed to be one story height, as indicated on the Use and Data Plan. Maximum allowed height is two stories. Sector II 1. Setbacks Per Site Dimensional Plan and it as approved on the Use and Data Plan, the buildings shall be placed in such a fashion to minimize parking exposure to the adjacent highways and the blockage of views toward the Village "core" and Main Street. 2. Height Maximum three stories, or 45' high. 2 Sector III 1. Setbacks Per Site Dimensional Plan and Use and Data Plan. The church location, setback and rela- tionship to the Church Plaza and Main Street is of essence. The building, parking and play area disposition within this sector shall maximize the buffer zone towards the adjacent residential area on the East side. 2. Height Maximum three stories, or 50'. Towers/vertical roof projections maximum 100' high. Sector IV 1. Setbacks Per Site Dimensional Plan and Use and Data Plan. 2. Height Maximum four stories with lofts, or 60' high. D. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 1. General 1.1 The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly,"traditional"village character and the atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological "tools" of modern times. The village elevations shown on P.U.D. drawings are to be used only as a general guideline and the reflection of the overall Village "image." Specifically: • The north-midwestern architectural "vocabulary." • Village alike human scale and flavor. • The variety in design and facade treatment is encouraged, thus projecting an impression of a spontaneous, segmented village growth over time. 1.2 While the buildings need to form the comfortable village atmosphere, they shall not be necessarily copies of the past, historical times. They shall reflect our times in materials used, aesthetics and fulfill functional requirements of modern shopping and living. 1.3 The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. Monotonous long, flush,"boxy"monolithic buildings common in suburban"sprawl"developments are not acceptable. Also bright, long, continuous color bands are prohibited. 3 1.4 There shall not be underdeveloped "backside" of buildings; all sides shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 1.5 The use of "cold" building materials, such as metal panels, gray concrete, "curtain walls" and similar, can have only very limited application on the facades. 1.6 The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent, previously constructed buildings, and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings on the same street, in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, colors and setbacks are prohibited. The Village shall project a cohesive, coordinated blend of building expressions, streetscape and functions. 1.7 Windows 1. "Curtainwall" storefront, or otherwise flush glass systems are discour- aged and shall only be allowed for a maximum of 25% of the first floor front facade area, and shall not extend above the second floor line. 2. Clear or lightly tinted glass is preferred and at the first floor manda- tory. Reflective glass if prohibited. 1.8 Roofs Sloped roofs with any shape and slope gradient are preferred and required, as specified for each sector. The use of false roofs is discouraged. 1.9 Compliance with Chanhassen HC-1 District, Section 20-1454 "Architectural Design Standards" is required. If any provisions are in conflict with this Standard, the Standards take precedence. The above, Section 1 General architectural design standards are applicable for all sectors within this P.U.D. The specific, additional requirements for each sector are reflected in the following section. 2. Architectural Design Standards by Sectors Sector I 1. The retail/apartment buildings along Main and Lake Streets, especially those exceeding 200' in length, shall be provided with the Passages in a similar fashion as shown on the Use and Data Plan. Those shall allow easy access from the rear parking to the storefronts facing the streets and can be used on 4 the access points for the apartments on the upper floors. The Passages shall be attractive, feel safe and may contain retail displays and entrances. 2. The design of retail/apartment buildings shall carefully balance the needs of modern retailing located at the ground floor, and the needs for privacy and residential "feel" of the apartments on the top floors. The ground floor along sidewalks shall have a definite commercial character and allow for effective retail displays, storefront designs,sidewalk sales,"cafe- terraces, attractive signage, awnings, arcades, etc. 3. The shops and buildings on the rear sides facing parking lots may serve as the entrance to the residential units on upper floors. A number of these units will have windows and balconies oriented towards these parking and rear shop areas. Hence, it is of essence that these shops' secondary entries and service/delivery areas are attractively designed, screened with landscape and maintained as clean and safe. The trash enclosures shall be located further away within the parking areas, maximally screened and meticulously maintained. 4. Roofs: Sloped roofs shall be required (in lieu of flat roots) for a minimum of 70% of the roof area of each building. Roofs which are sloped shall have a minimum slope of 4 in 12. The exemptions are commercially used buildings exceeding 80' in depth, where up to 70% of the roof can be as flat roof. Sector II 1. Commercial buildings can have a maximum of 30% of the roof area as a flat roof. Sector III 1. The building side facing the Church Plaza needs to relate well to its geometric form, character and size. Pitched roofs and towers on the church will provide a welcome vertical accent on the Village "horizon." However, the church architecture and functions shall be well-integrated into the Village "fabric." 2. While the sloped roofs are preferred, the flat roofs can amount to 50% of the total roof area. Sector IV 1. Roofs: Refer to Sector I provisions, item 4. 5 E. SIGNAGE SECTOR I All Signage shall comply with Chanhassen City Code, Article XXVI. SIGNS, and the following amendments: 1. Prohibited signs: 1.1. Part 3 of the Chanhassen City Code Sec. 20-159 shall be deleted. Projecting signs shall not be prohibited in Development Sector I on Main Street. 1.2. In addition to prohibited signs outlined in Sec. 20-1259 of the City Code, the following are prohibited: canopy signs, panel-type wall signs, pylon signs, and ground, low profile signs. 2. Projecting Signs and Festive Flags/Banners: 2.1. Projecting Signs: 1. Are allowed- (on Main Street only)-one for each tenant. 2. Location: Projecting signs shall be centered above the tenant entrance door, a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 3. Size: projecting signs shall have a maximum area of 6 square feet per side, and a maximum thickness of 6 inches. Cut-out letter type signs are encouraged: Letters shall have a maximum height of 12". 4. Illumination: projecting signs shall not be self-illuminated: illumination may only be provided by surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade. 5. Materials: a. Plastic projecting signs are prohibited. b. Projecting signs or banners utilized for decorative purposes may be constructed of fabric. c. Projecting signs may be painted, prefinished, or utilize exposed metal: Any exposed metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non-corrosive or non- oxidizing materials. 2.2. Festive Flags/Banners: 1. Projection: Festive Flags and Banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. 2. Size: Festive Flags and Banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. 3. Material: Festive Flags and Banners shall be constructed in accordance with the Chanhassen City Code. 4. Location/Application: They shall be located at street level at Passages and storefront retail areas. 3. Wall mounted signs: 3.1. Description: In addition to projecting signs, the only other type of signs allowed on the exterior walls of buildings shall be the type where the text of the business name and logo is formed by individually"cut-out" letters individually mounted on the wall. 3.2. Size: The size of the signs shall comply with the restrictions set forth in the table in section 20-1302 describing wall areas for signage in Neighborhood Business, Fringe Business, and Office& Institutional Districts. The commercial buildings with 2, parking or street, "fronts" are allowed to have tenant identification signs on two sides, with the above area ratio for each sign. 3.3. Location: The top of the uppermost letter shall be no higher than 12"below the roof line. 4. Development Identification Signs: Shall be located near vehicular access points (as indicated on the drawings)to the development and comply with requirements for the restrictions for the Ground Low Profile Business Signs outlined in article XXVI of the Chanhassen City Code. Exception: one"monumental"Development Identification Sign, maximum height 28', designed as a Village Gateway to the project shall be located at the North end of Main Street (refer to drawings for supplemental information). Sector II All Signage shall comply with Chanhassen City Code, Article XXVI. SIGNS, and the following amendments: 1. Prohibited signs: In addition to prohibited signs outlined in Sec. 20-1259, the following are prohibited: canopy signs, and panel-type wall business signs. 2. Wall mounted signs: 2.1. Description: the only type of signs allowed on the exterior walls of buildings shall be of the type where the text of the business name is formed by individually "cut out", letters/logos individually mounted on the wall. 2.2. Refer to Sector I, item 3.2. 2.3. Location: The top of the letters shall be no higher than the second floor line or 12 feet above the adjacent grade--whichever is lower. 3. Pylon Signs: Pylon signs shall comply with Article XXVI of the Chanhassen City Code. Sectors III & IV All Signage shall comply with Chanhassen City Code, Article XXVI. SIGNS, and the following amendments: 1. Prohibited signs: In addition to prohibited signs outlined in Sec. 20-1259, the following are prohibited: pylon signs, canopy signs, and panel-type wall business signs. 2. Ground Low Profile Business Signs: Ground low profile business signs shall comply with Article XXVI of the Chanhassen City Code. 3. Wall mounted signs: Refer to Sector I, item 3.2. • KEY PLAN Project I.D. Sign Location el i Project Gateway Identification Sign ,-- Monument Sign 71 r ISA HIGHWAY 5 _ � v c 1 - f.,,,,,,'_ Village = IIS I ❑ 'II s i 1 � Pond rm,la Ir ie - ` T I .0 ' ' i IS � �.2ee� - ,• 1 '1. _ ice. � I A\ A Nik• iim 1_1 `,RC1 \t, - l� A .s - Project J I _ cp Identificatio ‘, . �' �` f. RI _ _ _ m _ 1 ,�. Monument Sign \I. -* tit- 3 '2' 1 s z; _ m a J H \ 1 * - it O z1 I � 4 ' H:u::I: ;I : III 0 li L� w'� -4e ,,airv-ANI A. T. r ' Project \ Identification MN 1 _ Monument Sign , rim 11 I I _Ir., 1 1 I ___, .- ;, ; ti , � 1 Q 1 , 1 Decorative Lights Decorative Ironwork Open SteelArch/Truss L .i if Brick&Stone (or Precast Concrete) Piers No O • e 1 • • \S OTTftrs° . • \ a o IP V j '1 n 0 11111111111 ► ILILM mom L- � itr VILLAGES ON THE PONDS GATEWAY F. PARKING Off-street and on-street parking shall conform to City Code, Article XXIV. Parking and Loading, except as amended by these Standards as follows: 1) Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever possible. 2) The parking needs for office uses shall be assessed based on the cumulative office gross building area for the whole site, thus applying a ratio of 4.5/1,000 for first 50,000 sq. ft. of office area, 4/1,000 for the cumulative office area from 50,000 to 100,000 sq. ft., and finally 3.5/1,000 for the office developments above 100,000 sq. ft. total. 3) The subterranean parking for the apartments shall be at minimum ratio of 1.5 stalls/apartment. The remaining 0.5 stalls/apartment can be integrated within commercial surface parking areas. 4) Parking for retail uses shall be based on typical "shopping center" ratio of 5 stalls/1,000 sq. ft. Sectors I and II. This overall "blanket" parking ratio shall cover for all types of commercial retail uses, including restaurants. 5) Due to the character of this neo-traditional development, the majority of the parking shall be located to the rear of the structures; this is especially essential for Sector I. Only"on-street" parking to the front, as shown on Use and Data Plan. The street parking in front of the shops shall be time- restricted, short-term parking. 6 • G. LANDSCAPE AND SITE FURNISHINGS 1. Landscape Standards 1.1 Street trees shall be of uniform head, 7 feet clear to branching, deciduous overstory and vertically erect in character, 3''A"minimum caliper inch at plating. 1.2 Tree grates or curbed edges shall be utilized in open paved areas. 1.3 Window planter boxes and flower pots are encouraged at store fronts. 1.4 Planting areas beneath boulevard and street trees shall have sod or low shrub plantings (maximum mature height of 24"). 1.5 Flowering and evergreen shrubs are encouraged to add color at store front planting areas. 1.6 Ornamental trees in groupings shall be of a similar variety and size (minimum size at planting 2'/2 caliper inch). 1.7 All site development and associated planting which abuts Lake Drive or Main Street shall follow the landscape and hardscape design established for these streets to ensure uniformity of village character. 1.8 The use of indigenous plant material is encouraged where development abuts existing vegetation. 1.9 Plant material selection shall be from the list of plants established for the P.U.D. 1.10 Buffer yard plantings shall follow the recommendations set forth by Ordinance No. 250 of the City of Chanhassen Code. 1.11 Shrub planting is encouraged in parking lot islands to break up large expanses of paving. 1.12 Parking area trees shall be non-fruit-bearing; drought tolerant varieties are encouraged. 1.13 A plant material maintenance schedule and guidelines shall be established as part of the P.U.D. 1.14 Landscaping installed within the HC-1 district adjacent to Highway 5 shall conform to the HC-1 standards. 1.15 All wetland areas shall be bound by a buffer area per Section 20-406 of the Chanhassen City Code. 1.16 Parking shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any wetland edge. 2. Site Furnishings 1.1 Two types of accent paving shall be used to highlight the village center. Accent paving 1 shall be used for pedestrian sidewalks and crosswalks. Accent paving 2 shall be used primarily in streets and plazas and shall have the ability to withstand vehicular traffic. Concrete banding shall typically separate the two paving types. 1.2 Sidewalks not indicated as accent paving shall be broom finish concrete. 1.3 Roadways not indicated as accent paving shall be bituminous paving. 1.4 Accent paving in driving surfaces shall have a textural quality as a traffic calming measure. 1.5 Street lighting in areas of accent paving shall be pedestrian scale pole lights,and a maximum height of 18 feet. Fixture type shall be "period" style lighting. Install fixtures in line with street trees. 1.6 Bollard lighting will not be allowed. 1.7 Parking lot lighting shall be"shoe box"type fixtures, non-glare, 30 foot maximum height. 1.8 All street furnishings, i.e.,benches,trash receptacles,bicycle racks,planters and ash urns, shall be of a uniform style and color. 1.9 Street lighting other than"period"type shall be"shoe box"in pedestrian areas, maximum height 18 feet. 1.10 Accent paving unique to shops are encouraged at building entries. I CITY of oli ;41 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official . \s--- DATE: June 27, 1996 SUBJECT: 95-2 PUD,96-1 LUP,96-5 WAP and 96-4 VAC(Villages on the Ponds,Lotus Realty Services) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped ',CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUN 19 19 9 6 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: The plans show a number of buildings with exterior walls placed less than 20' from the property line. The building code,in most cases,requires that openings in walls less than 20' from the property or less than 20' from the center of a public way be protected. The building code defines a public way as"any street,alley or similar parcel of land essentially unobstructed from the ground to the sky which is deeded,dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and having a clear width of not less than 10 feet." Private streets and parking lots shown on the proposed development don't comply with this definition. If the developer wishes to avoid requirements for protecting openings or requirements for fire-resistive construction of exterior walls,buildings should be set back from property lines or the center of public streets as prescribed in the building codes. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. Recommendation: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval: 1. Meet with Inspections Division to discuss wall and opening protection requirements. This should be done before preliminary PUD approval. CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 DATE: July 8, 1996 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Request for comprehensive land use plan amendment from office/industrial institutional, residential medium density residential, low density residential to mixed use commercial, high density residential, institutional and office; preliminary planned unit development for up to 307,000 square feet of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; rezoning of IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; wetland alteration permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right- of-way and easement; environmental assessment worksheet(EAW)findings; and indirect source permit review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres located south of Hwy 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd, Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. Planning Case; 95-2 PUD,96-1 LUP,96-5 WET,96-4 VAC. I have reviewed the comprehensive land use plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. Said plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Fire hydrants; general comments. Generally fire hydrants are located at major intersections. Fire hydrant spacing is then at 300 foot intervals. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are known and how buildings are positioned on property. I also take into account where water mains enter into the building,where fire department fire sprinkler connections are located and where the front door to the building is. All three of these factors must coincide with each other in order for the Fire Department to maximize their effectiveness with minimal equipment and man power. 2. Submit turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. It would be beneficial for the traffic engineer to meet with the City Engineer and Fire Marshal to discuss emergency apparatus access routes. This is to insure that all buildings are accessible for emergency equipment. Villages on the Ponds July 8, 1996 Page 2 3. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing. 4. The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy#29-1992 will be used as basic criteria for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project numbering on more than one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional signage. G:/safety/ml/villages CITY OF ,-1 e. _. „ .. ,,,,,,,, . _ ‘ fr, _ , i.„,- ,-: ..,,,e, . it, CHANHASSEN ,,:. _ -fti-,-,-, r(. t: ,,,._ .) _'*u , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 9, 1996 Mr. Dennis Eiler SRF Consulting Group,Inc. One Carlson Parkway North Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 Re: Review of EAW Traffic Impact-Villages on the Pond Land Use Review File No. 95-17 Dear Dennis: Enclosed please find a copy of an EAW for Villages on the Pond prepared by BRW,Inc. dated July 1, 1996. Would you please review the traffic analysis and forecast within the document and let me know if there are other traffic concerns that may have been overlooked. We are especially concerned with the proposed full intersections at Market Boulevard and Lake Drive,as well as Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. We feel that these intersections may be able to function as right-in,right-out only. I would appreciate your comments back as soon as possible as this item is going forward for preliminary plat approval on July 17, 1996 at the Planning Commission level and City Council on the August 12, 1996 Council agenda. Please call me with a cost estimate for the services requested herein. If you have any questions or need additional materials,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, fp=m CITY OF CHANHASSEN 4 0.....:,- e. ,4.____, David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH:jms Enclosure c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works Kate Aanenson,Planning Director g:'eng\davAleners\villages.eaw PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration "NurAdministration Building Parks CARVER 600 East Fourth Street Engineering COUNTY Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192 Highway Maintenance Surveying&Mapping Phone(612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025 June 28, 1996 r RECEIVE►, JUL01 REti TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II, City of Chanhassen/ CITY OF CI-.n.'4 „ - - ,n. FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ,i'1,71.6 SUBJ: Villages on the Ponds / Planning Case: 95-2 PUD We have reviewed the information submitted by your memo dated June 20, 1996 for the Villages of the Ponds subdivision. The proposed development will not directly impact the County Road system. The development occurring as part of this proposal does not abut the County Road right of way. Considerations should be given to the impact of this development on the existing and proposed TH 101 corridor. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Afrmatit•e Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper • 0 • June 26, 1996 ti • rte: Kate Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Villages on the Ponds • Dear Ms. Aanenson: . This letter acknowledges that we have received the EAW for the above-named project. We would also like to remind you that according to the Environmental Review Program rules (at Minnesota Rules,part 4410.1500, item B), your agency is required to notify the public that the EAW is available by submitting a press release to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the project's area and that you send copies of the EAW to all points on the EQB distribution list. We presume that these requirements have been met. Notice of the EAW availability will be published in the EQB Monitor on July 1, 1996. The 30-day comment period will begin on that day and will expire on July 31, 1996. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules,part 4410.3100, subpart 1, no final governmental decision to grant a permit, approve the project, or begin the project may be made until a negative declaration or EIS adequacy determination has been made. Please contact me if any questions arise about the Environmental Review process. My phone number is 1-800-657-3794 or 612-296-8253. . Sincerely, • Gregg Downing J/ Environmental Review Coordinator - c: Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty ServicesWWI ' N CO RECEIVES JUN271996 CITY OF CI1/;ivriASSE,e• CO C OO mow ENVIRONMENTAL 18A1Ii188A11, 151 CE811 S1IEEi, 11. PAIL, MN 55155 112 211-2113 FAX 112 211-3818 STAFF PBBYIBEB 81 ElmsElms'',�� the playing field the greatest week of my life. I never -esponding to his dreamed God would pour out his blessings I }_ ,:- 14S`;t,- he ruefully told as he has.' j/ , F • He spoke in bittersweet tones laced % tV '- lj prayers as we with gratitude at the tall end of an evening f i i beryou. when his sermon ranged from Moses to his V - family to his early years in Minneapolis • h 4,11Z. yT t +` rY. ds replied in For the second night.the crusade set a � record for Metrodome attendance.SaturdayCil ;; wt there were 70,000 in the building and 12.000 ' in the overflow lot.Stadium officials esti- 'a son,Frank- mated Sunday's outside crowd at 25,000. i ; ,Y from behind. .._ « � • list's heir and non to GRAHAM on A7 s»a.•..._,,- sbr Tram Pnote W Jeer 6td wts +` :" dm's right arm. —Sunday night was a nlghtfar Billy Tit.Rev.eay Graham etithraorni. w+ser Amy crane on t„.attar nI(M or are Twin Cities Crusade. .-2•- ,-'s`. till calls Daddy to .:.Gsaham.'«ry.;w:;' 'ii- a.'.s"'�e:.:S:::- :-P. •'• Wnh.34s dao people • Jl,�ire�M.•day went is ttte iarg ssttheDome has ever staged. — _ "b,., -�:±'�''`ftt._.:..",a"S4 r1::• - " `iiay,.,-a..=-' • XS: A Id'de lo... .—"t4.-±;...7. nie t concept—the'walkable,mixed-use Arabs riage =neighborhood-is finding a new audience as metro areas such as - ---• the-Twin Cities look forwaysto build community and fight sprawl. ' total h _ retreat _"°r Tit^ :`k1 - "e:' i ifs" ---- ,•..1-• -,%'."''"'" .,' .J.-7 ,'.;.: . 3t3 ter • ._ �*� ,' ,Y' iii • 11 ,. Li _•+ - dispute - ; 4 �� „ �F QZ.-��.-r Leaden S. ,, ti — + -) I'y .It SU IL UP ,:, rare ant �—'�¢' ' � de ti. .; ' z"�` t ;. - Washington Post ti {`` 17-71 �! '-'il - CAIRO —'.\ Star Trbune Photo by Rita Reed first summit it _ Above,the four-block Laurel Village area on Hen- rare show of sol rest -- •-v `,, r�� nepin Av,In Minneapolis has the feel of a new ur- ers warned Sur • -_. ! ban village.An architect's drawing,left,look- "reconsider t /�� Ing south from Hwy.5 shows a possible layout for toward Israel" . s c• 4 '�•r "n 1,4 a proposed 66-acre village In Chanhassen that Israel's new got s + 'f - `ir: .'�'" . • �! would combine commercial and residential space. totally withdra -- : • , 1�� -: I • "Many of us want more options for the suburbs," Arab lands. —It may • Y " ` • said Nancy Manclno,city planning chairwoman. They issued � :tivism in F , -`a • '' ' G i3 que demandin 0 women - _ raeli prime m s love for • • • . ' . Neta nyahu,ad .tubers of HOW 8furban village works d to see RevisitingUnlike typical suburban development that sometimes Lacks a sense of of "land tilewentoefethaeArathe the heart - community,the more compact neighborhoods of new urbanism Among othe Hill that's •._...- V. -integrate hous►ng and commerce on a pedestrian scale ers demanded xick-and- • • from the West y and les- +,;., subdivision Commercial mouses Sd dol worst* Heights, the r 3who op- v I age s x - settlements fr ries,the establ; tans have Man #4 \c,' tinian state wit in recent ,I :r:;�® its capital anc things as By Dennis Cassano •,. t turn"for Palest partners A new suburbia , '' �''®��` Star Tribune Staff Writer _ 11 dye, �P� placed in the A: xolitIcians 13 t �� 11•11.--7 I91g1 gay They'rebuildinghousingcif parts .'.„.=T. :"P : rI::JITFi® Turn to suMMr antdle a Second two zaditional and commercial development �. at, :©� li ®t� in Minnetonka that smacks of buildingclustered housing pro- k-•�•_I-- -,; gP �_-a..t. � await that new • urbanism. . .- jects, they are only thinking -.-5V V '� r aQ�., gays and That's not a New Age plot.In about developing projects Apartments moom Washy School gpanenu urn Conercial subs from fact,it's a return to the old way known variously as urban vii- ` to and ri Please as of Con- of designing neighborhoods lages,new urbanism,neotradi- Typical Urban village ances.lhe- and communities. tional planning or traditional ■Paces to ire,wont and shop sea ■Places to we,work and shop %ct,which They're thinking about neighborhood development. aratedand reachable onybycar. connectedandwa►'aoie. - General Informa t union be- buildinganother in Chanhas- The Laurel Village complex on ' ■wide streets w th r o s dewatts• ■Narrow sheets are pedestrian- Classifieds.... g P ■Houses spend nut on t>g bts frienOy. a woman. sen,one that nuzzles up more Hennepin Av. in Minneapolis ■Housing targeted to one income ■Houses close together. • Circulation.... he House closely to the design principles and elements of the Chanhas- grow. •Moi of si,glefamiy houses, . -- ' is to of Walt Disney's Celebration sen and Minnetonka projects ■open spaces random. apartments and townhouses. - - henear Orlando,Fla.,which some are as close as anyin the Twin •shops and pubic buildings not •Open space set aside in parks , coming , positioned to create a sense of and squares • lebate the see not only as a restorative for Cities to this design. community. •shops and pubic buildings form community values but as a re- soiree washngton county a retail/soca center. • • sponse to sprawl. Thin to VLIAGES on Ali a • While a number of Twin Cit- Also on A6: • J ies-area developers and sub- —A new village in Wisconsin. - star rrbune graphic by Jane Friedmann 7 57273 OC urbs are well along the way in —Meet Andres Duany - Monday.June 24,19 ,.. • _ _ _ Cepyri*t 1996 Star' irfelK - .. - .. - . -Volume XV/Number 9 111, I I • v ti0o9$S6 aid � � oHc2. 6 REmE.c $,° .cod E. N°o c -" c • DDVI ` . �., o a`i ;_ u 5�-�' c c c c•5.... o4� aa, E-co ° air-o4.0- .—0.bo� R to �i c [.4 a c °..--• u d� q=° A y ° max � d c M t t-0.o ge 0'-'0 4' R o� o 2 Tem. 2 2,1 0 2Z m C N L c> = EU° 0.c u c o � Hr t='c o c.—"tm w by •f- 00 ,1•017:1 - m m Q a (/�t R m O m 3 x .. m .n m :"'�EEo E = att ,q' ''", emr3 -t_ mxCy E-Meom C = Eoc.�mo._o[ ;,vvt•�mc� sst-,Qe= > >= .1:0- to ? maEco .a ,, oxC-_m = m "bc Q -gpO.-Z'eoE Ce-c5+ o cos `.vtEeE c c R R c Epee ' �,'S-:°m ui �Lx ,, E °— Ea'coao • H u ° r.... ate, 0 ,,,, m > mm'", F C3 yw Epm�'C mQ^N °' a.i m•- ° rn yoRi .y Nmy>`.'. ta=E- ° w 74.a �•-. me R61Vd y G ,EEE R > 3R = .0 .-Cm-.0tC R9 aE V- mY •1-0.-.., , >.ct,ad° x 3 m ni . m • e c a;v o c o. �Y q�x �° x c9°L cv m m m aO a ° c m<•c c « o„° c-0 R ts , m eb.. my o v_c E-E to- o R o =.,r,. .:3(-) 0 o p o EU " m y E._ a > m E Rx;3 G-' c o ° R E ° R S m c- a R u v h e�o e = ma'^ �, ora C R.c o 2 0 agi • et !,4„x7 m z 3 c c R p a.•C c m•o5[S c� Gy0 g nS u�"E a>i To T c.::1) c�:2 on$d c `m. -� m:: c� > m ...°.. E v R m '• m " m= o- R >'y._ G e e e o._ n. Te t•c._'- m:� e` Exm3ra�x Nm'?ww:flcACHT , E..F4r� m cc =vrgE °v a, oaxa.. 'R•c = c m m ue •csbamc>d 9-awc .. mo'ammomcv =_� E E-410 ,T, =7,5 V. 3 > uRmDy._ mmx-a0- it g' ..., • TT=^y in-017,Z -5 °, n.s«.u5x.:3 =ogOCLEw,.1a :: Eo=Q�r\i5°?x•c° c' > EEL'ioyEd=Ey•5.2x°°c'.§ GbOoog ai - . . _ A A - 11EL 911'03)P!a soO WM*H l l( 7:06! - \ d rO' _ c>> -04.-•• C S 3 e LL lVJ 7-...F: N.- c % �.m3 =o ° °,-. 0r.3-.mmi ° o c -c • U e�x` S �u IJ r�lJx�d pQs;� �., ?__; tj ��. - e R C N mE y cc 1,5 -a . ii_r m r- c9 DoE = y- `o = x.. .'^. . C L_ � om s E 0 E EE -u c- c m e D _ �ILJ' pI.,, su�doH l e m o c m c v R e Do m^Q .� W �� - t. I MI C ? ^ .a m R yV H9 d�x d.C�x R D_ r ca R R E m R e V C m m R 0 0 Oey 7 0 0� `og , ... , u xee -• m• _ ,7 _ aa m g-Gi. a SC= R ° oym=tea ::_k c a go ^11 O ' Mod c fid ) y m Fx- o y °: m R s v u:L.11.62703, �e . 3.c0 . ° YE.. c � mq.n ° ▪4 t _ .., iii O 1' '^ t. E. 2. •�...,f a \� • qr o r- '-�"� E o R 3 ; °-m x �.,• c U a m w �w fm ° em " �. z 7;12:4' {i - z-' < ' , no c m• E R v rD °p A E u E LQ ° o m 3 E_g f Z r 3 :: © a 0th °o.1 c>1 .:� °`R y c▪ o m..=c = fes ' �`m o� �Y �omEcOy� mmsAxawo o .'u� 3 ._ _ / "��` o o, C o e a Q m mvm 3 u, ""' c.0.E5, �,E4 gE OER D`oHe7•Cm cCCt ttiE _5 ---- -- ° -.E --- c6.-e0.8. U m 6,-�• :6E4 7,32.5:1377, m " m m Y C m m ;' =.C.GCf U m °x IiiCR ymR mC130E _ CV C xR x,-•_ t ,4 •0zECR "..-5- `. au, u c c > ' c o . R. a ora x R R Y . p ': ." mS= a RL` Cc, ,- 3•- ❑' o� aE "xt m&aura cc v uG - ° a3`o f°. cy,oF"_v ..o . .3 < e „.„.„. Cys. c.fl m.Cx > O. al C c -RF E u J y m C E c Cu C Rw a`, ti, aui ° c.,., C d. .8 N y CO xocc m 7L L P` m p m R T3 m m R y e y u 0 E mayx a, m E .� ,,i aoC Do 2 ,9- .z...1 C ev _ > = p 'y m R Eco a sxEm v �y <� Yes ,tRy >.uDoo, oR SFx . oE -a- 5,,.9. ..9. oc . _eo_ m•r• cE= ue°, E.152=-6A:7641 a? cc o 4 .519..:.2"z; em c.,`-'-0_9 me o =-2u ' uR ' o °q - =xuxR d -t L. m e.-' RRRmm- g ._LE, L ° m6, `E' Vmfya' ° ° - ° -'• RR E .Ex ,a `= ` ca'y ra>.§ L ° m R aO '� C Rx R m .n 3L.x.. .m. V �• a oL m fjL -xx V C •3 Rx aa•_ R ° m •3 .°m. co a R = C,^-, u,7 mL L m G y x pp Vt0 y• V e ..c= -cu " .. EF Y-0R CUC0.- cut m� yv xE 333a..o - c=. . .- c,9R•_ 0w_ -0 'Sy 'mc ��pp :115 7 n » h h m T m C Y u' w,• == R • e•p e O N O m R R C E2 V . C.. ...ov a., c y -oy a v. a C R mY E >.R:fl $-' amr c R H c�v ,„ 3 , =h•- .b c u e-- c RY r i l.. O e D°•v =•f° ° R 17,-s. F.. co u�' 8 'J' •49•,•'-`•-c R• O m'g x C• to x m u CO, e °O b b C . a°2 m• t-5 v ti C Q C c 0 7 rv' E a pp=` ..4. m- ..•_ .0 G. - Ca yy. Ty- _ x C e._ ay C mwxU a >= !/.9- 1° Ox ;.G aR E mE-7. m co= C C 3 C eA R C > E R•c- - R O e a'C °x O R•.2 E R v,,:U e 0 w 6EYx C = G-` ur ', tt� x > RT•9 XCO _C mev,xpm RR m.ev ° xmCy-Cm = = mv, pE 0:u - O Tmpra A my = `!. q . m 3F.c • H" m m•- m E .c'- a av q:_x R v m-- xx. `t o R ma N m R._v.e m� 3 .. ' O =i.{■{.c eo _ `° ` o E ,cE-� c E-. R�c� Re Roo c eo creme d :i i t u t.e 2 C-= ` y .m. E U DCO O Q O c5150-4"--= m R .m. C E L 'i,-.72 m.e p .m. a[- O m L w T3";'5 . 0 -CC T dx °y d C co E^ o w C,,,.`^.a U m 6't,' If 'n u et m e a U R R w: R .7 R e o E U R -x R x 0 x ti•R E v R L 0 g Y del mmd. ra3- s. e `e u °v ` t `o E E o r E m x H- d RE �� Ram ��°,� a57o °oa ° �°,cw hHm Ea �cy' aocc E ` � ®:- o R o 2 v-p a; m_ �Q 0-o 1A 1I1ll! i;i1i =- ERE'•-r . L 4�1 1 "fi h� O� m9c o3o -REm . ` cae,} E c 3e CReR•,7 Wa) tExmC ; RCy'a'i b R „, OvvanD Fsa _ p;H.`, ORxmC _ x.. t'' ° _ E Ro f c, hO E x v, m R aC> R E =1-,; =-0-e.L y E y'9 O aC C y R U r,9-4g,C a o m na mw . a.--0.c oc E = . R . . ;•8 = c h m.9. -.5.-- can -L.Rc mL2I atm p >x CV RR-u ` oEmpx Ra.ccn.CCE = m "• U se. S5 RNL .,H R.= e- mRc vCe3 , .. CC QCR- mC ° °.dc 1 Ili V c -r- Soa m`o o '=v"0 ` yxo ` Em ` Ex m . veo«[x CEmcE hR- :} C e, ° t°v 7 g.L E C R j Tx .1) Y-e° 'R N h T�, e p _ ° '-14.. � E311 t JL1: 2 •rg 1-� R.R. vRL'C Nm NmmE um7 apx ca a, Ohhwch 3 Ili ilt eY Tm oeR 4y o mymmee mHm • C yn x N N R m EN m'a v'3 R xx =�.e O 7 O a y cua -'&•';') °•) 24'''2“11.1"35-°ux R y r0 v • ;� e _ _ E o E._ •^1 0 . 3 m = tn� y CF... ,... 2 . {„ ..,111 L C m7 0 m R p a .2.r..,•C r•a u ,'�.'rn ax .Q C'in t°., ati 4 -c1:--.4-2 x Q:: C y 0 ai m m 3 x 9 E. •• = m E E > m x1;52:2�+ O m a m " E r- m G.m 7.' x y o m `�'-v ATnt 3 R o ._. o.�v m� Rte.” C n m3� u, m a..., p ev C Ot9 U 2a1li .me_,°3 opOvsu E:Is °- E, a`, o I e� CN " uxoE °:ymm ooa`. Suc- � aN " , E '> E74oE -' S c m- ti R- m�mao :c Exr cR nY= r° Cam n o R m._ m � "m - u e x • E._s "O E a `o<m-ocm RWa, C xa u `oa ,o•0 - E ucF Rm mm dp u c �� ti .� m C Ox m- C 7 O, u- C C� .n yx >'R u G ='�, i.I* Q j` o'��A;y2gae - ` 000yoa&,� ucm= Hemat.00 E Ro^o = moEW ; R_ mo •'3m 2 t t� a, S o m m._ E 4 > m o u oo=x a) C a ^• .-•u ° oou� m E Cvv n_-U m'e Oo- u-vv O d•o .o 'C C R m Ox u m m m ° y'�R u 1-:,--..,' Cm 2 - C u C g• ri-E •Cm w 'Iliii , 1� u ui- R m c"' m c u x R .o2 R«, U v w m y 0 eu c v •E• .V . - yp °' .v z Vl R n o R m C o '.. ?N "" r�^yj RL °wm°aoEoc mi- C�to $LEEoay•$ oo� orYyEmoA.. u � �.c-- r�73v m° v .9. 747''''' ‘'.R.--mc E 'i.".4 u-c DoE ES amE-_ m _ ev H R.,•-e3 a Cwt E 7 '17:-, 0 C5 U H tiQ a e : Sa 0 I Q mETv o.' v ry, RH-uu ' .aE E `u. est�L L G u >,' 5. ; co- OQ umw 13._ c � � = CRctOu7 x . ‹ t .. Rc3c.12 C,xR ,' u - cx c o .; EL�r >'"AcaMO� C= c 0ZsrSoa°,rax ' • r� ~ c3oF^•n0v�aoF'o::aEC ,caE- >u.muti:racr`sEvE-•' �7ev 'yCau� CC)t--= mmrDcc7rn ' _J n R t`v = Rx'y E e...O- H-e2 C'O L g.O c. L R O C R mx.>— G.. !Ct -e y v N R a _. e E R u R a =T. mU my 3 a._ E- m LOTUS REALTY SERVICES LNFORMATIONAL OPEN HOUSE ON VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Lotus Realty invites you to an Open House on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at: Chanhassen Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Blvd. (Adjacent to Bluff Creek Elementary School) Chanhassen 4:30 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. We will have displays depicting the plans for the Development of Villages on the Ponds, a Mixed-Use Neotraditional PUD, including: Sketches of Prototypical Buildings Sketches of Streetscapes Proposed Site Plan for Villages on the Ponds Plans for St. Huberts Landform Model Other pertinent plans Please stop by any time between 4:30 and 9:00 p.m.. Repressentatives from the development team, including BRW, Inc., and MAG Architects will be on hand to explain the plans and answer questions. Should you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to call us at 934-4538. 551 WEST 78TH STREET■ P.O.BOX 235■CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317■(612)934-4538■ FAX(612)934-5472 )1alt d W LJ �� ' ['n; L4L�"11 r;wa Wo i; 11111 1111111 WE ST ie H ST. is-i° :111111r� NOTICE OF PUBLIC 11111W0116.71 HEARING '` i ;wA a l PLANNING COMMISSION rial -0 * M .41. ��.►� I* '_ MEETING : ;>: ::: > �� .w� >.n :— Wednesday,Wednesday, July 17, 1996 -� ;:"` tri'';�'�v... �E. _ at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 11 • f_,_. �II . o . • 690 Coulter Drive = 14 ` ,;* 7:: : '- ► :� . Project: Villages on the Ponds < <`r::: .; ,'_ Agnu' ■ r re . r:. , - — if �, 142 -40 Developer: Lotus Services r" P Realty SINNEN 1) :."<= >;;><:: CIRCLE = -iggd'f. ,iiif. ;` `` Location: South of Hwy. 5 between Great , Plains Blvd. and Market Blrd. / .7I� DRIVE 1-MISSION HI S 417y / 2-FRISCO w Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Land use plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 307,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development; Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. 1010 Staff will provide copies to the Commission. • . • I ' Steven Kokesh&Nancy Ecoff Albert &Jean Sinnen Richard&Linda Anderson 8201 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Mary S. Bernier Greg&Mary Larsen Robert W. Armstrong, Jr. 8155 Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James &Kathryn Jacoby R. Lawrence &T. Harris Mark& Lori Jesberg 8410 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Andrew Freseth& Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein Lynda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 George, Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald& Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc. 304 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. Attn: Controller Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 12001 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55317 Robert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski 1827 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road New Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331-9181 Chanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 James & Carol Udstuen Peter& Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat& Denise Alemayehu 360 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William&Debra Prigge Andrew& Jeannine Cone Brian Semke& Deborah Duetsch 390 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randy&Kimbra Green Michael & Prudence Busch Mark&Alexandra Lepage 8103 Marsh Drive 8113 Marsh Drive 8123 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lon&Mary Stutelberg Robert&Lois Savard Jay S. Anders 8133 Marsh Drive 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Martin&Timaree Fajdetich Yagui Wei &YuYi Lin David&Karli Wandling 8100 Marsh Drive 8110 Marsh Drive 8120 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Paul& Rita Klauda Walt& Pamela Chapman Bruce& Cynthia Marengo 8 130 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8150 Marsh Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Steven& Julie Lundeen Gary& Debra Disch Eric Johnson& Molly Surbrook 3160 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Randal & J Meyer Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin Mark& Sharon Nicpon 330 Sinnen Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 341 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas &Jill Hansen Mike & Mary Regnier Robert Langley& Laurie Soper 331 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ugh Faulds &Karyn Knutson Thomas & Rita Mohs John& Brenda Lund 3136 Dakota Lane 8138 Dakota Lane 8140 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jason White Blue Circle Investment Chanhassen NH Partnership 3139 Dakota Lane 6125 Blue Circle Drive 900 2nd Ave. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Arthur&Jo Ann Mulligan David& Sharon Nickolay 3501 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua Lane Apple American Ltd. Partnership Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4551 W. 100`h Street, Suite 100 Overland Park, Kansas Tom-Don Real Estate Holdings 701 Lady Bird Lane 3urnsville, MN 55337 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM OFFICE✓INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BLVD., REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOME UNITS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION. TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Al Block 6800 France Ave. So. #170, Edina Bob Smith 6800 France Ave. So. #170, Edina Frank Svoboda 24000 TH 7, Shorewood Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Mtka Greg Krauska 2209 Lukewood Drive Cindy Skack 2209 Lukewood Drive Tom & Marcia Kladek 2491 Bridle Creek Trail Gayleen & Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Jeri ? 1840 Galpin Bill Rodrigues 2357 Stone Creek Lane West Ron Lindberg 2480 Bridle Creek Trail Monica Kilber 2470 Bridle Creek Trail Mike Voigt 2483 Bridle Creek Trail Debbi Skubic 2483 Bridle Creek Trail Dennis Medo 2420 Bridle Creek Trail 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Name Address Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh 2441 Bridle Creek Trail James Stasson 2461 Bridle Creek Trail Arvy & Marleen Eeg 2479 Bridle Creek Trail Doug Johnson 2322 Boulder Road Janet Snedeker 24000 TH 7, Shorewood Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item, and in order to have continuity on this item which was tabled at the last meeting, Vice Chairman Peterson conducted the public hearing on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff? Mancino: Yes Mr. Chair, I have just a couple questions. In looking at the Minutes from your last meeting, and I may be asking some questions that were answered at the last meeting. I'm sorry I wasn't present but I did see that one of the questions that the Planning Commissioners asked for was an aggressive landscaping plan. I didn't have in my packet any new landscaping plan. Is there one and has staff had time to review one, if there is one? Generous: There was. It was submitted at 4:30 this Monday. We have looked at it. It is a significant increase in landscaping. We believe it's in the wrong locations. Mancino: So we are going to see that tonight? Generous: Yes, they'll provide some details on that. They have increased the number of the species. Evergreen trees. We think that we could do a better job to it's strategic location of the landscaping rather than, they put it where they removed the buildings and now they're hiding fronts of buildings and that didn't seem to be an issue before. We'd like to work with them on that. Mancino: Okay. And included in that plan is also delineation of which trees will be removed. That we think will come out during the construction process. Is there a, I know that on most of the landscaping plans that we see, we have a line that shows the delineation of which trees will actually be removed and I have not seen that on any of the plans to date. Generous: On the revised grading plan they show where that would be and that again came Monday afternoon so we weren't able to get that into the packet. Mancino: So that we will see that tonight also? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Generous: Right. And they also did do all the calculations for us. Mancino: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? I've only got one Bob. You talk about this, the two environmentals, Phase I that was done. How did you know there was a difference between... Generous: We just looked up. I provided a copy of the conclusions for both of them. One of them said they did not find any significant environmental problems on the site. And the other one talked about some issues that have since been resolved such as tires and batteries that were stored on site. Peterson: That was the first one. Generous: That was the first one and then between that and when this came forward, the property owner went out and did some... Mancino: Cleaned up. Generous: Cleaned it up. So again, the applicant has connected the two fronts so they can further discuss it. One of the issues was an underground storage tank that was specified as being a potential on the first assessment and didn't show up in the second one. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mancino: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I have one more. I supposed soil contaminations, what do rules of city require for that whole area? I mean do we go in and every 2 feet do soil borings to decide if there's any soil contamination you know under the ground. In the ground. Hempel: Maybe I can address that a little bit. The building department with the demolition permit of the buildings and so forth will require soil reports, excavation and with that they will check for contaminants and deal with it accordingly. Mancino: And that is a matter of what this becomes, whether this is industrial office. Whether this is multi-family. Whether this is single family. Whatever. Do you go through the same procedure? Hempel: Any sort of development period. Mancino: Thank you. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Peterson: Would the applicant or designee like to make a presentation? If so, please state your name and address. Bob Smith: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bob Smith, Town & Country Homes. This evening we're here before you as a continuation from the last, 2 weeks ago the project and I'd first like to introduce some of the people out there. We have Mr. Al Block, President of Town & Country Homes, the Minnesota Division. Mr. Frank Svoboda, environmental, and Mr. Ken Adolf, our engineer. If you have any questions later on, these people will certainly be able to answer them. Mr. Block will be presenting some of the buildings later on after my presentation. The last Planning Commission...specifically to look at how our development impacts along the property line of Trotter's Ridge with all the landscape, environmental and wetland. The old plan, that you had seen last week, which is this plan here, specifically the area that we are looking at changing is identified in red. I this area here. This parcels has 142 homes on it. We identified through discussions here and through neighborhood meetings, which we also had a neighborhood meeting last night, that the neighbors would rather not see the rear of the building but in fact would prefer to see the front of the buildings, ends or diagonal views. So that's what we have done is changed our predominant design. Changed the street location and that's mostly what you see request a 140 homes. We dropped 2 homes in the development on this end. As you see here, the development has no homes at all along the property line. The home on this side is a diagonal view, and in the subsequent drawings you'll actually see this home as viewed from off the property in this location. We have, so you'll be able to see the fronts here and the end on this one as well as the diagonal on this one. All along this edge here is a berm that is about 5 to 6 feet tall and pine tree landscaping all along the top. The previous plans that were submitted...plans had not changed to that point yet. They had shown only deciduous trees, specifically red maples. This plan here does show pine trees. We can change the locations, the species to whatever staff would like to see along that. This plan shows that we do a solid screen of pine trees that are 6 to 10 feet tall. Staggering them so we get a more natural look along the berm. This building here is an eight building. That's looking down which is added to the angle. We have the end view here which shows, really the minimal amount of impact. Visual impact on the building, or on the view. As I said, last night we had a neighborhood meeting and many things were discussed. Two of them specifically were the wetland and the environmental. Mr. Generous had touched on the environmental. There is two, phase one environmental impacts. One associated with the previous development that in fact we didn't know about until last night. The second one was done by Pierre Environmental, which looks at the site. This morning we're having the two consultants talk to each other. Seeing where the differences are in the two, phase one request. Looking at such things as contamination. There's two particular diesel, above ground tanks that were removed. Looking at those. Looking at...the soils that may have been contaminated. There's tires that were on the site that are now moved. There are batteries that 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 were on the site that are now removed. All of those different items are being looked at. Continuing on through with the environmental study, we are going to be taking soil samples throughout the site. Continuing a thorough environmental assessment on the development. If delineation is necessary, we will do that in accordance with the city's ordinances and State regulations through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the things that were also discussed last night, that I already touched on were the berm along here and how this berm is screening and protecting. With a 6 foot berm and the smallest tree of 6 foot, you're looking at a median 12 foot screen on there, all the way up to a 10 foot screen with a 6 foot berm, looking at a 16 foot, a median screen of this entire area, as I said. This can be adjusted back and forth. Openings and closings. Different trees. Closer spaced trees. Whatever would satisfy the development. The other issue was the, one of the other issues was the wetland in this area here. Wetland people have delineated that in the past and have gone out there and again delineated that. We're studying that further through final engineering as well as environmental and in conjunction with the city staff to determine where the appropriate water level would be at for the wetland. The trees that were removed on the site, I don't have that plan with me this evening. The trees that were, and if you look on here, there's trees in the entire center area in the massing. Right through the center here there will be trees that will be taken out in this location, all through the sides and rear. All these trees will stay as well as all the trees along the edges of the wetlands and behind the homes. The wetlands will not be filled in these area and in this, there will be some small filling in this small remote wetland filled in this area. We are mitigating, opening up wetlands in this area to the 2:1 ratio in addition to storm water basins which are designed in this area and in this area, which really gives us a 5:1 mitigation when you take into consideration the new wetland created and the wetland used on sedimentation basis. We do have this plan. Thank you. The trees that you see on the entire development, all the way around through here, up in here, and down in here and all along in here. The removal area is the shaded area through here and through here. The trees that will remain are up in here. All these trees. There's trees all along the back and trees along in here as well as in the front. In this area. The specific number of trees that are removed...234 trees are on the site. The number of trees on this plan that are proposed for removal is 137 trees. The proposal of the tree replacement that we have on this development is 384 trees to be replaced on this so we're looking at approximately 3 times the number of trees to go on the development as are removed. So from that we're adding trees, screen trees all along the perimeter, along the street. We're adding trees along here and adding the trees in through here. All along the perimeter. Along this area, as well as individual trees all along the, around the buildings themselves as part of the unit landscaping. At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Block, who will be presenting the. I have one more plan, excuse me Al that I'd like to take and show as far as a cross section. Another question that had arisen last night, was very specific on this building right here, which is this building. On how much land was being cut down. The comment was made last night that this hill is about a 30 foot hill, and in fact this cross 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 section that was taken through right here with all these buildings is this cross section right through here, and the cross section right through here. You go along the back, you're looking at probably an 8 foot rise in the hill on this side is a little farther down through here. Coming through here, we're looking at about 6 foot rise in the hill. These are actually the buildings, the homes that come through here. Showing the slight fill to this area. There's a slight cut through this area...about a 6 foot cut in here. Along the back property line as you can see is totally non-impacted. Another cross section that we took is right down the center line of these two streets so we can see how much, where the land has been cut and filled. Once again, starting at this end down here...the green represents the existing grade. The red represents the proposed grade. We are coming down about 9 feet right through this area. Right in here. By the time we get out, we feel there's going to be a slight amount of fill and a little bit of fill in this area here. That cross section that we want to look at is the cross section through here, which is that berm area. Of big concern was, how high is that berm and how high are buildings above the natural ground. The natural ground once again is the grade of...through this area through here. This is a berm that we placed in here to create a solid earth screen. As you can see, this area has been filled all through here. It undulates up and down to create a more natural look. Coming through here...C, Section C right through the end of the building, that there is, it needs natural berming in the back. One of my concerns was the previous neighborhood meeting, is that these trees were saved along here and right out the back of the building...so that these trees will not be impacted. If you have any questions of myself, I'd certainly like to answer them but I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Block. Al Block: Thank you. Al Block. Home address is 6558 Kingfisher Lane, Eden Prairie. Office address is 6800 France Avenue South, Suite #170, Edina. I'm going to take a couple minutes and respond to one of the requests that was made a couple of weeks ago, and that was that we show some more specific views of the buildings. How the landscaping fits in with them, and what the visual approach would be looking from the property to the north, Trotter's Ridge... And I'll start from this area here on the easterly end with the building that you now have the end view of. And there are a couple of views here in these two displays. By the way, these are photographs blown up of our existing buildings we're building in Burnsville and then our landscaping plan as we currently have drawn it and added to those displays. And so the end unit, starting out and of course trees, when we initially plant them are going to be smaller. This is the end view of this building. There's a brick area around the entry door. The rest of these...little brick wrapped around this end. So the only traffic movement, whatever you would have on the end of this building would be simply the residents going in and out of the front door. This was one of the concerns that we heard a good bit about, and naturally so is what about people looking out of these townhomes, into the homes or their back door. This window here is not a part of any room that one could be in that room and look out the window and be at a higher elevation and look in. It's strictly 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 the staircase area and it's designed for light...area and so on. Bringing light both down and up in the home so it's not an active living area where you could do that. Where you could be looking into homes. That happens to be the area, by the way that is the closest to any home and according to our calculations, to the rear of this home is 110 feet. The next area I want to spend a little time on is this 8 unit building. Of course this is a sharp shoot...has a lot more mass to it. This happens to be a photograph of the rear of an 8 unit building that we're just completing in Burnsville. Again we've added in the landscaping plan. Fortunately there are a couple of relatively large trees. One is 30 inch...caliper right in this area which brings us the...or corner of that building obviously is the closest to any home which according to our calculations would be 165 feet. And then it angles away. Again we can work with your staff and with the neighborhood as far as custom design this landscaping system to shield that building from the neighbors to the north of us. And there, incidentally there are a number of different approaches you can take. You can say we're not going to berm it. We're just going to put in a lot of trees. You can get a very gentle berm...trees or even high berm that was presented by Bob. This happens to be the front of what that building looks like. This may actually be, you know this is a 7 unit building so it actually is a little bit longer...and see how it stretched out. Over here we have a 6 unit building and again the landscaping would be similar except you have two large units. I think this one actually is the rear of the 6 unit building here. So that's how you see we tend to put landscaping in between the at grade patios and so on and so forth. By the time you get, and that building by the way is 285 feet to the closest home. This, your back to an 8 unit building...wetland. A lot of things in between you and you have 305 feet in horizontal dimension. So I hope that answers, and begins to give you an idea of what's going on with the landscaping plan and... I think I went through the main points I wanted to make this evening. Now I do have panels of all the materials, if you want to take a couple minutes to look at those. There are five different color plans. Peterson: Why don't you briefly review them. Al Block: You would? Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Block a question? Can you put those pictures back up a minute? Can you show me the front of the 7 units? Where's the, I just have a couple questions. Where's the front door? I mean I haven't seen... Al Block: In here. In this area in here. We tend to put the front doors in back...and in corners so when you look in you don't see them except in this case. Then in here, the front doors are hidden back in these areas on the side. Mancino: And on the left unit, what's the? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Al Block: Yeah, this space happens to be filled in temporarily with these kinds of doors because it's a model area. Ordinarily these would be garage doors in here. Mancino: Oh, okay. Al Block: So if you can kind of imagine this... That's what it's going to look like. Mancino: Then I have a couple questions on your middle photo. The backs of the units. A couple things. They're obviously different price ranges for the townhomes. Can you add a screen porch? Can you add a balcony? What are some of the changes that can be made and is there a difference between the lowest townhome and the highest priced townhome as far as the outside appearance? Or is it all done internally? Al Block: I'll answer the last question first, because it's probably the easiest. Most of the differences are in front as far as the difference in price. The other key element of course is the interior units have the one car garage space. The end ones have two car. Mancino: Okay, and you said most. Al Block: Most of the difference in price. I guess all of the difference in price. Mancino: Is it all? Okay. Al Block: As to your first question, our covenants would not permit anybody to make any modifications to the exterior of the building at all unless they were to get approval of the property owners association. And that is very, very difficult to do because you haven't given approval... Mancino: So once they buy in, that's it? Al Block: That's it. Mancino: But being a first time home buyer, I come in and I say can I add a screen porch right now? As you're constructing I would like to. Al Block: No. No, during our construction process we allow no changes at all from these plans. From the exterior. All of the modifications are interior. Mancino: Thank you. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Joyce: I have a question Mr. Block, if you don't mind. You said you have this development down in, a similar development down in Bloomington? Al Block: No Burnsville and Eagan. Joyce: I'm sorry, Burnsville and Eagan. Are they, how large are those developments? Al Block: In the case of Burnsville, it's 108 townhomes. In the case of Eagan, it's a total of 200. There are 90 in the first phase. Joyce: Okay. Are they of the same price category as what we're talking about here? Are they all? Al Block: These will be priced higher than that. Joyce: They will be? Al Block: Yes. Because the costs are higher. Joyce: So what you've built in those other two areas are six-plexes and eight-plexes basically, similar to what we're talking about here right. Al Block: Yes. There are a few buildings that are 4 and 5 units, but the lion share are 6, 7 and 8. Joyce: Have you considered, I guess I'm just throwing this out. Putting some duplexes and quad-plexes into any of these developments that you're putting up? Al Block: We always are looking at that. One of the difficulties, when we refer to it, it's not difficult. One of the problems with it is, immediately your cost of construction goes up significantly. It's always much more cost effective to build in the 5, 6 or 7, 8 unit building. Joyce: I kind of assumed that but it's a narrow price range is what I'm getting at. But that's the price, basically you have a narrow price range in the other two developments as well. Al Block: Yes and no. I brought along some information and I'll address that for just a moment. And I'll give a copy of this to your staff. It's kind of interesting. A lot of people are kind of focused particularly on the lower price range home, since obviously for us a concern and what impact is that going to have on the...and so on. In Eagle's Ridge, the community in Burnsville, the first 18 sales, and we've gotten beyond this so this is... Out of 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 the first 18, at that price range by the starting price range is $79,900 to $105,000. Because of all of the options and upgrades and other things that everybody puts into these homes, there were three that were priced at $87,002.00. Two that were in the mid-90's and 13 that were $100,000.00 to at the top end, $130 something. In Eagan, a somewhat similar situation happened. Again the price range on the lots are slightly higher. It starts at $83,900 and goes to $108,900. There were three in the high 80's, one in the mid 90's and 15 that were $100,000.00 to $140,000.00. Joyce: Thank you. Al Block: If we're ready I'll take a minute to get a...And by the way, I'm going to give you an updated sheet here and you'll see some information, if you're interested here. What is happening in the brick business is there are some things that previously were being put into brick and/or manufacturing processes. There were found to be somewhat detrimental to the environment so the brick samples I'm showing you, there are going to be very, very slight differences. The new name, and the slight difference in color is parenthesis on your sheet. So what is not in parenthesis is what was presented. And the first, A, I think is now called Spaulding 2. It might have been 4. It's a combination of this roof material, brick, siding, facia, soffit, shutter. That should be item B on your list. Same scenario. Shingle, brick, siding, facia soffit, shutter. This one's a little smaller. We didn't have a large, this is number C, or letter C. Shingle, siding, facia, soffit, shutter. Letter D. Same rotation. E. A little more of a traditional. We do by the way invoke, try to work with your staff if you choose on this but we do invoke a very, very specific color rotation and so on these so we don't have... Mancino: You've shown us five different bundles of brick and roof and siding. Is that, if I look at your layout of the preliminary plat, you take one of these packages and you apply that entire area to one of the buildings, correct? Al Block: Correct. Mancino: And how do you decide which building gets which package? Al Block: Take into consideration landscaping, location, direction of sun light. All those kinds of factors. The surrounding features of the land and...very professionally. We'd be more than happy to include your staff in that process. It's a team... It's not one individual that does it. The architect designing the buildings. The landscape person that designs the landscaping system. Ourselves. We've also got... Mancino: Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Al Block: I think that pretty much covers...unless you've got any questions. Peterson: One more question from myself at least. The building on the eastern portion of the development. Is that a eight-plex or is that six? Al Block: That is an eight complex. Peterson: The picture in front of me directly...that's a picture of the seven? Al Block: This one was an eight and that is a seven. Peterson: Can you give me some, basically the length of the back of the six, the back of the seven and the back of an eight approximately? I may have asked this last time. Al Block: Eight is 149... Peterson: For the eight unit? Al Block: Yes. Six is about 125? Bob Smith: Yes. Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Al Block: Thank you for your time. Peterson: What I'd like to recommend now is that, there seems to be some issues and questions that the neighborhood has and I'd like to offer that we open it up for another public hearing. With that I ask my fellow commissioners to motion that we open it for a public hearing. Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Is there anybody from the neighborhood or the area that would like to make a presentation or comment before the commission tonight? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I spoke here last time at the Planning Commission meeting. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I've got a few comments and 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 questions for the Planning Commission. I also have one question to start out for the proposed buildings, about whether or not balconies can be placed on the backs of buildings. I guess I wasn't clear from the presentation about that. I'd like to continue with a few comments and then ask some questions, like I said. Last week the neighbors...petition drive and we wish to inform the Planning Commission that we have filed a petition with the Environmental Quality Board requesting to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Several of the concerns cited in the...included the potential for detriment to the effect of the surface quality water. The ground water, wildlife and a lot of wildlife habitat, the danger to species, historical and archeological resources...and looking at some of those matters, they were very interested in the fact that Indians, well I should say Native Americans, had been part of history in this area and... Also as part of the discussion about the name Chanhassen. I had never known what that was...big tree. That's the maple. The other points that I brought up have to do with aesthetics and... Also I have a question about the water quality issue. This is one of the ponds... This occurred on June 5th. We were wondering about this as a community. I would like to ask the Planning Commission if this is what is termed commencement of construction under the Chanhassen zoning ordinances. Also, is this a violation of the U.S. Corps of Engineers wetlands regulations and also the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. In wrapping up, we wanted to let the Planning Commission know that we, as a neighborhood, will be canvasing again this coming Saturday to produce a letter... Also wish to gather information from.._about what the...about options for industrial office or some other types of building mix. We intend to inform the Planning Commission and City Council of this... Peterson: Thank you. Nina Wallestad: Hello. My name is Nina Wallestad. My husband and I own a house that is under construction at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. I believe that the developers have tried to address some of the concerns on the eastern portion of the bordering but I would like to express my concern about the western portion of this bordering position. My husband and I are in the tenth lot over, if I could point to it for just a moment. This one right here, and because of the situation of the trees on our particular lot, 2 or 3 trees to be specific, we were required to set our house further back on our lot. So although most of the Trotters Ridge houses are fairly close to the curb, our's sits further back. So I would just like to have that be addressed in this plan in that even though these buildings are a certain distance away from the lot line, our particular house happens to sit even further back on the lot. And I would also bring up the point that in order to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot, we were required to set our house back. This plan is going to wipe out more than 100 trees, and it doesn't seem it seems kind of incongruous that to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot we had to make that adjustment but here a developer is about to wipe out over-100 trees and it's not going to be required...address the fact that these are huge oak trees that are of value and...kind of inconceivable to me that, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 it seems like a double standard basically is what I'd say. I'd ask you to consider that. We were happy to do that because we wanted to save the trees and we believe they're a real asset to this part of Chanhassen and I would agree that applies just as much, 200 feet to the south of our house as it did on our actual lot. Thank you so much for considering that. We appreciate it. Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek Trail. I am the lot right here. This weekend my wife and I took a perimeter tour of the various developments that have grown up in the greater Galpin neighborhoods. The only thing we noticed was that each different development was allowed to develop it's own uniqueness and separate it from the other community developments that were...next to it. And we keep hearing the word transition talked about and the only think lacking in this transition is transition. We're talking about light industrial, townhouses right up to the executive home sites without, I think a natural buffer to protect those views. And I also think that if you are looking at townhouses or you're looking at something to develop here, I would think a more creative development would be in order. I mean the questions I've been hearing up here are, well okay. Last year it was the Scherber Brothers, I remember that and one of the things was that they said cookie cutter neighborhood. That the neighbors opposed on this property and I would look at this as a cookie cutter townhouse development. I don't see any difference in the concept, except that it's for lower income. But I think the puralistic concept of mixing income groups in there, or trying to get different looks in different townhouses and try to create a neighborhood in this property rather than just something that I frankly, I had a meeting with this firm...Twin Cities market and we're going to be able to drive...so there will be nothing unique in a neighborhood that is I think quite frankly for it's uniqueness of all these different developments. So aesthetics is all I can say and I think that this does not answer any, these tweakings that you're talking about, don't address the aesthetics at all and with that I would take my seat again. Thank you. Mike Minear: Good evening. I'm Mike Minear, here with my wife Jeri from 2421 Bridle Creek Trail and I just want to give you a quick update on the water issue. The builder, as we talked to them last night, had offered to work with staff to address the water issue and they had volunteered to help address it. I guess my concern is, as I understand this plan now, there is no specific plan or guarantee that the water issue for the homes here, and certainly the water issues here, have really been addressed. As a homeowner I saw the...on the water issue and as I said two weeks ago, the city has told me that they really don't have the power to deal with this. And if that's the case, that's fair. So what I would ask however, before the plan is approved, that the water issues are addressed and it's really dealt with upfront as opposed to us having to try to deal with it, with the builders afterwards and they really don't comply with... I'd appreciate it if you'd consider that before you make your decision, thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Peterson: Anyone else like to address the commission? Hearing none, seeing none, is there a motion to close? Oh, one more. Jim Stasson: Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek Trail. Just a couple of questions. You had mentioned that the Fisher property was cleaned up between the first engineering survey and the second. I'm wondering, does that have to be supervised or can anybody just clean that up? And if so, what are the supervised... The developer mentioned that there have been soil samples. I think a lot of...they've done a lot of soil samples but they've already done... Peterson: Maybe you could comment on both, there's two questions that have been raised tonight. Water quality issue and the ponding drain. Explain the scenario behind ponding drain and undulating construction... Hempel: As far as the ponding drain, it's my understanding from discussions with Mr. Fisher that the pond outlet control had become plugged over the last year, which raised the water level in the area. And what Mr. Fisher has done is gone and cleaned out that outlet control to allow it to drain down to the water level that's been established for the past years. I believe the staff person, Phil Elkin, the Water Resource Coordinator has been out there. Also a DNR Conservation Officer has been involved. But that's about as much as I know on that. As far as the clean-up goes, again it's going to fall back with any kind of demolition out there, an additional soil test will be performed. Removal of storage tanks. Those sort of items require the soil sample. Peterson: Other comments? Al Block: ...say, we mentioned it last night but not here tonight but along the one storm drainage problem that exists, I believe it's inbetween Lots 2 and 3 on the northern half. Either work with that and if there's any way...there's a system being developed... And as to the wetland, we're ready to work with the experts who know this kind of thing and city staff in order to... Peterson: While you're up there, you may want to address the balcony issue was raised earlier also. Al Block: Oh yes, thank you. No. Balconies are not allowed except...in these plans it is possible as an alternative to build what we call flats and what we do is take two units and actually convert them so instead of them both going two story, as currently, they're one level so that all the living space is on the lower level and one living unit and all the spaces in the upper...so that was to create a balcony for the upper living area. We discussed at the neighborhood meeting last night that we certainly would agree that on these buildings here, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 we will not build that kind of units so...our plans which would be submitted and approved by your staff, no balconies on the backs. Peterson: Okay. Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have one question to ask Mr. Block. Another question was brought up about trees and to what degree, seeing your drawing...move one of these units to save some of the oaks...as you go through the final planning, the final platting, the final grading looking at that to move the building, cock it a certain way, etc. just to save some trees. Al Block: Absolutely. We'll work with your staff in order to do that. Along with that, in our landscaping plans, and the plan submittal...if this were to get any kind of approval, it would include some very specific things...make sure that the trees are part of...very specific procedures of training the roots, fencing them off, so on and so forth. Linda Statton: My name is Linda Statton and I don't live in Trotters Ridge but I do live at 2209 Wood...Drive, which is in the Oaks, on the other side of Galpin. And actually this was just brought to our attention, this proposed development...but I would very strongly urge the commission to look at how developers of this type...other communities in terms of, I understand that Chanhassen has a need for a wide variety of housing price plans but I'm wondering about the fact that this is right in the middle of an area where the...price point is about $225,000.00 and I know from the surrounding neighborhoods it goes up to $400,000.00 and I really question whether this is the appropriate type of development...commission's really looked at that and what the impact has been in other communities about this type of development having put in...and I'm just wondering if they're in areas where the adjacent properties are similar to this environment. It sounds like it's sort of that transition issue again...but I did want to speak out to that....neighbor not just in the development next to this but down the street. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin. Again not part of Trotters Ridge, but they've represented themselves quite well. Just for generalities, I too support their views and I don't think this is the kind of development we want in that area but as somebody that lives close by, there's a couple of points that I just want, a couple questions to ask. Number one, nobody really addressed the fact that this building along Galpin. Again, they'd be sitting...and there's a lot of us what we in Minnesota call scrub trees, that's red cedar, that are nevertheless they help. They help screen but I still think, that's still not much tree and I'm wondering if somebody's looked at the aesthetics from the street as having a lot like that. The other thing is, would be that these are, a couple of the trees are being removed 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 and trees are being saved. I don't know, I haven't been on that property for several years but I'm wondering if the trees that are being removed aren't primarily the prime trees there... The trees, if they're just a number...red cedar, which they're not what I consider a prime tree. The one other point is, and I don't know the answer to this either but how practical is a one car garage in units like this? Living out this far, this far out from town and so forth....parking in the streets so those... Peterson: Anyone else want to address the commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Joyce seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Peterson: Kevin, may I get your comments? Joyce: Thanks. Peterson: You're welcome. Joyce: Okay. Actually before I get into my comments I wanted to respond to some of the correspondence I received from the neighbors in Trotter's Ridge. I think we all got letters in the mail. And it was mentioned in a couple of the letters that I received, the concern of increase in crime if this development is approved and built. I think there needs to be some sort of clarification here. We're talking about affordable housing, not low income or subsidized housing. And I think if this project becomes a reality, the people who occupy these homes would, will qualify for mortgages. Will probably, I'm sure be gainfully employed to necessitate the ability to pay those $90,000.00-$100,000.00 mortgages. Certainly they'll be different in financial position than the people in Trotter's Ridge and they'll have, I'm sure some of them will have different life cycle positions. They might be retired or single. Don't want the large expense of having homes that are hard to maintain and that kind of thing. We're pretty confident they'd all be really good citizens here in Chanhassen, and I believe that the level of crime for 140 units of this type of development would probably be the same as the level of crime for 140 units in Trotter's Ridge if it was expanded. So I think your group has done a great job and I think you're very well organized and I strongly urge you to continue your presentation to City Council, but I just thought that bringing this crime issue up was kind of irrelevant and maybe that's really the wrong way to pursue it. I didn't hear about it at the meeting tonight but it was mentioned in two letters. And that kind of leads me into what's really relevant about this situation is the affordable issue. Label that's put on to these homes. I guess I'd consider it kind of a stigma attached to this project. As has been stated before, this area is definitely going to be developed. There's no ifs, and's or but's about it. We can delay the inevitable for as long as you want but you know it's by 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Indian artifacts out there and everything else but this will be developed some day. The neighbors I've found,or at least I'm hearing have basically stated they would rather see it office industrial than these townhomes and if you consider the amount of tree loss and grading and mitigations necessary to put the office industrial in, it kind of proves to me that the neighbors just want anything that's not affordable housing is what it boils down to. I mean that's really the nuts and bolts of this discussion here I guess. So affordable housing I think is a central issue here. And I think it's a real problem with this development here too. The Livable Communities Act was mandated by our legislature and I think it's a real nice idea in theory. It's like every other nice idea, it's got real problems implementing these types of things. And I think project is a kind of a good example of that problem. I would believe that the Livable Communities Act goal was to integrate affordable housing into these communities. With other levels of housing priced above affordable, and this is a real huge development with a very narrow pricing. Marketing price. It's really kind of segregated from the neighborhood to the north and the neighborhood to the east. And I don't think that's what the Livable Communities Act wanted to do. You've got a big development that's going to be called affordable in between a lot of large, other developments that have other price tags on them. So I think it would be more suitable for this, I think this would be a good townhome development but I really think it'd be more suitable to have varying levels of income entry. I think it'd be much easier to accept this development if it was from $85,000.00 to let's say $150,000.00 or $160,000.00....If we have, rather than six and eight plexes but we had some duplexes in there that weren't "affordable", you could have a more diverse neighborhood in there. I think a more diversed housing appearances. I agree with some of the neighbors, it is a cookie cutter looking neighborhood. I do think that the developer has gone out of his way to appease the neighbors in this situation. I think they put a lot of effort into putting the trees. The first rendition of this, I have a real problem with the tree loss...obviously attack that aspect of it so I appreciate that. But once again you're berming up so that, it's not really the transition...affordable housing in here. I just don't think that's the, I don't think that was the concept of affordable. I think that this, I think that the planning staff did an excellent job working with the developer to try and get a mixed use in here. I think that affordable housing definitely could fit into this equation. But I'd like to, I'd be much more comfortable with a balance of, what's the term? Non-affordable housing? I don't know. Whatever you come up with that kind of term. And I think we're going to run into this problem again and again and I think somewhere they can get a little more imaginative or the developers have to get a little more imaginative with a large development like this to insure that we're not plopping MO units of "affordable housing"... I think if this was defined as a townhouse development that had a range and didn't fit into, had some affordable housing but wasn't classified as affordable housing, I think a lot of the neighbors.._so those are my comments. Peterson: Don. Your comments please. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mehl: I agree a lot with what was just said here. Some things have been done here that I agree with in orienting the buildings. And in moving a couple buildings here right next to Trotter's Ridge. It would seem that even though they're oriented and...that somebody can look straight up the back of the building. It might be a few feet farther away so that concerns me a little bit. I agree with the mixed use, the transition as we've tried to show here. But I also have mixed emotions too about the price range of the houses immediately next to some of those that are in the 2, 3, 400,000 range. So I guess I'd like to hear what the rest of you have to say about it at this point. I'm not totally convinced but hear the rest of you. Peterson: Jeff. Farmakes: I apologize I wasn't at the previous meeting... As I recall, when Timberwood came in and Stone Creek was put in and I remember one woman making a comment that we should insist that each home sit on 2 1/2 acres because they had more acreage. It's kind of a slippery slope when you get into varying zonement based on the value of the home. Ifs real, the value of the home is determined by the market and although we indirectly sort of define the basic price of the home, townhome or whatever priced zone, we don't zone by saying in this particular zone of single family, all houses can be between $400,000.00 and $500,000.00, and therefore transition on any development next to us can't be less than say 10% of that value. We don't do that. That's just not how it's done. When someone invests in property, and they're on the edge of a development, that developer sort of defines, by covenant or by market, the value of that development and i.e., usually someone who develops the farmland next to it, picks up on that and there is some transition. Unless there are extenuating circumstances. In this case there's extenuating circumstances. The city obviously is looking for areas to come up with affordable housing. Usually those areas predictably will be next to an industrial area. Could be next to a freeway or next to a commercial zone...any of the properties around here where you see this type of house, and you can find them on TH 101 up here, and 78th. You can find them behind Byerly's. Those type of townhouses. Basically in a $20,000.00 price range between $80,000.00 and $100,000.00. It's a very typical type of townhouse that you'll see all over town. The cost of property in Chanhassen, the cost of building this type of unit and the cost of selling it is pretty much dictating what type of home is going to be. If the issue that we talked about here is affordability, and that $20,000.00 price range is basically what you're going to be working with. And the question is, is this the appropriate place to put it? It does border an industrial area. But it also borders an area that I think was referred to as executive homes. That's a marketing term. Not a zoning term. We don't have an executive zone. And I don't think that we should. The issue of market is the market's determined. We should be able to, at a minimum zoning and if we get into an area of PUD, I think that we should be careful to note that we shouldn't expand beyond the manageable amount that we're going to do-affordable housing because I agree with you. You can create a stigma to a neighborhood by doing that. It would be preferable to me if we deal 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 with this issue as part of a development. Where integration is an important thing. That we try to do that. I'm not smart enough to know how to do that. But I know that that's a central issue in the lot of stuff that we've discussed. The integration of affordable housing, and how we're doing this I think is very typical. People invest a certain amount of money into property. They want to protect that. If somebody on the edge of that development changed the rules, they'd be very upset. They're concerned about their investment. They're concerned about all this other stuff. The letters you said about crime and fire hazards, material, Indian artifacts and stuff, they're skirting the issue of what we're talking about here. This is an economic issue of certain economic classes in a situation and when we talk about this, I think it's best that we talk about the real issue, rather than skirt around this thing. And at least from a zonement aspect, we deal with minimums and I think we have to support that. From a political aspect, that's for your elected officials to deal with. I'll leave it at that...the developer has been cooperative dealing with some of these issues. But I don't think that you can deal with the issue of solving both sides of the problem by waving his hand and saying, okay. All these townhouses now are going to be $250,000.00 and up. That's not how you solve the situation. You either are or you aren't... Peterson: Nancy, your comments. Mancino: Well I have, the last time this came in front of the Planning Commission it was single family. We, as a planning commission, I don't know if it was a unanimous vote or not, said that we wanted to keep the IO zoning. The industrial office. We did not want to lose tax base, etc. and that this had been when everyone moved into this area, they knew that it was industrial office. So when we moved it to City Council we made that recommendation. That it not be rezoned to single family. That it stay IO. And I am still in favor of that. When it came, has come back to us from City Council, and I guess Bob I'm asking this to you. It came back because City Council wanted us to look at including multi-family with the IO? Generous: They mentioned a few different options. A compromise development was what they directed staff and the Scherber Brothers to work on. Scherber Brothers did not want to compromise. Mancino: They didn't want to compromise at all? So someone else came in and compromised. I strictly speaking, and I don't know if it will, how we would handle the transition but I still very much believe in the industrial office zoning stay here. And to be the entire, what is it, 42 acres. But I will say that I think staff and I think that the applicant has worked well with staff. Has listened to all of the neighbors concerns and has made a just, a very faithful effort to try and take in all those concerns. So thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on this. I think the City Council is really going to really do this and I think what we've done in the process is, we're bringing it forward to the Council and Mr. Mayor, some I think a reasonable alternative for this land. I think that it's probably along the lines of what the City Council was asking for. It's a pretty good PUD. And I think that the neighbors do understand that no matter what goes in. The nice thing about what's going on is I think something's going to go in here and we're getting our hands around it and we're solving some of the problems. We probably will never appease the neighbors in what goes in here, given the zoning. I'm sure they'd like to have something that looks like what they live in right now. I've struggled with this because I've sort of committed when I guide something, I hang in there with whatever I guide land for and that's what neighbors can count on and that's pretty much the way I vote on issues unless I feel there's neighborhood support. Because it's our communication with them beforehand is the one thing we can do that lets them know what we want to do and what they are going to have to live with in the future. Saying that, I guess I'm, it's one of these, I'm playing a role now where I think, and I need to say it, I think I know what's best for you and I hate to do that. But my real problem here is, I have a real easy time voting and keeping the current direction for the land use as industrial area. It makes sense tax wise and, but it doesn't make sense though on a couple issues. It doesn't make sense environmentally. This is probably a better environmental plan than what we're going to get when we put commercial in there. Also you're going to have some real big footprints when you put commercial in there. And it's not going to be as good as this. So I'm trying to listen to what the neighbors are saying and a lot of it is something I can't solve, like I think some of the commission have said, but in terms of what I think would be more livable in terms of long range for them, this is probably better than anything we can do with industrial commercial in that area. I can't imagine, and I've been trying and I'm not a developer but I've been trying to figure out how I'd do it to be sensitive to all the issue and I really don't know that I can, so the bottom line is, I see a couple things that I think that the applicant has solved some of my problems. A couple things I haven't solved yet. I still think the back sides of the buildings are exceptionally boring and exceptionally bad. I really don't like that. I would have liked to have seen a landscape plan in my packet so there's a couple issues that I would have liked to have seen. I think maybe the variety of building materials might help us but again the back sides of things are a problem. I also still don't think, my biggest issue still is the northern part. Still is the footprints that I see so I'm not sure how I'm going to, you know I do believe that what's here is probably in the best interest of the neighbors in the long run if we solve some of the problems. And that's only because I see, I can't find a way I can put commercial in there being better than this particular plan. Would sure like to look at the building profiles on the north side. Again the eight-plexes and the 150 foot, I think we've solved some of the problems. I'd really like to figure out, and maybe that's what the City Council can do. See if 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 we can get down to some four-plexes on that northerly side. But that's my only other issue with this plan. Peterson: Well I too am struggling like the rest of the commissioners and it really comes down to a couple. One that Nancy mentioned earlier that this area came to us a few months ago and we said that there wasn't...single family homes, there wasn't enough of a compelling reason to rezone it. It wasn't unique design and it didn't provide any additional character to the community. That was one of the primary reasons that I chose to vote against it. So to that end, I struggle with that on this same plan, which I think has less uniqueness and I think in many ways we've defined uniqueness in this one as being affordable. I don't want to accept that as a rationale to rezone in and of itself. As Ladd mentioned too, I think part of the reason that we'd consider rezoning is neighborhood agreement and in this case, we don't have that seemingly. And as Ladd said also, I'm confused as to why they wouldn't agree. I look at, if the back of my neighborhood were developed and was to be industrial office, I'd much rather have it be a complex like this. But yet I'm not hearing that tonight, which further pulls me to not approving this, and it's primarily for those two reasons so. Any additional comments by members of the commission? Mancino: I would like to have some discussion around, if we could, hear some comments from one of the conditions of the approval in the report is, number 2. The developer shall insure a minimum of 50% of the units meet the Metropolitan Council's definition of affordable housing. I would just, I think it would be a good idea to give the Council support or staffs recommendation of that or not. If you don't mind my asking, how did, and this may have been talked about at the previous meeting and I'm sorry to repeat any of this if it is so. How did staff come up with a 50% affordable meeting? Aanenson: Sure, I'm glad you asked that question. Bob touched on it briefly but as you recall, when Scherber Brothers came forward with their project, there was different zoning options. And we said if we were going to change this, there had to be some advantage to the city. Obviously one of the goals the city needs to achieve is some affordable housing. When Scherber Brothers chose not to pursue any other options, and there was four alternatives for the property. Somebody else came forward. Originally they came in with a larger portion of this property being multi-family. We...as much industrial with the transition. When they originally approached the city, they represented to us a product that was 100% affordable. We had some of the same concerns. They knew what the price margin, and I think maybe we should address that to the applicant to tell you what the price margin is because they are greater than I think what you believe they are. So we said 50%. Again, we don't want to put them all in one spot but we said if there needs to be, if there is a reason to change the zoning, then there should be something, a goal, and diversified housing is a goal of the city. It's in our Comp Plan right now. And that is something that we would want to achieve. So 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 we put the 50% in there. We don't see this whole, 100% so 115 is the price for affordable housing as defined by the Metropolitan Council. Mancino: 115. Aanenson: Thousand. And more, correct. So there is product above that. There is various options within this. There are walkouts. There are lookouts. There's slab on grade so there is an opportunity for a wide range of, as they indicated, of add-on's and these start at a higher price, and maybe the developer can speak to the price range on that but we believed that 50%. Again, we don't want to see all of, the whole produce being in the affordable range. Do you want to talk about the price? Al Block: What the price range... Aanenson: Right. Al Block: The largest home...with basement, with options, is probably $150,000.00. And the lowest end probably $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 would be the lowest priced home. Peterson: Any other questions or comments? Can I get a motion? Please. Mancino: I will make a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council keep #96-1b in the original zoning of Office Industrial. Peterson: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'd second that. Mancino moved, Faimakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Land Use Map Amendment #96-lb from Office/Industrial to Residential Medium Density, Town and Country Homes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Thank you for coming. Audience: I didn't hear the motion. Could that be repeated? Mancino: The zoning stay IO, Office Industrial. Zoning stays. PUBLIC HEARING: 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT J, BARDWELL ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 6250 CHASKA ROAD, BLACK WALNUT ACRES, WILLIAM SWEARINGEN. Public Present: Name Address Bill & Nancy Swearingen 6250 Chaska Road Diane Lenertz 6269 Chaska Road Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the Planning Commission? If you are, please do so at this time. Bill Swearingen: I read the staff report. Mancino: If you could come up and state your name and give your address. Bill Swearingen: I'm sorry. My name is Bill Swearingen and I own the property with my wife Nancy. I've read the staff report. We've worked with Sharmin. The staff report is comprehensive and I agree with it. Nancy and I agree with it 100%. We're willing to comply with everything that Chanhassen has asked us to do. We're sorry to leave here. We're going to be moving, as soon as the closing takes place which will be in the next several weeks after approval, and we'll miss you all. Mancino: And you're moving in the summer from Minnesota? Bill Swearingen: Yes. Mancino: What summer, yes. Thank you. May I have a motion please to open this for a public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. Please state your name and give your address. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Diane Lenertz: I'm Diane Lenertz. 6269 Chaska Road. I live directly across from what would be the outlot. My only concern with this is...did try to assure me but I still want to state it for the record, is that by splitting this lot into an outlot, it opens it up for further sale of the outlot and then possible rezoning...commercial because of the frontage on TH 7 and TH 41 and that was... That is my concern. Mancino: Okay. If we could respond to that. Kate Aanenson: I can address that. The Swearingen's have tried to sell their property for at least a year. Nancy Swearingen: One year. Kate Aanenson: One year, and we've had numerous conversations about, because it is a large piece adjacent to the highway, and there's another remnant piece, what would be the acceptable options. We told them, as a staff, that we would only look at residential, quasi- residential. We didn't want to introduce commercial and what it would do the integrity of that neighborhood. There are already front facing lots on that and so we did look at possible alternatives such as maybe even a bed and breakfast because of the large lot but we said if it was to be something like that, it would have to maintain that large lot. Certainly the staff's position is that we want to have this be residential and we don't foresee commercial to degrade what's happening to the integrity of that neighborhood. But right now it's unbuildable until it comes in at a later date to be platted and our desire is to see it remain residential. But it conforms with residential so, there may be something else. Nancy Swearingen: Well all I can say is we worked very closely with our realtors and every report, we have renovated the house for the third time in 25 years and I'm a native of Chan and the road noise has gotten to be such a point that our realtor, the last realtor...had said the lot, the land is unsalable because...and we were panicked and we didn't know if we could sell it and this is an awesome deal for Chan. We've got a family that wants to raise their boys... decide what you're going to do with that corner. So the land wasn't sellable. For one whole year we had rave reviews and every comment was the road noise was incredible, and very difficult to sell so to just keep you fill where that land exists. And the our other neighbor probably knows this too, from the sound from the road. It's okay for us to be a buffer but that may not last forever. So you have an awesome buyer. Mancino: Anyone else wish to speak? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I don't have any, thanks. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Kevin. Joyce: Nothing additional. Mancino: No questions. I have none either. May I please have a motion? Conrad: I move the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96- 15 for Black Walnut Acres for one single family lot and one outlot as shown on the plans dated and received June 7, 1996, subject to the conditions of the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Would you take a friendly amendment and add the, what Sharmin gave us as a condition. Conrad: What was that? Mancino: The remnant piece located in the City of Shorewood shall be accessed via Chaska Road through Outlot A. Such restriction shall be recorded against the Deed for Outlot A. You would agree with that friendly amendment? Conrad: I certainly would. Mancino: Okay. Any other discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #96-15 for Black Walnut Acres for one single family lot and one outlot as shown on the plans dated Received June 7, 1996, subject to the following condition: 1. The remnant piece located in the City of Shorewood shall be accessed via Chaska Road, through Outlot A. Such restrictions shall be recorded against the deed for Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A NURSERY AND VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 101 AND TH 212, SKIP COOK Public Present: Name Address Skip and Teri Cook 15506 Village Woods Drive Harold Hesse 1425 Bluff Creek Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions? I have one. On the recommendation number 8. On page 9. It says stop signs shall be erected at the intersection of the driveways and Highway 101 and 212. Oh, I see what that means. Aanenson: Just kind of a queuing. Just so people understand that they're coming out onto a collector street. Mancino: So that is as they leave. Number 11, unused pallets and equipment located along the north property line shall be removed from the site. Equipment can be put in storage can't it? Aanenson: Well that was kind of, there is two storage buildings that some of the equipment, that there seemed to be some excess debris so I guess that's what we're saying. We want a list so we can see how it's expanding. A list that we believe that there's a threshold of equipment that can be stored on the site and we want to see more specifically. That was left off of the application. Mancino: And on 14, the deceleration lane. Who pays for that? Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. That's typically something for the applicant to work out with MnDot. As part of the upgrade of 212, there will be some widening in that and maybe some slight modifications done to the turn lanes or the expansion down there to provide a deceleration lane for the site. Mancino: But that is between the applicant and MnDot. I mean we, as a city, aren't saying you have to put in a deceleration lane. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Hempel: That's correct. Because we don't have the jurisdiction on that highway but that would be MnDot. Aanenson: Yeah, and we did speak to someone from MnDot and they do want to work with the applicant and review their plans and give them approval so that is one of the conditions. They have to get MnDot approval. And because a signal is going in, as Dave indicated, there might be some modifications that affect access and they should work to get their approval. Mancino: And they would have to do that regardless of the expansion and what's going in there right now? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: I mean MnDot would come to them and say, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Peterson: Just a general question and the applicant, if they're here to respond to but I'm asking staff. Some of these things are financially onerous to some degree. Is this an issue that you've discussed with them or not? As far as like the acceleration lane and some of the other points that's going to cost them some money to get it done. Aanenson: Correct. I think some of the deceleration may be accomplished. Some of that may be accomplished with the signal going in at 212. If you look on the back, I believe some of that may. It may be as simple as just eliminating and forcing all the traffic to come out at TH 101. That might solve the problem because now with the light, you're going to have traffic stacking so it might be just easier to come out on TH 101 anyway where you have a controlled access point. We believe because they're in the landscape business, there is stock material that they can be using. Even if it's ball and burlap along TH 101 to provide that screening. Again because it is temporary, you're right. It is hard to do some of those improvements but we believe that some of that can be accomplished, just through careful design consideration of where they're storing things and how they're screening them to look. Again, there's concern that because this is the southern end of the city, we tend to look the other way and we are concerned about the visibility and entrance to the city. Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the Planning Commission? Skip Cook: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Skip Cook: My name is Skip Cook. I own the property that we're talking about. On the corner of Highway 101 and 212. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the area, exactly where it sits but it's on the northwest corner. The current, I own the property and just to make clarify because I own the property. I lease the property, okay. I'm coming to the end with the lease agreement of 4, a minimum 4 year lease with Wilsons Nursery who has a wholesale business in the city of Chanhassen, operating out of my place... They ran into some problems with management or whatever so now they're sub-leasing it to Henning. Dick Henning...so he's the one currently running it. When I first got the letter, I believe it was from John Rask and it was to the effect that I was in violation of something so immediately when you're in violation of something, I mean if you're speeding down the road, you're going to stop and talk to the officer or whatever or go through the...so the first thing, I didn't go directly to City Hall. I did it through an attorney who I believe you're familiar with Kate. Craig Mertz. And so he went, the list I was given to prepare is I was totally unprepared or I didn't know where to start...I thought he could do it quicker...so he got that together. What I, after further studying and looking at the letter that...staff report that was dated the 19th. In the second paragraph, if you look, this is just my conclusion and maybe you can... At the beginning of the second paragraph. Mancino: Excuse me. What page are you on? Skip Cook: Page number 2. Second paragraph. The subject property has been used as a farmers market and retail nursery prior to the adoption of the Chanhassen zoning ordinance in 1972. So you'll have to correct me but in my thinking, leasing it to someone, the whole property is the garden center and a retail nursery. I have not added a building. The two buildings that Kate talk about are there. They're used for nothing other than storage. There are no retail sales that occur out of there or...to a nursery or any other business. There has been no land added to this property since as far as I know, since the nursery, garden center was opened. 10.9 acres, roughly more or less. As far as on page 3, and these are kind of questions that I've been putting out to you too. As far as illegally expanding, on page 3, the first paragraph after number 5. The land area to the west of the building which is currently used for storage of nursery stock was illegally expanded. I don't quite follow that. How it was illegally expanded when I didn't go through a land...trees are agriculture and they're regulated by the Department of Agriculture. The deal has always been an agriculture. I don't know how, if it was...than agriculturally permitted...I guess that's a question. And I'm probably... Aanenson: No, that's fine. If I may, I'd be happy to answer that. It is a non-conforming use. It's a retail on an agricultural A2 property. We did make an amendment. Skip Cook: With a grandfather clause. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Aanenson: Well, you have grandfather rights which means you cannot expand any of the retail component. Okay, there's now the contractor's yard kind of component has expanded. You can display rocks. They're selling mulch. Dirt. Those sort of things. That has expanded. Okay. So if it was being continued to use in the way it was, they have the right to that, which is the original building and selling flowers. Are trees being grown on the site? Yes. Are trees being brought in? Yes. That's where it kind of falls into some of the gray area. But it has expanded as far as things that are being done on the property, and that's part of the documentation that we went through. If you look on this part of the report, and this is what we spoke to your attorney about too. Skip Cook: But the original, part of the deal, all of that was used and under till for years...so that goes along with the project. There has been no property added to that. Now the trees, when they're in the field as far as the retail displaying those, from my point of view, and maybe I'm sounding a little bit...those trees are growing. If you put a tree in any of your yards, you can't tell me that that tree isn't going to grow. Whether it's in a pot sitting on your front step or it's in the ground. And that's when something is regulated by the Department of Agriculture, and you have an existing report from 1972 you know annexation or whatever it is of that area into Chanhassen, that I noted in that second paragraph, it's almost a given that that's. Mancino: Skip, I don't think we're going to get this, that part of it solved tonight. Do you have any problems with the recommendations that are proposed? Skip Cook: Yeah, I was very happy I guess, I'm not sure... Many of the things on that list I have, it scares me like you first brought up Nancy and then Craig, on the cost. It's not a get rich quick operation down there we're leasing it out... Mancino: Have you had time to go over with John or Kate these recommendations and discuss them with them? That might be what's in order. Instead of doing it right now, why don't we table this and give you time to confer with staff and question or ask about any of the recommendations. Skip Cook: Okay I'm under the idea, I'm not running this but I'm under the idea that the tenant is not expanding it. It's being used for the nursery and for the... Aanenson: We've explained this to his attorney. I think his attorney understands the issue. It has expanded. It's our opinion that it expanded. Like I say, I believe we put a condition in here that based on the type of use, temporary, that meets the city's objections that are not too onerous on the applicant. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Skip Cook: Things just seem, on the list for example and the MnDot thing I guess, we said that was all... How about the berming, the permanent landscaping along Highway 101 and then further back to 212. I don't understand why we would screen trees. Aanenson: Well that's what I just said earlier. I said if you have trees on stock, if you could just move some of those trees around. Skip Cook: So 212, when you put in there earlier that I would need screening of 212. I don't need that? Because there's trees planted right in the ground in a neat rows all the way in the front of 212 and there's a... Aanenson: And then remove some of the rocks that are stored in the front. Right adjacent. There are pallets of bricks. Decorative block and brick. They're right along the property line. Skip Cook: That are in, that actually are in front of the building? Aanenson: Correct. Skip Cook: But that was, that's given in your letter that that's okay to store things... not stored for retail. Mancino: But it still needs to be streetscaped first. Between what you store and display, there needs to be some sort of greenery. Skip Cook: You mean the parking lot in front of the building...? Mancino: On the street. Skip Cook: It's been that way, it's been that way for a long time... Mancino: Yes, that's what she's saying, to change it. Skip Cook: Well you tell me what I'm supposed to do. I guess I was happy to see the thing in the packet all of these attachments... If the use, it hasn't changed that much. Okay, I guess...you direct me where to go at this point and... Aanenson: Well, we've been through this before with changing...on some others so I think, if we can work with these issues. If you're comfortable with them, if the Planning Commission's comfortable, we can certainly work through the issues. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Skip Cook: As far as TH 101...in my favor, and the...you were talking about the storage with the neighbor to the north. That's all, it should be... Mancino: Well I think it'd be good to, after this is over, to have staff and you meet to go over the recommendations and make any changes that are necessary before it goes to City Council. Okay. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward. Harold Hesse: Yeah, I'm Harold Hesse and I have land just adjacent to Skip and he's been a good neighbor and I just want to...I think it would be fair to him in the end. It just looked very difficult with all the things we're asking...and I don't understand them anyway, so thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Ladd please. Conrad: Most of the conditions seem to be fairly reasonable to me, and I guess I don't have anything to say. I think they're just appropriate. They're conditions, if you want to run a retail operation, you probably should be doing some of these things and again, maybe somebody can educate me if they see an expense here that's out of line. I know it's not a high revenue generating corner right now but on the other hand, I think there are a couple standards and some of these are standards that we, well these are all standards we apply to everybody in Chan. Everybody so, I'm not looking for comments right now but I guess from the Planning Commissioners, if they see, I'd be interested if they see an excessive expense that's unreasonable, I think we should deal with that but other than that, again I don't think this is should be a penalty situation but bringing something up to a certain level of standard and I think Kate was right when we say we tend to forget about the south side of Chanhassen in terms of what we want it to look like. Mancino: Any discussion on the variance to the setback? Do you feel comfortable with that? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Conrad: I don't think, I don't know Madam Chair. Mancino: Okay. Craig. Any comments? Peterson: My only concern is whether or not the costs were prohibitive and as the, the one that really bothered me was MnDot. I think that's been discussed so I think we already have set the precedent. We do have a nursery that was here not too long ago when we went through very similar issues that we've already set the tone for what we need and what we want in Chanhassen so I concur with the staff comments. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Not much more to add. I will side with Kate. I was out at the property today and there are a lot of bricks and stuff right in front of his building that, that I feel is the front of the building and I think it should be cleaned up. I mean that's my opinion of it. If it's cleaned up, I don't have any problem with any of this stuff so that's kind of... Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: Nothing to add. Mehl: I have nothing to add. Mancino: I don't either. I am okay. Well this is one question. Kate, the variance for the setbacks to be 50 feet instead of 300 feet from the adjacent property. Aanenson: Right. When we put together this ordinance, we really, we looked at what we had in place right now for wholesale nurseries. We said 500 feet. Because this is a non- conforming situation, it's very onerous to put that same criteria on there so that's what the setback is now. So really what we're kind of doing is just giving that as a blanket...we felt was appropriate. Mancino: Thank you. With that, may I entertain a motion. Joyce: I'll try it. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the interim use permit #96-2 for a wholesale and retail nursery, and a variance from the 300 foot setback requirement for a residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and site plan dated June 10, 1996, and subject to conditions 1 through 14. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion please? Conrad: What were we doing with, what's was staffs comment on 14? Were we eliminating that? Mancino: No, we were keeping it and just making sure that the applicant works with MnDot. I mean it is not the city's responsibility to decide about the deceleration lane. Aanenson: I guess we also said, if it was too onerous, you always have the option of just using the access for TH 101...which may be a safer situation. Mancino: So let's say we're not making it further west, understand. Aanenson: If you want it further west, it's going to be... Conrad: I think staff also asked to put this property on an annual review basis. Under point number 6. Mancino: Would you accept this friendly amendment to number 6? Joyce: Yes I will. Mancino: Any other discussion? Can we read through number 6 so Mr. Cook... Aanenson: Sure. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water and then we would add, in addition, an annual review shall be made to show compliance with conditions of approval. Mancino: Thank you. Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the interim use permit for a wholesale and retail nursery, and a variance from the 300 foot setback requirement from a residence based on the findings presented in the staff report and site plan dated June 10, 1996 (prepared by Dick Henning Enterprise), and subject to the following conditions: 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 1. Area 4 as shown on the site plan shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4. 2. A fifty foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials, growing ranges, and parking, except that the existing parking area and display area adjacent to Highway 212 and Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the view of the traveling public. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. 4. Exterior light sources shall be shielded. 5. No outside speaker system shall be allowed. 6. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service. In addition, an annual review will be conducted to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 7. Signage shall comply with city ordinances. 8. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways and Highways 101 and 212. 9. No contractors equipment shall be stored on the site with the exception of equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery. The applicant shall provide a list of vehicles, trailers, Bobcats, end loaders, or similar equipment that is proposed to be used and stored on the site prior to consideration by the City Council. 10. Permanent landscaping shall be provided along Highway 101. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for staff review prior to consideration by the City Council. 11. Unused pallets and equipment located along the north property line shall be removed from the site. 12. The two white (32 x 40 foot) structures shall not be used for retail purposes. Storage of equipment and materials is permitted in these buildings. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 13. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the city engineer. 14. The applicant shall work with MnDot to relocate the access point on TH 212 further to the west. A deceleration lane should also be installed along westbound TH 212. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THREE BUILDINGS IN A 26,600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 3.4 ACRES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT, ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND WEST 78TH STREET, LOTS 1 AND 2, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDmON, WEST VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II, T.F. JAMES COMPANY. Due to a faulty tape, the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation and some of the commission's discussion was not recorded. Taping begins again at this point in the commission discussion. Conrad: I really don't have any questions Madam Chair. Mancino: So you're okay with the...on the west side. When you drive up and park right here, this is what you're going to see. When you drive up to Building A and parking in the parking spaces right here. Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: And you were talking about the...Are there any plantings? There are two trees right here. There's not a lot of foundation plantings around the buildings, correct? There's more of the perimeter. Charlie James: One thing that I want to point out here, and maybe it's because most of them are dead but this drawing does not take into account the boulevard trees that the city has. I've got a little bit... In this area here, there is plantings...I know that there are some evergreens here, in this area. They're looking at little peaked right now but we didn't show those on our drawings. This is part of the city boulevard thing so these are in addition... Foundation plantings. Well. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Question. You know was that a design decision that you made or? Charlie James: Well here was, okay. One of the things that's a little different on this site, and I'm going to take you back to the Kinko's. I guess this is something I hadn't thought of and you're raising a point here because we could have potentially I suppose have some beds in this area but keep in mind that on these buildings here, we don't have the big canopy like is on in front of Paper Warehouse and Pilgrim and all that because the site is so narrow, that by the time you add that on...you can't lay this parking out to meet all the setbacks. So something had to give here. We had to meet the parking requirements. We had to come in under 70% hard surface, draining surface, and so something had to give here so what we did is that the canopy in the back of this building is only approximately 3 or 4 feet wide but we just didn't want to have this cantilever out in space so we brought these, in essence what are fake columns down because they will suggest the columns that are on the front of the retail right now. But I suppose there is some potential to add some plantings underneath that. Is that what we have? Aanenson: You have planter boxes actually in front of, on the other side of Byerly's. Charlie James: Okay, yeah. There is a potential to put some plantings underneath this overhang, beneath the windows. Yeah. And I guess there's some foundation plantings along here...In these areas here, there's potential area here, probably 3 or 4 feet wide where we could put in some junipers or something... Mancino: I think design wise it would be nice to soften it up. Kind of the institutional look it has with a little bit of landscaping. Charlie James: Well we'd be happy to look at that. I guess particularly if it's consistent with what we've got elsewhere. Mancino: Any other questions? I think that's it. Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please, and a second. Faimakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Faimakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: Comments. Don. Mehl: I don't think it's too bad. I'm pretty happy with it. I think it's going to architecturally blend very nicely with the development to the east... I'm a little concerned about, I see there's some landscaping on the north perimeter, but what we've got up there are townhouses that are up on the hill. I don't know how much you can shield one from the other. The folks up there in the townhouses are going to be kind of looking down at the trees and the tops of the trees and the tops of the buildings. Mancino: They look down on the whole city. Mehl: Yes, right. And I haven't seen what kind of landscaping is done behind the Byerly's building... I assume that this will be similar to that. But I'm reasonably happy with it. I think it's... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm concerned...to take the position. I look at these drawings to the east and west of Building A and B is shielding the view. I think if that's the case at all... You're going to be able to see the west side of Building B kind of, from cross angles you're going to be able to see, even the insides of the building or the inner section of the building to the east and west of those buildings. I think that the same recessing the detailing on what's going on with Building C should be incorporated to the east and west of Building B and A. Again to avoid the kind of slabbiness that we're getting out of the Kinko's building. Mancino: So what I see as Building C, which says west elevation with the reveals. Farmakes: That's an attempt to address that issue and make it a palatable from different sight angles. I think you're still going to have a problem with the larger buildings and i.e. you have a larger building, you have a longer sight line. So from various angles you're going to see that. I don't think that those are incredibly adding to the cost versus just going with... I think that like I said, I think... I'm not sure if Building C can commit to that, that that is not the developer leaves, it's tried to be re-developed... Mancino: Pardon? Not sufficient parking? Farmakes: Right. I guess I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Joyce: I don't think I have anything else to add. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: No. I think we should make Charlie sweat a little bit more. It's too easy. Actually yeah, I don't have a lot of comments. I made it earlier, I really don't like the access. It's too bad. The thought that we actually could have pulled the building forward and really done some different things but that's not an alternative. Generally the parking lot is pretty clean. It's, I actually like the parking lot. The first time in a long time I've seen a parking lot look rather simple and straight forward. Design wise, I think the designs on the front elevations are interesting and I like them. And I'm having a real tough time on some of the east/west elevations in terms of knowing what to do with them. There are plantings that go in there to break it up. But I think I'd like Charlie to take a good look at what we could do. The corner building, Building C I think was done real nicely for the corner building. It broke up all four elevations real nicely and I compliment Charlie and probably staff for doing that. I think that's pretty good. I'd really like to see, you know there are a couple areas on, especially the west elevations on A and probably B. I'm not sure. Yeah, and B. I guess I'd like to, I'd support Jeff s comments on that. See if we could pull in some of what we did on C to those elevations. Otherwise I think it's a well done project. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: The only additional comment that I would offer is, the one thing I'm uncomfortable with would be really what the drive-thru is on Building C. All of us have spoken about this being the main entrance to the city and the first thing we're going to see, albeit small drive up window, without a display perhaps but with something there. It will be a drive up window on a rather large wall with cars stopping there and it's the first thing you're going to see when you look at this development. I look at, can that be placed on the north side and still following the flow of the traffic? Smarter minds that I have to decide that, and maybe... already have but maybe that should be reconsidered...don't like that drive thru window where it is. Mancino: That's a good comment. Any other comments? I concur with the last two comments on the east and west sides of the buildings. To add some reveal to them. Design reveals and to look at... The only other comment I would make is, it would be wonderful to add some more landscaping to the west side of Kinko's as we enter and come up, because it's the main entrance of that whole area. Of that Phase II and right now it has the feeling of look up the back side of the building and I just think visually making it...more interesting would help quite a bit. Otherwise those are my comments. May I have a motion please. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-7 for 26,600 square feet of commercial development for three buildings and a Conditional Use Permit #96-2 to permit more than one building on a lot for West Village Center... Phase II, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 19. And to add number 20. Staff and the applicant look at incorporating detailing on C to the east and west of Building A and B. And 21. Do you want to take that? Mancino: Oh, add additional landscaping to the west side of Kinko's building. Farmakes: The west side of Kinko's building. Do you concur with that? Peterson: Friendly amendment? Farmakes: Friendly amendment. To the west side, 22 then would be the, to look at the different possibilities for traffic. Mancino: Any discussion? Is there a second to the motion? Mehl: Second. Faimakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-7 for 26,600 square feet of commercial development for three buildings and a Conditional Use Permit #96-2 to permit more than one building on a lot for West Village Center Phase II, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 2. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed along the westerly and easterly property lines. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored and revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Carver County Highway Department and Chanhassen Building Department. 4. All drive aisles with two-way traffic shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face of curb to face of curb. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 5. If earthwork material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City staff the designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities commencing. Hauling easterly along West 78th Street through the downtown will not be permitted. 6. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approve rock construction entrances only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to city streets, curb, or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 7. The existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be preserved/protected from the site improvements. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement up to one year after the site work has been completed. 8. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustments to the City's utility manholes and gate valves impacted by the site improvements. 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The sidewalk shall be relocated to align with the proposed sidewalk in front of the building located in the southwest corner of the site. 11. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. 12. The 6" DIP pipe which is to the north of building B should be continued with 6" and not reduced to a 4". Contact the Fire Marshal for further details. 13. Provide for and show on plans post indicator valves for Buildings A and B. 14. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact locations of signs and curbing to be painted. 15. The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, dark bronze anodized with square heads. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 levels of safety. To minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line shall not exceed one-half foot candle. 16. The development shall comply with City Code (Section 20-1303) in the installation of development signage. The proposed development has two street frontages. One ground sign may be permitted per street frontage with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum sign area of 64 square feet. One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage. Wall signs may be located on the south elevation of Building A, the south and west elevations of Building B, and the south and east elevations of Building C and shall not exceed seven percent of the total area of the south elevation for Building A, five percent and 11 percent for the south and west elevations, respectively, of Building B, and 13 percent per elevation for the south and east elevations of Building C. A separate sign permit application shall be required for all signage. 17. The applicant must increase parking lot plantings to total 26 overstory trees. It will be necessary to make use of planting spaces on peninsulas and near parking lot edges to meet requirements. Ornamentals may not be used in parking lot. 18. The applicant must increase plantings along north perimeter to meet buffer yard "D" totals. 19. The applicant should also provide additional plantings (shrubs and trees) to the east of Building A to help soften the expanse of building. 20. Staff and the applicant look at incorporating detailing on C to the east and west of Building A and B. 21. Additional landscaping be added to the west side of the Kinko's building. 22. Staff and the applicant look at different traffic designs for the drive thru. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Charlie James: I'm not saying this because...I just want to make a point that. I don't know if any of you were aware of this. I was sort of taken by surprise but the National Association of Office, Industrial Parks and...a nationwide organization and the Minnesota Shopping Center Association, which I'm not a member...selected West Village Center as the best shopping center under 100,000 square feet. At first I thought it was going to be like...birthday party you know, and I wasn't going to go but we were up against some very...project centers like Opus and the Circuit City Plaza at 494 and Lyndale...and some other. And the only reason 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 I'm bringing this up is, as far as I'm concerned we got there together. There was a lot of... and hair pulling but it's through many minds are better than just one mind... So the drive thru thing could be problematic for those people. People in this country drive on the wrong side of the car so, but it's kind of...so the point I'm trying to make is, I was honored by that and you all should be honored by that. Mancino: Well congratulations. Thank you. Conrad: Charlie, make sure you release that story to the Villager. They'd sure like to see that in at least the local newspaper and probably the Association is going to send out a release on that but make sure it gets in here. That's fun to hear. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-1124. REQUIRED NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES, BY AMENDING SECTION (L)F., TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WITHIN A PARKING LOT TO MEET MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE AND STATE LAW REOU IREMENTS. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Conrad: It's hard to believe we changed but I think your wording is right. I never see people in handicap parking stalls but obviously it's based on more information than I have. Peterson: I find it incredible too. I totally disagree with the State... Mancino: Do you ever have a hard time parking? Peterson: Only when it's raining and snowing. Conrad: Somebody's using it. A non-handicap is using it. Mancino: Let's see, may I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please? Fannakes moved, Mehl seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up and do so at this time. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public heating. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: May I have a motion please. Joyce: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1124, Required number of on-site parking spaces, by amending Section (1)f., to read as follows: Accessible parking spaces shall be in compliance with the State of Minnesota Building Code and state law. Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Joyce moved, Faimakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1124. Required number of on-site parking spaces, by amending Section (1)f., to read as follows: f. Accessible parking spaces shall be in compliance with the State of Minnesota Building Code and state law. All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried. Mancino: If we could hear the reasons for the nay vote please. Peterson: It's strictly as a matter of principle. I don't think it's necessary. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE SECTION 18-61. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS BY AMENDING SECTION (A)(50), TO CLARIFY LOCATION OF FENCES ALONG COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL STREETS IN RELATION TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. ALSO, AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20- 1018, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES, AND SECTION 20-1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: I want to make sure I've got this right. So you're saying that you could fence on the outside of the buffer and landscape it if it's 3 feet. And it could be a solid? Aanenson: Yes. 4 feet like if it's like a split rail or a more open type of construction. Mancino: I think I like the initial one...discussion at this time. Before we do that, I need to this for a public hearing. Could you go over Sharmin a little bit on Section 20-1023(3)(c). In the staff report. Al-Jaff: Okay. Currently, let's say you have a corner lot or a thru lot where your back yard is Highway 101 and your front yard is any street, city street. What's facing TH 101, without this ordinance amendment, you could put up a 6 foot fence. And with this amendment, you're basically stating that if you have a double frontage, both of those frontages are considered a front yard. And you won't be able to put in the 6 foot tall fence. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Formates moved, Mehl seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second. Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I like it with your recommendations. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I too. I'm not an advocate of fences, so I think the original wording, especially for 18-61 is more what I'd like to see. And the others are fine. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I agree. Mancino: Jeff. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Farmakes: Fine. Mehl: Nothing to add. Mancino: I don't either. My only concern at all with this, on 20-1023 is that people who have double frontage lots on an arterial probably get a lot of noise and a lot of light and they need good, solid buffers. Aanenson: Those people can. If you're on a collector, those we allow that. We agree. It's written right. I think she explained it wrong. We agree. If you're on a collector, you should, and you've got a double frontage lot, you should be able to put up a 6 foot fence. If you just have a double frontage lot in the regular part of the subdivision, you shouldn't be able to put up a 6 foot fence because you're probably in someone else's front yard. So if you do back onto TH 101 or. Mancino: Oh okay. Because 3 feet wouldn't help them. Aanenson: Exactly. Or sending it back...if you've got 5 acres, it's punitive and that's why Sharmin put that in. You can have a minimum... Mancino: Okay, great. Thanks. May I have a motion please? Peterson: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance amendment to Section 18-61, Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements to read as follows. I'm not going to read all that. Point number 5. Also that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20-1023, Height to read as follows, point number 3. Also recommend the Planning Commission approve the zoning ordinance amendment o Section 20-1018, Commercial and Industrial Fences to read as follows. And Section 20-1018, commercial and industrial fences. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad: I'm just curious. How do we control fences? Aanenson: They need a permit. Usually anything that's a structure. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Conrad: Boy, do people know that? Aanenson: Yes. Well people get stopped for it but we send it out in the spring newsletter. We try to... Joyce: Do you grandfather the ones that are doing this now? What happens if people are doing it, you're in violation? Aanenson: People that have done it already? Joyce: Yeah. Aanenson: Or put it behind that we don't know about? Joyce: Yeah. Aanenson: I'll have to check. Mancino: Thank you. Peterson moved, Fannakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment to Section 18-61 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS to read as follows: (5) "Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the collector and aiteiial sheet. Such fence must comply with Section 20-1023(3)(a). Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required." 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20-1023. HEIGHT, to read as follows: (3) Corner or double fronted lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences located on corner or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions: (a) Any fence within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height if opaque construction, or four (4) feet in height if open construction. (b) The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front yards within the corner site triangle. Two sides of the intersection of the two streets and run a distance of thirty (30) feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets. The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides. (c) The front shall be determined by the location of the garage except for lots that abut a collector or an arterial street. Such parcels shall be considered double frontage lots with two front yards and must comply with Section 20-1023(3)a. The Planning Commission also recommends approval of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20-1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES, to read as follows: SECTION 20-1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES. Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight (8) feet. When commercial or industrial uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at least six (6) feet in height may be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial property if the City determines that there is a need for a fence. The City may elect to use landscaping consisting of berms and vegetation to provide screening. If a fence is used, said fence must be one hundred (100) percent opaque. Commercial or industrial fences over eight (8) feet shall require a conditional use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 DISCUSS ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5-1. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Peterson: What was the price range prior to doing additional TIF to get the prices lower? Aanenson: I think they were around 125, so yeah. 125-130. With the add-on's. Again it's depending on what you want to put on the interior. Peterson: I thought they were more in the 75 plus range. Aanenson: No. Mancino: So my numbers, if I take $825,000.00 for the expenditure in the TIF district, it's like $23,500.00 per unit that we're subsidizing. How long is this TIF district in action? How long is it's life? 25 years? On page 5, number 4. Joyce: I thought it was 10 years. Mancino: It's 25 years. Joyce: Is it 25? Mancino: Okay. Because every year... Aanenson: Todd has in his report that he's got a 10 year limitation and I'm not sure. I guess the objective is to try and get people in at that price. At a certain price to let everybody in right at 115 to try and give them a range that people can. Mancino: I'm interested. I thought it was a good idea about your first time home buyers. How did you come up with a net income of $43,000.00 and then going to the $54,600? Aanenson: Again, this is the affordability which goes back to, that is to qualify for $115,000.00, that's the income. I guess that's the staffs concern when people have the stigma and Kevin brought that up too about what's affordable and that's what they come up with. $43,000.00...It's not low income and I think sometimes that gets stigmatized. It's affordable, which is different. No, this is just new business. Again, what you're looking for is, and 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Todd, it's written right into the agreement too that the Planning Commission has to, because it is a housing district, just has to concur that it is consistent with the City's housing goals and policies. Mancino: Okay. And would you like us to make a motion? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Any other discussion or questions? Craig. Ladd. Kevin. Jeff. Don. May we have a motion please? May I have a motion please. Aanenson: Actually, if you turn to the last page, Attachment 3, it's the resolution. That's what you'd be making a motion on. You're saying the Planning Commission agrees the program as compared to the plans for the city of Chanhassen. So what you're looking at is the plan is consistent with the housing goals and policies so that would be the resolution. So the two things would be the plan and program are hereby found to be consistent with the city's plans for development in the community as a whole, and the city is urged to hold a public hearing so the City Council will be holding a public hearing on June 24th. Mancino: So we're making a resolution or a motion? Aanenson: It's a resolution. It's the last page in the attachment. So you're adopting this resolution. Mancino: So we still need a motion and we still need to vote on it? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: We still need a motion. I think we're calling for a recommendation to the City Council that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development District No. 5 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen. Joyce: I'll make that motion. Peterson: Second. Joyce moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development District No. 5 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen, and approving the resolution 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 (Attachment #3), and directing staff to hold a public heating. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Could I have a couple minutes Madam Chair? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: New business. Mancino: Okay, please. Conrad: One thing that would help me, as we table items and we make recommendations to the staff. And as it comes back in the staff report, I would like a section that highlights the issues that were brought up. So we can see the staffs understanding of what we said and why it's coming back. Mancino: At the very beginning. Conrad: At the very beginning. Aanenson: I thought that's what we did in the Town and Country. We put an update and tried to be succinct in that and tried to just focus. Conrad: I'm not looking at that specifically but I'm talking about, because I asked for about five things and they were, you know I saw one. And the developer responded to some of those in person today. Aanenson: Can I respond to that? What happened is we approved this, we're not having a July 4th meeting. They had a drop dead date. We just assumed that we were pushing them back. It became very onerous on them to keep this on track through our dropping a meeting date, so that's why not all the things were articulated here and that's part of our fault of not informing them of the drop, there's no July 3rd meeting because of the 4th of July weekend. And they had a drop dead date in their contract so we were not able to put all the stuff in the report and that's partially our fault and I agree that you didn't' have everything in the packet and I apologize for that. Conrad: But it just raised that issue that, and maybe this is an isolated case. I've been trying to think about that but it would be nice to summarize what you thought we said. And we can hear what staff thought we said were the issues if we table something. Rather than us trying to reconstruct altogether as we to through. Now maybe you do that on purpose. Maybe 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Kate, you lead in another, these were the issues when Planning Commission tabled it and I guess that's what I'm looking for and I didn't see it this time. Maybe you do that other times but I'm not sure that it's this clear. Aanenson: I believe we understood the issues. I believe we probably didn't put it clearly in the report but we understood the issues to be, the design, the views, the landscaping, but you're right. We have an update that maybe we could have spelled it out more clearly. This is what we understand the issues. This is what you directed staff to work on. Mancino: Where it was, because there were two of us who weren't here the last time and I didn't have a clue either reading the staff report this time. But in the Minutes from our last meeting it very clearly had, that's where I had to go to to understand the new staff report. Joyce: It was number 2, 1 through 5. Mancino: But in other staff reports they have lead out introductory with how we left the tabling and... Any other new business? CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: At the last meeting on June 10th the City Council approved the Highway 5 Centre. That is the one next to the Chan Inn. We will be seeing that back in here next agenda because there was a variance. We talked about the parking and front yard setbacks so you will be seeing that back. Mike Lynch was the applicant on Rook Place. They approved that subdivision. The one lot subdivision. Kevin McCoste who had the one lot subdivision on Tigua Lane was also approved. And then the Arundel subdivision, which was on Maplewood Circle. The Council had tabled that one but they did approve that also. That's all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 5, 1996 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Mancino: Any ongoing items Kate? Aanenson: We have the, just about completed the draft of the Bluff Creek plan. On the next Council agenda, on the 24th I prepared for them a Housing Action Plan. We've agreed that we're going to participate in the Livable Communities. We set goals and this will be our action plan and there will be some things, if they approve it that the Council will be directed to work on so I'll be sharing... CSM was also given final plat approval. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Mancino: When do you think Bluff Creek will be ready for public hearings? Aanenson: I'd like to set up a workshop session with that. I think there's just a lot of information to get the Planning Commission up to speed. So I think we're going to be meeting one more time in July with the task force. They may want to hold some sort of hearing and then I suspect August. We actually have a pretty full agenda ourselves over the next couple of months. Mancino: Is staff suggesting there be a moratorium on development in that Bluff Creek area until it is passed? For 6 months. Aanenson: I believe that we've got enough direction in that and that the projects that are coming through, we're holding those standards. I think we're okay in that regard. I just wanted to mention one other thing under new business. This is Don's last meeting. I just wanted to thank him for serving. Thank you. So we have advertised for a new commissioner. Mancino: Thank you. Any other ongoing items that anyone else would like to bring up tonight? Oh I know. That is our next meeting and the meeting after that. We have a very full schedule for just having one meeting in July. I think Kate can tell us what's on the agenda prior to the meeting but Kate you were talking and wanted to make the suggestion to all of us that I think the one meeting is scheduled for what, July 17th? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And if it is so full, maybe we'd look at having two meetings, consecutive Wednesday meetings in July instead of having one just really long one. Maybe having it on the 17th and the 24th. The 24th would be tentative so, as you know between now and the 17th of July, maybe somebody will not get everything together and they would fall off. What is the commission's feeling. Would you rather have one just very long meeting or split into two? And that would be July 17th and July 24th. Peterson: My only thought is I generally schedule my travel for the off weeks and I haven't scheduled July yet so. Mancino: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I may be out of town the 17th. Mancino: You'll be in town on the 24th? 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996 Conrad: I sure could be. But in general I don't like late meetings. This is pressing it right now. So I would, I don't have problems coming in two weeks in a row. I do have a problem staying here until midnight. Joyce: Right now I'm on vacation August 5th...so I don't have a problem with either one. I can go either way. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: I'm still waiting... Mancino: So let's make sure that we have it on July 17th, and if you could keep July 24th open as a tentative date so that we don't have these long meeting nights. Thank you for that. The taped portion of the meeting was concluded at 10:30 p.m. An open discussion on Private Drive Amendments and Villages on the Pond were held at this point in the meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53 Garages SUNDAY,JUNE 16.1996 Metro%State;;. 41, E row into � , � : t -:.- y��,r, ., . •. ,` .•'question 7` e. Z liobht r' 1 alit 11' Ef _. ly Norman Draper .-8$ . r ' Mil '" - i. ._ '! '�l� tar Tribune Staff Writer '•': s '�% t` ' They are the behemoths of d"' 'i '' 'o •.., ' `;{,{ e..:_ .,f s ' �'-'� As large as a small warehouse, _�� _4 `r y , r maybe even a home, they 't` "•/.0. r ! ,y s � ange upward far past the Stan- �' _ ' kir..-5".: _ , t lard two-slot size that allows a .o... : iv,. i- ` ` ittle spare room for opening the `T ' 4;4' y .111 ar doors and rolling the lawn ` r .? ti fT. �- nowerout_Some are bigenough _ - ` " .. '• e` ' o accommodate five, ix, even `: . _ 1).- *'v: \ even vehicles- V Ja. \ In Bloomington, they are an _.. - t- ;sue. • dw ,,.� ]3: .�� tY ' ty .. , City officials and neighbors are - '-"` `"` ""'` a `' -- ,jz, - oncerned that oversize garages - re a blot on neighborhood aes- . . - _ • hetics and a haven for self-em- - - . .. , • loyed mechanics and other en- w:c;:.-::•r•._..�. ` `., repreneurs in violation of city - :a_...;• .ti._ t is ode. They say such garages — . Star Trbune photos by David wstr ome lar er than the homes ad-The Bloomington City Council denied Rita Roadfeldt permission to expand her garage to 1,200 square feet—and she's mad."It's almost an Issue of yaw r g constitutional right to have a!Re,"she fumed."If I could afford to,I'd sue."She wants the space to store the small-scale motor pool she and her ftancir -?'; ening them—can be a mark of have amassed.The denial marks an effort by the council to clamp down on oversize garages. eighborhood blight {; r t t t GARAGES from BI "It's a Catch-22," admitted 'inmanyways,theessenceofsu ub- rn to GARAGES on B3 Diane Pahl Bump, a member of urban life. :• ,. '•(-..7!J Bloomington's garage boom Bloomington's Planning Com- `You drive around town,and mission. The problem is that what you're going to find are people have acquired too much clascas,motorcycles,RVs and concerns officials, residents stuff." pop-uptrailers," Roadfeldt said. In the past three years, the "That's the way of the world But in the metro area's largest On Bloomington's east side• City Council has approved con- these days;you simply have more suburb, the freedom to build Rita Roadfeldt is steaming over struction of 10 garages exceeding things." .. - - -• oversize garages is a matter that the City Council's denial earlier 1,000 square feet. which means When the City Council or can boil the blood.Some home- this month of her request to ex- larger than a four-car garage.City Planning Commission questions owners say it is an essential in- pand her garage to 1,200 square officials estimate that a half-doz- an oversize-garage request,it can gredient of what they view as the feet. en garages in the city are larger touch a nerve. good life. "It's almost an issue of your than the homes that adjoin them. At a Planning Commission In west Bloomington, Mark constitutional right to have a Plus, Bloomington planners meeting four years ago,an unruly and Mary Bloom can't imagine life,"fumed Roadfeldt."If I could get about one query a week from crowd packed the chambers to having anything less than their afford to,I'd sue." a homeowner wanting permis- argue loudly for a neighbor's 1,600 square feet of garage space, Roadfeldt wants the space to sion to exceed the 1,000-square- right to exceed the 1,000-square- divided into one garage that store the small-scale motor pool foot garage size limit imposed by foot limit. Petitions with dozens opens onto the driveway in front she and her fiancé have amassed. city ordinance. of signatures were circulated,ac- and another that opens into the "My problem is too many ye- The council has tinkered with cusations were hurled•and the cul-de-sac on the lower level in hides," Roadfeldt wrote to city garage ordinances from time to meeting grew so raucous that one back officials. "We have a full-size time.The 1.000-square-foot rule commissioner complained he "I don't know how we could truck,a sport/utility vehicle,two has been in effect for years, al- couldn't hear and another chided have moved into a house with motorcycles,two snowmobiles,a though homeowners wanting the crowd for letting the meeting just a three-car garage," Mary boat and trailer, a classic Chevy more have often been granted deteriorate Into . "a . yelling Bloom said."Even a four-car ga- and its car trailer.Then we flip in variances and conditional-use match.' , • • rage would have been tough. It the [five] children's bikes, the permits to go ahead and build City Council Member Ann was one of the major factors in lawn mower, the snowthrower anyway. In 1995, after noticing Lenczewski,who makes do with a buying our home." and miscellaneous gardening that some residents were building 400-square-foot garage, said the Upstairs are the Suburban and tools.We are out of room." garages bigger than their homes, council's main responsibility is to a Toyota,five bikes,a snowbiow- Roadfeldt has scaled back her the council decided that such ga- neighbors whose property values er. bins of toys, ladders, lawn garage plans and will build an rages needed to be scaled down_ face decline when oversize ga- chairs, outdoor grill and hockey addition that falls within the Wilcox cited one such case in rages pop up next door.:..0-,.•i-" sticks.Downstairs are the Mazda, 1,000-square-foot limit that east Bloomington."It just doesn't "Where do you draw the line?"-- lawn mower, tools, wheelbar- doesn't require City Council per- fit," he said. "[i.looks terrible- she asked."The 10-car garage?", rows, a snowmobile on a snow- mission.- -3"" -''t " -., --- The guy built it for his motor - Meanwhile,Roadfeldt ponders mobile trailer for two,basketballs The Roadfeldt decision and home.It just dwarfs the house." how she is going to fit all her stuff and a workshop, another,recent denial by the Plus,there's the suspicion that into such a modest space. Even with all this stuff, the council mark an effort to clamp many large garages are really' "The snowmobiles will either: garage still looks roomy. Clean, down on oversize garages. places of business, outlawed by sit outside in the summer or we'll too. The floors are coated with City Council Member Vern city ordinance. squeeze them in somewhere," polyurethane and cleaned regu- Wilcox said there was a fear that a Rick Breezee,city building in- she said. Plus, a vintage pickupf larly recently passed ordinance tight- spections manager,said inspec- her fiancé wanted to customize, "You could eat off the floor," ening controls on outside vehicle tors last winter found one such into a"street rod"might have to` Mary Bloom said. storage would send Bloomington garage harboring hundreds of be sacrificed.--• ..:d".St,', There are telephones on each homeowners scrambling to the copying machines for what ap- A future p'roblem also bursts} floor of the garage,a concession council for approval of oversize patently was a parts business. into view. r.r. to its gathering•place and putter- garages. • ?t'the g "It was so packed you couldn't "What will we do when the' ing-around importance.Without So where does that leave even walk in there,"Breezee said. kids get cars?"shewondered-3'.t..4'• the phones, Mary Bloom said, homeowners who have acquired The implications of such over- "we would miss 90 percent of our an abundance of vehicles, boats size-garage requests are greater "'-'i'• `ti calls." and the like? than their numbers.Garages are. : I •. ' ?, it Thursday,July 4, 1996-Chanhassen Villager— Page 13 ,, , .. • , :.. Kahnke sgarden center delayed • _. . . - . _.,, , s , . on the Scherber devel • • who is working on asVictoria studies def inition J .y� thassen Planning Corn- . to see a clear definition of a retail approved,council members said. amended denial of this By John Mugford garden center before passing this.' "This is the first thing people see - aonth based on consis- STAFF WRITER ;- We're responsible to the public,and as they enter Victoria,and if every- ie city's comprehensive - Victoria's new brick sign wel- they've told us they're not happy; thing works out well,this can look this area remain of coming people to town is up,corn- with what they see there." - pretty good,"said Councilman Day- ing into view as motorists approach Meanwhile, the city's planning id Lindgren. aid,the Planning Corn- , 'd for denial thinkingthe city's downtown from the east consultant and attorney are coming Kahnke says the city is also to on Highway 5. up with conditions to be applied to blame for the delays and for the lack ks of the townhouses Right behind the sign is a busi- a retail garden center. Earlier draft of a definition. He said he has to assive against the exist ness that city officials have long de- proposals of the final development change his plans so many times that rhood. sired to be part of that welcome mat. plan call for restrictions that limit he cannot erase the drawings any-. recommended the pro- Kahnke Bros.Inc.,a landscaping the number and types of trucks and more for fear the paper will wear - proved with a lengthy firm that also sells trees,shrubs,an- vehicles on the site, requiring all through. - - - - tions. Now with Plan- • nualc,and other plant items,has had storage items to under six feet tall, Kahnke said his plans have al- issiondenial,the Chan- plans'before the city since 1994 to and defining what types of items can ways been clear, and that he has Council will act on the convert the site and its 5,000-square- be stored outside,among others. complied with every request of the )nday night. foot building into a retail garden Since 1994, the council has ap- city, even hiring a local artist rec- t to work with the city. center. proved three of the four steps in- ommended by an elected official to and it will be developed, The company's plans came be- volved in the planned-unit-develop- design a wooden fence that will '.o a better job than this," fore the City Council again last ment process for Kahnke Bros.But frame part of the property. month,but council members tabled also along the way, changes have The company's building will be. action in hopes of coming up with been made,the makeup of the coun- redesigned in a Bavarian style, a better definition of what a retail cil changed after an election, and which is in keeping with the city's garden center should be. The issue Kahnke, at times, said he has been plan for the redevelopment of the is scheduled to be on the council's too busy running the business to downtown area,Kahnke said. The • agenda again July 18. give his full attention to the devel- windows will be redesigned and the Council members say that since opment plans. building painted in keeping with the the colonists and by the Kahnke family took over the Further complicating the issue is style,he said. ial military rule by the property in 1993,the building and the fact that the Minnesota Depart- In addition to the wooden fence, founded in moral property have more resembled a ment of Transportation is involved there will also be wrought-iron fenc- • -awn from natural law storage yard for snowplows,trucks, in a redesign of the turn off from ing surrounding portions of the stated in the Declara- bobcats and other machinery than Highway 5 to 79th Street,which is property. ependence. a retail garden center.They also say• in front of Kahnke Bros. And, When the retail garden center is • n independence was Kahnke has not been specific Kahnke would like city or state par- up and running, Kahnke said peo- i July 4, 1776,but itenough about what his plans for a ticipation in the rebuilding and re- ple will be able to buy trees,shrubs, -on after years of bitter retail garden center are. routing of a small road,or cartway, annuals or other items over the owever,we can "We have trouble because you fail that leads to a public boating access counter,or pick out what they want ie Declaration of to put into words what your intent on Stieger Lake behind the business. and have Kahnke Bros. plant the ice as the effective is,"said Councilman Tim Amund- Currently,getting to that access re- items and landscape their yard. cle that drove the early sen. quires people to drive across a por- The Kahnke family owns a farm his nation to establish a Mayor Mary Meuwissen said:"I tion of Kahnke Bros.'parking lot. in Plato,and previously owned land it drawn from natural don't want to sit and guess what you Those issues need to be cleared and a building in Eden Prairie be- based on the will of the mean by a retail garden center.Are up as well before the plan can be fore moving to Victoria. ; not on the will of the you a snowplow business? I need - nt Bentley is - = nan and former Eden f ity Council member.) ;11 •- Introducing . ' r' �� ' The ALL NEW •