The URL can be used to link to this page

10-18-95 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,OCTOBER 18, 1995,7:00 P.M CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DR FILE CALL TO ORDER 1. *Item Deleted. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi-family on approximately 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 3. *Item Deleted. 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. *Items Deleted 1. A preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition into 4 lots and site plan review for a 7,742 square foot Tires Plus facility located on property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located north of Hwy. 5, east of Market Blvd. on West 79th Street. 3. Industrial Land Use Study. PC DATE: October 18. 1995 CITY OF N CC DATE: ::: : 131995 IIANUAESS CASE it: By: BG STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a mixed used development consisting of commercial, office, and residential uses, Villages on the Ponds LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard Z APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services VAttn: Brad Johnson P. O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP and RSF ACREAGE: gross: 66 acres DENSITY: 100 residential units INTENSITY Commercial - 247.000 square feet; Office - 203.600 square feet ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BH, Highway 5 S - RSF E - BN and PUD W - IOP, Rosemount ect WATER AND SEWER: Available to site a PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Lowland hardwood forest,wetlands,steep slopes, significant elevation change. w I— 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Highway 5 Recommended Changes: 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 V/ Boulevard; Medium Density Residential and Office west of Highway 101 2000 Land Use Plan: Commercial north of Lake Drive East extension; Medium Density Residential east of Great Plains Boulevard and cul-de-sac and west of Highway 101; Office north of Great Plains Boulevard and south of Lake Drive East; Low Density Residential south of Great Plains Boulevard; Parks/Open Space south of creek • ARK r , • 1 !11111 '' . ' p 1l - -4 :- ..:;,? :; _"" 11111111►. �\�� 3��►��t� _:�� _�_ .1 J•'Wit*:�'s.)pi 1 t� ��' . e�� LAKE \ GMEA RE'DOW � �� , i,,,��i►� .`�' ��i\� //) EN PARK ,� �A 1h♦ �� i � 1 - ,.. i > Am, Iguisr No ‘11-1111111150410;''' fir■■ __15041 s ° 'wit;d ;o • op laiimir •e....,:i e.......-; , � • l 1�4 i• Q/ _' �� a �� 1Vbra!s � 1 �i1' z , 'A� w nil raj'srX1 .. � •;.. y-' m 44110 OM PPP LIM tpailly-or/. If 4111P•50 in elliff:11 111111 ievgi 40 ©r` 0 w11S it •q 4.4,11'.11 MY b roi I .. ' 1 ID\i;-. W SNA to Ilit - , - Ak,kt v. .. El . . Nom gh g • - PA kr�_ 4r IN Iro�A!1rraqr�r�rri■ r--10 *1 4,1800 40 :1 ,f O P• a `, J l i 76' aIILll.I �� • d wvv �, ". YLI_ W O �0 I.• mmi T� LTJ r tsi Iwo ..r+� - Ngl 'Mitt, _ WI MIMI fflffiffifflft o3 (3 )Q (1 Mge MO MIM] L:r �'► • 1d f)� J 11II w�llll /iir 0 COUL`E ill- . arA.i ! 1 .� VL13 U~ : ' Mil IF I'll IIII OPP Filir.0100 1 kAj Illr II m �ir.:sall :� O.U1 11 &lj ‘ Val I 101 II AA r ka %I°. tal lei •tr,,t. yr PP ime- lirFil STATE 64 In 11r'f DRIVEiiiiii HIGItiWD' `+L �•!' `*. WE it ri )L ,.::„.. _70-A 2. 17,Ni v44( ci / _;-- ': (1..vii-517...— „r 16 _ 17 ' SUS' • ; t Oat "I,..•••........(i 4 ', .' PiP4 ��=�.. u .1 a PARK liar 4 DP 'arum j . j Axis ... %04 1 1 ESSE •� �� ,1 \ uaa.r Y �� . .>a 11 tavn -r r© ©e 11,� ry j CIRCLE a� clsri •: } ,. : I 4. ssr.A�� AIt,� LAKE SUSANtot't -� .. ) 4 - - - - 4 =-- ,�y -J eta - I // 11/4, I-MISSION HI —� Q �-A� m E a- /:- pir 2 DRISCO w n �I V 1 ,,,c`' PA gigilKS ISIB /fr---- ____=iti , COURT IIIIt0 ,,•• . fx,.. NI to g ii-r- 011111114, II r" ttirtp-ti It ' �= Cha .'. �!IIWt!" IMISSIONI ARSHLNr Nairn MHILLS ��4 in KM 0165 a*A ' '-' 8. 7 W ST-• AT ILA �� WAY EAST 41 al '�� '�.'�/yj'.i+, .7 -ec' 5111 ,OSE §iiik---.41M11 �, I'' , / Sp =r= r T . ,..rCOURT OGS PR ,P Ma" q.4 INA. ll ° .ii ,, v - \,.>e w. 1 i f 1 . '.,-- Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial,office, single and multi-family. The project is known as Villages on the Ponds. "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail-office-residential (mixed use)activity center which complements 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 parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional,vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables,gabled windows,and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right-of- way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs,canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000- 20,000 square feet on 3 -4 story buildings. 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. The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern 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 with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. 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,and vertical development of the structures. Due to the scope of the project, a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed 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). 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. Staff also concurs with the applicants' assertion that additional commercial area is required for the community. The Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 3 comprehensive plan did not prohibit commercial development outside the existing central business area; rather, it stated that fringe development would be minimized until the central business district was largely completed. The comprehensive plan goal is to provide a mixture of development assuring a high quality of life and reliable tax base. 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. A reasonable goal may be to provide between 3 and 5 percent commercial land area at build out which represents approximately 400 to 600 acres of commercial land. Currently,the city has approximately 200 acres, exclusive of this property. Staff is recommending that the concept be approved with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report. 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 a 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 to rezone approximately 66 acres from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are four components to the PUD: commercial, office, multi- family and single-family. 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. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 4 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. 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 in the PUD. 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. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The proposed development provides a 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 to the east and south of the parcel. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 5 Finding. The proposed development is consistent with parts of the comprehensive plan as well as inconsistent with part of the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive play 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. As an alternative,the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere in the PUD. 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. 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. Finding. The applicant is proposing the construction of Lake Drive East through the project. This facilitates traffic movement envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that the applicant realign the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east-west ridge on the northern portion of the project. This realignment can help in the preservation of this sloped area. 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 Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 6 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 lake,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 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The development proposes: "The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail-office-residential(mixed use) activity center which complements 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 parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character." The retail village will be characterized by small one and two story structures with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. Buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables,gabled windows,and chimneys. Structures will be placed close to the right-of- way similar to a small downtown area. Structures will be linked by roofs, canopies and low walls. The office component of the development proposes the use of smaller building pads of 15, 000- 20,000 square feet of 3 -4 story buildings. 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. The residential component of the development consists of two types: high density on the eastern 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 with underground parking. It is anticipated that a senior housing project and an apartment building would be built. The low density development consists of detached and attached units. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 7 STREETS The applicant has relocated proposed Lake Drive East within the development in accordance to staff's recommendations. This alignment will provide continuity of the east-west frontage road concept as shown in the City's comprehensive plan. The plans also propose two other access points to Trunk Highway 101. These access points will require both City and MnDOT approval. Staff believes that the northerly access road would be restricted to a right-in/right-out only given the existing roadway geometrics and the close proximity to Trunk Highway 5. The southerly access point (south loop road) will be subject to further review at the preliminary plat review process. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet traffic demands for this development. Staff also recommends that the applicant should have a traffic study prepared to document and provide data justifying the access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required for this type of land use. The public streets in this development will be required to be built in accordance with the City's industrial standards (36 feet wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter). Lake Drive East will be required to be built in accordance to State Aid standards as well. The right-of-way requirement for the public streets will be 60 feet. Lake Drive East, given its State Aid status, will require an 80-foot wide right-of-way to facilitate boulevard landscaping, trails and walks. The applicant's narrative requested that on-street parking be permitted along Lake Drive East and the south loop street. Staff strongly recommends against this from a traffic safety standpoint. Lake Drive East will be a heavily traveled street to service this site as well as act as a frontage road. On-street parking only encourages pedestrian crossing at unsafe points as well as increasing unnecessary traffic turning movements. Parking should be prohibited on both Lake Drive East and the south loop street. UTILITIES The Lake Ann Interceptor trunk sanitary sewer is available to be connected to at the southernmost end of the site. The developer will need to extend the sanitary sewer to serve the site. The City's comprehensive water plan recommends a 20-inch trunk watermain be extended through this property along Lake Drive East in order to provide sufficient flow through the City's water trunk distribution system. A connection point to an existing 20-inch watermain is located at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. The trunk water system should be extended westerly through the development following the Lake Drive road alignment and connect into the trunk watermain along Trunk Highway 101. This trunk waterline may be Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 8 installed under a private development contract by the developer with the City crediting the oversizing costs against the trunk area assessments for the properties or this work could also be petitioned as a public improvement project which, depending on timing, may be able to be completed under the current Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32A. The City's Fire Marshal will need to review the fire hydrant locations throughout this development. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The developer will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. The City's Surface Water Management Plan requires that all storm drainage from this site incorporate the City's water quality and quantity measures. The City's Surface Water Management Plan has designated water quality and quantity ponds on the site. The applicant should take these ponding areas into account with the development plans. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City has a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a general planning tool for development. The SWMP serves as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective 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 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 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. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed drainage areas along with water quantity and water quality runoff calculations for pre-developed and post- developed conditions for a 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm. The applicant will be assessed for storm drainage improvements in lieu of SWMP fees. Detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 9 Water Quality The SWMP has established a connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication will 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 the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the pond or$4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond. Water quality fees per acre were calculated from the average cost per acre for 10, 35, and 50 acre developments. The following table shows these values: Land Use Water Quality Rates (S/Acre) Single Family 800 Duplex 871 Townhome 1,530 School, Church 1,494 Apartment 1,640 Industrial 2,507 Commercial 5,909 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. Water Quantity The SWMP has established a connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands), public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable based on the developer's contribution to the SWMP design parameters. The following table is the fee structure for water quantity connection charges: Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 10 Land Use Water Quantity Rate ($/acre) Single Family/Low Density $1,980 Medium Density $2,975 High Density $4,360 Commercial/Industrial/ Business Parks/Open Space $1,190 Credits will be applied for the developer's contribution to the SWMP requirements. WETLAND REGULATIONS 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, and the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 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. EROSION CONTROL 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 enforced. 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. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the conceptual approval of PUD#92-1 with the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. 3. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses. 4. The applicant shall better define the"vernacular"to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed. 5. The applicant realign the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east-west ridge on the northern portion of the project. 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. 10. 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. Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 12 11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDOT review and approval. 12. On-street parking shall be prohibited on all public streets. 13. 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. 14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Images of the Villages on the Ponds 3. PAS Memo, August 1992 4. Towle Real Estate Report, 1995, pp. 23 - 29 5. Memo from Fred Hoisington to Kate Aanenson dated September 27, 1995 Villages on the Ponds October 23, 1995 Page 13 6. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10% 7. Ward Property, Site Analysis- Vegetation 8. Ward Property, Site Analysis - Wetlands 9. Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen, MN 10. The Community Builders Handbook, 1973,pp. 130 - 131 11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 12. Rescheduling Notice Dated September 29, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Ward Family Attn: Brad Johnson ADDRESS: PO Box 235 ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 937-4538 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. X Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. _ Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 750 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. 8'/z" 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 The villages / Ward Property LOCATION Highway 5 at Market Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached PRESENT ZONING 10P /RSF REQUESTED ZONING PUD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Undeveloped REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Reta i I /Office/Res i dentia I REASON FOR THIS REQUEST First phase of a planned community 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 knowled e. !)L-C VQ/4'y Signature of Applicdnt Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. 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. The Villages / Ward Property The Ward property lies at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101 or Market Boulevard. The property consists of approximately 67 acres and is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of mature trees and scattered stands of younger trees. There are three larger wetlands and one small wetland located on the property. Rosemount Engineering lies to the west and large estate lots to the east. North is Highway 5 and downtown Chanhassen. To the immediate south is undeveloped land with new residential development further to the south. Existing circulation and proposed circulation consists of the new Highway 101/Market Boulevard alignment which runs north-to-south through the property. East/west circulation consists of the frontage road system or Lake Drive as proposed by the City's Guide Plan. One additional roadway is proposed to provide internal access to the various parcels and links Market Boulevard to Lake Drive extended. The proposed circulation system also proposes to provide public access to the large residential lots lying to the east. The proposed land use for the Ward property consists of three general uses. To the north it is proposed to provide an extension of the Chanhassen downtown. The intent would be to locate buildings up close to the roadways with parking located internal to the site. The desire is to create an urban downtown image with possible parallel parking on the street system. The existing Chanhassen downtown is complete, with either finished development or proposals and/or construction currently underway to fully develop all possible retail parcels. The downtown needs to expand and provide the residents of Chanhassen a broader cross section of retailing opportunities. South of the retail land uses, it is proposed to provide opportunities for general or professional office use and support services. These parcels are located along Market Boulevard and adjacent to Rosemount Engineering. Along the eastern property line and at the southern end of the property, residential uses are provided. The large residential parcel located along the eastern edge is proposed at a higher density which would be developed as two buildings to reduce the site development impacts. The residential parcels to the south are proposed to be utilized as basic single family or twin homes. Part of the overall proposal is an extensive trail/sidewalk system which includes maintaining the northerly wetlands as a feature by locating buildings which would take advantage of the amenities and vistas. The southerly wetland, which is part of a more extensive wetland system, would remain in its existing condition along with the existing trail system. Approximately 10-12 percent of the property would remain as open space and basically undisturbed. The anticipated schedule would be that major portions of the roadway and infrastructure would begin in the Spring of 1996 with development of some of the parcels beginning late summer and fall of 1996. 01/04/89 01:38 4744204 TABLOID MEDIA INC PAGE 02 lv 7J44fC road EXHIBIT A TRACT I Beginning at the Northeast corner of outlet 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 Outlet 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 2 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. No. 1 thence Northerly along the said center line of said S.T.H. ; No. No.; 101 to its intersection with the center line of S.T.H. thence Westerly along the center line of S.T.H. No 5 to its intersection with the East line of said Outlet I extended Northerly; thence Souutherlyoalong gfasn the hegEtline of said Outlot I extended Northerly P o 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, 77. 50 Range 23W, Carver County, Minnesota, containing 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. I MRGE 5... of The Viiioges on ike Ponds r ' : , . ,-- . 1,-- _ - ... . ,- . V ..s. . • , XV., ,., „.• ji. .. --•••=i11..-- ,• , .'4 - ./—2104,. . 4 ''- • ...the--\ V.- . -,....- 1,i 1 ,f VS111 ?P%5S,4 -. -ir".1 i ii I j • :--i...._ :r-- - 1 • ' r2,:*' ______- A.'',.:-- . . - - ..... .• Mb. — . .-- emr._--- - -•. . . . ,Lorapir ‘• _or . , . . .:.,_-_ i j i '' - -,..,_ ..,. .-0. _ ..... ..,...... . yrpr __.. . .. . ....„_ .. • :).......,.. •- _-.,,,---- ...\ .:.alellill' , pose 1... „ -...A . . . • _ ...:i.. : ......,......, ..-iiP,'"(•"""- „-,,:.A . ! - a ' u -s-;--4::....■1,1.,.1 i 1 ... a EMI ellyiIIP , , . ..t..‘.4:1.... .!\... ‘•, A -... 11111-IIIIII '''.. '.5'.4-r-.,..7 1. .‘-'• ' ::.,...:..... ::..;.-.' i _ ..,........- 11M11 ....... - . • Om " ' ........ ii ......'• - ",' - . '. -:-- io-,•' --• - . . ..,211511T.- . • ...d. . ......,•riji , t• -A--- ...- -,,, .....--7 •., - •a..i, a i • ...N- ' ... k N.,__, . . ,-- .-..- 1.?. .........„_ . - '!"':___---- ---7.__„...,, . .. ' ' ••=5, ....: -- 1 - . — - -..------: .:-'' 11111tit, ''"--_\‘' .10 . . •,- -- ":, .-( -1', ...-1,,-. -• ,t it ,,, .1.0.5 -.,•....„, A„.,. .,• , . ,.;-1 4., .. - "•-••• • "S.' _ - ::::1 1 .*,- _..... -- ---- -••. , -1'?” • Tm's -.."-i. ia.:•,.. -. .,....,_ r-,, ,..:_, --:;:_c_t_.:._79- ,___.,,... _ I : , 1 „It.. . •r, \ ,.. . ._ . ._.... ._. II,tr4 f.disPr...• i „. _ . , .. ••• '. ' • ; ° ' _ 1 i - ... .... .i..0.• :- , -.F. -.1 - ..._ 11. ._ :.t7 411ily-.! .• ili .- . . --,1.'t i. • .. -• ,..,,,,,i, 04-vlit,7*., , -' VIIII.1 1 I 1111 rtt, -,- - i ... .- 21:8 ',...,....:W--i1; , ., . • ; • , / . . J • _,,'• ...:: 1 .•'•L, ;....A3.,..\1 , :... -,,,,, , f'- •••4:..” .. • - ,••..'; ,...,.r• • " 1: ': . • <„. . . t . .-• - 1- , ••• • ,.•:WI ' N • 1 - .. **- .. - ., '..: :,'••;i,, -..t.; j 1- , ' '...',.,:I- 1 ' -1 - -, Nt : , . .T.--.4.4 ,.. \ :-. . Ki.- ‘04 *- • ..7* , - : ,---, !..i-4 76— i•-,,--,-4.---__N- ,....... _ -.. i\-- --i - ..-. * - ...1) ..,, ' .4--------, !kik .1 1-_,..,_ ., . . - ..,-........._________ \ ‘ ,..„---- -..„., • : 4 4.. - --N,y:.•_.:-:,...4. \ ) _ . % - / - V=l4 4111/1 II ..:•', N , . ...••• • 111' •''':' . . , . ..... .... , . .• ---- ' - i.k.. er- ,•• .- . .... mric.m.w. ii. • L...:•12 --...... t rr --- i'as - I .., IP&a ---'-'-- - . ...mr ..____.; '':',4- -t _ _."1"...-- ..• • • Ali * I ---1-- i, --. 11..,1 11:11 c- - • 0 ' C92111K i !' :..-7.7- I IL*777 .._ -r` — __,_... .•- 1 'I-. ... ..1 1• — . _ - , _ IL _,,...._.,.,:_,, , ...,,,. , •___ ..... -4. ........._ .,- . ----.., .- •.... ....::,.„. - - -. _ _ - .../. .. , �1�t cilly boaC Wit.IVII 410-.614 -7-_, .;-,1 .........,,, ,----'‘'''-'- :/1411517'rEll . II atIre- - s..t __---- 101- •-''.--./ _ l • a L..._ �A- T3i.5 T/ 1.- ..v+;"Retail, ' i I - -- s's VYIIY;Y��1 ' '•\'4,000 S.F_. liffirzi.___, .�l ' �i f �.\ ,.:,�%,„ 9 3.1 Ac. �; '+fes ;('.401;i;d1136,000 S.F.,�b ; -• I ! . iu 1.111117 • -•'41112101Retail iiia "`��CC_ �-3.6 Ac. �' *-1 R 1\►Akk I►��-•----7-i--_ -42,000 S.F.-fff Retail. Q AliftlifRetail . .,N,�PI►07%3.2Ac. 1' °.iii ' 2.8 Ac.' �� 37,500 S.F. Ka^:1St 33,000 S.F. ��l �''•Z�(TI �s`�re� ° r r 41LX: °'. N/ tiS*41" '----41 -'-'1)-° - i t‘.,... Retail ., �I. I .`, \!/-. _-;tt_4�f A14. "II\co- i7.4Ac•1, ;il.\!! �� `�a�,—�� 1- . 0 414. \\ 87,500 S.F.i/? \4S \ Residential !-''- ♦�.r� 7.4 Ac. �\r,: 1 . Office 1, ��• �. \ .\ f- k j A i 3.5 Ac. y � I . 0800S.R�� : i � 1 . 1.111-.-..e.5_, 1 - i\ 1►M-,k- +9 liVi0 Office f...1: ii- - - - fr ✓'��1� ��' 57,400 S.F, �I -`\ nn V__! ;j ..; T -,k ' Office �• 7 --' _TEY.°"."I• ''1�� E.HYEMJ� -_- - �6.6 Ac.((.z ' !1t�. : �,.GE •_i• - 'x,95,400 S.F. �,. :! ' ` I►I a� , , \ .'s All 7--- ---.1. SOIN Uagl • •../c • , LA E ( ��' , *�..,.H.E Residential Residential i V:11.1 Ac /IG ft A, 'r2.5 Ac. ', . i ,3,5) SUSAiN i �\ Iesid t. i lli k ► — 11 ,.....irit4r7,NO, (:7-7_" 1, ' it ".'(•,f7i q....-)) Atik , -‘' ---- -___ ..------ - ---- /1#0,,, ,.., .: -. ...e., , •i „...,_ ...„--_-__:,--_- ,..-_ •vit. c; 1 VVard ■■■■ Private Drive .fZ��,,,.a Property •••• Trails B R W WARD PROPERTY General Concept Plan The Ward property consists of approximately 73 acres located along Trunk Highway 5 between the old and new State Highway 101. The site is gently rolling with heavy vegetation consisting of young trees. The only old stand of trees is located along Lake Susan at the old farmstead. The remaining vegetation consists of young trees which have "volunteered" over the past few years. Of the total site approximately 20% is either wetlands or water. The general concept for the property is a mixed-use program with an attractive "country village" look from all internal roadways and from Highway 5. The uses anticipated are hotels, restaurants, retail, small and medium offices buildings, residential and open space. For the look and the concept we have drawn from the success of such areas as Monterey and Carmel, California; Freeport, Main (a New England community concept) and for local relevance, from the success of 50th & France, which we hope to duplicate with the "Country Village" attraction. _ The roadway network is designed so that old 101 will be realigned and will become a part of the internal street system, a system which will provide on-street parking, access to major parking areas, a perimeter road around the "Village Center", as well as access throughout the balance of the site. The street system will easily provide access and accommodate traffic from the industrial area to the west and from the to-be-developed Legion Site to the east, without creating a thoroughfare through the site. The street system has been developed with a view toward providing a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Highway 5 and 101, both 4 lanes at this point, will handle the major north-south and east-west vehicular traffic. The Village Center will provide a variety of retail, service retail, small offices, restaurants, lodging opportunities and possibly even a small church. The "Village" site plan concept envisions buildings located along the wetlands and along the internal street system, with primary parking on the "inside" of the sites. Segments of the site are anticipated to be used for larger but low-rise offices of no more than three stores, oriented toward the lake and the major wetland. The residential usage will consist of clustered single family along Lake • Susan and a medium density product along the easterly property line. A concerted effort will be targeted toward the preservation of the Marsh Lake and Lake Susan vistas. Over 20% of the site will remain as open space offering the opportunity of extending the trail system throughout the site and providing direct linkage to the trail along Lake Susan, Marsh Lake and into the balance of downtown Chanhassen. The concept plan anticipates the following development intensities: Estimated Annual Percent. Real Estate Taxes Use # Acres of Site # S.F. Taxes/S.f. to be Generated Retail 23.5 32% 275,000 $3.00 $825,000 Office 14.1 19% 200,000 3.50 700,000 Multi-Res. 7.4 16% 60 units 180,000 S.F.-Res 4.0 / 6 units 24,000 Streets/Open 33% Totals 100% $1,729,000 It is anticipated that the first phase of development will be undertaken in the Fall of 1996. SEP 0 8 1J 7/ _+ 1 1 A ST 1992 � ' Y Or etit-kranr,z3bEN 1:1 A sMeMO I' .1 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Residential 42% Residential 52% Residential 40% Residential 48% Commercial 3% Commercial 3 Conanae rcual 0% D Commercial 10<< Industrial 6 Dial 8% . Public Use 47% Industrial 7,i Public Use Slp: Industria110% ;IlPublic Use 31% ,itmainhirma :‘,),/, Use 32% 1955 Large Cities 1992 Bringing Land-Use and land-use map will have the most insight into what forces g g brought the city to its current form and where it may be Ratios Into the '90s heading in the future. Land-use ratios are most useful to planners and developers By Christopher Harris involved in comprehensive planning and long-range development, because these data are necessary in Every municipality is responsible for guiding future growth. determining what mix of land uses should be encouraged in The challenge is creating an appropriate mix of residential, future decades. Also, developers building neotraditional commercial, industrial,and public uses in the community. towns, planned communities, and large-scale mixed-use One pivotal factor in this process is a solid understanding of developments on vacant land find ratios from other the current pattern of land uses within municipal boundaries. communities to be a good basis for land-use allocation. Knowing what uses exist and what services are needed to It is interesting to note that the ratios from the planned provide for those uses can determine the type and location of community of Columbia, Maryland,which was built in the development that a municipality should plan for. early 1960s, nearly match all of the ratio averages from the This PAS Memo is a summary of a 1992 survey of 1992 survey. land-use ratios in 66 municipalities.The American Planning Association undertook this study in response to a Current Data are Important large number of requests that the Planning Advisory Service Development patterns change over time—even within a receives for an update a 1983 study. Part of this demand is decade—and land-use ratios need to be updated to reflect driven by the growing number of states that are mandating those changes accurately.This study will serve as an update cities and counties to do comprehensive planning.These to several surveys of land-use ratios done in preceding mandated plans must include an inventory of existing decades. land uses. The first major study was done by Harland Bartholomew Even in cities where planning is not required, there has and Jack Wood in 1955. They surveyed ratios over a 20-year been a significant number of comprehensive plan updates span and published their results in Land Uses In American in the last few years. Some of these communities may be Cities. Those ratios were used in a large number of the redoing their plan for the first time since the 701 era of federally funded 701 comprehensive plans. planning in the 1950s and 1960s. Land-use trends and A second study,by Eisner and Associates,examined ratios settlement patterns have changed significantly since that compiled between 1939 to 1985.The usefulness of this data time,causing noticeable changes in the land-use mix for comprehensive planning purposes is compromised by the and a need for updated ratios. fact that the researchers analyzed ratios over a 46-year span. Too many development trends altered land-use ratios over Who Uses Land-Use Ratios that period. Eisner's ranges include both pre-and post-World Land-use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories War II residential settlement patterns,which are vastly of land as a percentage of the total amount of land in a different. community. After a land-use survey,the results are mapped Yet another survey of 22 large American cities was done or entered into a computer and total land acreage for each in 1973. The results of that study were printed in Urban Land category is tallied. Policies and Land-use Control Measures (Vol. VI,Northern Because the ratios are derived from acreage totals, America). they do not represent the spatial patterns of cities. Spatial Finally, the most recent comprehensive look at these ratios arrangements of land uses typically are portrayed on a land- was a 1983 survey by Gregory Longhini and Mike Sutton. use map. Planners who understand both their land-use ratios Published by the APA, it quantified land-use ratios from 46 large and 22 small cities(See PAS Memo May 1983).Most course;a privately owned area might be an amusement park. of the land-use ratios in that survey were compiled between Transportation and utilities is the last public use 1978 and 1982. distinction.This includes rights-of-way,streets,alleys, airports,rail,transportation terminals,communication,pump 45 Methodology stations,power stations,water facilities,and other similar Approximately a third of the information presented here uses. was discovered by reviewing many recent comprehensive Although the categories in this study were selected to plans in the APA library. Most of the data for small cities reduce discrepancies,the task of fitting each city's land-use were collected this way.The other two-thirds of the data, ratios into these two tables was still extremely difficult. particularly for large cities, were collected through telephone To repeat: these are only generalizations. Unfortunately,the manipulation needed to reorganize interviews. Selection of cities for the study was based on two some of the cities' ratios has weakened the results slightly. variables: date of their land-use survey and their geographic For example,a small percentage of the communities did not location. Although some of the ratios used date back seven calculate the acreage of streets and right-of-ways.Sometimes years,the majority of the data were collected since 1989. transportation is completely ignored and other times only Almost every region in the country is represented. utilities,bus terminals,airports and the like are calculated as Land-use ratios are calculated as a percentage of the all of the transportation uses. In these cases,this category's developed land within communities.Therefore, agricultural ratio is typically under five percent. and vacant lands were not figured in.This results in a more Other inconsistencies arise because specific uses are accurate representation of the breakdown of land uses in hadiffered ent very ry dif ereFoyr example,a recreationalamong uis,accord n such g to the urbanized portion of each city. One problem with the data is that nearly every city as a miniature golf course or a driving range is certainly a responded with different land-use categories.Tucson, recreational use. But,by some definitions,it is also a Arizona,breaks its developed land into 21 categories. business use; after all,it is earning a profit. Although Baltimore responded with only five categories. For this the definition of recreational uses in this study includes study,the data have been reorganized into the following four for-profit uses, some cities include these uses in the land-use categories: residential,commercial,industrial, commercial category. Some cities consider railroads to and public uses.Public uses are further broken into three be a transportation use,as does this study,while others subcategories: parks and recreation,institutional, and consider them an industrial use. transportation and utilities.Limiting the categories was Mixed-use developments create yet another problem. necessary to reduce the discrepancies between uses as For the purposes of this study,these percentages are figured defined by each city and, for comparative purposes,to use into whichever use dominates the development, particularly fa categories that resemble those found in APA's 1983 study. commercial,residential,or industrial. For example, small structures,such as an apartment over a retail shop,will most Details of Each Category likely be categorized according to the use occupying the The residential category includes single-family detached ground level—that is,commercial. h mixed-use developments are not included as a units,two-or more family attached units,apartments, Although condominiums,and mobile homes.Noted in the table is the category in this study, more cities are beginning to include percentage of single-family detached housing as a percentage them in their ratios.Tampa,Florida;Bellevue,Washington; of the entire developed city. and Frisco,Colorado,responded to this survey with mixed- The commercial category includes all types of trade and use ratios.In two of the three cases,the percentages were services.The retail portion includes uses such as strip malls, minuscule.Tampa,Florida,has multiple mixed-use small and large scale shopping centers,and wholesaling categories such as suburban mixed-use,which covers outlets.Also included are office buildings and business parks 13 percent of the total developed land. that have financial or administrative functions.Other general The process of recalculating data to serve the purpose commercial uses are restaurants,grocery stores,and repair of this study is the last major methodological problem. businesses. A majority of the ratios for each city had to be recalculated The industrial category includes both heavy and light in order to eliminate the percentages of land that is either industry.These uses are characterized as construction, vacant, agricultural, or non-improved open space such as manufacturing, and.This,combined with rounding the he on, d wnasome instancesing ands,high technology research. reasonistribution,resource forest lsome of the percentages do not qual 100tios, is percent. extraction,and, The public use category is the cumulative percentage of institutional uses,parks and recreation,and transportation and Residential Uses utility facilities. Institutional uses are those owned by the Since the first study of land-use ratios in 1955,residential local,state,or federal government,such as schools,hospitals, uses have occupied the most land in small and large cities. and police and fire stations.Churches,synagogues,and In 1955,40 percent and 42 percent of the land in central fraternal organizations, which are quasi-public facilities, and satellite cities,respectively, was used for residential also are included in the institutional category. purposes. In the 1973 study of large cities,40 percent of land The second public use category is parks and recreation, was residential. The boom in suburban growth in the 1950s comprising private or publicly owned areas used by citizens and 1960s increased these percentages significantly.The ' in the community. A public area could be a municipal golf effects were evident in the 1983 study,where residential land increased to 48 percent of a city's developed land for both Christopher Harris is an APA research associate. large and small cities.The residential densities in large 2 Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'I Parks of way Aiken, S.C. 20,000 ' 65% (60%) 9% I% 25% 9% 16% NA Ambler,Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9 Asheville,N.C. 62,000 69 (62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA Bellevue,Wash. 88,000 65 (57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA Carlsbad, Calif. 51,000 57 (40) 5 9 29 3 17 9 Carrollton,Tex. 33,000 39(34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA Columbia,Md. 78,000 43 (32) 20(combined) 37 NA NA NA Costa Mesa,Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA Elgin,Ill. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32 El Monte, Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7 Evanston, Ill. 72,000 45 (30) 7 4 44 10 8 26 Fishkill, N.Y. 15,000 24(20) 4 1 70 25 33 12 Frisco, Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA Galveston,Tex. 62,000 25 (21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA Highland Park, Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19 Hoffman Estates, Ill. 45,000 46(37) 10 2 41 3 15 23 La Verne,Calif. 27,000 67 (58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA Lynnwood, Wash. 29,000 56(46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA Manassas, Va. 22,000 52(41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA Midway, Ky. 1,400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14 Montpelier,Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15 Mount Prospect, Ill. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA Northbrook, Ill_ 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19 Oak Creek, Wis. 20,000 37 (27) 8 12 43 6 23 14 Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52(43) 7 6 35 14 9 12 Prescott, Ariz. 26,000 74(50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA Pompano Beach, Fla. 67,000 44(25) 10 17 39 4 17 8 Redding, Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA St. Peters, Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA Sedona, Ariz. 7,300 74(71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA Skokie, Ill. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32 Versailles, Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14 Wakefield, Mass. 24,000 54(52) 5 3 38 8 6 24 West Hollywood,Calif. 36,000 42 (8) 22 3 33 3 1 29 { Ratio Averages 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA 1ns�rV�.��2r- ` \"is 97 7) 1 .cr `70 6 �0 ;3 90 23 % How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years Residential Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks 1992 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA 1983 48 7 8 37 13 5 1955 42(36) 2 8 48 11 4 Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Over 100,000 Residential Right City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way 1 Albuquerque,N.M. 385,000 57%(47%) 15% 5% 23% 11% 8% 4% Amherst,N.Y. 112,000 43(40) 7 2 48 12 12 24 Atlanta 437,000 54 5 9 32 11 (combined) 21 Aurora,Colo. 232,000 44 21 17 18 NA NA NA Austin,Tex. 345,000 48(43) 7 5 38 7 5 _ 26 Baltimore 787,000 42 27 6 25 16(combined) 9 Charlotte,N.C. 395,000 61 10 6 24 21 (combined) 2 Cleveland 506,000 35 5 15 45 6 7 32 Dallas 1,007,000 58(50) 8 12 22 5 8 9 Detroit 1,028,000 43 (33) 5 9 44 13 (combined) 31 El Paso 485,000 42(36) 6 10 42 15 5 22 Evansville,Ind. 129,000 57 24 5 14 NA 8 6 Fort Worth 448,000 50(45) 7 12 31 6 13 12 Hartford,Conn. 136,000 32 11 4 53 16 16 21 Honolulu 432,000 30 34 15 12 6 6 NA Indianapolis 742,000 55 (48) 7 10 28 28(combined) NA Lansing,Mich. 127,000 60 6 10 24 11 13 . NA Lexington, Ky. 214,000 58 8 8 25 18(combined) 7 Long Beach,Calif. 440,000 48(32) 12 22 18 6 6 6 Madison,Wis. 191,000 39 8 4 49 7 12 30 Norfolk,Va. 266,000 44(33) 9 4 43 27 6 10 Omaha 336,000 38 5 4 53 20(combined) 33 Peoria,Ill. 113,000 52 8 6 34 7 21 6 Reno,Nev. 101,000 36(25) 8 5 51 25 21 5 St.Paul 270,000 37 4 14 45 7 12 26 Salt Lake City 163,000 25 (20) 7 9 59 7 7 45 Santa Clarita,Calif. 121,000 70(59) 6 14 10 5 5 NA Tampa,Fla. 834,000 44(30) 15 26 15 10 5 NA Tempe,Ariz. 133,000 41 (30) 8 10 41 11 16 24 Topeka,Kan. 122,000 50 10 6 34 21 13 NA Tucson,Ariz. 419,000 52(39) 10 5 33 8 5 20 Youngstown,Ohio 104,000 60 9 8 23 8 13 2 Ratio Averages 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Large Cities Over the Years Residential Right Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way 1992 48%(38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA 1983 48(39) 9 12 31 NA NA NA 1973 40 10 5 45 19(combined) 26 1955 40(32) 3 6 51 11 7 33 Eisner & Associates Studies, 1939-1985 breakdown within the residential category. Cities that offer breakdowns within the residential category tended to do it in Use Range of Percentages two different ways: number of families per unit(e.g. single- family and multifamily)or the number of units per acre. Residential 35-39% As expected,single-family housing is by far the largest Commercial 4.8-5 portion of any city's housing stock.This type consumes an Industrial 10-11 average of 73 percent of the total housing stock in the 12 cities for which this information was available.The averages Streets 20-26 for multifamily and mobile homes are 14 percent and 3 Open Space, Schools, Parks 10-18 percent,respectively.The data range for multifamily housing was from 8 percent to 41 percent of land used for housing. The range for mobile homes was much smaller: one-half western cities are typically lower than large eastern cities. of 1 percent to 7 percent. For example the residential ratio in Long Beach,California, is 79 percent. In Pittsburgh,it is only 28 percent, according Commercial Uses to the 1983 survey. Since the 1950s and 1960s,commercial uses,which include Suburban sprawl also explains the residential ratio office and retail,have occupied an increasing amount of increase in small towns from 42 percent in 1955 to 52 percent acreage in both large and small cities.The land-use ratios in in 1992.An increased level of automobile ownership led to 1955 were 3.32 percent for the central cities and 2.54 percent the creation of the bedroom community. Employment, for the satellite cities. By 1992,these averages increased culture,and goods and services were not necessarily needed significantly,to 10 percent. in these communities as long as the nearby major city offered The biggest factor in this large percentage increase is them.Therefore,residential uses predominate the developed parking. Parking has become a major regulatory concern land. over the last few decades, as both large and small cities have These high ratios of residential land should begin become dominated by cars. An entire parking lot is to decline due to a combination of many economic, considered a commercial use.Many uses require parking that demographic,and regulatory trends that are decreasing effectively doubles the acreage of commercial land. demand for single-family detached homes.The 20-percent- Unlike in large cities, where suburban office migration has down conventional mortgage is no longer affordable for the caused commercial land-use ratios to plateau at 10 percent, average U.S.household.According to U.S.Housing Markets this ratio continues to climb in smaller cities.The Land Use (January 29, 1990),a household needs an average down Institute estimated in 1986 that 57.3 percent of the country's payment of 28 percent.The cost of the average home from total office market was located outside major downtowns. 1988 to 1990 increased 8.4 percent,or$11,000,while the This was an increase of nearly 10 percent from 1981.Height average income of a household has increased only 4.8 restrictions and a strong bias toward low density development percent. exist in these areas,so buildings cover more acres. Quickly rising land cost is another major factor Also contributing to the higher commercial ratio is the contribqting to the inconsistency between housing cost and rise of average square footage allowed per office worker, income, according to an article in Building Sciences according to a 1991 Price Waterhouse Study. Between 1942 (November 1987). Land costs are now one-quarter of the cost and 1979,the average work space increased from 110 square of a single-family home.Thirty years ago,that figure was feet to 199 square feet. In 1988, only nine years later, that only 10 percent. average had crept up to 342 square feet. Demographic changes are reducing demand for single- Currently,trends between office and retail development family homes as well. Couples are purchasing houses at differ greatly.The construction of office buildings has an older age and having fewer children.Builder magazine decreased considerably in most cities since the late 1980s reported in January 1992 that the percentage of home buyers due to high vacancy rates. But according to Real Estate who are first-time buyers has dropped significantly from 47.7 Perspectives magazine, retail overbuilding continued at a rate percent to 34.6 percent in 1990. Furthermore,the 1990 nearly double its absorption rate well into the recession in Census indicates that household size declined from 3.33 1990.The common types of retail development—strip centers persons in 1960 to 2.62 persons in 1989. Ultimately,this and regional malls—consume large amounts of land.Given means less space will be required for each family. In fact, that these development styles are being used in small and surveys conducted recently by the National Apartment large cities alike,the commercial ratios in both sizes of cities Association have noted an increase in apartment living. can be expected to increase. Zoning trends have become an issue as well. Recent environmental protection regulations encourage development Industrial Districts patterns such as cluster and planned unit developments. Also, In large cities, the amount of land used by industrial firms courts are ruling against five-acre estate lot sizes and other peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and has recently been large minimum lot size zoning when the effect is to exclude declining. In 1955,the average industrial land-use ratio was certain income groups. 6.4 percent.The 1983 survey indicated an industrial land-use ratio of 12 percent, while this current study shows a ratio [ Breakdown by Housing Type of only 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas, Although this study provides general land-use ratio the industrial land-use ratio has remained within a third perccntages for residential land as a whole,some of a percentage point since 1955, at around 7.5 percent. communities may be interested in the housing stock The trend most affecting industrial land allocation is the 3 • country's economic shift from manufacturing and other An example is Hoffman Estates, Illinois, a Chicago heavy industry to a service industry. This may be causing suburb,where institutional uses cover only 3.4 percent of what Coldwell Banker identified in 1990 as the highest ever developed land. In El Paso,Texas,the percentage is 17 national vacancy rate(6.9 percent)of industrial buildings percent. El Paso is a county seat and therefore must offer ) larger than 100,000 square feet. the entire spectrum of institutional uses to the region. This shift has led to the conversion of many industrial buildings into residential loft or commercial office space, Transportation and Utility Uses thus decreasing the industrial ratio. Transportation and utility uses have consistently covered the Differentiating between industrial and commercial uses second highest amount of acreage in a city since these data has also become more difficult. For example,many light were recorded. As evident from the data set,many cities do manufacturers also have service centers, showrooms,and not include streets and right-of-way in their acreage.These warehouses on the premises.Therefore, when ratios are cities therefore have disproportionately low transportation calculated,they are categorized as heavy commercial uses, land-use ratios. Because of this discrepancy,averages for not industrial uses. this category are not listed. As the ratios from the three studies show,economic The amount of land devoted to right-of-way increases restructuring has not affected the land-use ratios in suburban as a city's single-family housing stock increases. But areas nearly as much as large cities,because heavy because many cities calculate streets into institutional and manufacturing never was a dominant force there. recreational uses, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint transportation land-use ratio trends. For the purpose of this Parks and Recreational Uses analysis, it is understood that streets and right-of-way The following analysis is based primarily on improved parks constitute most of the transportation uses and utilities and open spaces that are maintained by public park districts category.The utilities and communication uses are usually a or municipalities. very tiny portion. For example, only one-half of a percent of Historically,the rule of thumb for calculating the number developed land in Austin,Texas,is occupied by utility uses. of acres of park land needed in a community is one acre of There are two major current planning issues that may land per 100 residents. However,for the past 40 years many affect future street and right-of-way ratios: the recently communities have fallen well short. In the 1955 study,the adopted Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency percentage of park and recreation land for central and satellite Act(ISTEA)and neotraditional town planning.ISTEA marks cities was 7 percent and 4.4 percent of developed land, the first time that the federal government plans to tackle respectively. Eleven small communities from the 1983 congestion problems head-on by improving the management • survey list an average percentage of only 4 percent. These of existing transportation systems and coordinating . data are difficult to compare, in part because, in many transportation planning with land-use planning. Until now, ) communities, parks, playgrounds,and athletic fields on the solution has been to increase road capacity. Successful school property,as well as vacant lots, are calculated into the implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bus lanes, institutional ratios rather than the parks and recreation ratio. ridesharing,encouraging the use of alternate modes of travel, This makes the ratios appear as though less land is available and coordinated land-use and transportation policies, could for parks and recreation than really exists. mean that right-of-way and transportation use ratios will hold The explosive growth in single-family homes also had an steady even if population increases. interesting effect on the use of public parks. Most suburban homeowners have their own private front and back yards. Words of Caution This explains,in part,why suburbs will typically have a It is not recommended that these ratios be used as urban lower percentage of land in the parks category.Manassas, land-use models. Any city predicting its future land-use Virginia, an outlying suburb of Washington,D.C., has only requirements solely on the ratios of other cites could be 1 percent of its land as parks while in St. Paul,Minnesota, seriously misguided. Every city has different factors this use covers 12 percent of the developed land. affecting its land-use distribution. Instead of considering these numbers rules of thumb, consider them examples of Institutional Uses land-use ratios that exist in cities today. Look closely at The percentage of land occupied by institutional uses has what factors affect your own city's land use before increased slightly in the last 50 years.The Bartholomew comparing your ratios to these data. study indicated that central and satellite cities had about 10 percent of their land devoted to institutional uses.The 1983 The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory survey showed that the ratio of institutional uses in small Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: Israel Stollman,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director. towns was 13 percent. No averages were calculated for this study. However,the data do not differ drastically from the The PAS Memo is produced ey APA staff:MinChicago.Researchditor.Production and writing by Research Department staff:Marys Morris.Editor.Production earlier studies. by Publications Department staff:Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor; Large cities typically will have higher institutional land- Dennis McClendon,Design Director. use ratios.Uses such as hospitals,churches, schools,and Copyright©1992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St..Chicago.IL 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 government buildings are all directly related to the Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036. population;as the number of people grow,so will the acreage All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any of these institutional lands. Other institutional uses are not so form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording. clear cut: state capitol grounds, museums,civic centers,and or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. colleges and universities are all uses that serve a regional Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber market and are therefore more common in large cities. and l0' postconsumer waste. 4 �/ Reta i 1 Re o. tei r Market Overview <1/41!ro � - 41(-- .\ ' ,\ ' `� \�� `� All of the reported Still, the Twin Cities metro area is con- �\ +� -- -- statistical successes of the sidered an attractive market to national ..�,. �" i �. Mall of America after its second full year of chains. Several retailers are planning to enter 1 f %� operation are impressive.The 35 to 40 million the market in 1995, including Office Depot, / - \ visitors, $650 to $700 million in total dollars Home Place, Media Play and Petsmart. '- �\ } , spent, and even an estimated 6% of its cus- Daytons has purchased the eight closing \ ' j N. tomer base made up of tourists coming from Carsons stores and will open new Mervyn's1-- outside the United States,are impressive fig- stores in seven, and expand its Daytons s\� ` `-`. ures. The problem is that despite all of the Department store in one. All of these retail- ( \ ti t�; optimistic news being reported by Mall of ers are entering markets where competing / America officials on its success and the posi- stores are already established. Development ./ ‘\ . .r, tive influence it has on the Twin Cities econ- of new restaurants is increasing throughout . \ "4 \\ 'i� omy, the true impact on the local retail mar- the Twin Cities as well. — F = ket is very difficult to measure. The desirability of community center 1-. ---C-" 7( vf-N7C"- One aspect of the Mall of America's space still runs high, and is reflected in both ,1/4k ti II ,b., ,N..,. rli impact is very evident; it has focused the the new construction which took place in attention of almost every expanding retailer 1994,and the proposed new developments for ,f ./ ,\ '' in the United States 1995. Two new coin- :1 ` \.4i " • on the Twin Cities f• munity centers were ,` , ;�� market. Before the developed in late 1994 s •�\ �rj \ •- 1�[ Mall of America along the I-494 strip \ opened in 1992, the rasaar •; and one community :��,/ �� / Twin Cities metro V center added a second area was considered L. 11 tt j. t __ ` \`��1 _ `� ,� phase in Woodbury. �� 1` an under-retailed _ ----" - `` . In addition, nine pro- � \�,� � �-\—�-N market with a strong ' - __ posed community cen- \ \ Il r'> economic base. ters could break ' /t?-- . -- Approximately two ground in 1995. ft\•� e remaining eight j,..4 and one-half years For other retail 1 4C tions 40 stores;m'll be t later, six Circuit ►-closed ia_1995 ted` center types, the pace ,. City's, three Sport- M. In of development is �rird,o!VAOlse,molti us ,' marts,two Computer modest with four r 4 \ ! dsing fouf Its Roo,‘,., �: City's, two Comp USAs, eight Barnes and neighborhood centers (30,000 sq. ft. or larg- \ hxatias. �� l Nobles,four Filene's Basements along with a er) proposed in the Twin Cities, and a pro- �� 1 I\�>'� �: . J._ � .. handful of other smaller retailers have posed regional center in Maple Grove. \\` I\More io unity centers sprouted throughout the metro area.Some of Despite all of the growth in discount- �� ';�iirith"a proposed 3 million these retailers, particularly Circuit City, oriented retail in the suburbs, some urban r' , �`irft;are"considered --i Sportmart and Barnes and Noble,are contin- retail centers have not fared as well. Sears a to happen 1995:, uing to look for new sites in the Twin Cities. announced the closing of its 1909 flagship 1/ "��t As some retailers may attest, the Twin store in Minneapolis, due topoor \ t ` "ei t vacancy .` p �\�� The current vacancy rate °h` Cities metro area may no longer be under performance in recent years. Owners of -for ill multi-tenant retail retailed. Consider the closing of four Carson Spruce Tree Center in St. Paul, c,. , N. space is the lowest level Pirie Scott locations,two in 1993,two in 1994. Riverplace in Minneapolis and Gaviidae I „ N. , ` , since 1989. The remaining eight Carsons stores will be in downtown Minneapolis are downsiz- ( j E\ %k. closed in 1995. In addition, Filene's ing the retail portion of their centers -1, k\ �l,� 'k\ �%;',: Basement is closing four of its five locations and converting to more office space \ \��► i.'`N �`'-_ in the Twin Cities in 1995, (leaving only the which is in higher demand in their ._ `,-- ►-` Mall of America store). Heavy competition respective locations. `\mss` �� 1#T t�.`, by numerous competitors have forced The retail investment market is ., r.. ,�i; r • . .. �' these closings. active with 11 transactions in 1994. Well anchored centers are in high s")` \\ . ''i�" a\ . f I %\., ' TOWLE REAL ESTATE 23 s 71 • •z.`: demand. This is reflected in the increasing sale prices. Sale prices COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT per sq. ft. in 1994 ranged from $8.36 1985-1994, AND PROPOSED FOR 1995 for the Skywood Mall,to$103.31 for MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA the Southporte Centre.(See Page 27 _' for a list of transactions). Community Center Development Accounted For 60%of total retail center - ` The downtown Minneapolis development over the past decade ®Toole lted Estate coir vny z retail market is relatively healthy 2,250,000 '2,012,435 with good occupancyin both 2,000,000 Gaviidae Centers, City Center and W Proposed 1995-3,000,000+ ,. the Crystal Court. Approximately W 1,750,000 28 retailers came to downtown W 1,500,000 Minneapolis in 1994. Many were cg 1,250,000 a3 - x skyway related, but some notable 977,598 retailers include Barnes and Noble, 1,000,000 (� 657,185 Aveda and the Thomas James VI 750,000 µ5,t49 521,286 559,000 381 150 ' Gallery. The downtown St. Paul 500,000 retail market is losing ground and is 185,326 r 130,256 ' I I 98,258 mainly servicing downtown workers. 250,000 di Iiil NIP _r Overall, the Twin Cities retail 0 market improved over the past year, 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 _- reporting an annual net absorption *9 community centers containg over 2 million sq ft.came on line in 1990 of approximately 575,000 sq. ft.,and y a decline in the vacancy rate by 0.8 as four neighborhood retail center and anchored by Byerly's. Also percentage points to 8.0%. The cur- developments are currently pro- proposed is a 7,000 sq. ft. Kinko's rent vacancy rate for all multi-tenant posed or under construction. Copy Center and 35,000 sq. ft. of F retail space is the lowest level since Carlson Real Estate is constructing shopping space. '"'`' 1989, which is impressive consider- P the 56,000 sq.ft.Rosemount Market A new center of approximately ing approximately 10 million sq. ft. Square anchored by a Jubilee gro- 60,000 sq. ft. is proposed in has been added to the multi-tenant cery store near the intersection of Minnetonka.This center will proba- -, retail base over the past six years. In County Road 42 and Chippendale bly be anchored by a Circuit City addition, an estimated three to four Avenue in Rosemount. and an Office Depot. million sq. ft. of free standing, "big T.F.James is currently develop- Approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of box" retail space has been devel- ing a retail complex in Chanhassen free standing retail tenant buildings oped over the same time period. near Kerber Boulevard and West are planned for construction in out- 78th Street. Phase One is complete lots at the Roseville Crossings `- Neighborhood Centers "_, The neighborhood center retail . , market in the Twin Cities is showing r,4, d _ £ { '; continued signs of improvement. t.� I$,\ For the third consecutive year,it has reported strong absorption levels , �` and decreasing vacancy rates.Part of . , 27.7"a s this tightening in the market can be r s - j/I�'9+•. attributed to a lack of recent devel- - = • • 1' i opment. Still, the current vacancy - mi--1 .. _ rate of 8.9% is the lowest level since - • • ; 1987 and the market has steadil •y tightened from the peak vacancyff • level of 13.3% in 1992. In the past _ three years, the neighborhood cen- r / _..*. . •• ter market has absorbed over 1 mil- N ; lion sq. ft.. The general improvement in the >-_ _ '. t. market has stimulated new growth Park Place Plaza,proposed Community Center,St.Louis Park TOWLE r:AL ESTATE iiiiiiiiiii 24 7 Center at County Road C and ".f. Snelling Avenue in Roseville. VACANCY AND ABSORPTION The Spruce Tree Center located MINNEAPOUS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA • FIRST QUARTER 1993 - 1995 in the Midway area of St. Paul was ° ,; in 1994 and now is beingStudy Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net purchased • Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption marketed almost entirely as office mom= space. This center has been Neighborhood 1993 20 1,616,786 182,792 11.3% 174,595 removed from our survey. 1994 20 1,564,102 160,841 10.3% (30,733) Neighborhood center owners 1995 20 1,590,384 119,571 7.5% 67,552 have been attempting to control Community 1993 7 1,314,448 85,498 6.5% 29,878 ,�� operating costs in recent years by 1994 7 1,305,263 80,869 6.2% (4,556) reducing amounts of common areas 1995 7 1,296,940 156,646 12.1% (84,100) in centers and reconfiguring centers Regional 1993 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 4,000 1994 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 with interior mall space. The aver- 1995 1 811,000 16,000 2.0% 0 - age CAM cost for neighborhood specialty N/A - space for first quarter 1995 equaled Total 1993 28 3,742,234 284,290 7.6% 208,473T. $1.56 per sq. ft., a 9.3% reduction 1994 28 3,680,365 257,710 7.0% (35,289) from 1994. It is also 17.9% lower 1995 28 3,698,324 292,217 7.9% (16,548) than the average level in 1992. DAKOTA COUNTY Neighborhood 1993 37 2,328,280 310,962 13.4% 167,465 CommunityCenters 1994 37 2,310,912 267,912 11.6% 25,682 •71 1995 37 2,325,912 269,922 11.6% 12,990 4 Community centers and power Community 1993 13 2,521,812 260,100 10.3% (56,418) centers have been the dominant 1994 13 2,516,565 232,328 9.2% 22,525 development story in the Twin 1995 13 2,513,812 184160 7.3% 45,415 ' df Cities over the past five years. Regional 1993 2 1,600,000 46,000 2.9% 32,000 '`4 Approximately 18 centers contain- 1994 2 1,714,343 25,000 1.5% 135,343 19/5 2 1,664,343 56,000 3.4% (31,000) ing over 4 million sq. ft. have been Speaohy M/A developed over the past five years. Total 1993 52 6,450,092 617,062 9.6% 143,047 ' This equates to an approximate 51% 1994 52 6,541,820 525,240 8.0% 183,550 increase in the total community cen- 1995 52 6,504,067 510,082 7.8% 27,405 - ter universe of the Twin Cities. The MINNEAPOLIS - tendency towards the community,or Neighborhood 1993 7 381,141 23,166 6.1% 1,162 $ ~- power center, style of development 1994 7 381,141 24,966 6.6% (1,800) is due to the value,convenience and 1995 8 438,141 22,907 5.2% 59,059 volume-oriented retailers emerging Community 1993 2 311,938 39,082 12.5% 37,070 �=t 1994 2 311,938 55,073 17.7% (15,991) in the market in recent years. 1995 2 311,938 38,700 12.4% 16,373 In 1994, two new community Regional 1993 3 796,516 313,000 39.3% (156,945) centers were developed, and one 1994 3 802,875 49,000 6.1% 270,359 community center's second phase 1995 3 804,645 68,000 8.5% (17,230) was completed. Specially 1993 6 787,544 187,941 23.9% 108,594 The Robert C. Muir Company 1994 6 787544 267,117 33.9% (79,176) 1995 5 701,946 257,500 36.7% 3,817 '} completed the second phase of its Total 1993 18 2,277,139 563,189 24.7% (10,119) Woodbury Village Center at the 1994 18 2,283,498 396,156 17.3% 173,392 Northeast quadrant of Valley Creek 1995 18 2,256,670 387,107 11.2% 62,019 Road and 1-494. This second phase ®Towle Real Nose Company totaled 117,000 sq. ft. and is 'f. anchored by Best Buy. -::: 100,000 sq. ft. of multi-tenant retail Place and Office Depot. It also has CSM Corporation completedwith Petsmart as a potential anchor. a remaining bay of 26,000 sq. ft. the first phase of the Shops of Homart completed the Circuit available. Lyndale at the Northeast quadrant City Center located at the In looking ahead to 1995, the of I 35W and 1-494 in Richfield. ;,Northwest quadrant of France total amount of proposed communi- - This first phase includes Best Buy, Avenue and I-494 in Bloomington. ty center development is staggering _ Sportmart and Comp USA, and This center totals 136,150 sq. ft. and with approximately 13 centers totals 128,000 sq. ft.. Phase two is is anchored by Circuit City, Home potentially breaking ground. Of planned to contain approximately TOWLE 25 =EMI 7 1-1. ``'- Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net these proposals, nine centers with a -;- proposed 3,000,000 s .ft.are consid- ,:, . Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption p p Q :0.= NORTHEAST ered probable to happen in 1995. `. Neighborhood 1993 29 1,962,033 337,543 17.2% 42,942 See Proposed CommunityCenters °� 1994 29 2,061,740 304,972 14.8% 132,278 chart on page 28). ;:�;- 1995 29 2,036,425 239,475 11.8% 40,182 The significant number of new Jt Community 1993 6 1,229,803 104,000 8.5% 57,866 retailers entering the Twin Cities "' 1994 6 1,229,803 33,046 2.7% 70,954 z_ 1995 6 1,229,803 83,600 6.8% (50,554) market, and the additional comped- :` tion they bring with them, increases Regional 1993 4 2,859,625 250,071 8.7% 131,471 1994 4 2,879,625 211,051 7.3% 59,014 the potential for shake out of retail ` 1995 4 2,843,477 211,210 7.4% (36,301) tenants and increased vacancies in Specialty N/A community centers. The recent clos- Total 1993 39 6,051,461 691,614 11.4% 232,279 ing of four Filene's Basement stores 1994 39 6,171,168 549,075 8.9% 262,246 and the sale of the Carson's stores to 1995 39 6,109,705 534,285 8.7% (46,673) Mervyn's are examples of that. . NORTHWEST However, the vacancies from Neighborhood 1993 19 1,488,663 155,650 10.5% 22,544 1994 20 1,508,239 191,089 13.1% (44,174) Filene's leaving the market were 1995 20 1,494,704 182,855 12.2% 5,407 quickly absorbed by existing retail- Community 1993 7 1,350,842 33,580 2.5% 13,945 ers (Marshall's and Linens N' 1994 7 1,351,096 90,685 6.7% (56,851) Things) looking for good locations. 1995 7 1,489,021 114,463 7.7% 114,147 This quick absorption of anchor :i.,, Regional 1993 1 925,000 10,000 1.1% 17,750 spaces may not be repeated as quick- 1994 1 925,000 25,000 2.7% (15,000) ly in the future if the Twin Cities 1995 1 925,000 20,000 2.2% 5,000 Specialty N/A retail market reaches a saturation Total 1993 27 3,764,505 199,230 5.3% 54,239 level and national attention on the 1994 28 3,784,335 312,774 8.3% (116,025) local market wains. 1995 28 3,908,725 317,318 8.1% 124,554 SOUTHWEST Neighborhood 1993 28 1,801,473 84,348 4.7% 145,030 1994 28 1,800,654 99,657 5.5% (16,128) 11,,- 1995 27 1,787,465 64,137 3.6% 22,331 Community 1993 5 804,826 74,364 9.2% (5,424) , _ „_, _ 1994 5 805,066 34,989 4.3% 39,615 e I __- -.4-7-4-`J_i 1995 7 1,075,386 69,626 6.5% 235,683 ^ _ - ___ _- Regional 1993 4 5,550,221 362,560 6.5% 2,447,639 . 1994 4 5,550,221 475,560 8.6% (113,000) 1995 4 5,350,522 200,560 3.7% 75,301 Specialty 1993 1 411,784 75,201 18.0% 0 Westwind Plaza Minnetonka 1994 1 417,784 62,200 14.9% 13,001 1995 1 417,784 75,201 18.0% (13,001) Total 1993 38 8,574,304 596,473 7.0% 2,587,245 1994 38 8,573,725 672,406 7.8% (76,512) Regional Centers 1995 39 8,631,157 409,524 4.7% 320,314 Little change occurred in the ' ST.PAUL regional center market over the past Neighborhood 1993 10 620,195 110,232 17.8% 45,946 year with approximately 25,000 sq. 1994 11 617,759 73,906 12.0% 33,890 ft. of absorption and a decline in 1995 10 534,214 52,324 9.8% (4,063) vacancy rate of 1.7 percentage points Community 1993 4 823,929 123,245 15.0% 29,200 0 1994 4 882,935 100,880 11.4% 81,371 to 5.2°/0. No new space was added 1995 4 891,929 76,288 8.6% 33,586 in 1994. Regional 1993 2 363,000 181,000 49.9% 1121,000) The Mall of America, which has 1994 2 363,062 180,000 49.6% 1,062 been dominating the retail news in 1995 2 359,150 145,344 40.5% 30,744 the Twin Cities market over the past Specialty 1993 5 261,535 27,048 10.3% 3,022 several years, has reportedly had a 1994 5 262,650 22,580 8.6% 5,583 1995 5 262,650 25,976 9.9% (3,396) successful second full year in opera- Total 1993 21 2,068,659 441,525 21.3% (42,832) tion meeting and/or exceeding 1994 22 2,126,406 377,366 17.7% 121,906 expectations so far. Its occupancy • 1995 21 2,047,943 299,932 14.6% 56,871 level has reportedly reached 95%, ©Towle Real Estate Company TOWLE REAL ESTATE 26 (f, -. -_\` and its impact on the local hotel Study Number of Gross Total Percent Annual Net i': market has been very positive. Of Market Sector Date Centers Leasable Area Amount Vacant Vacant Absorption the tenants located in the Mall of WASHINGTON COUNTY America, the restaurant and enter- Neighborhood 1993 7 466,065 72,782 15.6% (11,4680 tainment oriented businesses appear 1994 7 466,065 61,832 13.3% 10,950 to be doing best. While three of the 1995 7 466,065 45,664 9.8% 16,168 F.'- four four anchor tenants reportedly are Community 1993 9 1,808,509 130,247 7.2% 649,800 satisfied with sales,Bloomingdales is 1994 10 1,892,052 176,209 9.3% 37,581 1995 11 2,006,452 226,506 11.3% 64,103 rumored to be looking for a replace- Regional N/A ment anchor to sublease its space. Specialty N/A A new regional shopping center Total 1993 16 2,274,514 203,029 8.9% 638,332 development has become a possibil- 1994 17 2,358,117 238,041 10.1% 48,531 ity in Maple Grove. Two sites have 1995 18 2,472,517 272,170 11.0% 80,271 been named as potential regional WEST mall locations. The first proposed Neighborhood 1993 30 1,668,588 91,196 5.5% 53,022 site is a 100-acre site located at the 1994 31 1,734,416 91,503 5.3% 65,521 southeast quadrant of 1-94 and the 1995 31 1,677,732 100,052 6.0% (31,583) Community 1993 7 1,063,548 38,839 3.7% (4,276) planned Highway 610. Rouse 1994 7 1,063,548 68,711 6.5% (29,872) Company, which owns Ridgedale 1995 7 1,063,548 67,757 6.4% 954 Center, would be the developer of Regional 1993 2 1,654,000 32,425 2.0% (11,699) this site. The second site is at the 1994 2 1,670,000 32,300 1.9% 16,125 northwest quadrant of 1-694 and 1995 2 1,670,000 32,000 1.9% 300 • Highway 169. This site consists of Specialty N/A Total 1993 39 4,386,136 162,460 3.7% 37,047 2,000 total acres of gravel mining 1994 40 4,467,964 192,514 4.3% 51,774 land held by a consortium of owners. 1995 40 4,411,280 199,809 4.5% (30,3291 Potential anchors for a new regional METROPOLITAN TOTAL center include Daytons, Sears, Neighborhood 1993 187 12,333,224 1,368,671 11.1% 641,238 Macy's and Nordstrom's. Each pro- 1994 190 12,445,028 1,282,678 10.3% 175,486 posal is only in the talking stages, 1995 189 12,351,042 1,096,907 8.9% 188,043 and either would likely take three or Community 1993 60 11,229,655 888,955 7.9% 751,641 more years to complete. 1994 61 11,358,266 872,790 7.7% 144,116 Carson Pirie Scott's vacated 1995 64 11,878,829 1,011,146 8.6% 375,607 • Regional 1993 19 14,559,362 1,211,056 8.3% 2,343,216 anchor space at Knollwood Mall in 1994 19 14,716,126 1,013,917 6.9% 353,903 St. Louis Park has been demolished 1995 19 14,428,137 749,114 5.1% 26,814 and a new Kohl's Department store Specialty 1993 12 1,466,863 290,190 19.8% 111,616 • is being developed in its place. 1994 12 1,467,918 351,897 24.0% (60,592) 1995 11 1,382,380 358,677 25.9% (12,580) Total 1993 218 39,589,104 3,758,872 9.5% 3,847,711 RETAIL CENTERS SOLD IN 1994 1994 282 39,987,398 3,521,282 8.8% 613,573 1995 283 40,040,388 3,222,444 8.0% 577,884 MINNEAPOLIS/ST.PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA ©Towle Real Estate Company I Price Sale Property Name Per sq.ft. Date Kohl's is also adding new stores in signed Barnes and Noble as a 44,000 Southporte Centre S103.31 1/94 Eden Prairie Center, Maple sq. ft. anchor. This center's owners, Westwind Plaza 585.35 ))/94 Grove, Southtown Center, Eagan, Bradley Real Estate Trust, recently • Mapleridge 580.62 10/94 and is expanding its store at completed a $1 million renovation Maplewood Mall, and repositioning of the center. Knollwood Village $51.00 9/94 Owners of Brookdale Shopping Though claiming its first two Birch Run Station 546.98 4/94 Center are still attempting to sell, years of operation a success, the Town And Country Square S21.46 7/94 and the operating covenants with Mall of America is appealing its Century Hills Shopping Cir. 517.91 2/94 the center's anchor tenants expiring assessed market value of $378 mil- Valley Creek Mall S17.16 9/94 in 1995 will remove the major obsta- lion. The largest and costliest real Falcon Crossing 510.31 7/94 cies hindering a sale. New owner- estate development (approximate St.Anthony Main IV 58.95 5/94 ship of this aging regional mall $700 million development cost) in Skywood Mall 58.36 2/94 would likely bring a renovation. Minnesota will also be its largest ©Towle Real Estate Company Har Mar Mall in Roseville has property tax dispute. Other regional TOWLE -. REAL ESTATE 27 ® _-,- .... T., f 411T-...$, ,., malls are appealing there property PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTERS (1995 AND 1996) tax levels as well. Rosedale Center MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA won the first round of its case in Breaking 1994, but the decision was appealed Possible Size Center Ground to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Development Name Oty Anchor(s) (sq.ft.) Type Probable In Southdale Center is also disputing its assessed value. It will most likely Centre Pointe Roseville Office Depot 400,000 C 1995 take months, or even years, to Fontana Square Vadnais Heights Target 260,000 C 1995 resolve these cases. Hartford Place Eden Prairie Mervyn's,Office Depot 165,000 C 1995 Maple Grove Power Center Maple Grove Kohl's,Gander Mountain 260,000 C 1995 Midway Marketplace St.Poul KMart,Wards 485,000 C 1995 Specialty Centers Nafhtawn'liege Blaine Sportmart,Media Play 175,000 C 1995 Specialty centers in the Twin Park Place Plaza St.Louis Park Rainbow 420,000 C 1995 Cities metro area are gradually Roseville Gassings Roseville TBA 31,369 N 1995 becoming a thing of the past as more Shops of Lyndale II Richfield Petsmart 100,000 C 1995 existing centers reposition space. Tamarak Village Woodbury Cub Foods 750,000 C 1995 Specialty centers are typically ossa Eagan Promenade EDP Home Depot,Byerly's,Mervyn's 416,000 C 1996 dated with upscale retail, which has Inver Grove Center Inver Grave Heights TBA 300,000 C 1996 struggled in recent years. Maplewood Power Center Maplewood Cub Foods 215,000 C 1996 Riverplace in Minneapolis closed its Ryan Center Bre Pork Home Depot 400,000 C 1996 Mississippi Live entertainment corn- The Quarry Minneapolis Rainbow 430,000 C 1996 plex and is now renovating its space Total proposed retail space=4,807,369 sq.h. for office use. The Conservatory in Center Types: C=Community Center N=Neighborhood(enter 0 Towle Real Estate Company downtown Minneapolis was pur- chased in 1994 and will likely be performed well. The current vacan- Market Outlook repositioned in 1995 due to histori- cy rate for specialty centers equals cally poor performance. Other cen- 25.9%, and negative annual ters which have repositioned special- The primary story for the absorption was reported for first Minnea alis/St.Paul retail market in ty space in recent years include P quarter 1995. 1995 will be development. The hot Bonaventure in Minnetonka, and p Upscale retailers had a rough in 1995 will once again Pavilion Place in Roseville. year in 1994. Established retailers propertytype g After removing Riverplace fromsuch as Sims Clothiers and Mark be community centers,with over 4.8 our survey, 11 centers containingCross closed their doors. Saks Fifth million sq. ft. currently proposed approximately 1.4 million sq. ft. ofAvenue and Neiman Marcus throughout the Twin Cities. The specialty retail space exist in thepotential exists for a repeat of 1990 added clearance areas to their when over 2 million sq. ft. of multi- Twin Cities metro area. Of these Minneapolis stores. remaining specialty centers,only the tenant retail space came on line. Galleria in Edina has historically This was the largest retail develop- ment year in the past decade, • 4 excluding the completion of the Mall �, - -` �..` O' of America in 1992. ia: . : i. ,'.?.'� The mass entrance of national ;: ' 1. "1. retailers into the Twin Cities market � ti, `,::_..`� ` • will continue in 1995. Possible new - `��- . - ., -'. - - . 7, - retailers entering our market over .�-• — - _ -- MAARA LIAR A4 - '' 3 e. a /. -w the next twelve months include ---'` r \ .- u-s*".k*- - - --,:-'" -_ \ - Home Depot, Home Quarters, CYrz;'N 1 •YI + '.."- -...:4:. 1.•.rte.,."•• r � - , �. - �r •� � Pacific Linen, Bed, Bath and f Y :_ ,`"ti� i ,-- Beyond, Lil' Things, Kidsource and r_ - -,w -A.: :, Today's Man. ;••'— , . 'Zti.,_f' f E. The majority of today's growing • - ' r�_� 4. ' - N. retailers are "category killers". .0, - - Extreme price-sensitive competition - - will continue to grow in the retail c '��. - market, possibly forcing out weaker Maple Grove Power Center,proposed Community Center,Maple Grove retailers. The national "category TOWLE REAL ESTATE "'. -"'l .: 1 killer" chains have strong buying RENT AND EXPENSES4. power, and operate on higher volume sales and lower profit mar- MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL METRO AREA- FIRST QUARTER 1995 gins. Local retailers will continue to Median Net Rent4-7 struggle in 1995. (enter Type Low High Net Rent Range Avg.CAM Avg.Taxes Competition between larger Community $10.00 $14.00 $5.00-$25.00 $1.85 S2.86 "category killer" retailers will also Neighborhood $8.00 511.00 $1.50-S20.00 $1.56 $2.52 G be fierce. Price wars between retail why $12.00 $23.50 SI0.00-$50.00 S6.30 $4.67 giants such as Best Buy and Circuit Regional $15.00 $35.00 $5.00-S65.00 $6.57 S6.70 City, Comp USA and Computer o Towle Real Estate Company City, and Office Max and Office De ot,may cause retail center casu- and I-35W, is a redevelopment pro- A growing disparity in property alties. Best Buy won its latest war in posal of aging industrial and com- values between newer, national-ten- the Twin Cities with Highland mercial buildings into a modern ant anchored centers and older tra- Superstores,which was forced out of community retail facility. Ryan ditional strip centers anchored by the market in 1991. Companies is planning to redevelop local and regional tenants will occur While retail development con- the former Honeywell site in St. in 1995. Demand by investors and tinues to focus on the second and Louis Park. Proposals for redevel- lenders for prime retail property is v y4 third-tier suburbs such as opment of the Sears Tower site on growing,pushing capitalization rates Woodbury, Maple Grove and Eden Lake Street in Minneapolis may sur- down. Prairie,redevelopment of inner-ring face in 1995 as well. Specialty retailing should con- suburbs and urban locations should Older centers will continue to tinue to succeed in isolated urban ;y happen in 1995. The proposed renovate and remodel space in order areas such as the 50th and France Midway Marketplace development to stay competitive by minimizing area and Grand Avenue in St. Paul, located along University Avenue in common areas and upgrading exteri- as well as unique suburban locations St. Paul would redevelop the old ors. Older existing retail centers' such as Downtown Wayzata. Look Montgomery Wards site. This largest competing advantage over for more specialty shopping centers development proposal has been newer centers is rental levels. to rethink tenant mixes and uses in hampered by environmental con- Controlling rising operating expens- 1995,minimizing their concentration cerns but should break ground in es is critical in order to maintain of upscale retailers. 'R 1995. The Quarry site in healthy effective rental rates, and Plans for a new regional mall in _ Minneapolis, near Johnson Avenue hold value. Maple Grove should become more concrete in 1995. The two proposals for this development are still in very VACANCY RATES preliminary stages. This project FIRST QUARTER 1987 1995 most likely will not break ground until 1996,if at all. ®Turk Red ter Look for stronger absorption of tee35% retail space over the next twelve months due to more retailers enter- 30% ing and expanding in the Twin r Cities.Vacancy rates will most likely Z 25% rise with the potential for heavy w retail construction in 1995. IX W 0. 15% 5% 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ma Specialty e, Regional Neighborhood Community TOWLE FEAT ESTATE 29 Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ©M ©® DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director From: Fred Hoisington, AICP, HKGi Date: September 27, 1995 Subject: Ward Property, Villages on the Ponds INTRODUCTION Because of the complicated nature of this very large Planned Unit Development (PUD), Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was asked to review the Villages on the Pond development proposal for 73 acres of land located south of Highway 5 and on either side of Trunk Highway 101. The plan was reviewed by HKGi considering its relationship to downtown Chanhassen, the degree to which it fits the natural environment, the degree to which the plan meets application requirements, its consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, codes and ordinances and how the project might benefit the City, thus warranting the use of PUD as the appropriate application process. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The 73 acre parcel which is the subject of consideration is owned by the Wards. It extends from STH 5 to just south of Riley Creek. The site has approximately 70 feet of topographic change and includes both wetlands and trees. Much of the vegetation consists of young trees though there are some excellent stands of upland hardwoods generally located south and westerly on the site. The site is also partially within the statutory shoreland area of Lake Susan. The PUD is proposed to be mixed-use including retail, office and residential. It is intended to have a Village or "New Urbanism" motif with generally smaller buildings setting near the street line and parking at the side or rear of structures, thus, creating a pedestrian friendly environment and a stronger and more appealing connection with the street. The Village center (Parcel 1) is intended to have two larger buildings, comprising 40,000 square feet. A restaurant and motel are intended to occupy Parcel 2. The plan calls for 247,000 square feet of retail floor area, 203,600 square feet of office floor area and 100 dwelling units. The plan also proposes open space in the vicinity of Riley Creek and protection of the wooded and associated wetlands located just south of Highway 5. 7300 Metro Boulevard,Suite 525,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 (612)835-9960 Fax(612)835-3160 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Generally, the proposed roadway alignments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The land use is not, thus, requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the project is to move forward. While the plan addresses access, it does not restrict access to Highway 101 to insure proper spacing. Areas of inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan include the substitution of retail development for office and industrial, the substitution of office for multi- family westerly of Great Plains Boulevard, an increase in residential density along the east side of the PUD and residential development in areas designated on the Comprehensive Plan for public open space. Proposed building heights also exceed zoning allowances. The PUD proposes anchors that are not architecturally in keeping with the Village Concept though it intends to have smaller buildings elsewhere which connote the Village Concept. These larger buildings are intended to be the traffic generators for Villages on the Ponds. The PUD in no way limits the use that can be made of commercial/retail sites. Virtually any use including free-standing fast food restaurants would be possible given the loose land use descriptions. The Plan calls for the elimination of existing Great Plains Boulevard though it fails to discuss how that vacation may be phased to accommodate site development. While the Plan attempts to provide access for the existing residences that are currently served by a private drive just to the east of the PUD, it does so in a manner which will be detrimental to the existing land form while providing relatively little access benefit to the residential area. The Plan proposes a rather significant intensity of office use in an area that has considerable relief and proposes residential development on the hill near the south boundary of the PUD which has slopes approaching 20 percent. This means that the hill, which was intended to be preserved as an open space element, would need to be destroyed to accommodate eight residential units. Unwanted access to the highway will also be necessary to serve these unintended residences. The Plan proposes a bridge across the existing wetland to accommodate the extension of Lake Drive East, a bridge which is not defined by the Plan as to its character and/or impact on the wetland. The Plan does not address required wetland setbacks per the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance nor does it address the intensity of use allowed by the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance. The site may, in fact, contain wetlands that are not shown on the Site Analysis Wetlands Map. While the use of PUD is intended to provide some flexibility in these matters, the Plan fails to address the City's ever present concerns for shoreland management, wetland protection and stormwater management. Some land consuming, pretreatment of stormwater will be required. This need is not addressed in the concept plan. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 2 The application is deficient in a number of ways. It does not meet the following PUD District and Shoreland Ordinance requirements: 1. It does not demonstrate how it will preserve desirable site characteristics (trees, open space, wetlands, Riley Creek, Lake Susan or scenic views). It fails to protect the desired open space and the hill located near the south boundary of the PUD. It also does not illustrate a mass grading concept for land that will need to be substantially altered to accommodate the intensity of development proposed. 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described above. 4. It does not provide open space that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. 6. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the Citys Shoreland Management Ordinance. 7. It does not stage and establish a time schedule for development. 8. It does not stage the construction of roadways considering the changes in roadway configuration that are proposed for the PUD. 9. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village Concept." 10. It defines no benefits that will accrue to the City as a result of approving the PUD other than an architectural style that is depicted photographically. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We very much like the Village Concept because it will have a distinct flavor that is unlike anything else that exists in the southwest corridor except perhaps the 50th and France commercial area. It has great potential to create a much more people friendly environment due to its compact nature and human scale. On the other hand, its very core will not be consistent with the Village Concept suggesting that the theme will be in jeopardy from the beginning. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 3 This is a very large and complicated PUD that has significant potential implications for the City of Chanhassen and downtown in particular in that it is intended to accommodate a great deal of competing retail space. The site contains wetlands, steep slopes and is partially situated within a shoreland area. We, therefore, do not believe a proposal that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan should have such frail documentation. Since the Plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City is in a position to require sufficient documentation to provide assurances that such project can and will be built, will be of sufficient benefit to the City to warrant the use of PUD, will not be detrimental to downtown and will be compatible with the natural environment and established land use patterns. These assurances have not yet been provided and in our opinion the City should not risk a change in public policy which could result in the duplication of things already existing in Chanhassen. Our concern is whether or not the Village Concept is viable for the City of Chanhassen given the immediate intent to violate it. Because so little information has been submitted to date, it is our opinion that the application is incomplete and, therefore, cannot be processed by the City. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, would require an amendment for the project to move forward. It does not demonstrate that it is consistent either with the natural environment or downtown Chanhassen and it provides insufficient description of the concept and how it would be applied to the Ward property. Of significant concern is how such a development can be approved and full assurances provided that it will be built as proposed. What if the concept is not marketable but the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the site to be developed commercially? What will have been gained by a change in public policy which would eliminate the potential for industrial and office and merely replace guided uses with duplicative retail development? The only way we can see this working, once the application is complete, will be to approve the PUD in concept but reguide and rezone only those parts which are defined as Phase I. In the event the concept fails to be viable, the changes in zoning and guide plan would revert to their current designations. Another major concern is the absence of benefit to the City of Chanhassen for using PUD. What does it get for providing increased flexibility to the developer? One thing that might be considered, assuming the City is happy with the treatment of wetlands, slopes, vegetation, etc., is the incorporation of a public transit element. An integrated park and ride lot or transit hub could provide significant benefit to the City warranting the use of PUD. The proponent will need to discuss viable concepts with Southwest Metro Transit Commission for providing such facilities. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 4 HKGi recommends that the application not be processed until such time as the application is fully complete. It should be understood that we are not asking for detail beyond that which the concept stage is intended to require. We must be able to determine from the information provided whether we agree with the land use proposed and how it will impact and/or benefit or be sensitive to the site, the neighborhood and the community. The information provided does not facilitate these understandings. In summary, the application is deficient in the following ways: 1. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not describe the benefits that will accrue to the City for amending the Comprehensive Plan. 2. It does not demonstrate sensible development in transitional areas, especially as it relates to the existing residential development lying easterly of the PUD. 3. It does not demonstrate that added retail is justified or how it will impact downtown Chanhassen. 4. The proposed large anchor buildings are not consistent with the purported Village Concept. 5. The Plan does not restrict land uses either by type or character. Guidelines describing the relationship between sites, buildings, parking and streets are only vaguely discussed. It does not address probable hard surface coverage per the Qty's Shoreland Management Ordinance. It provides too little description of land use intent especially the "Village Concept." 6. The Plan provides no rationale for increases in building height or density. 7. The Plan fails to restrict direct driveway access to Highway 101 to minimize traffic conflicts. 8. The Plan does not address the types, character and proposed treatment of vegetation on the site. 9. The Plan does not illustrate and/or discuss possible grading impacts. 10. The Plan does not address phasing either of land use or roadway improvements. 11. The Plan does not address stormwater management and the probable impact this may have on site development. 12. The Plan does not address the treatment or role of wetlands in the Plan concept. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 5 13. The Plan fails to illustrate how a development of such intensity is intended to protect the site's rich natural characteristics. 14. The Plan destroys some of the most important natural resources of the site (most notably the hill on the far south end of the Ward parcel). 15. The site may contain wetlands that are not shown on the proponents wetlands map. Some cursory investigation of the presence of other wetlands should be done as part of the concept stage. 16. The Plan is not consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study which discourages big box type developments. 17. The Plan does not address the benefits that may accrue to the City for using PUD. Though discussed with proponents, it does not address an integrated park and ride lot or transit hub which could provide significant benefit to the City warranting the use of PUD. 18. It does not demonstrate how the PUD plan will offer the City higher quality architectural and site design, the protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and the buffering of adjoining properties. It provides no general description of vegetation types and character. City of Chanhassen • Development Review Memorandum • Page 6 -.•.-SI,I ri i tv-i--' ' pp, . , y s ...W.-'', ''''..•.;:( 1 Iir ,4/... '• / h. / ."-- -.1.. ....„.___,„,..c..- --I, 4."' ',•1 _,---------- •"- ,*, ,/-------,% 1 SMIL .9% 1 1 C---- -- , lA11110 "..- -------__._ --:::::::-. .; - ,--; ). ' • '• •.4 ,, t........, I \ .".........4: •• - I — -A-----=':: 7•••.:-.- ..-- ----,'. -4....:'• : --'----.;:..4•-'15.----:,--2-:''---4",...--7-7---------.:::.,_i;:-.. •:_., . — ! .„-<•-f:Retail CBOA -==-- _ 7"' --1 ••:)-s.-.pt.",__-7.5.--i'"* .....-•-••••''', ..... . -----------• ..•-::-. .•3.4 Ac.4...,..„.A , t;,...,„ , -------_______i,•_;t,,,y -,..,-----. ...._ ......... • -35.500 S.F. ; '. \ N. • - , ! . Iii , :.--.•' — • •' . . r •, i ,I • ---..,,,li --1 EVI IA' --1 . '? ...,... . . ... .-. . Sib i • ., 1 T.• • ...., • - ,....-ql, .. , . • ..,,,..„.:, _ . ,, 1 ,..y., ! ,,,k\-- , i •:., ,,:„,,t, --,..,..,: : - .• ,,, , IV Retail C illalle . • , ". . . ... . . 1 • . .5 Ac. -..... •••go• ' '-...,,-....-4 1 i., . ' •.• 13 50(1S F I ..••--7---:---------- r":14:.3:-:.‘ 1.V--.. ///1 00./........1.,...........„.„.....0.1111111111/1/ . . .--:- '"IILBP-: 1.\--' • - • . --, K.,,..4------,..--._ ; 4 • - .r. - , ii .., ..▪. °V . . .4 Cs,..._..t... '.' _ . ,,. ---.`. ..* , .,:0 I/ , ---...--7..,.:\..j, .. • . , • 10 .... . . ' --.-.•±:•,•.17/. lin : _- •'. • \,; ''... .-1c;*/)P.:)ri i • lib %2 '•\' .---..-:.. Retail CBO ll ii 1 .A•, _,-. .. - \ ,•-•:.,. Vi,r 71•6 ....-'v.R:\-1..2t:':i-- 1 - ..------*--i--7..11"11:st i • V ---.A: - ' - :,. 78.000 S.F...!,1•\ • I-'?- . - . - - l' .4• ;,, -,. ' ..•\:.:---- '' .., \ . , iii , ..:- 7---.A /. I pigmow: .4.4 , •• .. __ . . • _ 1 -. •s7r•-• •., - -- t. • ' _ . : tfr..., `-'71 - ' ,,_ ; 1111,1 t.,-.',4"1. .;., . . -- _ ,e,i 0 . •-.„-.\:.,'7.0 .' ---e •, . i . - ' . • 7.4 Ac.-' - ------;- .,„.- , 14)1) -. oe .•' -.. r41,',"""""'" of% ' 90 D -. c- -- . . Office ...", - % ,„ . _•. ., • ,- • . • -,..) ,'..2. . - •.ew , t -..:-...qi ,..-.: 41, -, v ---- • - - . -- '‘ . o°,\. W i i , -:/ . • t;"."-: t. -• k . • I -, • i I . 1013 0 _1—:,.. ' ..57,400 S.F ‘ e .r. , •,../ ..EASE, 1 Odic e e : ),..,•?.--2.0.. • ._,. --- _ •-., ,IIP 6.6 A,. .ito '-' . . .. \\ \ -1 ---..., I / .. ,. I (1.... .. : , \-•'-'1 7. \-•:---+-• , - I \ • , .F,-PERM.. 140k0P•i __ . I .• 1 t A ' illir 1:'• ""."' • • Open Space - \l:4,i...i..••• - 1- I- —, ----1-4.- •''''',7,. LAE. 1 • -E ' 1..';4„.. . IT 'o WI.8E4 ReSidential' 1 i 1.1 Ac. • 1-- , \ (esident 1 I 2 Units , j "4""' 2.5 Ac. T.\ _ . Units. ti .:.., ' .1 ..., r,.. . SUS.iN Open Space /-- .. ., / L______L_____ ....____ _ . ,. .., fi->;:-9../_.4.:- : N./... i .-- ., / .....„. NI ill) ,: ////-_ , ,....• - ,1 ••., --. -\ . 1 'r ' •' •,U-.,:):ie!— --.> - -"-1-', - --, I,. ._\.. i,. ,1:71 4 .p.._. .-- j .. ' ',.. . j `. IP , '/ ;,'.' i ; .' 1 : \......3,•'''•._..r..t.4..... ... „.._ .-- ... ..... . / :‘.,.:.:,'). .P. -." • • ._. /).' f ''' -.".' -%-V4 . -'-'):.--. I.-. ' --- ' .7;1'--.-"_"---- :- ----•:"-::=-:;:".1 / ' z:''''.?..-:el"'""... z.:` . 1, ,_„ ,. .....„ f.,y/— ..-.. ,_ .: ... , .i ; .....--- -.....,z.. .... . ,b...,,. ___, ii . .. - 7 t...,... .,-.---;ii,,--2,-_, • ;•„..-.5_... „1.... .--.., ,.. ,...„.__...,....• ... . Y-• , li ...?:, Site Analysis - Slopes in Excess of 10% Ward L.r- 2001 ....., O 50 100 Feel North Property 13 R W I . --...,..,) 11C;_1-',. ,_....47 7000."0./t. 7-7 , '-,-- .-----____ ' ._. ___ , s --- ---.7::', -• ,..... ...._,-. • .- • .---":-- j-I --- ........-='2.---. ,.....:.-----i• ' / . ------- .,.... „........ . .. 1,v, _ -• -. -...- :1-; )).ikii/ ..-- I ,..•. '....%,1--1-:::'.....:::>';': -. ....'...> s '-,-;;.•-'‘'':: 1 ,. 'iit----.4.-.• , 4 , . .,....,.......7...- •- ..-..,....---- ---- -- _ .. ... - . :••••;'Retail CI, , ------ -1.-- - • - -,. .-- - _,C., : '."----.--..-c.i.q.1,71 - • 7.: ., • .1 • i -h' ----7- — , , , • , , •375.. / . -'-•.,41 At • (,/ jA,.. 3;44,03 ,..103, I I/ t'"fig,'' '7%,i'I 1• . ''.s': • • r :...1-. .4 . . . i• Atfoy;4- ,. • ,.„. _ , . • • 1 .. . ' ...,' ..f.prf., • •••• : 1•11:'.1 -) \ : . /. . d',___,.... „, .... „, , 1 .. t li 1 1 1 ' - - • •-, ....',.. . r.. - t. . --. -__ ___-_-:-i C37, ,. I '-- -•; 'I:1 1 - ' 1 Rellil ClID - -: ,(• ' • ,4// •• . '1 .,'/!,k,- -.... . . ...„. . .9". _, • 9.5 Ac. -'.., I. .: ow's•/.,,, , , - _.,_, 0" ' 100.000 SF., j..."...•'I ;VII',, 1,4° •-• -,- •,•;-- - . . ... ii: Retail i,',.:':.' -. __. oir. : ' 1 .0 ,." 3.2 At/.1..•1. •,..,._ i '• \ •, ' f f ''I" ---.-- 1 • 1 • !.:, . •• •' .-41i4F- :---'.:._. • ' :-. --, , . .. -. .;-- / ,Qq..--z-,, _. • • , - , : --..„...-, • • f #4,-.8,i s-"'t ' -..•-.i ' 4 i ,.t :•-••_... „,„..-0.7000.0000,01 _ -Act .-\,...--,\ 1...,,,,co/lefe,?;?,, . • ... - 4.00'4..• •---.--1 . , 4 . . . _- . . :- 1 ; ,....-:7\eic-:-. .f., Ar ."%4 • -T-''-•-• '",t •-•.. .1', /* . -. •. 4/\-: ::.k- N''—1( ..* ' i'Ill/ °A'' /' 7,. f---...7.1'', . 1 . ). :41.•••••••;?:-F%:,'Agp .-- Retail Cl.".. . :..,, pf,' , , „:),•:,,. .. I.,. ...• ( : ,:.•,-:(I, 7.4 Ac.• `: ',450:0 ,-,-.0 R-12 . : ''tr• 4'. •,- .• 'ttl.e, ' ' ,, ' . .1 - -'7' :, i ,..1w,\_".,)-06:,4„1,--Z,.. \.4;,..40,..,.7,.,.,:ils. 7.8.0(,,•fr' '\ %A 7 Resit1e_n_ti4 '-;44'k, -,-. ,T... .• 1 ‘ • •' •..,-,..-x.... .> ,,1 ,,,- _• _ e',.. -,„. '-'.. • ' , -0 t . ,---'.• • '';7:;,:. ,e 4. •/• • 7.4 Ac.) -1 • .7 : , i ''• 4''-"`"" •.....:',..., •:•• .• e- .i 4., - 10P',-., - \'. / • / , , .iii. ' 90 D.U.: A - , ,, -., i -„, 3.5 Ac.'V -- rle %• .. e .. : PI - :-• ';, „, ' / 'I' • -- : gt /4) ':" i',' ,,,, • / , 1 . liir, / / / . .--. •,,...."--------if Affp' k ...:foir , a• / 0 ! - ,• 1 • - ,.::1,,': -1-'5..*,,---.i•'••-•-e-42,,,,. •,\/id'. 4..0 )(rice. .. ,y 1 . - K . , , A,.., • • To..:',. ., _ ............ i • '- ' -'-',. i -)Z-.., 1,_, gf- •• . - - • -- \ 11 so- ---, 4......• 1 !el.:\ 000,,,,y,h, /:(., •••,._:i..,....).:',;.5.., 1::OW In ed woo, . ! 1 '`.. • of/''' ..--1 Or ••••, ., , • . . •i ,‘ •i -/-..... / / f II 1 , .- t„ •••••• t• 1-7, .-.. . .. r. ‘,.... . L Al•VE , py'W f j• 0 ''''••••....• OA ft,'Al'. I., 1 „, „,,, .../ -4 i r/Y/v/I 0 ,-, • 561I LA ___ -II/ li#,f II • ', ,. . -•• .%11 c:e.i/.'::**-*'' -:::.\:\ NI ,. 4" . ,. — ''";,'• ''AV.).7,/—,.---7' : ' '....-N,-- 'e: ,k"-- 's 1 ., ______.._---1— 1. _ itr .)..0,y_ ..:-.. ‘:-i .,, ...., :-\.-:,:::. •\ .-. v.:. %.1 A ,-,i • ...•,,J, 7-, ,(;) 'C's ',-,..;::::: :., .. •,," • ' _...\:0,.. ',:t ••., 'cl. ,-i -•:"..--; • te" ..v.. , . .- '••.. -\-. ,•• J s .. .... 4:, , ..{, . 1. ... .• N. •__ :-..,,......_ p.:::: .1•:.', f:'" .-t)---i".. / . I i '„.. ;.., ) :( .•‘7's .•••...:... I II• 1..,•., ••. - j J •:i . .,.. .„./' -$:"• t ,z.j .6A-:.•-••.‘. '•"'''''''-"7,•=•.-""77.--=--.----•-• :: .',:'-::--------' Z).7.. - 114-i- . '" ! '' • \ 1 • -.- 31%;--- * ; ''''N.'''''",; • . - IP , ,____ ., • Site Analysis - Vegetation NITard n_r7 1' 0 SO 100 200 Fret North �:�-- ,moi I :T =. .. `.. : -� _ 1 �-- -- : I' — ; ` 35.500 S.F. -..,.>•••,,,i1 • + - 1} i c : f 1i1 Retail CBD.• N Ac. •�,.• .,:-...,...-1 i 5�,. • 1 ..., __!' :-: 1100.000 S.F.•. /,� i. it t • i 3.2 Ac.: 1 h _ • sa►S.F. . • oologgs • I '• Y rs� ! 3 .;-,,. :�, 4e \• Ret:it Cit , I I.I • • ` .te t `� c.,: ' - 1 • — . i ---4.,,,',".,-:.4;3:-. .:x >� 78.(X)0 S.I I••••‘',-.,,,,' \- . �_Rcsicicntl ii r'. .,, . • .__. •• ! _ I i, ! vs._ _ -•-:--1- I 7.----...---,714_..., ....w.. • —\?• .—._. ,7 � /e -.icy i-y !/rte,• `_ i t.�,• IOP" '� . Y\ sit! ••• I190 D.U. r; : • ii� '� �' i•• •` 0 S(XS.F. ; • , . �. • -i-------:--_ -I. • - 1111'7 , • I , E. -%� - ' p' 1• i �.�) .s OClice • r '!•� 4.0Ac. `=x' ` I ItP • •'.1-1-4 ',:57.400 S.F.a„,,,. . ••...A - (% 0111cc 1 • .- to41OTT•f1 a •• ''• • 6.6 Ac. E11.• ."..in''''.Y,-, �-•.. ••• : x; •• 95,4(X)5.1: • ---..‘911,11—• `> 1 1 1�•1J w T,vc - t a %: s-----....-1.+IAIL I uZ ''n0'11 wE , •_il 'Fx::, :I:i iii: £ i.o'saw lI nI Rcsdenta1 ::;: 1I.Il. 8 Units :::•s:.. t .%iiS:i'i'i 2 SUSiN L——— ti,i,9::;,?.:: '''s;:l'..':'-'\1•.-... '--- \ T-\ '.1..i1::.?!...4......i.I;4_-__'''T__,:lt_ __I ile r .. -'‘.::',-.-'2's ti t11-1:::7/1.'7'7'/:.:._:-...,_:.:.1 17"�� , , " /// if :,:.....i..-..-::±::,:_.......p7,,.....- ~-n , • r-1• T__/�_ .i . ,ce- Site Analysis - Wetlands Ward n r -1 T 0 50 100 ZO0FK1 North Property VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Chanhassen, MN CITY OF CHANHASSE RECE' iR^ rOCT 9 1995 �'k'�'�nH JJCIV nJitlIYIItJtPT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Proposed Amendment to Comprehensive Plan 2. Villages on the Ponds, the PUD 3. Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits From the Use of the PUD Concept 4. Compliance with PUD Standards 5. General Concept Plan Requirements Amending the Comprehensive Plan ■ Forward ■ 1991 Plan ■ 1995 Amendment ■ Planning Commission Minutes ■ Comments ■ Summary ■ Exhibits FORWARD The application submitted by Lotus Realty Services, Inc., on behalf of the owners, John H.,Mary E, Austin T. and William J. Ward, is for approval of a Planned Unit Development on what is commonly called "The Ward Property". We are also applying for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A brief narrative accompanied our formal application. A more complete description of the concept of the PUD as well as reasons for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented for review as a part of the Concept Approval process. More detailed plans will be presented as a part of the Preliminary and Final Approval stages of the process. In addition, documents supporting Subdivision review will also be submitted. in conjunction with the Preliminary and Final Approval PUD review, as required by City Code. In order for the development to go forward there must first (or simultaneously)be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this first section of our submission relates to the proposed amendment to the Comp Plan. When the Comprehensive Plan for the use of land in the City of Chanhassen was amended this summer as a part of an exercise surrounding the use of land along Highway 5, we had already had discussion with the Planning Commission about our current proposal. While they had concluded their deliberations on the Amendment to the Plan, the Council had not. We determined not to bring our proposal to the attention of the Council in an attempt to modify the proposed amendment because our proposed PUD would have required an amendment to the Comp Plan as it existed prior to the 1995 amendment as well. Because the plan was amended so recently, there is some confusion among participants in the process as to what actually was put in place relating to the Ward Property. The earlier plan and the proposed land use plan prepared as a part of the study of the Highway 101 corridor are very similar in land use designation. Both have commercial, office and residential use designations in approximately the same areas and both provided for some open space designation. The recent amendment not only changed the land use designation, it eliminated any land designated as open space. (A listing of the above three plans/studies' proposed land use as they effect the Ward Parcel and the uses proposed by the PUD on a parcel by parcel basis is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit A.) -1- In support of our request for land designation as set forth on our proposed PUD we will first provide an historical review of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, some information from the Highway 101 Corridor Study, pertinent portions of the Highway 5 Corridor Study Report and briefly discuss the January, 1994 Planning Commission minutes reflecting their consideration of the 1995 amendment. In subsequent sections we will review some of the reasons why our plan meets the intent of prior plans and studies, how it provides for the needs of the community and why the most recent amendment is inconsistent with those needs. -2- 1991 Comprehensive Plan The stated overall goal is to "Achieve a mixture of development (typo omitted) which will assure a high qualify of life and a reliable tax base." Among the policies listed are these. "Chanhassen will continue to encourage the location of commercial uses in the central business district. Commercial development outside the central business district and its fringe will be minimized until development of the central business district and fringe are largely completed " At the time the City's 1991 Comp Plan was adopted, the projected population estimates being used and as provided by the Metropolitan Council's demographers were 15,000 folks in 2000 and 17,500 folks in 2005 Today we have surpassed the year 2000 number and we are approaching the 2005 projection. The Narrative section of the 1991 Comp Plan had this to say about Chanhassen's Commercial land: "Chanhassen currently has a supply of 118 acres of vacant commercial land within the present MUSA line. This supply, most of which is located within the downtown area or in close proximity to the downtown area is adequate to accommodate Chanhassen's growth through 1995. After 1995, commercial land demand in Chanhassen is more difficult to predict. If the economy remains strong and housing starts remain at or near current levels, the demand for commercial property and particularly the demand by large scale users may intensify. The completion of 212 to TH 101 which is scheduled for completion by 1997 will also contribute to commercial demand " "This comprehensive plan recognizes the need for commercial expansion in the future That expansion needs to be programmed consistent with the City's long-standing goal of developing the downtown area as the primary commercial focus. The future land use element of the comprehensive plan needs to accommodate the "germination" of the downtown area while accommodating future large-scale commercial users. " -3- At a second section entitled Commercial in the narrative section, the Plan goes on to say: "The City has maintained a long standard(sic)policy of directing commercial development into the Central Business District Chanhassen is rather unique among suburban communities in that it has historically had and maintained an active downtown business community. In recent years, there has been substantial public and private investment in furthering development in this area and there is no desire on the part of the City to see that effort diminished by the construction of commercial centers oriented to highways outside the business district. Consequently, it is anticipated that the overwhelming majority of new commercial development will occur in and around the Central Business District,primarily north along Highway 5, but also in the newly developed area south of Highway 5 located along relocated Highway 101. (The Ward Property) Additional commercial development is anticipated in the mixed use area illustrated around the Highway 101/212 interchange. A total of 129 acres in commercial designation is being proposed It is anticipated that this is sufficient to serve the needs of the community through the planning period" In the sections immediately following the above, these observations are a part of the Plan.: "Various types of office uses are accommodated in the commercial and industrial future land use categories. The plan designates a location along TH 101 as 'pure'office. This site which totals approximately 11 acres was designated in a TH 101 corridor study in response to specific site characteristics including transportation access, topography and proximity to existing and planned residential areas. " The initial 1991 Plan, which recognized the need for substantially more industrial land, increased the available acreage from the then 95 acres to 520, making a total of 638 acres. Contrary to the 1995 amendment, the 1991 plan designated four areas: 1. "The logical extension of industrial uses west of the current terminus of the MUSA line, a short distance to the east branch of Bluff Creek...serviced primarily by Audubon Road to the east and Highway 5 to the north. 2. The south side of the intersection of Highway 5 and 41. 3. South of the railroad tracks between Audubon Road and Lyman Blvd. 4. The west side of Bluff Creek adjacent to Lyman Blvd.. -4- 1995 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study The Executive Summary at the front of the Highway 5 Corridor and Design Study completed earlier but dated August, 1995, states that: Suitable land uses within the corridor were established by the city's 1990 Comprehensive Guide Plan. To a large extent, these land uses were confirmed or merely refined by the Highway 5 Corridor planning process. The only major geographic area for which new recommendations were made is that identified on the 1990 Guide Plan map as the "1995 Study Area". This area lies on the north side of Highway 5 between Galpin Boulevard on the east and TH 41 on the west. It does not appear, therefore, that it was the intent of this Task Force that the major changes that were made by the 1995 amendment to the Guide Plan as they affect the Ward property would be made Under the Goals and Policy section, relating to Land Use, the Study document says: Goal: The Highway 5 Corridor Plan defines a mixture of land uses that supports the concept of developing a diverse community according to the goals contained in the City Comprehensive Plan. Land use decisions should seek to develop and support an image of Chanhassen as a community with solid residential neighborhoods, a cohesive downtown, a diverse economy, and a strong social fabric. We believe our proposed PUD meets this goal. Policy: The Highway 5 plan should determine land use designations for the 1995 Study Area identified near the intersection of Highways 5 and 41, as well as for other undetermined (underlining added)parcels located within the corridor. The purpose of defining land uses is to promote more efficient planning in the corridor and assist property owners and residents in understanding what may occur in the future. It does not imply that these parcels will be brought within the MUSA line in any particular time frame. These decisions will be made by the City Council at some point in the future. It appears from the above that the emphasis was particularly on parcels outside of the MUSA line and other undetermined parcels. The Ward property was neither of these and it was outside the defined corridor study area. -5- The concluding paragraph of the Purposes and Intent section says: Nothing in these provisions is intended to stifle creativity or artistic expression. Rather, the provisions are intended to challenge design professionals to create extraordinary sites and buildings within a context that is unique to Chanhassen. Chapter 4, entitled Land Use Within the Highway 5 Corridor, states that the objective of the task force was to ensure that the land use recommendations in the 1990 Comp Plan were still sound given the newly configured roadways; to refine or change those recommendations as needed and to make recommendations for the 1995 Study Area identified in the 1990 Plan. To that end and since there was a reconfigured roadway within the Ward Property, the Task Force listed potential uses and included three potential land use plans. The Task Force also reiterated at this section that the central business district should remain compact and well-defined. Retail uses are to be largely confined to this part of the city. Under the heading Retai/Commercial, the narrative states: Specialty retail and neighborhood commercial may be appropriate; however, environmental constrains (e.g. significant wetland area) must be recognized and preserved intact. Residential: May be appropriate at south end of property. Office/Industrial: "Clean" industrial use (e.g. light assembly or high-tech) office, or institutional use (e.g.,parochial school) appropriate but only on a small scale. The language of the summary recommending paragraph relating to the Ward property is not clear in that the terms "low density" and "medium density" are used to apply to something other than residential and we are used to using these terms to apply to single family, townhouses, etc. The recommendation reads: Low density, office, light industrial, or institutional uses adjacent to TH 5, medium density south of Lake Drive, office or medium density west of Highway 101; residential possible in southern portion of the parcel. The intended recommendation of the Task Force is more clear in the three Site Development Concept plans which were included in the section (Copies are at Exhibit B at the end of this section.) These plans propose three alternate routes for Lake Drive. In every case, the Task Force recommends some retail in the area between Highway 5 and each of the Lake Drive Alternatives they proposed. Each scenario also includes some office, two include some institutional and one includes some High Tech Industrial (small footprint buildings), all at the upper portion of the parcel. The plan which included the Lake Drive alignment which was ultimately selected by the Council indicates retail/institutional and office north of Lake Drive and Office/Retail and Office south of Lake Drive; however, the Council, on recommendation of the Planning Commission, changed the designated use to O/I, a use which incidentally was not included on the Task Force's alignment plan selected.. It seems clear to us from reviewing the Task Force Report that a careful study of the Highway 5 Corridor was undertaken which focused primarily on the 1995 Study Area and on the impact on land along Hwy. 5 by the creation of the frontage road system. The Ward Property initially did -6- not appear to fall into either category in that the area of frontage roads studied in the report was defined as to the south side as that area between Audobon Road and Highway 41. Be that as it may, the alignment of the portion of Lake Drive which runs through the Ward Property was also included in the Task Force's deliberations. By definition, charge to the Task Force and therefore their mission, did not include the requirement of careful analysis of the economic impacts of the recommendations as a primary responsibility. Thus, while we believe a careful evaluation of the "impact on a reliable tax base" as well as other economic aspects needed to be considered in amending guide plan--as it was in the preparation of the initial plan--it was not a requisite of the Task Force. That responsibility must, however be recognized by the Council and to the extent requested to do so by the Council, should be dealt with by the Planning Commission as well. -7- Planning Commission Minutes We have read the minutes of that part of the Planning Commission dated January 14, 1994, which contains a discussion of the change in the Guide Plan as it relates to the Ward property. The discussion revealed opinions ranging from adamant support from one of the members for retail on the site to a fairly negative response to retail on the part of the chair. Other members expressed an openness, concern for a degree control no matter what the use, the observation that there was no evidence available to support the need for retail (no compelling reason) and whether or not this area should be a part of Chanhassen's CBD, the need for a sense of community, and an apparently unanimous desire to avoid a 10-acre type box store. In the end the group removed the commercial and office segment from the recommended use and appeared to approve the currently guided use on the basis of chair's proposal that "Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that?" The Planning Commission's sensitivity to big box users and their skepticism as to the ability to avoid them, led to their decision. We understand why they took the action they did, and we are submitting a proposal which not only provides the opportunity to be a part of establishing development criteria and but also provides an assurance that the big box users will not be accommodated. -8- Comments Retail: The research supporting the preparation of the 1991 Comp Plan and the conclusions drawn have proven to be very precise. The conclusion was that we had enough land for a period through 1995. By the end of this year, plans for nearly all of the remaining parcels in the existing downtown will have been considered for approved. In addition, plans will have been considered for the approval of a redevelopment of a major area of downtown As the 1991 planners predicted, there were three large-scale commercial users, assuming market Square is included in the Target and Byerly's category. The City then as now intended that the commercial focus stay on our downtown and because they realized more space would b needed for the downtown area, they anticipated that the needed new commercial space would occur around the existing downtown on the north of Hwy. 5 and in the "area south of 5 located along relocated 101" Since the only expansion north of Hwy. 5 would have to through purchase and/or condemnation of improved parcels, it seems prudent that the planned for downtown expansion occur on the south of Hwy. 5 on the Ward property as we are proposing. The 1991 Plan anticipated that this area would provide a 5 year supply. The absorption rate for the past 4 years indicates that it will provide a 4 year supply. If, however, the Moretnson/American Legion site is added, there would then be a 5 year supply. Office/Industrial: The 1991 Study/Plan in its wisdom also recognized the need for pure office and designated a portion of the Ward property for that use. While our plan provides for commerciaUretail on that specific site so that we can provide the critical mass needed for the project, our plan provides for that needed pure office space at locations immediately adjacent to the originally proposed site and immediately adjacent to Rosemount. This latter location, adjacent to Rosemount, will not require a change in the Comprehensive Plan in that the 1995 amendment provides for that use The 1991 Plan did not suggest 0/I immediately adjacent to the existing downtown because they recognized that area would be needed for Commercial. They did recognize the need for 0/1 and listed four logical areas for the expansion of this use. We agree with their logic. -9- Summary It is our conclusion after reviewing all of the above documents and plans that, with the apparent exception of the action of the Planning Commission and Council with respect to the 1995 Amendment, there have been consistent conclusions by the various study commissions and by the City in developing its thoughtful Comprehensive Plan, that there will some day be a need for more retail and more office space and that need will, in logical fashion, be met by the use of the Ward Parcel. Much thought, study and analysis went into each of these conclusions. Even the Planning Commission with respect to the 1995 amendment appeared to be desirous of leaving the door open. Unfortunately the amendment to the Guide Plan as finally passed dealt with the entire Ward parcel, not just the portion that was included in the Highway 5 Corridor Study and therefore not just the portion of the Ward parcel that was considered by the Planning Commission in the meeting described above. Therefore, the City cannot employ the 25% provision assumed by the Planning Commission in approving the PUD being proposed and we are requesting an amendment. Based on all of the prior studied reasoning as to providing retail and office use on this property, we believe there is ample justification for a commitment to amend the Comp Plan in order to allow the Proposed PUD to go forward to further review at the Preliminary Approval stage. In addition there appears to be a further need to amend the Plan based on prior intent that there be some open space use designated in the southern portion of the Ward Parcel. In subsequent sections, and using, the last suggestion by the Planning Commission as a segue, we will attempt to provide additional justification and compelling reasons why the plan should be amended as well as why the PUD being proposed should be given Conceptual Approval Subsequent sections will include: A. Description of the proposed PUD. B. Discussion on how the PUD meets the intent and needs recognized in prior plans and studies. C. Economical reasons for the need for additional retail and some exclusively office zoning. D. Advantages to the City of Chanhassen as a whole and the existing CBD District in particular in expanding retail/commercial to the Ward Property. -10- EXHIBITS ■ A. Parcel by Parcel Comparison of: 1991 Comp Plan, HWY 101 Corridor, 1995 Amendment and Proposed PUD ■ B. Site Development Concepts by 1995 Task Force Parcel by parcel history and comparison of land uses as set forth in the 1991 Comp Plan, the Highway 101 Corridor Study, the 1995 Amendment to the Comp Plan and the proposed PUD. Parcel#1. Comp Plan Office Hwy 101 Office Amendment OI/I (except small area on east: R Low) PUD CBD Parcel #'s 2 and 3. Comp Plan Commercial Hwy 101 Commercial/Office Amendment O1/I PUD CBD Parcel #4 Comp Plan NE 2/3: R-Med;W 1/3: Office ) All three of these Hwy 101 R-Med. ) plans had a road going Amendment NE 2/3: R-Med;W 1/3: R-Low ) through the parcel. PUD CBD Parcel#5. Comp Plan R-Low Hwy 101 SF;portion along south: OS Amendment N 1/2: 01/1; S 1/2: R-Low PUD Office Parcel #'s 6 and 7. Comp Plan R-Med Hwy 101 R-Med Amendment O/R-Med PUD 0/IOP Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 Parcel# 8. Comp Plan East portion primarily road;NW 1/4: 0; S 1/4: R-Low Hwy 101 East portion primarily road; NW: R-Med; S: SF Amendment East portion primarily road;W& S: R-Low PUD R-12 Parcel#9. Comp Plan R-Low Hwy 101 R-Low(SF) Amendment R-Low PUD R-12 Parcel #10. Comp Plan N 1/2: R-Med; S 1/2: OS Hwy 101 North edge: R-Med;Balance: OS Amendment 0/R-Med PUD R-Low Parcel #11. Comp Plan OS Hwy 101 OS Amendment R-Low PUD R-Low Open Space Comp Plan Provided at lower portion of Project Hwy 101 Provided at lower portion of Project Amendment None provided PUD Provided at lower portion of Project, with portions designated as Parcels Nos. 10 and 11. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits of the Use of the PUD Concept To further summarize and to compare the potential uses as guided under the current plan with the uses proposed in our PUD, we submit that the PUD offers the following advantages to the community. 1 Incomparable opportunity for the preservation of natural resources throughout the site, particularly at the south and east edges, where most of the desirable treestands and steeply sloped terrain occurs. In addition, it will preserve the habitat areas at the south which would otherwise be destroyed if developed as single family as is guided by the Amended Plan. Further, we will be providing much-needed drainage for the site so that more 'inadvertently man-made ponds' will not occur. 2. The only opportunity for expansion of complementary, smaller-scale retail/commercial character uses to downtown, thus creating a viable, unified and well-conceived retail hub and tax base for the City, a vibrant, well-performing downtown, yet with a village image. Not only does the project improve the image, it prevents incurable damage to the appearance which would occur with industrial (large) pads, which the currently amended Plan permits. Just as importantly it will prevent further deterioration of the east end of the existing downtown including the area along West 78th Street east of Market Boulevard and all of West 79th Street. This area has, since the development of Market Square, Target and Byerly's, felt the effect of the shoppers' predisposition to shop that western area of West 78th Street. This project, which will be complementary to the look and feel of the proposed Entertainment Complex redevelopment, will provide a balance in activity and excitement at the east end of the downtown as well and will help to provide additional traffic and awareness of what will then be the midsection of the Chanhassen Central Business District. 3. An opportunity to provide a staging area, possibly transit hub area for Southwest Metro particularly for its reverse commute busing services, which will be of benefit for all of downtown and for employers located in Chanhassen. 4. An opportunity to achieve a greater degree of quality and compatibility than would be available if any portion of the parcel were not developed under a PUD, but rather parcel by parcel under the Plan. This is true whether the parcel is fully developed over the next two to three years, over the next 4 - 5 years as anticipated, or over the next 10 years, should some downturn befall the economy. 5. More than 50% of this site lies outside of the Highway 5 Corridor overlay district which establishes certain design and site improvement standards. This PUD proposal provides the -1- Advantages of Proposed Development Over Currently Guided Designation and Benefits From the Use of the PUD Concept 2. Due to the tremendous residential growth in the Southwest Area and with limited amount of available space for development, users will locate elsewhere in the SW Area. In our case they will leapfrog Chanhassen and locate in Chaska as it plans to continue its aggressive search and assist program, or to Victoria, as it is just beginning to awaken to the need for a balanced tax base, or to Waconia, which is also growing by leaps and bounds and has an open door policy toward commercial development. A. That means that our fledgling retail community will be faced with loss of traffic from competition outside Chanhassen. B. The results listed in items B through D above are then indicated. 3. The residential growth and the limited amount of space available in the downtown area will also put immense pressure on parcels of land outside the CBD area within Chanhassen. A. That means that in addition to items B through D listed at item No. 1 above, there is the possibility of multiple business districts within Chanhassen, which we have so anxiously sought to avoid. Exhibit E, Page 2 of 2 Critical Mass Volumes of research have been compiled relating to the appropriate amount of retail, the critical mass. It is not our intent here to undertake to portray more than highlights and to relate them to Chanhassen's needs. Based on the commitment to directing commercial development to the downtown area, the 1990 planners perceived that the existing downtown would be filled by 1995 and that additional space would be needed. They designated the Ward property as the logical area for the needed expansion. We concur with their conclusions. The 1991 Plan lists 163 acres(although the appendix lists 151) acres as the current amount and goes on to say that they were adding 129 acres, for a total existing and planned of 280 to 292 acres. The current estimate of developed plus planned is 200 acres. The removal of the Ward parcel from the planned designation constitutes a major portion of this decrease since the Comp Plan was adopted. Thus, as of the 1990 projected total, the 292 acres represented 2.2% of Chanhassen's total acreage. As of 1995, the 200 acre estimate represents 1.5% of Chanhassen's total acreage. This is a dangerously low number, given the strong desire on the part of the community to maintain a viable downtown area. As is stated in our Submission,the Urban Land Institute and the American Planners Association both recommend 7.8% as the appropriate mass for free standing communities such as Chanhassen. It should be especially noted that this recommendation relates to free standing communities, it does not purport to be the recommended area for a regional center. The benefit to the community from a reasonable critical mass can best be explained by listing some of the negative things that happen without it. 1. For shopping other than destination, if there is little comparison shopping available, shoppers will go elsewhere both for value and for selection. A. That means that while destination retailers can survive, the specialty shops cannot. B. That means that there will be continual turnover as shops fail to survive. This is costly to owners and costly in City image. C. The final scenario is that after numerous turnovers, the space is leased at lower rates to less desirable users. D. The net result of all this is that there are lower property values and thus a lower tax base. Exhibit E, Page 1 of 2 Y 0 C) N r 7 O N y )n O C7 r j a- 0 O 0 u U at C D C') N- Co co co Co LU co O T C) Q) O) a) ! C 0 ^ N a) r O O 4.,O O .c X C) a) C7 O V • - NLL1 d CD a) O O O O) CO C CO m a N LU N N N O CD r O o 0 r 0 r 0 N a 4r C9 d m 0 13c y O - CD NI Com) co el an C) M CD CC) a 03 c U r a),0 U O O O O O co C c rJa r r '- C) r p o D Co CL W 0 CU C') N0 C0r00 ON C- O N 0) LO r 0 0) m a) LU 0)) U L C7 C') N Y N C7 O O 0 r O r C Y r r a N N N0 N 003 a co w co m C ) CO O CO CO l!] O O O to 0) N LO 'ct 13 CN') N CD a(') C'- ) O CCO N CO LO Lo r 0) CD r CO Y N ✓ v to CD 0 ry N- C') e) a- r Oor0 m a) v V 0 r 0 C — S •m a) m Co v v v. cn V T � � a co . CD 73aDr � o�aor` LI)• 0 CDCC1C sr) 2 a) 0 O E y E r r N a(N C'')) L N N v N N 0 N 0 (( O >i oi CD ) >U V O > a)V N O 4] C, Q = p J co O co ,- U) in O rO 09 v C)'.Co T N- CO N N N- N CD N 0 el el C') O C') 0 LL IL O O (1f a) C Ili r C') ‘ZrCO NY O a) V O to p C- CND N CD N V O C- O U ✓ v 0 Ch Co r N R N CO C) V N C') CD sr a- N N LU LU E inc, U) O r ▪ N r'.Q LL O Cncrb a LU LU °' CL D) r c Q1 cr) O v N +, O1 ›- a) NCONN V H p... O N- U) C') CO N to C) a a) a W Y Z0 cu > ro -°y o .E Q Z c a) J D > a)> c > V v R rn o C C O a) U LU V V O A3 RS U m C T v vs y Q m i C Q Cf) l0 � co a V R U CO � V) c O Q) w a � D -' a < DD o o E DD DD a c m a) O a � g2 o � � — aa)) a) 0 2 — 2 — a) 0 my Q O 2 -oQ > 0Qv > W c < cQ - > L.L.i > L 3 a) N C a) �' N v a) R C CA C I- 2 2 0 cc a) p c c v - d c v m C v N a a D C D Z r N m m m E rn o .N o Ili = a X x= 0 )( X0 0 3 x 0 a O 0 o O o X G O U r wwO1- wwO1- 1- 0 wOI- WO1- r U � o UJ Z 1 Absorption 1992 through 1995 Completed, Under Construction, Approved or to be Approved Project No. Sq. Ft. Market Square 88000 Americana Bank 6500 Medical Bldg, Phase I 18000 Target 100000 Goodyear/Abra 12000 Hanus 1000 W. 79th Street 10000 Dinner Theatre Complex 12000 Colonial Plaza 9000 Town Square 4000 Market Square II 10000 Wendy's 2500 Byerly's and attached 80000 Kinko's 7000 Century Bank 5000 Boston Market 3000 Richfield Bank 5000 Hotel Expansion 12000 Perkins 5000 Taco Belle 1800 Market Square Ill 8000 Entertainment Complex 29000 W. 79th (HRA) 13700 Total 442500 Absorption per year (4 years) 110625 Villages on the Ponds: Commercial 247000 Office 203600 Total 450600 Number of Years' Supply 4.07 Exhibit C Lotus Realty Services V123H.WK4 t,„ ,.., , f,,,, . EM►is :,1.4.,, .. , --z, , . ooLl.. Vipa . 141;161i113111 v.) 4111 .4 '* . # t; .4 % r...diiinassuo„ .4. gi air . . 7Dancillit WO owillwoleN. ma.. � ,_�� . 7. .. . s. ,_ „.. .„,_ 'IC ' t-1110 3 g : Itt. vimillve;.Iv a EMI pa AM__ w-Of iting44 il." 01°".-. co 41 IP* . 6 V #14 "rn Llt .-6 III' = 1111) RV: 117.1;e:A 111, • IV454kk, •'A44 AO Fillk if_12 i.1.1 - sup �e -exam Mi 4Atig4ktal ti ' 1, _ �r�a Oji v ill IlllyiricAz. li:T-, :, IN Ta ) IA ).4.1 -...: %. ‘ ish. . ,. 0 ii E .q r " ■ELial'�■ : _ - i • `-2 -le lam -• Vb..tiai-4 : ■■■low■ ■ EV,( NW �`' •e; W37Os rj 1: 111 . o t__ I ' ll' 112411 N. 2� I V1 d ) '41 .3.2 tr :1 ::1s] One ,t1/� �' 8 83ea3){ _ - • \ • )1( L11W. �lUMC . . . r LI Iliad , • 'L. . - Ir�-. .. .-1 •. 0 j ' i _� CO se ti k i.1104# .. .. Nlq4 °AI '. . - • Ak. • - 'Y • CC, 1CLA . - der • '- - :-',;i-i;.-:1;-..,...' 11111 air . .> r'r ■•� r ill -V3 id \I v a. o Z <<f foi '6 f i N a - rir> 14 - N ' CC • 1.1.1 . \ elE IN C7.‘ .. • ''‘IC$'/ alir 7:11 III ' ti 1111411 ,,,,,, --. ---- ---- .....„••<:--:.„,_ ...-- 1 •- ,, 1 pm lifkki* ' ___I° ---:-:- 11 I CM- MIAN..4.1 ::-1—.= 11114 � J�� `t Retail CBS' .a I ---- .K! i 'I'- ' -- W.' ' j)3.4Ac.st, 11 lig `►V�.tni /� � • "35,500 S.F. �1 tiln 1p ' of 1�l'�/awlf 'I ` `b I `` _ ,As. ' •1��, • "+''��'.�1 is ` Retail CBD, • 1 h��li ��v ` / 9.5Ac. 1. .T e " 1 _ '\ . • � r�� wi . 100,000 S.F. • , ti i . :=- 4�;�,,)U1� 11 `�:, -Retail CBD y. .. - i)J9 - _ —�� • 32Ac.f•-. 1 ...... 5' 1 / 33,500 S.F. . i,1 kl 0\‘\ . . - ! r"'. 'ept_),4' .6 s. I k4.4*1 --- At- , ,."-: ‘11‘...)11I1 ..."... .°.<11. • f. ,' , --t'flippl't"' u I, ---i__ •;... lk _,..„ it.; i ,cf. ( .. , ( .n _ _ ��br •0" Retail CBD ( • �• Ilk k° `t, I.xiXj 8,000 S.F. i,, Residential .�-_--:� -- - /( : - '1 . k VISC4`4R.fA - r __ mil \y AI*:.- -7--- --:....-/• ltiliffrkl ' ic � °� ��: ( i 117.4 Ac. (- p) • 10P .. k , °u .'"° • " , -) " , 90 D.U. rVe,--, i ` )� - !k •50,800 S.F. . V - " t,000....- : ►`�� :t1k 'j - Office. •• -/ i Jp . , � �\t• 4.0 Ac. o :_ �,s r//t=om %57,400 S.F • ' - --- . k. , ( Office A k F A •.7.G ,- • m. X95 400 S.F. tl"{ ••• s-•,- \ I \ •.„,:, 1 • 11 n,° ii , �,:u1�� - crev - Opeu Space l� LAKE tI R-4-z 1 esidential ( - ' ' WI. Residential \ 1 , LI Ac. ) 2 Units ��fi ) A 2.5 Ac. 'i `�liyrp, - r%k m 8 Units SUS4 N ii Open Space k. et k' ,-F". :AL . r- - Ai i ralfr w nl. is:-------"w- .Y . 1 .,,,,,,,,, ,, ___.. , N,. . .. . .... .,..,„, i,.. . .%,,., ;„,„, : , , ,,______,„_ ...._„.,_,_.:_ �� - .. ,,,,_ \ 1 ___ ,i` Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3 Parcel No. 3. This parcel will be planned to reflect the Village design look in uses which may include service retail, office, convenience, medical services, etc., taking advantage of the Village atmosphere, the pond and Highway #5. Parcel No. 4: Likewise, this site which can accommodate up to three smaller buildings clustered near the pond, will reflect the same design criteria. Parcels Nos. 5 and 6: These parcels each may accommodate more than one office building and design criteria will be established which captures the essence of the Villages. It is our intent to design those closest to Highway 101 for a dramatic impression on entering Chanhassen CB from the south. Parcel No. 7: This site will accommodate an extension of the design mode for offices on Parcels 6 and 7 and uses such as extended-stay lodging as well. New building construction will be located at the present site of the old farmstead with access from the north. Parcels Nos. 8 and 9: These parcels provide a buffer between the Villages and the existing residential neighbors. The roadway system also provides the neighbors with City Streets. Due to the need to maintain privacy for these neighbors by preserving tree stands, and therefore the need to avoid extensive disruption of the terrain, one apartment-type structure is planned for each. On No. 8, senior housing is anticipated and at No 9 an apartment building, perhaps stepped and perhaps utilizing underground parking and based on 16 units per acre density will both utilize and protect the site to best advantage. Parcels Nos. 10 and 11: These sites are lower density residential. The former will accommodate two nice single family lots or one two family structure. The latter lends itself to low density clustered homes in order to preserve the terrain and wonderful vistas in all directions. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 3 VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Parcel-by-Parcel Proposed Plan The size of this project and the variety of uses within it dictate that there must be a focal point---an area where the greatest amount of emphasis on design is placed. Retail use and retail-type buildings lend themselves best to this effort and we have therefore designated the retail Parcel No. 1 area as the Village Center. This area will be the focal point of the project. The Village Center will encompass all of Parcel No. 1 and this parcel is the key to the success of the development. Not only is it the focal point, its design sets the tone for the balance of the area to be developed. (The numbering of the parcels are for purposes of tracking the descriptions in this memo only.) Parcel No. 1: In order to assure the success of this village center retail sector, we have planned for a minimum of two retail anchors of approximately 20,000 SF each. This size is necessary to provide the type of destination traffic that will allow us to attract the smaller merchants and allow them to succeed. Particularly in parcel No. 1 and at every possible opportunity in Parcels 2, 3 and 4, it is our intent to orient the buildings toward the street, around the edge of the parcel, with parking both on the streets and behind the buildings, whenever possible in interior parking courtyards. This will not only enhance the appearance but will also provide easy pedestrian access. Specific design guidelines will be used for this area in addition to site plan criteria. This core area, for example, will have buildings only 1 and 2 stories high. Residents, employees, shoppers and visitors can conveniently walk to and from the village center and the sidsewalk/trail system will connect them with lake trails to the south and the CBD north of 5 as well. If there are to be apparel store in Chanhassen, they will locate here. The flavor of the majority of the businesses, however, will be dining, entertaining marketing and specialty stores. Parcel No. 2: The area closest to Number 1 and adjacent to the pond will be an extension of the core retail village. Although this site does not lend itself to the circular development as in No. 1, it has the added pond amenity and some buildings will be oriented to the pond, others toward the streets. At the northwest corner, and to be blended in with the rest of the parcel, we're planning two buildings, one a restaurant on the pond and the other a motel. Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3 EXHIBITS ■ A. Parcels By Number and Map ■ B. Currently Available Parcels ■ C. Absorption ■ D. Chanhassen Land Use by Type ■ E. Critical Mass Summary The proposed development will require an amendment to the current Comprehensive Plan. There are two basic issues related to the request to change the Comprehensive Plan. These issues are the proposed land uses and the amount of retail use. The current Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as a combination of industrial, institutional, office and residential, whereas the Plan prior to the 1995 amendment recognized the need for additional retail and guided portions of the land accordingly. With the exception of offices, the guided uses are simply not compatible with the natural features of the site. The Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan proposes land uses which are land-consuming uses which require either larger horizontal building pads or single family, which are extremely difficult to develop on heavily sloped terrain. Grading would require the removal of large stands of vegetation and would destroy virtually all of the ridge lines. The proposed PUD complements the preservation of natural site features while providing a mix of uses complementary to the existing Chanhassen downtown area. The amount of retail use is a critical issue for Chanhassen and must be addressed and resolved The existing downtown area of Chanhassen is currently almost 100% filled with either existing developments or approved development projects. (See Exhibits at the end of this section relating to Currently Available Parcels and Absorption.) It was decided years ago that the Comprehensive Plan should recognize the desire to first fully develop downtown and then rethink the need for additional retail areas. In fact the Ward Parcel was designated as a retail area in the that Comp plan. Within the amended Comp Plan there is very limited opportunity to provide small areas of neighborhood retail and highway commercial areas at the transportation modes. Today the City of Chanhassen has roughly 1.5% of its land either presently zoned of guided for retail or commercial use. (See Exhibit at the end of this section.) Typically free-standing communities such as Chanhassen have approximately 7.8% of land devoted to retailing or commercial use. (Source: Urban Land Institute and American Planning Association.) The Ward property offers the only viable land available to expand the downtown of Chanhassen. The viability of existing downtown needs a critical mass or square footage that provides an opportunity to offer a sufficient variety of retailing opportunities such that the residents of Chanhassen will utilize the downtown. If the downtown provides only a limited amount of comparison shopping, the users simply keep turning over. The existing downtown area of Chanhassen simply does not provide sufficient square footage and opportunities for a wide variety of retailing opportunities which a City the size of Chanhassen's potential requires and/or will require. (See comments on Critical Mass as an Exhibit at the end of this section.) Villages on the Ponds is the only logical expansion to downtown. The center will provide a mix of retail and office uses and it integrates into the downtown area additional residential projects, which contribute to the viability of downtown. The proposed development respects the natural elements of the site and provides a development which will retain those natural aspects of the site which give it its intrinsic value. -7- upland hardwoods and lowland vegetation. This residential project would be tucked into the side of the hill and again would preserve the majority the existing terrain and vegetation. Open Space The majority of the proposed open space consists of the wetlands and buffer area around Rice Marsh Lake. The open space also contains Riley Creek and the lands adjacent to the Creek. No improvements are proposed for these areas; however, existing zoning proposes that this area be used for single family development. NOTE: To assist in understanding the location of the various major parcels within the proposed PUD, a brief narrative of each and a numbered map is attached as an Exhibit to this section. -6- opportunities for a very attractive office development, two of which will be located and designed to provide a dramatic entry to the CBD from the south along Hwy 101. Based on the anticipated intensity of development, the actual building pad would be in the neighborhood of 15,000 to 20,000 SF., (.3 - .5 Acre) on sites ranging from 4.0 to 6.6 acres. Potentially 25% of the parking requirement could be provided underground, leaving 75% of the parking requirement to be met by surface parking. In all cases both building pad and surface parking would require about 50% of each parcel. The same potential for a reduction in the maximum .30 FAR indicated by the accompanying site illustration, exists at the office sites. This FAR reflects maximum utilization. The terrain and natural amenities may dictate a lesser FAR. Thus, we believe that there is simply not another land use which would provide a greater opportunity to preserve the natural qualities of these parcels. Residential The concept plan proposes a multi-family residential parcel along the eastern property line. This parcel is located adjacent to developed (approximately a half dozen) large single family lots. The exiting Guide Plan suggests that this area be utilized for single family residential. This area also contains a number of hardwoods and steep slopes. Given the existing terrain, this area does not lend itself to typical single family development because of the vast amount of clearing and grading that is necessary for the roadways, driveways and building pads. For this reason, it is proposed to develop two multi-family residential buildings on this site. The northerly portion is proposed for a senior housing and the southerly portion for a 2-3 story apartment with some underground parking as well as surface parking. This project would provide a moderate income level of rental housing. Both of these residential projects will have an architectural image similar to the retail villages, yet with greater residential flavor. Many of the reasons dictated by the terrain for the office usage on their sites are consistent with the reasons for multi-residential usage on these sites. The sites contain some rather steeply sloped terrain and associated hardwoods. By developing a multi-family project with underground parking, the majority of the site can remain undisturbed. In addition we will attempt to locate the building pads near the new roadways system, which will not only protect the terrain and hardwoods, but will also provide the greatest degree of privacy for the neighbors to the east as well as adding to the'village'flavor of the project. There are two remaining parcels which are identified as potential residential use. These sites are at the southern portion of the Ward property and are on either side of Highway 101. The parcel on the west side of Highway 101 and on Lake Susan is proposed as one single family lot or possibly a twin home. As Highway 101 is relocated in the future, access to this lot would be provided by old 101 which would cul-de-sac at this lot. The residential parcel on the east side of Highway 101 is proposed as a very small multifamily project of 6-8 townhouse units. This parcel contains a large hill covered by a variety of both -5- Pedestrian-scaled lighting will be provided along with heavy landscaping and small intimate seating areas and focal points. The majority of this CBD area contains none of the major hardwoods. The ponds and wetlands associated with these areas would be retained and enhanced to provide pedestrian amenity and vistas into the area. There is one major ridge line which runs east-to-west through the largest parcel. This ridge would probably be eliminated but as the project begins further refinement, there may be opportunities to prove access into multi-storied buildings constructed into the ridge line. At this concept phase the various uses that are anticipated would include: Destination retail, specialty retail, apparel, outfitters, restaurants, household furnishings, domestics, office supply, small offices--insurance, investment, medical, including veterinary--, lodging, convenience. Library, should the library wish to consider a second story location over the retail, for example While the above list was developed for creating an example for this submission, we do not intend that it is inclusive, we do however intend not to provide for big box use or for grocery store use. The mix of uses is designed to allow a shared parking scheme which could include parking for transit usage. The intensity of the development will be further dictated by the parking requirements of the users, as well as the terrain and wetlands. The roadway system will also provide for convenient transit opportunities and parking. And the site will be further delineated in cooperation with Southwest Metro to provide for transit hub service by Southwest Metro. Because the plans for this service are in very early stages, it is only presumed that it will occur on or near the retail area, but it could also occur on or near the office areas. The retail development has been located on that portion of the site which has the least sensitive environment. Those wetlands within the retail area will be protected and enhanced. There are no significant stands of upland hardwood vegetation and the ridge line is a small linear hill with a 15-20 foot rise running through the middle of the larger retail parcel. Office Development While the retail area is located within an area where there are few natural amenities, the office parcels are located on land that contains the majority of the steeper slopes and major stands of hardwood vegetation. For that reason, it was decided to provide a land use which would not require large building pads and could provide vertical development. It is proposed that these office sites will each be developed as a single 3-4 story building with some underground parking. Each site contains a small central area which is generally flat and developable. The perimeter of each of these sites will remain untouched, with the building and surface parking tucked within the surrounding major trees and steeper topography. All three of these sites provide development -4- DEVELOPMENT SCHEME Circulation Villages on the Ponds will utilize Highway 101 as its major access and major north-south circulation element. The extension of the Lake Drive frontage road system will be developed to provide the major east-west circulation element. One additional roadway is proposed to link Lake Drive to Highway 101 to provide access to various parcels and to provide an additional route into the existing downtown of Chanhassen. Access into the development parcels off Highway 101 will be provided at the intersections of Lake Drive and at the intersection of the new southern loop road. The major access to the retail parcels would be off Lake Drive and the south loop road. The development proposes that the buildings would be located adjacent to the roadway rights-of-way. Parking would be provided at the side and at the rear of buildings. To create a pedestrian-friendly retailing experience, we are requesting that on-street parking be allowed along both Lake Drive and the south loop street. Two additional roadways are illustrated on the concept plan. The large single family lots lying to the east of the Ward property are currently served by a long private drive. It is both the City's and the residents' desire to have a public roadway. Due to existing vegetation and topography, it appears that the only way to provide access to the majority of these adjacent parcels is with two cul-de-sacs. If the property owners can provide internal circulation, then only one cul-de-sac would be required, which would result in less disruption to the terrain. An integral part of the circulation is the trail system provided throughout the project and around many of the wetlands. This trail system would be integrated into an extension urban sidewalk system serving the retail parcels and would provide linkages to the City-wide system currently in place along Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. CBD/Retail Development As stated earlier the concept of the "Villages on the Ponds" is to develop a small intimate retail village. The retail village will be characterized by one and two-story buildings with architectural detailing reminiscent of traditional, vernacular architecture. The buildings will have pitched roofs with a variety of gables, gabled windows and possibly chimneys. The structures will be primarily placed up close to the major roadways to create a small downtown village atmosphere. It is the intent that each building will contain a number of retail uses. Some buildings might contain a more major anchor, using say 20,000 square feet, but the architecture would be detailed such that the image is not of one large building or user, rather an image of multiple users. Where appropriate, buildings would be architecturally linked by roofs, canopies or low walls. —3— The wetlands and ponds on the portion of the site that is to be developed are an integral part of the theme of the development, providing water views in the summer and skating in winter. The development will comply not only with the City's Shoreline Management and Wetland Protection Ordinances, but will also be done in a way that enhances these natural amenities. It only makes economic sense to retain these elements which are highly desirable by today's developers and future retailers, user and/or residents. In addition the concept presented proposes to leave untouched a vast area at the south which includes additional wetlands.. For subsequent approval steps, exact delineation of the wetlands will be provided along with enhancement methods. It is the intent that all required setbacks associated not only with the natural wetlands and major bluff lines will be adhered to. Additionally, all facilities will be designed to provide pretreatment of stormwater run-off to protect the wetlands. Grading on the development parcels toward the southern portion of the site will be limited to small development pads and the access routes to them. —2— VILLAGES ON THE PONDS Overview Villages on the Ponds is a proposed development for the Ward Property, a parcel consisting of approximately 67 acres, lying at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101, or Market Boulevard. The overall intent of the development is to provide an expansion of downtown Chanhassen and to create a retail-office-residential (mixed use) activity center which complements the existing downtown and provides additional comparison retailing opportunities and residential support to both the existing and the expanded downtown. The overall theme of the center is pedestrian friendly in village scale and traditional character, using both on and off-street parking and traditional architecture of vernacular character. The flexibility for fulfilling both the intent and the theme are most reasonably assured by a CBD underlying designation for a major portion of the site. For other portions we are requesting Office and a variety of residential densities as the underlying designation for this PUD zoning request. Site The property is characterized by rolling terrain with a number of large stands of trees, most of which are softwoods, consisting of poplar, aspen, ash and elm which have grownup over the last 10 years. Prior to that time, the upper areas were still farmed or grazed. The southern portion of the site consists of more steeply sloped terrain facing both Lake Susan and the wetlands associated with Rice Marsh Lake. On some of the more heavily sloped areas are hardwoods consisting of more mature maple and oak. More mature hardwoods are also found around the old farmstead which is on the westerly edge of the site and along the easterly property line. There are a number of wetlands located upon the Ward property. At the southern portion of the site is the major wetland at Rice Marsh Lake. At the northern portion of the site is a large wetland along with two smaller wetlands. Along Highway 101 is another small wetland at the center of the site. Our preliminary Wetlands Site Analysis which accompanies this submission reflects information obtained from the City and from physical observation. A Wetlands delineation study will be undertaken as a part of the Preliminary Plan stage. While the site contains a number of sensitive environmental areas, these areas also provide development opportunities that are highly desirable. These sensitive areas will require smaller building pads and more vertical development. Some sites will also require that some parking be located within or under the buildings. It is the overall intent that the "Ponds" development will retain the major hardwoods and steep slopes and ponds which give this site its intrinsic value. —1— The PUD ■ Overview ■ Site ■ Development Scheme: ■ Circulation ■ CBD/Retail Development ■ Office Development ■ Residential ■ Open Space ■ Summa ■ Exhibits VILLAGES ON THE PONDS The PUD We k-4 I aorm.silit SU*bw— I*4 '' n604?°gI * 44uun - U r5 O Eml � ^�.A F vi r ,P4,14 ed W a v 0. E < F �z i- 0 < U Z D CA r a�\1�\ t� Li, C <pok CU C`I S U < . C C C 42 < ,7 111411 C CEn O g g4 �� w3 � Q � cn O 0.1 F. wp pgpZ U W c OO CC. < A W • C All 111 ❑I Y Q � ari e W A • � . < a W „ ..-- o p.1114.11 ❑ , \ Ii( s, M aL, rr f • •o ciii). O \ * \i\ N \'1/ _.-, ) \ ,. Ni!b,Vils,V__. -\\) (lip \,,, ,,, ‘ .. Skal 1 . . il I ' IX. \ \ it*,4 I\\ 71'II k.4 1 i \ , a c�) `,a(iFa414 41. o ° :1- _ -.: 1 vri - .....„. 1 e,�c ,,- Ji -.2.1-- . =a ip i t 1 1-3 4t ci) id Ow k az i - _�vr. w O OG WF' F.,) CA O Y r.4 U a a CD < a 14 > 614 rn `ItiQ N IX c..; W W "' V 4 a v a o = F C:11 Cli < O Z O \`C� D w $ a z .c A ITA V ° I C o w O, W E O I- W< cn raj 1114 F\ W \ --' ,;,=-1 II i_I. j 3 A rfti _ G" OLD TM Ill )3 01-,=7:1 \.\\,IliPt‘ 42, ,,: \ • \ \ ,, u • IN = - / \haw. 2414 o :,0 14 WI.d - 1 it . Iiiki . : :: Imo. i 3 ., ....... ih, ,. ) (i) , 1 , A a )-- )4 % -- . . , ri--- 1- \ z A r l � . i � 3 • 77. , 7 ' 1 .Z` ( i i . ~' te , a /// - ; c• a. O / t i;,..„..;_,,...._____ !.. -a3 a II.4 61M Proci 11: Z a) < < 8 �< .6 a < a aO�O'�,\ ..„ w A I.4 6 z W F C w C. m u < w F m Vii W co) 0 a < aa Q Gam. O. F. 0. ..7 W ► = '% S Lis — WC � INIk� _ ow • [� )3 110 0 \ Te\ ‘liiiiiy \., )84.41,_,... • �o 01 \ ‘11re! '1111 .-. 1.111\ ,: -. �, 1:. I.. -. 0 i. Ifrr.,, \ .. ...... i:16....514 P1.71\•1,..• \i'.--. \ 1 . . 1 . .1.. ( 1 bill"' , Nir • -,,f•-"- Q : U 1 _J t7 0 \), ?--, e. 4 1011t „di/A .._,.____— (\(_...„ ___ . ,.....___ ,,, .,,, ] r . ,,,, -, fr--,..2.2_____ :, , 1 te,(--,--q -P 1 5 E I ill I f\ct \-) J ( w < < Ev < 5 aj ; = ..� W1 V 4ç) a W /DI 6-1cfd‘. J99/ Comp Na v Cornnie.4) l N� 4,� , D FF'` © 0 5� iz,-,,., \ ,...1 Low „..,,, 4,,...„...„., os )\---::-./ 7 12s- 1 OS ) 0s), . ) I gwU 5 /995 Amendment Pup - COCgD v \-IR-t-4 ea Cap OD , •':43° -- ).V2\471) it< If , 0 �o , '"\ ' ‘c, , )..'• L.Sti ., ) 1 R_Lou, OS R_Low RNed OS Exhibit A, Page 3 of 3 opportunity for the imposition of quality design and improvement standards, while the present Guide plan would not, if the sites were not developed under a PUD. 6. Satisfies the City's overall goal "to achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base" far better than the proposed guided zoning. (See the brief Tax Analysis as an exhibit at the end of this Section.) 6. Facilitates the extension of the Highway 101 improvement project, completes the frontage road system in a timely fashion and completes the project roadway system in an efficient manner. 7. Provides attractive and close-in linkages to the existing Trail system. 8. Provides housing alternatives. 9. Opportunity to coordinate plans for sewer and water with planning and installation of those services for the area to the south. 10. Provides, as stated elsewhere, a more efficient use of land through clustering, minimal setbacks, vertical office and residential development, on street parking, underground parking and a minimum number of drive areas. 11. Provides a development that will be unique among those in other communities. 12. Creates an opportunity for the City and a neighborhood to obtain public utilities and public roadways. -2- EXHIBITS ■ A. Tax Analysis Tax Impact by Use For comparison each Use is assumed to be located on approximately 1 acre of land. Use Taxes Generated Single Family Assumed 2.25 homes/Acre at $300,000 each. Assumes Homestead Credit has been Recaptured $18,689 After deduction has been made for the estimated per year cost of $3450 per child living in the homes, the net amount is 15,239 Residential at $3,000/unit, R-12 36,000 Residential at $2800/unit, R-16 44,800 0/I Assumed 15,000 SF Building at $2.00/SF 30,000 Retail Assumed 10,000 SF Building at $3.50/SF 35,000 Office Assumed 12,500 SF Building at $4.00/SF 50,000 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 Compliance With PUD Standards Compliance with PUD Standards Chanhassen's Code states that PUD's offer enhanced flexibility in developing a site through the relaxation of zoning district standards and that the PUD zoning allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange, the city has the expectation that the development will result in significantly higher quality and a more sensitive development plan. PUD's are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including site slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. The site has nearly all of these amenities. We believe that our narrative description of the project and our stated commitment to the selected land uses and development techniques, demonstrate that our proposed uses will provide for a greater opportunity for compliance with the suggested requirement than would any alternative, including the alternatives provided for in the amended Comprehensive Plan. In fact, these features are intrinsic to the success and value of the project. Upon approval of the Concept Plan, more specific details will be provided along with the review of the Preliminary Plan. 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. While the mixing of uses afforded by the proposed CBD, Office and multi-residential underlying designations will afford more efficient and effective use of land than is presently guided, the balance of this item is not relevant in that it refers to the assembling of a large piece of land. It is, however, relevant in that the overall PUD if approved at this time will avoid the potential as presently guided of having a multitude of small parcels developed over an undetermined period of time, thus negating the efficiency of providing public utilities and roads in a coordinated fashion as proposed under the PUD 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. We believe we have captured the essence of Chanhassen's hoped-for look and feel in our plans for creating a friendly, yet vibrant village feel, enhanced by the numerous ponds, reached conveniently by trails, automotive and public transportation. A village that is small town in character, yet urban in convenience and services. Specific site plans which will accompany the Preliminary Plan review proposal will provide examples of the effect of the intended close-to-the street placement of structures, landscaping that provides focal points within the project, that exploits the extraordinary views, that emphasizes the ponds,that creates cozy resting places and that leads the visitor to its destination. The building architecture will of necessity be limited to that which enhances and -1- furthers the intended village vernacular. It will not be in countermarch with any of the exiting downtown architecture but will be reflective of that which already falls into the village category and will provide a compatible complement to the proposed design of the Entertainment Complex, which will simultaneously with the Villages on the Ponds be visible to the Highway 5 traveler. Given that we already have in Chanhassen several buildings of high quality design, we do not presume to exceed all, but we will put in place design criteria that will exceed most. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. We have met individually and as a group with the neighbors to the east and with whom we are cooperating in attempting to solve their concerns regarding a lack of public sewer and water and the lack of public roadway access. In addition we have proposed to them and will propose in our Preliminary Plan extensive berming at the east edge of the proposed commercial site which abuts those most northerly neighbors. In addition, the treestands along the entire easterly edge of the multifamily residential sites will be left intact. The proposed senior housing use does not present a potential of a great amount of activity that would be objectionable to the neighbors and we believe it to be a sensitive use. The multi-family proposal at the southerly area of these neighbors will be placed as close up to the loop street as possible, thus placing it several hundred feet away from the nearest neighbor and allowing for a great deal of undisturbed terrain and vegetation as a buffer. We feel that our proposal for office use adjacent to Rosemount and along Highway 101 is perhaps the most optimum use aesthetically and more compatible than medium density residential , the alternatively proposed guided use. As we have said with some emphasis elsewhere in this submission, we feel that our proposed use, particularly with the village look, when viewed from Highway 5 is far more to be desired than the potential loading dock images and large parking lots of large office-industrial. We do not understand how office industrial can be small enough to avoid these images. 5. Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Our proposal is not consistent with the currently amended plan and we are requesting an amendment which would allow compliance with this requirement. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. Upon further amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, open space will be provided for as designated on our conceptual Site Plan. In addition our plan provides extensive trails as have been previously discussed. Because our plan allows extensive preservation of natural terrain and ponds within the parcels and also will provide for landscaping to enhance and add water and other natural features, much more of the development will have extensive private open and park-like areas. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.. As established above, with one small exception, we do not believe that this is an appropriate site for single family housing and the project is being proposed as primarily a commercial PUD, rather than a residential PUD as this paragraph is intended to primarily direct. However, we do intend to provide a small amount of medium density, a senior housing facility and rental housing -2- affordable to the average two-income family employed by the vast majority of our industrial park occupants, a housing component which the City desires to have made available. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Energy conservation is commonplace in today's construction and we do not intend to deviate from that in our designs or sightings. One of the intended techniques used to achieve the village look will be the clustering of buildings and to the extent appropriate, land uses 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. The proposed roadway delineation has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department and their suggestions have been incorporated. Any subsequent modifications will be made only in consultation with that department. -3- General Concept Plan Requirements General Concept Plan Requirements The City Code provides "an opportunity for applicants to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial costs." Subjects applicable to this PUD concept plan are: 1. Overall gross and net density, which is superimposed on our preliminary site plan. 2. General location of major streets and pedestrian ways, which is a part of the preliminary site plan. 3. General location and extent of public and common open space, which is set forth on the preliminary site plan. 4. General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. These are also indicated on the preliminary site plan as well as in the narrative description of the PUD. 5. Staging and time schedule for development. The advantage of staging when the use of a PUD is employed is of lesser importance with this development than in many other PUD proposals in that the staging of the improvement of the individual sites will be market driven and will not be speculative as is the case in most housing developments, for example. It is anticipated, however„ that a portion of the area closest to Highway 5 may see the first development and that the senior housing site may also be done in an early stage. Currently available prospects for development might dictate a staging of the construction of a portion of the roadway system without being disadvantageous to either the City or the balance of the project. In this case the first stage of roadway construction would be the extension of Lake Drive. It is anticipated that a portion of the loop street would either be completed simultaneously with Lake Drive or shortly thereafter, if staging is deemed appropriate. In that case disruption of traffic flow can be avoided by temporary continued us of the remaining portion of the present alignment of existing Great Plains Blvd. Similarly the improvement of the southern portion of TH 101 may for convenience as well as the practical recognition of the time involved for coordination with the various governmental units involved, be constructed during a later phase than the construction of Lake Drive. Although requirements of applicants at this Concept approval stage are limited to providing general information as to the above five items, because of the scope of this development, the distinctive character being proposed as well as the uniqueness of the site's topography, we have intentionally, and at the request of City staff as to some of the issues, gone beyond these subjects in the narrative which accompanies this submission. ing play and park areas and enforcing regulations, it is possible to keep some of the traffic off the lawns. In planning playgrounds it is always advisable to keep them as far removed from the street circulation as possible. Mothers will encourage their children to use the play areas more frequently if they are removed from danger. On the other hand, it is not desirable to have them too far away from the apart- ments." Garbage and trash collection can be another maintenance nuisance problem in apartment projects. Garbage disposal is easily solved by the installation of sink cfispars, providing best quality appliances and brass plumbing are used, or by Wall chute incinerators in high-rise buildings. Trash collection is another matter. Problems of trash collection to be considered are as follows: area to be covered; men necessary to do the job; the best type of epuipment to use for efficient collec- tion;and the distance the pick-up has to be carried to a truck. In the type of garden apartment layout where there are front and back public entrances, trash collections must be made from carefully screened receptacles placed close to the rear entrance to serve several tenants. Then collections can be made by hand or mechanized trucks. In the newer row type of garden apartment design where private terraces or patios face a courtyard, private park, or swimming. pool arca, there is no "back entrance." In these cases specially designed compart- ments must be provided, accessible from the entrance side of the building. The matter of service for trash collection must be worked out in the planning stage of the development. The means for collection can set the layout of the building groups. 8. Allocation of Land Use An.analysis to determine a project's economic and technical feasibility and appropriate land uses for the site plan is an important preliminary step. In design- ing the street and block layout, numerous sketches will be made by the land planner before the ultimate site plan is finalized. In study of the physical characteristics of the site; what theseof the preliminary designs,e treatment over another; what controls are parts the site favor one superimposed by peculiar circumstances of access, adjacent uses, comprehensive area plans, and zoning; what limitations and problems exist such as utility rights-of-way across the site; what density of family units and type of dwelling are to be accommodated, will determine the allocation of land use within the site. These determinations will adjust the area to be devoted to streets, residential sites, recreation, schools, shopping, and such similar elements within the development. When rough land use allocations have been made, sketches can be studied for relation of the site area to project sub- soundings. By a series of rough sketches, the site Iayout can be adjusted to its best treatment before getting into exact dimensioning, precise calculations, and accurate cngrneering- ']`[� la general, areas allocated to non-residential uses within the neighborhood tract should not exceed35 percent; 20 percent is a norm for the area devoted to streets; 1"' I0 percent in public open space, including schools and churches; and 5 Jaz N Area in street allocation depends on density of development. For a subdivision of esingle-family houses, 20 percent devoted to street rights-of-way approaches a maximum for efficient use of the site. Of course, innovations in site design or introduction of housing types other than single-family detached houses will alter the standard percentage of the total acreage 0 allocated to streets. 130 -1 -W GnnriAtAnt- tit1 LPEKS lie-NCI >rbuk Li S1-"'ec�i .010 u 1 fo pn r-lt1913 1 of percent in commercial use.'" In thinking about the site in terms of lot sizes, em street layout, school and other public areas, the land use allocations will be very teir close to the practical if residential use approximates 60 percent of the area with ' _ the other 40 percent assigned to ancillary uses, including streets. As indicated, a irt i low percentage of the total area devoted to streets approaches the ideal. e" em 122 For a shopping center as part of the development, allocation of area for that purpose ink . depends not on an arbitrary "standard" but on the analysis of the market, the trade area, and other factors which set up justification for a shopping center. There may or may not be any by i commercial use justified. (See Section Three.) 'u Unfortunately, Cuban land use data are hard to obtain. At best we have generalities for approximate relationships as guides in preliminary planning studies. Also, the proper alloca- ed; tion of acreage for land uses within a project development area will differ from that in a to- complete city or metropolitan area. Studies of land use patterns for proportions of urban land devoted to residential, commer- iliC i cial, industrial, road and highway, and other public uses, plus vacant land, are confined to several significant studies: Land Use and Property Taxation. Technical Bulletin 18 (out-of- les be print), Urban Land Institute. Land Uses in American Cities by Harland Bartholomew. Har- 11 vard University Press,Cambridge,Mass. 1955. Anew stuandyd, Recentward laF. Rnd-Use. HearTrensd,the in Forty-ECorp.,ight LargeMAmericwonicatt CitiesCalif. ( by Johnunpublished), H. Ed , Santa , ng Niedercorn found the following land-use proportions in developed land: residential, .390; industrial, .109; It_ commercial, .048; road and highway, .257; other public, .197. The total developed land is .770;undeveloped, .230,of which .207 is vacant and .023 is under water. he In density of population to land use, the above study found the following relationships in Of persons per acre stated as a land-absorption coefficient or the amount of land (measured in ng acres) brought into urban use by an increase in population or employment of one person: residential, .059; manufacturing employment, .034; commercial employment, .047; road and highway, .006; other public, .010; total developed, .091. As densities at which new develop- ment is occurring, the following densities for land uses are offered for general estimating t]d purposes, community-wide (persons per acre): residential, 16.94; industrial, 29.41; commer- cial, 21.27; road and highway, 166.66; other public, 100.00; total developed, 10.99 or about 11 n- persons per acre. 1d From "Open Space in Lancaster County," Lancaster CountyPlanning April 1966, an estimate of the ' Commission, Pa.,0 Is, pre-school children; 300 school children; an1,00000 adults. These new residentss: 270 new e requilies, re: 200 ne 90 acres of residential land es 13 acres of streets ns 20 acres of public land of 3 acres of service industry 2 acres of retail stores ]e 128 acres to Fifteen yeah from 1966, the 100,000 new people expected will require at least 12,000 acres of _h land or 19 sq. miles or 2b4 times the arta of the present City of Lancaster. Housing business, industryand roads take up more land than in the past Anew four-lane limited access highway ye with a 260 ft. r-o-w requires 13.5 acres of land per mile. Highways alone, necessary for t- growing commerce and industry within the next five Years, will require 1,300 acres of land in St Lancaster County. AeWd�t �e economics of naw employment and population, the following is an excerpt to from "How IBM Came to Rochester, Minnesota," in American City, Nov. 1960. "Careful studies available to us show that 100 new factory workers create jobs for 74 people in service activities such as gasoline stations and groceries. In general they will create a demand for four more retail establishments, create some $360,000 more retail sales per year, and place about toid : $270,000 on deposit in the banks. At the same time the municipality has to be ready to receive 5 a little more than 50 new school children and its street system has to accommodate itself to more than 100 new autos. You can expect over 100 new households because of these added 3f 100 factory workers. In all, they will create conditions that will enable nearly 300 people, 3r including themselves, to support themselves and add to the vigor of the municipality." es For land use designations in master plan studies, see Standard Land Use Coding Manual, A P3 Standard System for Identifying and Coding Land Use Activities. Urban Renewal Administra- tion and Bureau of Public Roads. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. • 131 11111 WEST /8 HST. " 1uI1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -`,.: ipliiii i 6 PLANNING COMMISSION �-r� 0rik'ETING • ill ME � Wednesday, October 4, 1995 HIGHWAY.:;::;::;;:::>` =>''" ' �''�` r at 7:00 Ilifs:: �! P '1 Chambers mb ers C 0 unc t City Hall � o wine= 4 I 15 690 Coulter Drive . r.::' Ni> ;vil, = even Kokesh&Nancy Ecoff Albert& Jean Sinnen Richard & Linda Anderson 01 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ary S. Bernier Harvey&Rosemary Will Robert W. Armstrong, Jr. 55 Grandview Road, Box 157 8151 Grandview Road 8400 Great Plains Blvd. ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 mes &Kathryn Jacoby Joseph& Patricia Eickholt Mark&Lori Jesberg -10 Great Plains Blvd. 8408 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 adrew Freseth& Milton Bathke Willis & Anita Klein rnda Williamson 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8405 Great Plains Blvd. -11 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Zanhassen, MN 55317 .orge, Jr. & Margaret Shorba Donald& Dorothy Gale Rosemount, Inc. Attn: Controller )4 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55317 Ebert Dittrich Holiday Station Stores Thaddeus Korzenowski ;27 Crestview Drive 4567 80th Street West 20645 Radisson Road :w Ulm, MN 56073 Bloomington, MN 55437 Excelsior, MN 55331-9181 :ianhassen Inn B. C. Burdick Donald F. McCarville +1 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane aanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior,MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 mes & Carol Udstuen Peter& Mary Staudohar Knoll Bisrat&Denise Alemayehu i0 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane 380 Hidden Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 rilliam & Debra Prigge Andrew&Jeannine Cone Brian Semke& Deborah Duetsch )0 Hidden Lane 321 Hidden Lane 331 Hidden Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 andy&Kimbra Green Michael & Prudence Busch Mark& Alexandra Lepage 03 Marsh Drive 8113 Marsh Drive 8123 Marsh Drive aanhassen, 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 .Varryl & Sandy Wrolson 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 8130 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 8160 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 Billy&Diane Streepy Robert Langley&Laurie Soper 331 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hugh Faulds &Karyn Knutson Thomas & Rita Mohs John & Brenda Lund 8136 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 8139 Dakota Lane 6125 Blue Circle Drive 900 2nd Ave. N. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Arthur& Jo Ann Mulligan David& Sharon Nickolay 8501 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 CITY OF i CHANHASSEN \ ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f 0 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 29, 1995 Dear Property Owner: This letter is to notify you that the following item has been rescheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 18, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers: Conceptual planned unit development for a mixed land use development of commercial, office, single and multi-family on approximately 66 acres located south of Hwy. 5 between Great Plains Blvd. and Market Boulevard,Villages on the Ponds, Lotus Realty Services. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ,. .----c--1-744_,..4__zitd„..t.A.m....41_, Robert Generous,AICP Planner II 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 Harvey & Rosemary Will 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 Joseph& Patricia Eickholt 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. Attn: Controller 304 Chan View 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 12001 Technology Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 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 Donald F. McCarville 531 West 79th Street 684 Excelsior Blvd. 3349 Warner Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 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 )n& Mary Stutelberg Robert& Lois Savard Jay S. Anders 33 Marsh Drive 8080 Marsh Drive 8090 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 :artin& Timaree Fajdetich Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin Darryl & Sandy Wrolson 00 Marsh Drive 8110 Marsh Drive 8120 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 nil& Rita Klauda Walt& Pamela Chapman Bruce& Cynthia Marengo [30 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8150 Marsh Drive hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 :even&Julie Lundeen Gary& Debra Disch Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook L60 Marsh Drive 8170 Marsh Drive 320 Sinnen Circle hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 andal & J Meyer Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin Mark& Sharon Nicpon 30 Sinnen Circle 340 Sinnen Circle 341 Sinnen Circle hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 homas& Jill Hansen Billy& Diane Streepy Robert Langley & Laurie Soper 31 Sinnen Circle 321 Sinnen Circle 8134 Dakota Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ugh Faulds & Karyn Knutson Thomas& Rita Mohs John& Brenda Lund 136 Dakota Lane 8138 Dakota Lane 8140 Dakota Lane hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tson White Blue Circle Investment Chanhassen NH Partnership 139 Dakota Lane 6125 Blue Circle Drive 900 2nd Ave. N. hanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 1100 International Ctr. Minneapolis, MN 55402 .rthur& Jo Ann Mulligan David& Sharon Nickolay 501 Tigua Lane 8500 Tigua Lane 'hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and outlined for the public how a Planning Commission meeting is run. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, Don Mehl, and Ladd Conrad. Craig Peterson arrived after item 1. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 94 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 2 FOUR UNIT STRUCTURES, 2 THREE UNIT STRUCTURES, 1 SIX UNIT STRUCTURE, 1 TWO UNIT STRUCTURE AND 9 EIGHT UNIT STRUCTURES ON 12.34 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND HWY 5, SCENIC ENTERPRISES, INC., AUTUMN RIDGE 2ND ADDITION. Public Present: • Name Address Derrick Passe 9115 East River Road Robert F. Kopp 2208 Manor Drive Joseph Miller 18133 Cedar, Farmington Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Bob, can you just go over for us the trail system and some of those amenities that are in this subdivision. Generous: Of course along Coulter Boulevard the city will be providing a...Within Autumn Ridge itself the applicant will be providing a trail system from the south and near the Trotters Ridge up to Highway 5 corridor...So they will be building... Aanenson: Maybe we just add to that too. Additionally the Park Commission has worked to acquire, some of this property is in the ownership of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy, to acquire that. We're working with the Gateway property to eventually have a 100 acre plus passive park in this area so we believe this is a nice amenity with the passive park for this development 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 providing a lot of open space and there will be trails through that. As Bob indicated, it will tie into Trotter's to the south but we also see this being an amenity package to the west as well. Trails around that. Mancino: Okay. And do you see the trees to the north, the existing coniferous trees that are on Highway 5 at this point. When Highway 5, when. When Highway 5 gets widened to four lanes plus I'm assuming some turn lanes, so it will be 5 or 6 lanes at that area. Anyway, are those existing trees, will they still be there or are they in the right-of-way and will MnDot take those down or will those still be used as a buffer? Do we have any idea? Hempel: I believe that those pine trees will be removed as a part of the widening of Trunk Highway 5 some time in the future. We've expressed that concern to the applicant as well and he has increased landscaping in that area as well with berming. There's a natural high berm there right now on the western part of the site which will remain with the site grading of this development. Mancino: And what will be the elevation from Highway 5 when it gets down and traverses. I mean how much berming will the berming do? By the time we get the new Highway 5 and - this subdivision is completed, will you see, how will those? Hempel: The preliminary grades are going to maintain at pretty much what's out there today. It's not going to deviate much from the existing center line grade out there but the widening of the road may require some filling in some points. There's a lower depression kind of about the middle of the site up in there which is a natural drainageway...pick up that drainage when the berm is constructed. Aanenson: As you recall, that was one of the issues that we had when this first came forward when they had the road going along Highway 5. Kind of...we felt that was, really would be better to try to eliminate that road and provide additional screening and that's how we ended up with a single load. We saw that as an issue that really we need to provide additional screening, berming, landscaping from Highway 5 so we think this plan is superior then to the original one. But that certainly is an issue for widening. Mancino: And do we have a date on that? When we think Highway 5 will be widened? Hempel: The latest we've heard is post 2000 now. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Conrad: Yeah. Impervious surface standard versus real. And the standard Bob is what? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: 70%. No. Conrad: For this medium density, isn't it... Generous: I have 50%. I know we've reduced the amount of impervious surface but I didn't check the numbers. Conrad: Yeah, I didn't see it in the staff report. We should have that. Second question, while Kate's looking that up. The 34 points. How does staff administer those 34 points in the recommendations? I've never asked that in all these years. There's 34 points. What is the trigger that says go ahead after all those 34 points, how do you manage that Kate? Aanenson: Well a lot of these will disappear at the time of final plat. You know getting watershed approval. A lot of these things are marching orders in order to achieve final plat. Conrad: Do you do that? Aanenson: Sure. Conrad: So you've got, this is sort of your tickler? Aanenson: Yep. Conrad: Dave comes to you. Aanenson: Yeah. Conrad: You tell him that's taken care of. Point number 7 is taken care of. And Kate you've got this little log that says all these points, and what can't they do before all, what can they do before all 34 points are happening? Aanenson: You can't record the plat generally is how we. Conrad: They can't record it? Aanenson: Well there's different ways we can do that. If they've got all the information into us, normally we don't proceed until there's surety in place. If there's escrowing for public improvements, landscaping, that sort of thing but normally you don't issue building permits. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad: Do you invite the applicant in and say okay, here we are. Let's go through these 34 points. I want to see... Aanenson: Well that happens after it goes to City Council for final. They receive a letter from us telling them exactly what they need to do in order to receive. Conrad: Okay, so maybe they're not 34 points anymore after City Council. They're down to 32. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Or up to 38. Conrad: Tell me, seriously. I'm real curious. So do you invite the applicant in to your office and you go through that or is it a moving process? Aanenson: It's a moving process. They work between Dave and myself or Bob, if Bob's working on it. Sure. Generally it's done over the phone. Sometimes they have to drop stuff off. Additional information. You work with their engineer. Their architect. Whatever piece of information you're working on. Sometimes it's a bank. Sometimes it's a lawyer. You just work with a lot of different people trying to get all this accomplished. Conrad: So you've got 20, 30, 40 of these in your file. They're all working out at 34 points. Aanenson: Yep, it's a lot of management. Conrad: Is it computerized? Aanenson: We have our's computerized, yeah. Conrad: But the key point though, before the applicant can do anything, the applicant can be moving ahead. I've got to go back to that. Aanenson: You can't do anything. First you have to record the plat. To record the plat there's certain things that have to be accomplished. Generous: Well, they can try to get the outside agency review. Get those processed right away and so those can be resolved by the time you come to final plat. Mancino: Ladd, they escrow $10,000.00 for every point. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad: Every point? Mancino: Every point. And as you go through it, you get your money back. Conrad: So it's not real clear. I guess that's my point. In the process, things can be moving ahead but Kate, you are the administrator of the 34 points? Mancino: Between engineering and planning, sure. Conrad: Okay, so it's shared. Mancino: It's shared. Well some of them, yeah. It depends on, really if it's public improvements, they generally work through engineering but we talk constantly about where the status of these projects are. Sure. Before they get recorded, both departments. Conrad: Before it's recorded. Can you issue a building permit? Hempel: Often these points are reduced and when it comes to final plat approval... development contract. Most of these conditions are boiler plate ones... Those are ongoing as the process is going through Planning Commission and City Council and those points are being eliminated as we proceed. By the time we reach final platting, we're down to probably half. And what we've done in some instances, to expedite the project if it's late in the season, we would go ahead and allow them to begin site grading once they get final plat approval, and enter into a development contract with the city to provide the necessary security for that. That would be the most they could do on the site prior to having the final plat recorded. At that time all these conditions would be either met or some of them remain in there like... Conrad: So for a plat to be recorded it requires the city approval? Hempel: That's correct. Aanenson: But it's a dynamic process and you could put, there are certain things that people will be working on. For instance on this. Conrad: Who signs that? Who gives the approval? Aanenson: Well the City Council does but it's our obligation to make sure those things are followed up on. Conrad: Who signs? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Aanenson: The plat? The Mayor and the City Manager. But this type of project is more complex because there's more things to negotiate as opposed to a subdivision now because we' e said we want to see the mix of colors. So that will take a little bit more negotiation to make sure we've satisfied that requirement. So some of these are. Conrad: The Mayor signs it and then you walk up to the Mayor and say Mayor Don, here's my 34 points and they've done a pretty good job to most of these. Aanenson: And they go up to the City Attorney's office who also reviews them all. Conrad: ...general issue but 34 points is a lot of stuff. Aanenson: It is. Conrad: It just triggered a thought. Back in the old days we used to request the staff to only give us 7 or 8. Aanenson: You know what we did, we cheated. We just combined them and made them bigger. - Conrad: I don't mind this because it is a good list. It's a good list. It says this is what you've got to do applicant. I think it's really good. I just didn't know how you administered it. I'm still not sure. The second question though, going back to impervious surface. Generous: The standard is 30% and they're about 27%. Conrad: And you do measure that before you do what? You're always. Generous: Before we can give it final approval. Aanenson: Yep. Conrad: That's all. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Skubic: I have one. Is the dispersed guest parking included in this plat that we have in front of us. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: No, it's not in there and on this I tried to put in some ideas of where that could be. There could be a small one up here. Another down in here. One in here and maybe another one over here. They meet the requirements of the code but this was because we know that if they meet it, someone will have 6 cars sometime and they won't have a place for people to be able to park except for on the street so we'd like to have additional parking throughout the site. Aanenson: And those private drives are no parking. Mancino: And I think when the applicant comes up, we can ask if they're open to doing that. They do meet the ordinance as it stands right now though, for parking spaces. So this is kind of... Aanenson: I guess our issue is that there's no private stretch... Mancino: But they do meet. Mike. Meyer: Bob. Where those roads come up to Highway 5. Those streets go up to Highway 5. Why isn't that a cul-de-sac or, I don't really see a turn around. Hempel: The intent there was to try to reduce the overall asphalt surface out there. This type of turn around does meet the Fire Marshal's...T-bone or a Y type turn around ...sea of asphalt there that you may see looking down from Highway 5. Mancino: And I think it also allows them, I asked that question earlier. It allows them to also put snow there so that they can just snowplow it to the end and stack snow. Hempel: Another advantage, yes. Mancino: Good questions. Is the applicant here? And does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Derrick Passe: My name's Derrick Passe. I'm with Passe Engineering. I'm here as a representative of Scenic Enterprises. Joe Miller and Bob Koppe of Scenic Enterprises are also present. To touch on the 34 points, it is an active process. There were 36 at one point. There were 34 points. It went up to 36 but actually we crossed out two of them in the meantime so it's back to 34. And that was as a result of our meeting with the staff. We incorporated the changes that staff had made and they were very effective in reducing the amount of grading. Thus disruption to the site and cost to the developer. So it's a win/win situation for everybody. The units are 8 unit buildings. This is a...that I've placed up here. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 All of the units have 2 car garages so the parking requirement is met. We will be able to provide at least 2 spaces at the end of each of the driveways is a place where, we leave an area for people to back out of the driveway. People always park there so we pave it double wide and make it a little bit longer so you can still get out of the driveway... I guess really if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them but I think Bob's done a good job on helping us through this process and I'm comfortable working with the staff. Mancino: Are there any questions for the applicant from commissioners? Mehl: I have one question. Do you have a view from the, I believe it would be the back side of the buildings as viewed from Galpin? Derrick Passe: As viewed from Galpin. Mancino: It would be the east side. Mehl: Right, the east side. So we could get an idea of what the individual units are going to look like and how they might blend together with respect to the landscaping and the-slope of - the plan and so on. Derrick Passe: Okay. No, we don't have a view. Our view is, as far as the view. It will be similar as far as this area in here. That's the orientation of these buildings up to Galpin. What won't occur is that with the slope, these units will be lower than Galpin and so you'll be seeing probably the second floor more than the actual patio, which is on the end of all the units. There is a privacy wall that I believe is 3 feet high. Just screening the patio... Does that answer your question? Mehl: Yeah. Actually we're looking at the end of the unit there on Galpin. Derrick Passe: Right. It's the same view as here. There was, staff did...putting a four unit here and a larger unit here but due to the trees in here, it was decided to put the small unit where we'd be saving the most, the existing trees. There's a lot of existing pine trees in that area. Mancino: I have a question just on architecture. Are there different styles to these? Are the 8 units different than the other units, etc so that not only is there a color difference but there will also be a design difference and design detail difference on the outside of the units? Derrick Passe: The units are made up of two different building types. It's the end unit and interior units and as far as the roof line, the only variation will be between 4 and 6 and 8 unit 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 buildings. The roof lines will vary. There is a gable in the middle of this building here. And a 4 unit would typically be, no that wouldn't. The roof line for a 4 unit is here but then the garages will be in the center of that 4 unit building. Mancino: Do any of them have any different brick work on the outside or different window shapes? Derrick Passe: No, there isn't. We don't have any plans at this point. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Mehl: Those units are, along Galpin are you say below, lower than Galpin. You'd be seeing like the upper level. So the slope is sloping downward towards the building. I assume drainage water isn't going to be a problem. Derrick Passe: No. There will be a berm. The berm there is at the intersection of Galpin and Coulter Drive which is the proposed frontage road. There's a berm which is going to be approximately 6 feet above Galpin. That berm will be about 12 feet above the unit. So it's substantial screening. As we get closer to the intersection on Highway 5 and Galpin, we are limited on the amount of berming we can do due to some vegetation. The units have, at that point, are approximately 4 feet below Galpin Boulevard. The boulevard where the trees are is approximately 4 feet higher than Galpin so we still have some, probably 8 foot difference between where the trees are and ground floor of these units. Skubic: I'm sorry. I didn't follow what you were saying about providing extra, potential extra parking sites by widening the streets in some areas. Can you clarify that a little bit? Derrick Passe: Okay. At each of these driveways, the driveway is extended past the last individual driveway service. By extending these 20 feet past that driveway, there is this space to park a car. These driveways will be 20 feet wide. You can get two cars parked side by side in that area. The only place where it could potentially be a problem is where you don't have another individual driveway parking right here to back up into to get out of your garage. In that case, we can extend this farther past the building so that there is 5 to 10 feet to... Skubic: I see, thank you. Conrad: Two quick questions and they may be more towards staff and their report. Minimum street width is 24 feet face to face. What's face to face? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Hempel: Gutter line to gutter line. Conrad: Ah! That's the old term. There you go. So we have a new term. Hempel: Dave is trying to check you there. Conrad: Ah Dave, that's good. But then the next comment, and I just didn't understand. Some of the driveways are proposed at 20 feet wide. Do I care? It has nothing to do with the width of the street. You're just saying driveways are 20 feet wide. Mancino: The individual driveways are 20 feet, yeah. Hempel: The main thoroughfare and the loop street, those are the wider, 24 foot wide streets. Conrad: Okay. What's the price range of the units? Derrick Passe: I guess the price range for these units, probably $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 per unit. Conrad: 120? Mancino: 120? Joe Miller: I think, I'm Joe Miller. I made the comment, as much as I can get. ...temporarily retired but...custom builder. We always change walls or windows...so that is kind of our customizing that will be done. But the building could be pre-sold or it might be, something might be changed. If we know that buyers are buying certain things, at certain times, that's what they're looking for... Mancino: No. I like variation. Any other questions? Mehl: Yeah, one more I guess. Maybe directed toward staff. Just looking at it, it looks like a real concentrated area with a lot of things going on and I assume you looked at the roadways and so on between the buildings and so on for access for fire equipment and the corners and this type of thing. Hempel: That's correct. That was one of the revisions from the earlier plan. To make it flow better from a traffic standpoint as well as Fire Marshal standpoint. Mehl: Okay, thanks. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: I think that's it. Thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: If anyone would like to come and give their thoughts on this development, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Commissioners, your thoughts. Any conditions that you want to add? Ladd. Conrad: No. I think it's fine. I think staff did a good job. I think the applicant, it looks like the applicant worked with staff. I really don't have anything. And I'm not against the 34 points. I want to make that clear, just as a point. I like those points out there. I like to manage towards those points. That was the reason I brought that up. Not that this was excessive. No other comments. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think staff and the applicant did a commendable job of building in variety and preserving the topography of the plat very well so I don't have any comments. Mancino: Don. Mehl: The prints that I looked at initially here did not show the landscaping and trees to the extent that the applicant shows them here tonight and I had some concerns about it but I like the way that we've worked in trees along Galpin and the adjoining streets and intertwined in the buildings. I think it looks good. Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Looks good. Mancino: I think it looks good too. I have one additional kind of issue or core issue I have with it and it really reflects something that the staff report brought out on page 10, under miscellaneous so that I would just like to add something to the conditions, and maybe it is condition 27. That we make sure that when, as we know the future of Highway 5 is going to get widened and it will become closer to this subdivision, and we make sure that we plan ahead for that so that when the noise level goes up because of the widening of TH 5 and it's 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 closer to this development, that we are meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards. And I would like to make sure that that is one of the conditions because our staff has put in that MnDot will not participate in constructing any of the noise structures. So I want to make sure that we plan for that. Now this is the first subdivision that we have on Highway 5, residential, and so I think that we do have to be concerned with the future widening of TH 5 and the noise that it's going to bring to residential subdivisions. And that may require provisions of a wall or extra berming. But I would like to have that looked into and investigated now, and not later on when Highway 5 is there. Because I think in future years we will get people who live there who are concerned about that. The other condition that I would like to add would be more around the storm water pond that is going to be in the southwest corner. Ifs a small condition but when two of the commissioners, when Bob and I went out with staff to review some of the new trail system, etc, and what we've been doing out there as a city, we were on the north part of Rice Marsh Lake and one of the storm water ponds there had used some of native seed mixes in with the pond that was adjacent to the wetland. The existing wetland. And it just worked out wonderfully. It looked like it was part of the wetland and it was by the trail system and really added to it. So I would like to see that where the storm water pond is, that they incorporate a native seed mix into that pond. Those were my only additional concerns or additions I'd like to add. Otherwise I think it's a good development and staff and the applicant have worked together to bring it a long ways so it's really appreciated. Do I have a motion? Conrad: Sure. I say that and then I look at the staffs motion and I'm not sure I'm going to make it. It says the City Council in our motion so we probably will change the staff motion to Planning Commission so, you're just getting ahead of yourself Bob. Or you're promoting us and we don't want that. I'll make the motion as per the staff report with the changes that, instead of City Council, that we substitute the words Planning Commission. With all the 36 points in the staff report and then there will be 3 additional points. No. There will be 2 additional points and then I'm going to wait for a friendly amendment because I don't have a clue what our Chairman said for the first point that she'd like to have so that might be a friendly amendment. So the 36 stand. I'd like to have the staff and applicant also, for point 37, provide an impervious surface computation. Point number 38. That a native seed mix be considered or required where the storm water pond is created. And that's the extent of my motion. Mancino: My friendly amendment would be to add to condition 27. That the applicant also get the necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make sure that with the upgrading of Highway 5, that we will not exceed the noise standards established by those agencies. Knowing that that may require the provision of a wall or extra berming in that area. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad: I'm not sure we're following Robert's Rules here but I think that's a good amendment so regardless of how we do it, I sure would accept that as part of the motion as a friendly amendment. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a second to the motion? Meyer: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 12.34 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD (first reading); preliminary plat of Oudot A, Autumn Ridge Addition, creating 94 lots and one outlot for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition; and site plan approval for a residential medium density development consisting of one 2 unit, two 3 unit, two 4 unit structures; one 6 unit structure and nine 8 unit structures subject to the following conditions: 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Fire hydrant placement shall be subject to review by the Fire Marshal. 2. Must comply with Premises Identification - Policy #29-1992. Copy attached. Additional address numbers must be installed at entrance of driveways to multi-dwelling units. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 3. On the main looped road there must be posted on one side "No Parking" signs. Signs must be installed with 75 foot intervals. Submit drawing to Fire Marshal for approval. 4. There are fire hydrants shown on the plan that will need relocating. There are also additional hydrants that must be added. These changes will be addressed and shown on the utility plan. 5. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 6. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 7. Obtain demolition permits for the existing structures on site. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 8. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat approval. 9. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance. 10. Trail fees for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition, and retroactively for Autumn Ridge 1st Addition be waived in consideration of trail construction. This trail construction shall be completed per city specifications within an alignment approved by the city. 11. Revise the landscaping plan to provide a more equitable distribution of trees and provide additional groupings of evergreens along the northern project boundary to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens with the widening of Highway 5. Conifer trees shall average seven feet with a minimum height of six feet. 12. 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. 13. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has calculated that the proposed development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $36,592.50 assuming 12.3 acres of developable land. 14. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. The buffer strip for Wetland A shall be 18 to 38 feet wide with an average width of 28 feet. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 15. The developer shall construct and 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within a 20 foot wide trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer. The legal description of the trail easement shall be prepared by the applicant after the trail location has been determined in the field. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 16. The applicant may commence site grading after final plat approval and the applicant entering into the Planning Unit Development Agreement and supplying the city with a financial security to guarantee site grading, erosion control and site restoration. 17. A condition shall be placed in the PUD/Development Contract notifying residences that Coulter Boulevard will be extended in the future. 18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private streets. The applicant and city staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans. 19. The development plans shall be revised to incorporate staffs revisions to the street and building unit layout (Attachment No. 1) including the following modifications. 20. A native buffer strip 10 feet in width should be maintained around the natural wetland. The required buffer strip adjacent to the natural wetland shall be 18 feet to 38 feet wide with an overall average of 28 feet. 21. 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. 22. 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 approval. 23. 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. 24. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. 25. 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. The applicant shall also get the necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make suit that with the upgrading of Highway 5 does not exceed the noise standards established by those agencies. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 26. 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. 27. 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 basin. 28. 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 approval by the city. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration. 29. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State Aid review process. 30. The private streets/driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the city's private driveway ordinance for low and/or medium density zoning. Private driveways shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide (face to face). 31. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 32. The applicant shall provide a plan that assures that the variations is siding colors are in fact implemented. 33. The applicant shall provide dispersed guest parking spaces within the project. 34. The applicant shall provide an impervious surface computation. 35. A native seed mix be considered or required where the storm water pond is created. All voted in favor and the motion caned. (Craig Peterson arrived at this point in the meeting.) 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,742 SQUARE FOOT TIRES PLUS FACILITY LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD. ON WEST 79TH STREET. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Mehl: Yeah, I've got a question. If, you know the rest of the two restaurants there and the Tires Plus are going to generate a lot of traffic. My concern I guess would be is that roadway going back there, is that adequate to deal with it? I guess the other thing too is that, Tires Plus places I've been to have been very busy. A lot of things going on. And they deal with a lot of used and new tires. How are they going to get those in and out of the facility? Back a truck in off of West 79th into the area or is there enough room to maneuver once you get down in their facility. Generous: Well they would be able to drive on site. They're actually, I believe their storage area for the used tires is up here where the ramp is so they would be able to pull off and back into that driveway to access that area. As to the specific operation, maybe the applicant can. Mehl: And then all the new tires, if I recall, were on the back wall. If they have problems of trying to get them back there. They need a way to get a truck back into there. I don't see any big doors for access. One thing I noticed on the prints there, there was a gravel surface near the front, left front corner, or right front corner that looked like about 20 x 50. What is that? Generous: This area? Mehl: No. It was actually a little farther, a little lower to the, yeah. In that area. Generous: I believe that's additional landscaping. It used to be part of the sidewalk when they had the handicap ramp on the eastern edge of the building. But to the revisions and the need to shifting the building, they eliminated that space and moved it over right next to the entrance. Mehl: Just one other question too I guess. Again...there's going to be a lot of activity and a lot of things going on and I believe the drawing that I saw showed, it must have been 7 or 8 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 stalls for working on vehicles. I also assume that there's going to be a big air compressor in there with a lot of impact wrenches and a lot of noise producing things and in the summer time you're likely to have the doors open for ventilation and so on. I wonder, has that been looked at for noise standards and that sort of thing? Generous: Well that's one of the reasons they only have two overhead doors on this building. They really wanted to put all 8 bays with direct drive in and back out on the south elevation and we said that we didn't believe that was appropriate for this area. I haven't gotten into any detail about looking at it as far as other standards for what it would be at the property line. Could we request the applicant, if he has that information, to provide it. Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Thank you. Ron Fiscus: I would be happy to. I'm Ron Fiscus with Yaggy Colby Associates representing Tires Plus. ...for us to give you just a little more background on how far we have come with this project since we first started talking with Todd Gerhardt and Kate about it about a year and a half ago in fact. ...at that point was that Tires Plus had control of a piece of property across 79th Street to the south that had a little bit of developable area and a lot of wetland. The city had a piece of property that had a little bit of wetlands and a lot of developable area so it seemed like a match made in heaven at that point. So we started working with staff to find a way that Tires Plus might be included as a part of this city's redevelopment project. One of the first concerns was the appearance of the building and as we started talking about that there was a Tires Plus project that went into Apple Valley in the area of County 42 and Cedar which last year won the Minnesota Shopping Center Association award for a building in the under 10,000 square feet. As staff had a chance to take a look at that and we supplied them with some photos of that and they said well, that seems to address a lot of the concerns we have. Some of those concerns being, getting the building mass to perform an end point. An end to this piece of property to start screening some of the railroad right-of-way and the area beyond from that Highway 5 and 79th Street corridor. So the building that's proposed on the site, that's shown here, is that Apple Valley building with a couple logistic changes. One is that it has been lengthen by one stall. There are 7 stalls in there to provide more building mass. There's a parapet wall up here that's elevated a little bit above that Apple Valley facility. Once again to get the building up and to get more building mass in there. So we picked up that same clock tower, if you will, feature from the Apple Valley facility and it coincides very nicely with the number of the other building features that you see in the community like the Abra Auto Body. Market Square has that same sort of feature. They pick up again and again with the Chanhassen downtown area. The issues, other issues that 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 we wanted to resolve at that point were the building locations and we recognized that we had to deal with the easement across the back of the property and yet we wanted to bring the showroom around in front so that's the front door to the face to 79th Street. Allowing to minimize the number of overhead doors in compliance with the request of the staff. Goodyear for example has direct access into the parking, into their service stalls. It was thought that on this location that it wasn't the desired goal and both as an appearance concern and a means to control noise, there are two overhead doors instead of seven overhead doors were the direction that we went with. As we've gone through the developing of this process with the HRA and Todd Gerhardt's office and have started working from a zoning approval standpoint, site plan approval standpoint, three other primary issues have come up. One is open space. The 35% open space requirement. That we worked very diligently with the assistance of staff to balance the appearance concern and the operation of the building concern with the need to get as close as we can to that 35% open space. Also recognizing that the limits of that property have essentially been set by the subdivision plat that the HRA has put together. And with Bob's help we have gotten very close to that and appreciate his efforts in that regard. And it is a balancing act between the open space and providing adequate parking. We would like to hold to the 18 stalls that are shown with this revised site plan. 16 is what's required by city code. We had a concern that that may not be enough based on...experience in other communities with similar facilities. That 18 really fits that facility much better. As I have acted as staff to planning commissions, as I've advised planning commissions on preparation of zoning ordinances in evaluating the proposals from the other side of the fence than I'm speaking to you this evening, one of the things I continually encourage planning commissions to do is look at the reasons for the regulations. Regulations are fine but you also need to look at the reasons behind those and the parking requirements are frequently set as a minimum standard. You want to make sure that there is adequate parking first and foremost. Beyond that, the number of stalls required in your zoning ordinance are a guideline. Well our concern with Tires Plus, adjacent to Applebee's that also, that has a much higher parking demand than the Tires Plus facility. Much higher traffic demand...is there going to be adequate parking for both of those so that we minimize the need for parking across those property lines, even though there are cross easements in place that will provide for the legality of cross parking. For the most part I think the Tires Plus peak uses will happen at different times than Applebee's, but there is going to be some overlap at peak use times and so we would like to go to the 18 stalls and ask for your concurrence with the staffs evaluation. That that 33 1/2% open space, as it's represented with a lot of landscaping, would satisfy that goal of what you're trying to accomplish from an appearance of open space standpoint. The other item I want to address is that of the roof structure. It was our hope as we worked with staff, with the city administrator's staff early on in the project, that this building facade would be acceptable. Would meet all the requirements of the city. So what I'd like to do is maybe have some dialogue as we get farther into the discussion tonight about that roof situation. I would encourage that this 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 parapet with the clock tower sort of replicates that roof sort of feel. And as I talked with Todd about, where that roof requirement came from. Once again we get back to the reason why. Todd's reaction to that was, one of the primary reasons for starting to look at roofs and requiring those as a design element was that you were tired of looking at the HVAC systems. The air handling units that are frequently roof mounted and dot the landscape on the tops of roofs. There are no rooftop systems with the Tires Plus building...so that's that screening is not a concern because the roof wouldn't be solving that particular purpose there. But we would like to have some dialogue with you about that. We do hope that Tires Plus will be a busy facility but frankly the traffic generated from the Tires Plus is on the very low end of the spectrum as far as the number of trips generated per square foot, even with a very busy store. Our perception is that 79th Street is very adequate to handle the Tires Plus facility. I think the HRA's direction to locate those high traffic generators at the front of the property rather than driving all that heavy traffic through to the side is a very good choice and I'm sure 79th Street is adequate to handle that. One other point had to do with the staffs recommendation that there be a grading plan as an overall site utility plan submitted for the project. We have previously...the street and utility plans have been submitted for getting the utilities and the service street into the site. We've been authorized to prepare the overall site grading plan... (There was a short break in the taping of the discussion at this point.) Mehl: ...I guess my question was how you were going to physically do that. I assume drive a truck up the driveway and maneuver it or turn it or something and back in. Ron Fiscus: Sorry, I forgot to answer that. There are two places tires are stored. The new tires are at the back of the building. The used tires are in the...in this location of the building. So a truck coming in to deliver new tires or pick up used tires has two options. One is to come into this parking lot that is basically vacant and they would do, they would back directly into this area. The other is, and we've looked at the truck turning movements to assure that that is doable. They can come into this location and then back into that space. The door to stock the new tires into the racks is back here and there's a walk. I think it's back into it. One of the earlier concepts showed this, showed a more ample, a larger paved area to provide better opportunity for that. A thought we've had is that in order to reduce the impervious surface, and yet to provide for that truck access back into there, might be to widen this out slightly or to use some landscaping. The paver panels that you can plug grass into that provides a useable surface but no more often than truck traffic comes in there to pick up and deliver. The grass would be allowed to grow in that kind of a surface...opportunity to solve the problem. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mehl: Would you expect truck traffic in there daily or weekly or what would be the frequency? Ron Fiscus: Mike Diamond with Cardinal Development knows a little bit more about the frequency of operations. Mike. Mike Diamond: We are the developers for Tires Plus. I'll have to ask you to forgive my voice tonight... Operationally, typically they bring in a truck once a week. In very busy stores in the Twin Cities it's twice a week deliveries. For incoming. ...recycling is a similar cycle. The used tires that you're speaking of, there is a typical trash that any retail establishment has but the used tires are picked up and Tires Plus is very proud of their environmental programs. They're used as fuel for a paper mill in...Wisconsin and so they're picked up on a regular basis and taken to that... Mehl: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Any other questions at this point for the applicant? Skubic: I guess I have one. The discussion about the air compressors. Where will the air compressors likely be located and air conditioning equipment also? Will it might just be roof mounted? Mike Diamond: The air compressors are internally located and are actually back in the same areas of the tire storage at the rear of the store. With it, they have mufflers for the air compressors and this sort of thing and they're designed and used with the air conditioning equipment, I'll let Ron address. Ron Fiscus: The facility, customarily the standard Tires Plus facility has overhead doors for each of the stalls and in the service area, the usual means of handling air is to open the door and let the cool air blow into and circulate within the building. In this case, because we have done the internal circulation and we have limited doors, the building is designed frankly to operate more with the doors closed than the doors open and there is beefed up air handling within the service area. The air conditioning unit for the showroom area is located within the building also. So there are no compressors or air handling equipment that would create noise... Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Thank you very much for your presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Conrad moved, Meyer 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 on this issue, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Don. Don, your thoughts. Mehl: Yeah, I'm just putting them together here. Is there a, I wonder is there a physical divider between the two parking lots? They could, can they easily come over and use the restaurants? Mancino: Bob, is there a divider between Applebee's or what's ever will be there? Generous: The line will be approximately on the north side of Applebee's parking lot. There's no berm or median or anything separating the properties. Mancino: So someone could come in and just, if there wasn't anybody in the parking lots, just make a beeline diagonally over to Tires Plus if they wanted to? Generous: Well, sure. Once you made the turn into the aisle. Mancino: Thank you. Mehl: And the other thing I had a question about I guess or a concern about is the entrance into their 18 stall parking lot. Is that wide enough for two cars to pass or is it a single car width? Mancino: Dave, could you address that? When you are in the parking lot on the west side of Tires Plus, can you be coming in and coming out at the same time? Hempel: This would be the drive aisle between the parking stalls and the island should be 24 feet wide which would be adequate for two cars to pass. Mancino: We hope so because that's what we just approved for the last subdivision. 24 feet. Okay. Mehl: That's all I have. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Let me remind commissioners that I think that the applicant would also like to hear some of our positions and comments on the roof. Whether it follows staffs recommendation. Or the applicant would like to keep it as it is. A flat roof. Staff is recommending something else and also on whether they are to comply with the zoning ordinance which would mean that they would have to decrease the parking spaces by 2 to meet the maximum site coverage of 65%, which is our existing zoning. And they're only off by 428 feet so I just, but if you could also speak to, I think those two. The Highway 5 ordinance. It is an ordinance now. The architectural designs has in it that within this district that there be a pitched roof element on each building and that that is one of the conditions that staff has recommended. So we can come back to you Don as you think about that. Mike? Meyer: Why don't you come back to me too. Mancino: Come back to you too. Fine. Bob? Skubic: Sure. First off on the false front there, I agree with the applicant. That frontal geometry is the same as we see on Market Square but the front on Market Square is also much deeper than that and I think that gives you a much different appearance from the side elevation. I don't know, I personally don't know if a pitched roof along the periphery is something that I would desire but I certainly think something needs to be done with that front portion there in some manner. Make it deeper or make it a little more robust. I appreciate what staff has done to make some provisions for some trees or shrubs in the back side of the building and I certainly hope something can fit in that 4 foot section area to block that off a little bit. The Frontier development immediately to the north I believe is being redeveloped and I think for appearances sake it would be nice to have some trees along the back side of the building there. And the 428 square foot condition here. Man, that's about 1/4 of this room. 20 feet by 20 feet. That isn't a large area. However it does preclude putting shrubs in that area. So there's that trade-off there. But I think that by moving the building forward that 4 feet, that there certainly could be enough landscaping in that area. I don't think that 420 square feet is significant. Those are my opinions. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Two issues. Site plan. Or it's a subdivision and a site plan. Overall it looks nice. I like it. I'm uncomfortable that we weren't given enough for the subdivision. It's like how can I approve something that really wasn't given to me? It's bad. Site plan looks good. I can slip the standards for impervious surface. I need a reason from staff because as you know in this business, if we grant a variance or slip a standard, then the next developer says well you did it there so I need a reason. And we probably can find one because probably 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 overall I'm guessing we can do that. Staff could say landscaping exceed the requirements. I'm comfortable. But a couple things that the applicant didn't do. ...this is not a ranting and raving deal. Really, we do have standards in our Highway 5 deal so that's sort of an absolute. We're doing it. That's, we're doing it. Everybody that comes into Chanhassen does it so. We received these, I see these were dated May 30th. That's a couple months ago so obviously staff has told the applicant about them and they have chose not to give us anything because they probably wanted to do this which is sort of in their corporate direction, which I understand but like Bob, I think those are our rules and I'd like to see what we can do within those rules. We've had some successes and failures. I'd sure like to see that. So again I have a hard time passing this on. I haven't seen a good subdivision plan and the documents that we normally require from anybody building in Chanhassen. And I haven't seen elevations that sort of meet what we're looking for. Signage on this elevation, we don't really allow advertising on the outside of the buildings so, and we've got some things that are wrong, which are easy, real easy to correct so it's not a big deal but it's really not what I'm looking for. But I'll end it. Overall this looks real good. I like the subdivision. It makes, I just like how it works but you haven't given me anything. You haven't given me anything like other people give us when we review this. And I think you're looking for feedback from us in terms of changing your corporate direction and I guess my signal is, yeah. We can probably slip our impervious surface but that sort of bothers me because we've got a huge site here and usually you can, in a bigger site you can usually manage that so, and we'll figure that out so that's not an issue. Signage is an issue so that's got to be worked and roof line's got to be worked but I think Tires Plus is a reputable, real good company. I'd welcome them to Chanhassen even though my comments don't seem like they're very welcoming but I just want some stuff that we really, I just need some other paperwork before I. Mancino: So you'd like to see this back? Conrad: I think so. Again, it's really tough to, it's tough to pass it on when you know I'm sort of looking at the overall subdivision and it's real flimsy here so. I'm not comfortable that we can do it. Mancino: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I think not having been here for the first portion, I'll abstain for my comments. Mancino: Okay. Don, did you want to add? Mehl: I agree with Ladd. I think we have to maintain consistency and follow and work with some of the things that have been established along the Highway 5 corridor. So I agree with Ladd's comments. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Okay, Mike. Meyer: I'm in agreement with Ladd also. There's really nothing additional. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant like to respond please? Ron Fiscus: The two issues that are before you tonight are the subdivision plat and the site plan. The subdivision plat has essentially been out of our control. It's something that the HRA has been working through and we've been asked to provide some more information after receiving the staff report and those things that are within our control, we certainly are rushing to get into place...staff has encouraged. And Todd may want to speak a little bit more to that subdivision issue as he represents the HRA. And the same point with the roof. Although the plans that were submitted are dated back in May, we have been really waiting on getting the staff review until the HRA took action in approving the development agreement. It seemed inappropriate for the staff to spend a lot of time with all the other things that are going on, reviewing the plans until we knew we had an agreement with HRA. So that reaction to those plans has come fairly shortly and so we've been trying to wrestle with the initial reaction to the building that we got from the administrative part of the staff said gee, this looks great. And then wrestling with the different direction we're getting from planning staff saying, gee it needs some roof. One solution that we'd like to suggest to you that would be in keeping with some of the other roofs that have been acceptable, would be to pick up this line behind the parapet and bring the roof straight back. There would be a standing seam steel roof that would be like Market Square. It could come back to the end of this parapet so it would have a little more, a bit more mass. Or frankly if you'd like, some of the other facilities in the community that have used that have pulled that line clear back through to the back of the building so we would offer either of those two suggestions today that would be very acceptable to Tires Plus as a solution to that roof issue. The signage, we understand the brand signs that are usually placed on the Tires Plus facility in the front would be deleted from this project in order to comply with the city's requirements. We have been scrambling to get through the development agreement with the HRA and to get to the point of being able to get before you in anticipation that we might be able to get under construction yet this fall. The land transfer is scheduled to occur, the first piece of it, sometime after October 23rd. Tires Plus is in the position to move as quickly as you will allow them to, to get under construction this fall so what we would like to do, if at all possible was to address the issues that are outstanding issues tonight in hopes that we might be able to get a recommendation from you so we can be in front of the City Council on the 23rd. As with the roof issue, with the signage issue, with the landscaping issue, we hope that maybe we've addressed those adequately at this point so that you can feel comfortable making a recommendation to the Council. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Thank you very much for responding to that. Now response of how we feel comfortable, what we want to do with this. Do I have a motion? Conrad: A motion for what? Mancino: For what we would like to do. Would we like to table it and see it back again with a new roof line? What do we feel comfortable with at this point as far as the applicant's response? Conrad: Madam Chairman, could I ask. Todd, representing HRA, could I ask you a quick question? Normally when we have a subdivision of a major plat we have traffic. We kind of lay it out. We've got aisles. We've got different elements. We tie them all together. We see where the traffic's going. How they feed the different things. You know if it's a one site plan, then the applicant has total control. I'm getting the feeling the applicant doesn't have total control here. Where do I see the site? The overall site development where we have islands in the roads and where, who's doing that? Is that HRA? Are we asking Tires Plus to do that? I guess I'm a little bit confused Todd. Mancino: When we'll actually see one and who's going to bring it to us. Gerhardt: Bob, can you put up the overall development? To get this development, if you look at it closely, it can be done in two phases. Where you have Applebee's and Tires Plus here and here, you physically can do that phase first without building the parking lots and landscaping on the second half. We come in with a common driveway along the property line on both sides and when the HRA comes to fruition with two other users, then the overall development would be continued. Staffs taken a look at this and feels comfortable that it can be done in two phases. Am I answering your question? Conrad: No. Well I kind of get it. I know where we're going. I'm just missing, who put this together that we're looking at right there? Is that what you drew? City did that? Gerhardt: City staff is working. Conrad: The city owns all the land Todd, right? Gerhardt: Right. The parking and we sat down and knew that we had a restaurant and that we had Tires Plus and potentially a second restaurant that was interested in coming into Chanhassen. And with that we sat down with planning staff and Barton-Aschman to come up with some concept plans and with those concept plans the planning staff came back with that concept to Planning Commission I think this past summer and showed me this concept and 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 asked for your feedback. Is this something that you can support as a development in Chanhassen? Not looking at details of roofs. Not looking at details of green area but as an overall development. What do you think of this as a vision for this area? And from what I was told, this had a positive feedback from Planning Commission. We accomplished the Highway 5 standards of getting the green area and buildings between the parking lots and Highway 5. Using the buildings to screen the mass parking that would go along with those. Taking the restaurant element with the front lawn theme around the buildings, along West 79th Street and giving you that residential feel. As it goes to the pitched roof elements and the green area and the plat, you know we'll work with the planning staff and Planning Commission on their recommendations if you want to alter property lines to accomplish that. Conrad: Let me interrupt you Todd. My question, and I'm still confused. We got an applicant in here that really has a site but we have an overall subdivision. Under the recommendation by the planning staff it said, the applicant should submit a master plan showing entire site plan. Now maybe I've just got some works mixed up here. Aanenson: Can I answer that question very simply? There's two co-applicants here. If you look on the top. City HRA and Tires Plus. So it should have been made more clear that the HRA is obligated to do that portion. We have contracted with them, as long as they're going first, they're carrying the ball, that they are going to accomplish some of that. The city's doing the wetland portion of that. But yes, they are doing a portion of the plat. It was the city's obligation to provide you a subdivision. What happened is Tires Plus came in in May. they've been waiting for the negotiations. Todd has spent months trying to get the HRA purchase agreements on this property so they've been waiting all this time so they're ready to go. We're behind them. They're ahead of us as far as their time frame. They want to get going. We feel, as Dave indicated, that we feel that, and Bob, that it's a flat piece of property. We can accomplish that. It's just about there. You're right, it's not. We don't have a subdivision in front of you but as Todd indicated too, we did bring that forward to show you the direction. Conrad: Well that's real general, yeah. And we're saying, hey generally we like this. So that's a whole different deal. We're not getting specific and... Aanenson: Right, but the city is the co-applicant so when we say applicant, that's onerous on the city to be providing that information. Yes, we are amiss on not having all that information in front of you. Gerhardt: You do have the plat in front of you. The subdivision is. Conrad: Well yeah, there's some lines here. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Generous: That's how the cities do it. Conrad: Seriously Todd, it's just not up to any standard. Mancino: There's nothing to do with pedestrian friendliness. There's nothing. Gerhardt: You're talking the grading plan and... Conrad: Sure. Maybe a sidewalk in the front. We don't know anything. Mancino: I mean if you wanted to walk back there and couldn't get there. Gerhardt: There's sidewalks shown on this site plan and it has. Mancino: Where? Conrad: Well Todd it's not. Gerhardt: Can I point it out? Conrad: No, no. I take back some of the things that were said directed at Tires Plus. You're running faster than we are so I understand the problem. I don't know how to solve it. Gerhardt: Well I would suggest if you feel uncomfortable looking at this, I would table it until you have a full submission of grading plans and you know, it's not a substantial document but as Ron has mentioned, he could have it completed by next week. I would say table this for 2 weeks if you feel uncomfortable looking at this. Aanenson: Just for their edification. This is scheduled for the City Council on the 23rd. We hate to do this. We're doing this tonight with Pillsbury. We're fast tracking these but if there's just a few issues that we're looking at next time, if we could turn this around, we can maybe keep them still on track for the 23rd Council meeting, and that's an opportunity too if we table it. Conrad: You can do that? Aanenson: We'll try. You know we can't make a promise but we can sure try to do that. It just depends on the level of dialogue that needs to take place at the next meeting. That will keep them on track at least for the 23rd meeting. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: If we can do that. If you can do that. Aanenson: Well it's onerous on them and onerous on the city to accomplish that, sure. Mancino: Okay. I mean we like to see drawings on the new roof line and then a complete subdivision. Pedestrian, traffic circulation. Conrad: Yeah, we've got to. It's just a standard you know, and I appreciate the workings of the HRA and government but we just have to apply the same rules to a government body as we do to private businesses and that sometimes can come back and affect a private business but dog gone it, we just have to apply those standards to us. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion? Conrad: I make a motion to table planning case #95-13 Subdivision and #95-10 Site Plan. Mancino: Second? Mehl: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Subdivision #95-13 and Site Plan #95-10 for Tires Plus and HRA. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Ric Moore: Good evening. My name is Ric Moore. I'm with Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service and we've been out at this Chanhassen site since 1992. Over that 3 year period we've been very successful. The business volume has grown about 35% and with that growth is causing problems in our ability for loading and unloading products and so that's why we're here tonight. We've worked with staff previously...take your recommendation to Council. Again, this will help us solve our problem and also help get our trucks off Audubon Road too. ...got our engineering firm here with us. We've got a lot of drawings and can answer any questions you have. Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Conrad: Yeah I have just one. You've pushed the site to the maximum right now. What happens next? Ric Moore: This is it. What we have done in the past is we've been adding more lines inside the building. The building is now max'd out. There's nothing more to put in the building and this addresses the growth in shipping the product in and out of the facility. SO we are at our maximum size that we'd like to be right now. Conrad: How do we keep you here in Chanhassen? Ric Moore: Pardon me? Conrad: How do we keep you here in Chanhassen? Ric Moore: Oh we're happy... Mancino: Well there's more land also to acquire. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing please. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this site plan, please do so. Carrie Christensen: My name is Carrie Christensen. This is my husband Tom. We live at 8681 Alisa Lane. We are new residents of Chanhassen as well as new business owners in Chanhassen so it's nice to finally get up here and get a chance to see how... We have some concerns as we've read the proposal from Pillsbury. We are pleased with how this building looks. Their actions, what they do, what they contribute to Chanhassen the city. As a resident my concern is trucking. As a resident driving back and forth and having a business right off of Highway 5 on Park Drive, we drive that every day. We see the traffic. Friday especially, and Saturday especially. I have had, I can note at least 5 incidents where I've had truck drivers open the door to their cab,jump out of the truck and just... I have seen truck drivers urinating on the side of the road. I read your plan and I see a lot of should eliminate the parking on Audubon. May eliminate the parking on Audubon. I realize you have...and adding that extra loading parking. My concern is, yes you've got parking but also expanded your shipping. You've expanded your freezer. I counted this last Friday night, I think it was 30 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 9:00-9:30 at night, I counted 19 trucks parked on Audubon. Only on one side of the road. On other days, later in the evening, earlier in the evening, I have seen trucks lining both sides of Audubon Road as well as Park Road. Not either or but all of them. I've seen more than 32 trucks there at a time... What happens as you expand, now you have more dock space. You have more freezer space. What happens now when you expand and you have more than 32 trucks coming? I mean where are those trucks going to be? Tom Christensen: I guess the big thing we want to address is the concerns of the people in our neighborhoods and along that road is, I, myself, I can say that I've almost been hit I don't know how many times and we've only lived in the neighborhood since April and I can say I've almost been hit by other cars and trucks pulling out that lot 7 times. Now I don't want to endanger my life or the life of anybody else because of some trucks that we can't even see when we're trying to pull off of Park Road there. I mean we can't even see when they're sitting here. Carrie Christensen: When the trucks park on either side of Audubon and each side of Park Road, you can't see at that intersection. Employees coming out of that parking lot onto Audubon can't see around trucks. And so I was concerned, it's not to have maybe some of the trucks off or most of the trucks off, but to have all of the trucks off Audubon. I have seen countless piles of broken glass at that intersection. I know there's accidents. I have friends in the Carver County Sheriffs department. I know there's accidents there. Somebody's going to get hurt bad. Those trucks need to get off Audubon. ...parking on Coulter, if you don't have enough on site parking on your lot. You know a station that manages and somebody with a walkie talkie saying okay, it's your turn now. Go. Some system...traffic. Tom Christensen: I guess the big thing, another thing is concerning, it's coming wintertime right now and as you get all those trucks parked in there, the roads are going to be narrow and what's going to happen is we have a problem right now where there's times when we drive down the road and we have to stop to let a car go by. We can't even drive through there because the trucks are so wide and the guys are out of the truck. They're polishing their trucks or doing whatever. They've got the doors wide open. We can run them over. And the big thing is, it's a big safety concern of all of us that live in the area. And I was just talking to Dave this morning and like I told him, there's no reason why we can't park off on Coulter over there instead of parking on Audubon. I realize that this is going to take some construction time. So instead of letting them park on Audubon, let them park on Coulter and back in their parking lot and route them through. I mean there shouldn't be a problem with something like that, for just temporary. I mean you've got to get the cars off of, or the trucks off of Audubon because it's dangerous. And what's it going to take? Somebody getting killed on the thing to open somebody's eyes up. I mean that's what it's going to come to. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Carrie Christensen: Another concern is, expanding is wonderful. At this point you say the parking lot, expanding the employee parking should take care of that. My concern is, where are those trucks going to be v'-lile you're doing construction? Are they going to be in the parking lot...? After the construction you may have...for a while. Until you go great, we can get more in here because we're bigger. Then where do you go from there? If you've used up all your allowable space for parking and have no more room to expand on the site, as you pointed out... You've got to find some way to keep up with what they can put out. It's wonderful you're doing that kind of business. I'm happy. It's great for Chanhassen, but as a neighborhood concern, and as a person who walks to work occasionally. Walks home from work occasionally. In the dark occasionally. I don't want to get hit. And yes I stick to the sidewalks but if somebody swerves to miss a truck or to miss another car, I'm not going to be safer on the sidewalk than I am on the street. And those are our big concerns. We want that issue addressed. Mancino: Thank you. We hear those and we will talk about those and I know the City Council is very concerned with those concerns too. Carrie Christensen: Thank you very much. Generous: Madam Chair. There was a letter that was faxed to me from one of the neighbors that could not make it tonight. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come up to the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: I guess Bob, can you, those were good questions to ask and I think we all, whether we live in that area, have gone down Audubon and seen the trucks sitting there for hours upon hours upon hours. On Audubon on each side. Actually I've seen it mostly on the west side. Is this going to alleviate, to stop it? Ric Moore: May I respond? Mancino: Sure. Mr. Moore, if you could come up please. Ric Moore: ...and she covered, they both covered a lot of ground there so I'd like to cover all of them. On Friday night we did, that was the end of our fiscal year so that's the busiest the plant is at any point in the year. But they're absolutely right, the thing that's driving this project forward, and especially on the fast track, is because that's a problem for me too having 32 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 trucks on Audubon because it means they're waiting too long to load. So I have customers that are upset that they're waiting. I have truck lines that are upset that their truck drivers are there waiting. I have talked to the Mayor, a Councilwoman, some citizens, Kate, Scott Harr, Sheriffs about trucks on Audubon so we're well aware of it and that's the reason why I've been able to get the capital approved from the Pillsbury Company and also get the engineering firm on board to get this problem solved. So that is what's driving this. As far as after we expand will we you know, will we need more truck space? Well we're not expanding our production capacity. We're only expanding our ability to ship. So that's why we're adding more shipping docks and expanding the station so we can get the product out of the plant. We're not expanding the lines in the plant. We're just making it easier so we can get the product out of the plant. Mancino: So will you explain to us step by step, how that's going to work. I mean where the trucks are going to go. Ric Moore: Right now as part of the plan, as Bob pointed out, we're going to expand the parking lot here to allow us. We have a couple different options we're working on with the engineering firm now of getting the trucks off of Audubon and into our parking lot for staging. In addition to that, we're expanding the docks from 7 to 12 or 13. I can't remember what the number is. And that will take, and again so there are 19 trucks on the road, you can take 6 immediately right onto the property against the dock. Also have a staging area either in this area here, as Bob pointed out, or there's another idea...perimeter of the property but all the trucks, we expect to get all the trucks off of Audubon and onto our property. Mancino: And when will that take place? Ric Moore: The parking lot can be, if the Council approves this on Monday night, we expect by December 1st to have this done and that allows us to move the trucks onto the property. So that's the fast track part of the, this part of the construction won't be done until the summer of '96 but we feel we can get the trucks off and onto the property by December 1st. That's why we want to get approval in a hurry so we can beat the winter. But we're also aware of the problems with truck drivers and we've done our best to handle that. But until we get them onto our property, that's why this project is here now. And again, we've been talking for about a year with Kate on this. I've gotten the approval from headquarters to go ahead and do that and that's why we're here. We do agree it's a problem now and we want to solve that problem. Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Moore from the commissioners at this point? Meyer: Is the intent to get all the trucks off of Audubon? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Ric Moore: Yes. Mancino: Yes, all of them. By December 1st. Ric Moore: And there's some other things too we've done that really just recently that... before we can build this expansion, we're going to try to go to appointments for trucks, which we don't do now. Try to smooth out the load of trucks coming into the facility. We've got a staging area, we have an area where they can drop trailers so they don't have to wait. We just started doing that so we've got some things that we're working on in conjunction with this project. It's a problem for us and we know it's a problem for the community and that's why we're here. Aanenson: Just if I can add to it. As he indicated by December 1st. We've been working on this. We recognize it's been a problem. We've been in deliberations...but we certainly believe, as he's indicated, there are things they can do now to maybe not completely eliminate but to reduce it. Mancino: So between now and December 1st we should see a reduction of traffic on Audubon? Aanenson: Yes...We don't believe we have to wait until the summer to see diminished trucks on there. We believe that that should be accomplished as they are implementing a lot of those right now. Whether that's unloading trailers or staging some of that now or using better traffic controls of routing people around, we believe a lot of that can be accomplished between now and December 1st while we're waiting for this other area to be completed. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. I see a question. The public hearing is closed. But you may come up and if you have another question. Carrie Christensen: Thank you. Just one question. Is there a problem with routing those trucks onto Coulter and off of Audubon as a temporary situation? Aanenson: That's what I'm suggesting. There's ways they can accomplish some of that now. Mancino: So that certainly will be an option. Carrie Christensen: So that is one of the options. Thank you. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: So that is one of the options. Hope we answered that. Commissioners. Don. The public hearing is closed. Mr. Moore has attempted to answer questions and so if we could get your comments. Mehl: I think really with all those trucks are backed up on Audubon and creating a traffic problem and a safety problem and we've got to get them off of there some way. I guess I'd kind of like to see, we've talked about a lot of vehicles on that road and I'd like to see where they're going to be put. Like this lot will hold so many and this, the docks will hold so many and so I'd like to know if we can in fact get them off of there. Mancino: Okay. Any other comments concerning the additions that are going to be made to the building? Mehl: No. I don't have any comments about that. Mancino: Okay. Mike. Meyer: I guess maybe before it goes to City Council we should see some sort of plan that they can look at too to make sure that it does take care of the problem. That's all I have. Aanenson: That is condition number 2, as Bob had put in the staff report. Again, they're trying to move on a fast track. It's a concern of our's that we're trying to...to City Council and just for tonight. They still haven't resolved that completely. Exactly how they're going to accomplish that. It sounds like they're still going in a couple different directions. But that was our condition on there. We wanted to see any, be comfortable letting the neighbors know that there is a way to solve this. Again, as Mr. Moore indicated, there is short term things that we can do between now and then but I agree with the issue that you raised Mike. That is something that we had thought too. We need to see exactly how it's going to be accomplished so we can hold them to something. Generous: If I may, you could change should to shall. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: I concur with Don and Mike. I have nothing to add. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Plan looks fine. It's solving a problem. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I think the plan in and of itself looks fine. My only concern is, I hear the word intend to take care of the parking problem a couple different times. And it would seem to me that the number of trucks would be able to be collated enough to easily determine whether or not the condition to the parking lot would or would not fully accommodate the trucks that are currently on Audubon. So that was my only concern is that are we confident that this will take care of the problem. I didn't hear the word, words that it will. I heard the word that it should and I guess I would like to hear the word will. It's not, is there room I guess I'm asking staff. Is there room to expand the parking lot further in the event that trucking is not fully accomplished by that expansion? Or are we, are they at the maximum? Generous: They can reduce the number of stalls technically because they're right at the, close to impervious surface area but they exceed what's required under Code for parking so. Peterson: Other than those comments, I have no more. Mancino: My only question for staff is, as we go out to the west; we're pretty high up here. I mean you can see this site from TH 41 and TH 5 and way south. And I see.that we're doing a lot of buffering and screening around it. Are we also staying the same elevation and having some berming around the enlarged parking area? Right now the parking area is about 10 to 12 feet lower than the topography. Is that staying the same as we keep increasing? It's a wonderful view for a picnic. Down onto Bluff Creek. Hempel: At the very northwesterly corner of the parking lot we're actually at the existing grade that's out there and that continues to go southeasterly or easterly. It does decline and there's approximately, they're about 4 feet lower than the existing train to the west of this parking lot. The very west it actually curves north...will be approximately the same elevation. Mancino: Thank you. I don't think I have any other concerns on it. I agree with staff maybe changing some of the conditions so that they are shall conditions. That would certainly be a good idea. Do I hear a motion on this proposal? Meyer: I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the City Council approve site plan #95-17, Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service expansion as shown on the plans dated September 15, 1995 subject to the following conditions 1 through 8. And revise number 2. Delete should and insert shall. • Mancino: Do I hear a second? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Friendly amendment. I would make it to substitute for City Council to the Planning Commission. Meyer: Yes, that would be a good amendment. Mancino: Is that okay with you? Meyer: That would work just fine, yes. Mancino: Any other discussion? Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95-17, Pillsbury Bakeries and Food Service expansion as shown on the plans dated September 15, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Sheet C-1 to show 12 handicap parking spaces complying with MSBC 1340. 2. Parking on Audubon Road shall be eliminated and alternative truck stacking or parking areas shall be accommodated in the parking lot on site. The applicant shall incorporate on-site semi-trailer truck parking and staging area and shall revise the site plan accordingly. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 4. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 Pre Fire Plan. Copy enclosed. 6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 "Notes on Site Plans". Copy enclosed. 7. All disturbed areas as a result of the site grading with the exception of the building addition area should be reseeded and mulched within two weeks after site grading is completed. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 8. Install additional Type I erosion control fence along the north curbline of the southerly access drive off of Audubon Road. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: On the City Council meeting at September 25th they approved the second reading for the temporary sales ordinance. They tabled action on the Golden Glow subdivision. That was Mr. Ravis' parcel on Powers Boulevard. They approved the two car washes and they approved the final plat and the site plan in the Chan Business Center for the Control Products, Eden Trace. Included in your packet, as part of the Director's Report, the Sensible Land Use Coalition had a session on density and I included that for your edification. Just looking at different types of density allocations and hope you have an opportunity to look at that and what, it was pretty interesting discussion. Mark Senn was part of the panelist, although I'm not sure, I think the people that were giving the presentations actually took a lot more time. There wasn't an awful lot of time left over for dialogue but it was a 3 hour session and I hope some of you have an opportunity to attend some of those. That's all I had. Mancino: Okay. Ongoing items? ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know what's on the next Planning Commission. Obviously we tabled one item tonight and then the other one is we'll be looking at the Ward which was tabled for tonight and we had I think we're fine tuning this as each iteration so hopefully we're getting to where we feel comfortable as a staff at trying to articulate. It's a big project with a mix of uses so we'll have that on for the next one. Mancino: Is that for conceptual review? Aanenson: Right. Just conceptual. Again, it's going to be mostly in a narrative form but we want to make sure it's articulated enough that you could understand the vision and we feel comfortable with the direction they're going as far as natural features, grading, the mix of uses 38 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 and that whole process. It's complex and we want to make sure that we've identified a lot of the issues. Conrad: So that's the Ward property? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Is Fred, did you bring Fred Hoisington? Aanenson: Yes, Fred's working on it, yes. Right. Mancino: And would he be coming too? Aanenson: Yes. He was in the meeting this morning. Unfortunately, he's still...lot of work. We're kind of working in tandem. He will be out of town all next week but he will be at the meeting on the 18th. Mancino: Anything else for next meeting? Aanenson: Just the item here that we table here, which I think is good because I think the Ward property deserves pretty much most of our attention at that meeting. Mancino: Okay. Ongoing issues. What ever happened to the buffer yard ordinance? Aanenson: Bob's given me the redraft. It's sitting there and I need to get working on it. I'm trying to get the Livable Communities and the Comp Plan amendment done and a couple other things but Bob's made all the changes and I need to get back on it. Mancino: Now that will come back for a public hearing? Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think the Planning, the Council just gave direction as far as some modifications. We'll certainly share that with you as they're looking at the final draft. We'll include that in your packet so you can see what direction they're doing. Actually what they did is they just kind of, they took away the single family from single family buffer and we kind of slid the percentages down. Mancino: ...need to go through the public process? Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think if we changed direction significantly. I don't think that we've changed directions. I think you even concurred that you may not want buffering the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 single family and single family. I think we're just looking at the actual numbers. I think they did with the intent similar, you had the same concerns. When there's already natural topography or wetlands or ponds, do we need to encumber it further with additional landscaping? I think a lot of those same comments were embraced by the Council so, I think if it was significantly different or went a different direction we'd certainly at that point think that it should come back but I think a lot of your same issues were addressed by the Council and we'll share that with you. Mancino: Okay. Just things for the commission. I did, I was able to go for a half a day, night session at the State Conference for Planning and listen to, was it Kurt Johnson who's head of the Metropolitan Council talk about how he sees the rest of the metro area expanding somewhat differently than it has in the last 20 years. That he doesn't feel that we have the money to keep going out and out and out further. To develop infrastructure. So that we, in the last 20 years the way we've developed is just keep expanding, expanding, expanding and investors went and bought land and just build a road to get there and that's how we developed but he doesn't see that happening in the 20 years at all because we can't afford to pay for it. George Lattimer was there and talked a little bit about HUD. He's working for...in Washington and some of his special action committee things that he's doing. I also went and heard Kit Hadley from, who was appointed by Governor Carlson on affordable housing and other types of housing in different areas and I'll talk about that. Actually I'll write something out because I got some really good information on what's being done in Plymouth, Eden Prairie. An actual general partner...developer talked and how she and her company are going out and developing affordable housing. Actually the lower income housing which is mostly the townhome product, which meets the 60% of median income.._so that's what the places would rent at. Most of this is rental because as we know in low income housing, most of the people do not have the downstroke to put down to buy a home so much of it is rental. And the partnership that they have with Fannie Mae. A general partner has equity investments in Fannie Mae and how this is all accomplished. I have some information which I will send to you that I got on this. It's extremely interesting and the planning director of Minneapolis talked. It was just very inspirational to go in and listen to people who are in the business of planning and they're really looking out for our future so. Other ongoing items. Slope ordinance. Where are we and what date can we put on that? Aanenson: Well the slope ordinance we came back with really was an affront for a PUD. Because what we did is we said you take that density off the slope and basically everything on the slope was unbuildable so it kind of came back to the PUD, which really brings me back to the PUD ordinance. Looking at that. If you recall, there really wasn't a lot of other models to follow so the way, the approach that was taken is it's pretty much restrictive and it really just required you to stay off of that and take that density and put it somewhere else. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - October 4, 1995 We couldn't really find any other models to follow. So I think if that's the approach we want to take, try to do cluster development and that's really the best way to try to preserve it. Mancino: And you're talking about writing that into our existing PUD ordinance? Aanenson: That was one of our tasks is to look at the PUD. As Ladd points out, I did have a rule in there and really we should have no rules which I agree with and I've had that problem with other PUD ordinances. Anyway it should be a process. Not an ordinance and that's something we had kind of put that in the glitch thing. We said we need to separate that and look at that just by itself and I agree. Mancino: So do we need to have some work sessions on the PUD ordinance as it is? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: And to update it. Aanenson: Yes. And that's on our goals. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: As we talked about at the work session we had two weeks ago, I think we'll program into the next regular calendar, two meetings that we'll just block out for no items and we'll program that ahead of time so instead of trying to clear an agenda, we'll already have it where we won't program anything except strictly a work session. One in the spring and one in the fall and program it where we can also actually drive and look at some of the projects too. Kind of what we did last time. Mancino: Okay. Any other ongoing discussions? The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at this point and the Planning Commission then had an open discussion of the Gateway West property located at Highways 5 and 41 and discussion of the Mattson property located on the east side of Lyman at approximately 8800 Lyman Boulevard. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41 t CITY OF .,-t CHANHASSEN ,., .,. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: October 11, 1995 SUBJ: Director's Report On the October 9, 1995 the City Council took the following action: 1. Gave final plat approval to Forest Meadow subject to resolution of the park compensation issues. 2. Gave final plat approval to Lake Susan Hills Townhouses, Jasper Homes. 3. Approved the site plan for the expansion of Pillsbury facility. Enclosed is the Metropolitan Council goals for the City of Chanhassen to meet the standards of the Livable Communities Act. I will be presenting a rough idea of the goals for the different housing areas to the City Council on October 23. I will share this information with the Planning Commission at their November 1, 1995 meeting. Attached is my memo to the City Council from September 6, 1995. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator MEMORANDUM Endo +✓ T) Modified TO: Don Ashworth, City: Don AsRejected Deo Submitted to Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director Date Submitted to Council DATE: September 6, 1995 SUBJ: Livable Communities Act In its last session, the State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Municipalities are not required to participate under the act but provides incentives and funding for those who do participate. The city can determine how they want to participate. While the city is not required to participate, there will be a review by the legislature of those communities who do and do not participate. If the city choses not to participate, it could possibly have a negative impact for funding requests from MNDOT or any other state funding source. It could also have an affect on the city's request for a MUSA expansion. Attached please find supplemental information about the act and how the city can participate. The Metropolitan Council has provided a Housing Goal Agreement in the information. Goals are to be set once, although the legislature is requiring all communities to update their comprehensive plans by 1998, and it is probable that the housing goals could be reviewed. The Met Council has put together bench marks that the city should be meeting in regards to affordable housing issues. The city is being compared to other communities in establishing their housing goals (see map). The housing goals include owner and rental. If the City Council elects to participate, a Housing Goal Agreement must be submitted to the Met Council by November 15. Please take the time to read through this information. Staff will provide a more detailed information about the act and the city's options at the Council meeting. This is being provided to keep you informed and give staff direction on possible goals. No action is required at this time. --ElLiae-k 111111111 i A gm . . . . . . ••• • •• • •• ‘,...:.._,_ ,_ . . ...,„ LIVABLE COMMUNITIES QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. What is the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act? The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act("Act") was enacted in June 1995 and is the Legislature's attempt to address various issues facing the seven-county metropolitan area. The Act establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which consists of three accounts: the Tax Base Revitalization Account; the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and the Local Housing Incentives Account. Metropolitan municipalities are not required to participate in the programs under the Act, but the Act provides incentives and funding to those municipalities that do participate. 2. What is the incentive to participate? The benefits are clear. Cities, towns and, in some cases, counties have access to resources that will improve their communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the legislation puts local units of govern- ment in the driver's seat. Communities can not only choose whether to participate; they also have flexibility in determining how they're going to use the resources available. 3. What is the incentive to provide lower-cost housing in our community? Affordable housing is an investment in communities and their residents. It fulfills a commitment to young families, single people and older residents that they can find a home they can afford in the com- munity of their choice. 4. What are"affordable" housing and "life-cycle" housing? Housing is "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income. For ownership hous- ing this income amount is 80 percent of median, an amount that in 1994 could afford a home costing approximately$115,000. For rental housing this income is 50 percent of median. In 1990 this was approximately$500 per month. "Life-cycle" housing refers to housing available for people at all stages of their lives, offering a choice and variety of housing types and cost to accommodate people's changing needs and preferences as their incomes and circumstances change. 5. What are the affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amount? The Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount("ALHOA amount") is an amount, established by formula in the Act, that a participating municipality must spend to create affordable and life-cycle housing or to maintain existing affordable and life- cycle housing. A participating municipality's ALHOA amount is established each year. 6. Does the ALHOA amount have to be a property tax levy? No. The ALHOA amount can be derived from a levy, or it can be derived from fundsfrom another source. Regardless of the source of funds for the municipality's ALHOA amount, a participating munici- pality that did not meet its negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals, and did not spend 85 percent of its ALHOA amount to create affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities in the previous year, must distribute the entire ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities in the municipality, or to the Metropolitan Council for distribution through the Local Housing Incentives Program. 7. If my municipality elects by November 15, 1995, to participate in the Local Housing Incen- tives Account Program,must the municipality spend an ALHOA amount in calendar year 1996? No. Because of various timing provisions in the Act, the ALHOA amount requirement does not apply until your municipality's election to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program made by November 15, 1996,for calendar year 1997. 8. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995, but is unable to agree on housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, must the municipality participate in the program? No. A municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program unless two conditions have been met: a. The municipality has elected to participate in the program; and b. The Metropolitan Council and the municipality have negotiated and agreed on affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. If the municipality and the Metropolitan Council do not successfully negotiate housing goals, your municipality may not participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 9. Must my municipality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? No. Participation in the program is voluntary, but a municipality that does not participate may at some later time elect to participate in the program. However, a municipality which later elects to participate must establish that it has spent or agrees to spend on affordable and life-cycle housing an amount equivalent to what it would have spent on affordable and life-cycle housing had goals been established for the period in which the municipality was not participating. 10. If my municipality has met its housing goals in the previous calendar year, may my munici- pality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? Yes. However, your municipality will not be eligible to receive grants from the Local Housing Incentives Account Program if it met its affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Your municipality still will be eligible for grants and loans under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account programs. 11. What if my municipality chooses not to participate in the Local Housing incentives Ac- count Program? Municipalities that elect not to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program are not eligible to participate in the Tax Base Revitalization Account and Livable Communities Demonstration Account programs under the Act. The Metropolitan Council is required by the Act to take into account your municipality's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program when making discretionary funding decisions. In addition, your municipality will not be eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Trade and Economic Development's polluted sites clean-up program if your municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 12. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program, but does not have the capacity to create additional affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities, can my municipality give its ALHOA amounts to other municipalities to meet negotiated housing goals? Yes, A municipality that has negotiated housing goals,but might not have adequate resources to create or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities still could be considered a participating mu- nicipality. However,the municipality would be required to distribute its ALHOA amount to the Metro- politan Council for distribution to other participating municipalities or distribute its ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority for creating affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities within the municipality.The Act permits municipalities to enter into agreements with adjacent municipali- ties to cooperatively provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Metropolitan Council will work with municipalities to help municipalities create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities and avail themselves of the incentives and funding available under the Act and from other sources. 13. If my municipality is using local resources to make payments on a mortgage for an afford- able or life-cycle housing opportunity created prior to the Act, can these resources count toward expenditures of the municipality's ALHOA amount? Yes. As long as the use of the funds is directly related to your municipality's efforts to meet its afford- able and life-cycle housing goals, these local resources can be considered an expenditure of ALHOA amounts. 14. Are the goals for affordable and life-cycle housing, as proposed by the Metropolitan Coun- cil,achievable? The goals proposed by the Metropolitan Council are intended to be "long-term" goals. Your munici- pality will establish an action plan that identifies the steps your municipality intends to take to move toward its long-range goals. Beginning in 1998, your municipality's annual progress in meeting its negotiated affordable and life-cyclehousing goals will be measured against the annual goals your municipality sets forth its action plan. Progress toward the goals will depend on private marketplace efforts, the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing resources and the use of local controls to create an environment to meet goals. 15. Do the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set housing goals annually? No. The Act envisions negotiated housing goals as a one-time process. That is why the goals are long term in nature. The Metropolitan Council will propose affordable and life-cycle housing goals that encourage your municipality to address key housing benchmarks. 16. After the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set affordable and life- cycle housing goals for the municipality, what happens next? The municipality must prepare an action plan that describes how it intends to meet its negotiated goals. The municipality has until June 30, 1996, to submit the action plan to the Metropolitan Council. 17. Does the Metropolitan Council have to approve the action plan? The Act does not require the Metropolitan Council to approve a municipality's action plan. However, the Metropolitan Council will comment on the plan's content in relation to the negotiated goals that have been established, and it will attempt to identify potential resources available to the municipality to help the municipality meet its negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. 18. What should the action plan look like? The suggested format will be modeled after the one used for the housing element of your comprehensive plan. II I %4% iA • �V RESOLUTION NO. QO RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1996 WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(1995 Minnesota Laws Chapter 255)establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund,comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account,the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentives Account,is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities;and WHEREAS,a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup finding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each munici- pality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide;and WHEREAS,by June 30, 1996,each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals;and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Council must adopt,by resolution after a public hearing,the negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals for each municipality by January 15, 1996;and WHEREAS,a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Pro- gram must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS,for calendar year 1996, a metropolitan area municipality can participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 only if: (a)the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995;(b)the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and(c)by January 15, 1996 the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT the [specific municipality] hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during calendar year 1996. By: By: Mayor Clerk _Z7I,La4k rill I I I ... IA rik . . . ,,, . I I ••• Funding Accounts The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (MN Stat. Ch. 473.25)created the Livable Communities Fund,consisting of three accounts: • The Tax Base Revitalization Account,which provides grants for polluted site cleanup; • The Livable Communities Demonstration Account,designed to fund a variety of community development projects through loans or grants; and • The Local Housing Incentives Account, which provides grants to help cities work toward affordable and life cycle housing goals through a voluntary program. Criteria,by law, for the fund(all three accounts)include: • Helping to change long-term market incentives that adversely impact creation and preservation of living-wage jobs in the region's fully developed area. • Creating incentives for developing communities to include a full range of housing opportunities. • Creating incentives to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing in the fully developed area; and • Creating incentives for all communities to implement compact and efficient development. Each of the accounts is described on the following pages. gideline.pm5 8-16-95 i .E t ?,/Cr%k E1!11 i A it . . . ••• ••• ••• ■ ■ ■ . .. • • • .4 .. DRAFT ** TAX BASE REVITALIZATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA Program Summary and Purpose:The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(MN Stat.Ch.473.25)created a Tax Base Revitalization Account to make grants to clean up contaminated land for subsequent commercial/ industrial re-development,to make it available for economic redevelopment,job retention and job growth. Amount of Funds Available: Approximately$6.5 million in funds will be available for grants annually;grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible Applicants: Statutory or home rule charter cities that are participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Housing Incentives Program are eligible to apply;as are metropolitan counties(Anoka,Carver, Dakota,Hennepin,Ramsey,Scott Washington)for projects in eligible communities. Eligible Uses of Funds: Eligible expenditures under this program include costs to implement an approved Re- sponse Action Plan(RAP)developed in conjunction with the MPCA for hazardous waste,or an abatement program meets requirements of the V-PIC program(for petroleum)or AHERA standards(for asbestos). Costs incurred in the preparation of the plan(e.g.,investigating the extent and/or nature of contamination)are not eligible expendi- tures under this program. These funds may be used to provide a portion of the local match required for a grant from DTED's Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Project Selection Criteria: The Metropolitan Council is required to consider certain factors in order to ensure the highest return in public benefits for the public costs incurred. In order to evaluate and rank applications,the following criteria will be assigned point values in order to systematically and fairly compare the applications, Applications will be ranked according to the extent that the address the following: preserve and/or increase living wage jobs in the fully developed area; • promote compact and efficient development; • increase the tax base of the recipient municipality; represent innovative partnerships among government,private for-profit and non-profit sectors; • are not eligible for clean-up funding from other public sources; • will not require extensive new infrastructure(beyond that which is already planned); • make more efficient use of currently underutilized public service capacity(e.g.,roads and highways,transit, wastewater,utilities,telecommunications infrastructure,etc.); • result in a net gain in jobs/industry for the region; increase the number of living wage jobs in/near areas of concentrated poverty and demonstrate sensitivity to linkages with local residents; • reflect demonstrated market demand for commercial/industrial land in the proposed site area;and are consistent with the redevelopment component of the municipality's comprehensive plan(in re:Minn.Stat. section 473.859, subd. 5). Application Cycle:Beginning in 1996 there will be two grant cycles per year: a spring cycle(RFPs in February, applications deadlines in May,and awards announced in July)and a fall cycle(RFP in September,application deadline in November and awards announced in January).If applications for grants exceed the available funds for an application cycle,no more than one-half of the funds may be granted to projects in a single city,and no more than three-quarters of the funds may be granted to projects located in cities of the first class. This program is being coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and MN Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED). Next Steps: Information workshops for this program and DTED's grant program are scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 7(9:00 am- 12:00 noon),Maplewood City Hall, 1830 E.Co Road B in Maplewood; and Monday,Sept. 11 (1:00 pm-4:00 pm),Golden Valley City Hall,7800 Golden Valley Rd.in Golden Valley. For more information contact Hal Freshley,Metropolitan Council staff,at 291-6467. 822195 LCATOM.005 ■ ■ ■ ... ■ ■ ■ ••• ■ ■ ■ ... ■ 1 ■ •• • EXAMPLES SITE 1: City X is redeveloping a 6.9 acre parcel(formerly a trucking terminal)to create a new industrial park for light manufacturing. The PCA determined that there is extensive petroleum contamination on the site.Since petroleum does not qualify as a hazardous substance,the City applies to MC for$87,000 to pay for treatment of the removed soil. SITE 2: The former owner of this 17.5 acre site went bankrupt, leaving the site in public hands through tax forfeiture. The parcel is in a prime location,with good highway and rail access. An approved clean-up plan will cost$370,000. City Y applies to DTED for 50%of the clean-up cost, pays for 12% out of TIF funds,and applies to MC for the remaining 38%--$140,600. SITE 3:Zymogen Laboratories in City Z has recently received a very large long-term contract,and will be increas- ing their workforce by 50%,however the company will need additional space for shipping and receiving if they stay at their current location. A parcel adjacent to their current site has a building on it that they could use as a ware- house,but the building has deteriorating asbestos insulation. City Z applies to MC for$12,000 to match the company's investment in removing the asbestos. 8/22/95 LCATOM.005 �t� 119i .. .. .. .:.:.: IA gm . . . • •• ■ ■ ■ . •• • •. . . . . ' .7. • • LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA August 1995 Program Summary: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(Minn. Stat. Ch.473.25) authorizes the Metropolitan Council to establish the Livable Communities Demonstration Account,and make grants or loans for community development activities to municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incen- tives Program(Ch. 473.254) or to metropolitan area counties on behalf of participating cities. Purpose: The Act states that the Account may be used for projects that: 1) link development or redevelopment with transit, 2) link affordable housing with employment growth areas, 3) intensify land use that leads to more compact development or redevelopment, 4) involve development or redevelopment that mixes incomes of residents in housing,including introducing higher value housing in lower income areas to achieve a mix of housing opportunities, or 5) encourage public infrastructure investments which connect urban neighborhoods and suburban communities, attract private sector redevelopment investment in commercial and residential properties adjacent to the public improvement, and provide project area residents with expanded opportunities for private sector employment. Amount of Funds Available: Approximately$4.6 million will be available in 1996,and$4.1 million in 1997 and subsequent years. Form of Award: Grants and loans. Grant and loan amounts and terms: To be determined. Eligible Applicants: Municipalities participating in the local housing incentives program. Location of Eligible Projects: Projects must be located in municipalities participating in the local housing incentives program. Eligible Uses of Grant and Loan Funds: Community development projects that meet the purposes of the account(as described above), and support the housing goals,principles for livable communities, or related policies in the Regional Blueprint. Eligible uses are expected to be site plans or other site-specific planning costs, design and consulting costs, and construction of demonstration projects. Uses not antici- pated to be eligible include comprehensive planning or other general planning costs. Projects could demonstrate new development,infill or redevelopment on large or small sites,in fully developed or developing communities. Components of proposed projects also could be eligible, and proposals that connect or integrate existing land uses. Mixed-use development proposals are er-auraged. Innovation :.nd creativity in project and site design are encouraged. It is expected that applicants could apply in different categories--e.g. new development,redevelopment, locating in proximity to each other or linking housing,jobs and transit. Number and type of categories to be determined. Project Selection Criteria: Priority will be given to proposals using innovative partnerships among government, private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, and to projects that best meet the purposes in the law. Additional selection criteria will favor projects that result in livable communities.For example,projects that provide walkable, pedestrian-oriented areas; provide good access for transit use and safe, comfort- able places to wait for transit; broaden the mix of housing options(type and affordability level)in a community; foster a sense of place; provide a community or town center; incorporate design for safety in public or private spaces;and involve community residents and businesses in defining needs,desires,land use and design. Application Cycle: One or two cycles yearly,beginning in 1996. If two cycles occur per year, applica- tion deadlines would be in May and November,with awards announced in July and January.If one cycle, applications would be due in September, awards announced in December 1996. NEXT STEPS: TASKS: Finalize Project Criteria,building on criteria in the Livable Communities Act and in the Regional Blueprint. Consider whether priority should be given to certain proposals/locations. Determine Uses of Fund, which uses should receive grants, which should receive loans. In doing this, consider how best to leverage private investment with the available dollars. Discuss grant/loan amounts,terms. COMPLETED: October 1995 PROCESS: • Hold roundtable discussions in September to get input from local staff and officials,developers and design practitioners, and others with an interest in livable communities,as well as informal input. • Review local and national information sources,including successful models and projects. • Consult with administrators of loan/grant programs. • Participate in Department of Trade and Economic Development workshops (Sept. 7 and 11) on its contaminated site cleanup grant program, to explain the Demonstration Program, answer questions, get feedback. _EZ a , 1511 4. .. .. .. : :: iA g ; . . . . . . . . . • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •-4 EXAMPLES Project A is on a portion of a redevelopment site in an older city that had been in industrial use. An adjacent area has been redeveloped as a small business park,providing space for small enterprises includ- ing a sign-making company.The city has been working to redevelop this site as a mixed-use housing and commercial area. The site has transit access along a major collector street that is adjacent to the site. It is close to an older employment concentration,providing jobs paying low to middle-income wages. The city applied for a loan and grant from the Demonstration Account to assist with the housing and commercial part of the project.The city plans to build townhouses and condominiums that will be afford- able to a variety of income levels. Along the collector street,the proposal calls for locating small busi- nesses providing neighborhood services such as a drugstore, convenience store and coffee shop. One business has told the city it will commit to the project, encouraged to do so by the 15 percent tax reduc- tion (enacted by the 1995 Minnesota Legislature) for locating along a transit line. Other businesses have also expressed interest. A small public square is planned in an area near the businesses and transit stop that will connect to the townhouses via a pedestrian walkway. The proposal also calls for rerouting a street from its original configuration to connect directly to the collector street, to allow better pedestrian accessibility to the bus stop and neighborhood businesses. This proposal received a$500,000 loan, as a match for the local contribution, to complete a financing package for the construction of 50 townhouses and two 3-story condominium buildings. The proposal also was awarded a$75,000 grant to undertake a process with community residents and businesses to develop and refine the project's design. 8/22/95 lcda.pm5 TASK: Develop Procedures,Application form(s),Timing of Loan/Grant Cycle,Selection Process. Decide whether to form a grant review committee, or conduct staff review based on predetermined criteria,with recommendations to the Livable Communities Advisory Committee.Discuss weighting system for selection criteria. Determine whether maximum loan/grant amounts should be set, and what those amounts should be. COMPLETED: December 1995 PROCESS: • Consult with staff administering other loan/grant programs,within and outside the Council. • Get input from local staff and officials,developers,others,through meetings described above and other discussions. If you have questions about the Livable Communities Demonstration Program, or to participate in roundtable discussions on the development of the program, contact Joanne Barron of the Metropolitan Council staff at 291-6385. 8/22/95 lcda.pm5 _.E.,„da Tit.• :: i1i 4 ■ ■■ • **DRAFT** LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA Program Summary: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minn. Statutes Chapter 473.25) created the Local Housing Incentives Account(LHIA) which authorizes the Metropolitan Council to make grants to eligible municipalities to meet negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council. Purpose: The LHIA provides incentives for municipalities to create and/or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities. Source and Amount of Available Funds: For 1996, $1,000,000 from the proceeds of solid waste bonds issued by the Council;for 1997 and each subsequent year,$500,000 from the Livable Communities Demon- stration Account; for 1998 and each subsequent year,$1,000,000 from the Council's general levy. Beginning in 1998, the LHIA may receive funds from cities that have not met their negotiated housing goals and/or have not spent 85 percent of their Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount(ALHOA). The Council is working cooperatively to link the LHIA funds to those of other housing funders,e.g., the Minne- sota Housing Finance Agency,the Family Housing Fund and others;the potential pool for 1996 is$5.1 million. Grant Terms and Amounts: To be determined. Eligible Applicants: Any municipality in the seven-county region that(1) elects to participate in the LHIA program,i.e., negotiates affordable and life-cycle goals with the Council; (2)has its negotiated housing goals adopted by the Council; (3) identifies to the Council the actions it plans to take to meet the established hous- ing goals. Location of Eligible Projects: LHIA funds may be used for affordable and life-cycle housing projects in eligible,participating communities. Eligible Uses of Grant Funds: For certain costs associated with projects that help municipalities meet their housing goals,including,but not limited to acquisition,rehabilitation and construction of permanent afford- able and life-cycle housing. Projects proposing homeownership opportunities for families with low and moderate incomes are strongly encouraged. The LHIA funds must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the municipality receiving the funds. Project Selection Criteria: The funds in the account must be distributed annually by the Council to munici- palities that have not met their affordable and life-cycle housing goals and are actively funding projects de- signed to help meet the goals. The legislation gives priority to those municipalities that: (1)have net fiscal disparities contributions of$200 or more per household; (2) demonstrate that the proposed project will link employment opportunities with affordable housing and life-cycle housing; (3)provide matching funds from a source other than its ALHOA; and(4)utilize innovative partnerships between government,private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. The Council may take other criteria into consideration when determining whether an application will be selected,including (a)the documented need for the proposed type of residential housing in the proposed geographic area; (b)projects that serve families and children; (c)the relationship of the proposed development to public facilities,sources of employment,and services,including public transportation,htalth, education and recreation facilities; (d)participation in the Hollman settlement. Application Cycle: Annually,beginning in 1996. Applications for LHIA funds will be accepted from July through August,with final selection and award by the Council in October. Action Steps Over the next few months, staff intends to contact a number of parties (advocacy and professional groups) believed to have an interest in the design of the LHIA guidelines and criteria and application materials. Staff may also hold special informational sessions and contact staff at certain cities for input. Recommended guide- lines and criteria will be available in October. Timelines July/August/September 1995 - Staff discussions of draft guidelines and criteria Discuss draft criteria and issues with the Metro HRA Advisory Committee Discuss mutual interests and possible linkages with the MHFA Discuss draft guidelines and criteria with the Housing Implementation Group Present draft guidelines and criteria to the LCAC Present draft guidelines and criteria to the CDC Staff meetings and negotiations with municipalities Meet with interested parties (e.g., advocates,professional organizations, etc.) October 1995 Develop recommended guidelines,criteria and application materials November 15, 1995 Cities must elect to participate in the LHIA program December 15, 1995 Submit recommended guidelines,criteria and application materials for approval January 15, 1996 Council adopts goals negotiated goals June 30, 1996 Housing action plans from municipalities are due to the Council July 1, 1996 Grant application cycle begins August 30, 1996 Grant application cycle ends October 1996 Grant award selections announced Staff Resource: David Long, Office of Local Assistance; telephone: 229-5005. 8/22/95 Ihia.pm5 ro 70192/,12 Housing Goals Agreement Definitions Affordability Housing is defined as affordable if it costs no more than 30-percent of a household's income. The Index and Benchmarks in the housing agreement are based on the following: Ownership: homestead values for 1994 of$115,000 or less. This is the approximate unit cost affordable to housholds with incomes at 80-percent of the 1994 regional median income. Rental: 1990 census,rents of$500 or less per month. In 1990 this rent level was affordable to households with incomes at 50- percent of regional median income. Life-Cycle Housing Life-cycle housing is a term used to refer to the availability of housing for people of all stages of their lives. Communities with a wide variety of housing types for ownership and rent are in a good position to meet the people's changing needs as their incomes and preferences change. The Index and Benchmarks in the housing agreement are based on the following: Type: 1993 Council estimate of the percent of all housing units that were not single-family detached. Owner/Renter Mix: 1990 census,percent owner-occupied/percent rental housing units. Density Units per acre. Derived from the 1990 census of unit types and the Council's interpretation of 1990 aerial photography of the region. Single-Family Detached: All single-family detached housing units and duplexes divided by the Council estimate of acreage with single-family housing. Multifamily: 1990 census count of multifamily units divided by the Council estimate of land with multifamily housing develop- ment. Index The community's current housing situation. Benchmark The current housing situation for the community's geographic sector and planning area. Goals The community's goals for housing affordability,life-cycle housing and density. goals.pm5 8-16-95 A . gig . I: : II ••• I ■ ■ ■ ... How to Open Doors to Affordable Housing Many factors affect the production and cost of housing.Some ways local governments can provide more affordable housing in their communities are: Finding opportunities in land-use ordinances,fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. Authority for land-use regulation is provided to local governments in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Land use regulations also protect against inappropriate land use and safeguard the natural environment. Adhering to land-use objectives helps keep development costs down and allows for housing opportunities for all residents. Local governments can impose fees and exactions to recoup the costs of development. When used appropriately,this mechanism helps cities recover public costs associated with development. Review and approval processes involving subdivisions,building permits,sewer and water facilities and environmental impacts are necessary. However,short,succinct and uncomplicated procedures can help keep the cost of development down. Linking up with the financial resources to get affordable housing built. The funding environment for affordable housing has changed dramatically over the last decade. During the 1970s and early 1980s,housing was easier to produce because federal finds,such as those from the Section 8 New Construction program,were available. In addition,a favorable tax climate provided incentives for developers to produce affordable housing. Today,with most federal funding no longer available,affordable housing requires combining public and private finds in com- plex housing deals. To plan and produce affordable units, local governments need to seek out and use the finan- cial tools that are available today. Using land-use ordinances or other means to locate affordable, life-cycle housing near employment concentra- tions, or link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Access to affordable housing in the community of their choice is a shared value of many metro area residents. Many also prefer to work in or near the community in which they live. Unfortunately,many residents are denied the option because affordable housing is not available near their place of employment or they aren t qualified for the jobs near their homes. In addition,getting to and from job sites is often a problem due to inadequate transportation services. Providing access to employment,whether through location of affordable housing or transportation services, is a vital link to a healthy regional --and local-- economy_ Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Opposition to affordable housing by prospective neighbors and other city residents is often based on misinformation and fears. Residents may express opposition to specific types of housing,to changes in the character of the com- munity,to certain levels of growth,to any and all development,or to economic,racial or ethnic diversity. A compelling case can be made that the development is,in fact,in the city s best interest. The community needs to make the case. Suggested Actions for Local Governments These actions will help create an environment more conducive to the production of affordable and life- cycle housing,but producing the housing is recognized for what it is -- a difficult task. It requires politi- cal will. It takes resources, which have dwindled, and include not only money but support services to meet the needs of assisted families. It takes expertise. The Council will work with local governments in a partnership to meet the goal of more affordable and life-cycle housing in the region. Some of the factors discussed in this section are directly under the control of local government, such as land-use ordinances. In other areas, linkages need to be made with resources to get the housing built. The Council will provide assistance to local governments toward this end. Finding opportunities in land-use ordinances,fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. Examples of Local Action: ❑ Reduce required lot sizes. ❑ Encourage zero lot line development or other innovative site planning techniques. ❑ Offer density bonuses for developing at higher densities. ❑ Allow planned unit developments or mixed-use development. ❑ Allow some housing without two-car attached garages. ❑ Reduce surfacing width or depth requirements for residential streets. O Implement flexible land-clearing ordinances that protect the environment and are cost effective. ❑ Allow for a variety of housing types,including manufactured and accessory housing,through local zoning ordinances. O Establish criteria that ensure that fees are related and fairly proportioned to the need for facilities and services generated by the proposed development. O Exempt or provide reduced fee schedules for affordable housing. ❑ Impose linkage ordinances which require the developer to pay a fee in lieu of construction into a housing trust fund, or make equity contributions to low-and moderate-income housing projects. ❑ Reduce or consolidate reviews by advisory bodies to the municipality s elected council or board. ❑ Implement a simplified permit process. Linking up with the financial resources to get affordable housing built. Examples of Local Action: ❑ Work with the Metropolitan Council staff to make the best use of currently available programs. Identify tools available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and urban Development,as well as identify local funds that may be available to develop housing opportu- nities. For more information on these and other programs, call the following organizations: Department of Housing and Urban Development (370-3000);Metropolitan Council housing staff(291-6456); and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency(296-7608). Communities can make use of such local fiscal initiatives as: • Housing Revenue Bonds*: Tax exempt bonds can be used to fund a multi-family development, providing 20-percent of the units for families at 50-percent of the median regional income. • Tax Increment Financing (TIE): TIF can be used to write down land costs. Restructions also apply. • HOME: This is a federal grant program to rehabilitate existing rental properties. • Community Development Block Grant(CDBG): These funds facilitate the development of affordable housing. • Metropolitan Council Credit Enhancement Program: This program allows HRAs to back their bonds with the Metropolitan Council s AAA credit rating. • Employ Local HRA Levy. ❑ Become informed about available tools and how to use them, and look for ways to provide these opportunities to residents. Seek advice and guidance from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, local banks or other experts to link complex programs in order to take full advantage of opportunities. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency alone offers 16 different home improvements programs, 14 homeownership programs and 17 rental programs. Some of these are as follows: • Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Offers a 10-year reduction in tax liability to owners and investors in these categories: eligible low income,new construction, rehab or existing rental housing with rehab. • Housing Trust Fund: Provides funds for development, construction, acquisition, preservation and rehab of low-income rental housing and homeownership. • Affordable Rental Investment Fund: Provides funds for acquiring, rehabilitating or construct ing new affordable rental housing. • Community Reinvestment Act Incentive Program (CRAIP): Provides set-aside of mortgage revenue bond funds (below-market interest rate first mortgage financing)to assist local c. lenders in meeting homeownership needs of their communities and their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). • Minnesota Communities Program (MCP): Provides cities with spot loan set-asides of mortgage revenue bond funds (below-market interest rate first mortgage financing) for specialized homeownership projects undertaken to address locally identified housing needs. • Low- and Moderate-Income Rental: Provides for acquisition and rehab or permanent and construction financing for multifamily low-and moderate-income rental housing(minimum of 5 units). Locating affordable housing near employment concentrations, or using reverse commute programs to link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Examples of Local Action: ❑ Participate in or create a reverse commute program. O Implement Land-use regulations that promote higher-density,affordable development close to new employment sites or public transportation. ❑ Participate in programs that may target the provision of affordable housing near job sites. ❑ Partner with local businesses to offer training and re-training opportunities for lower-income households. Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Examples of Local Action: ❑ Prepare materials and programs to educate residents about affordable and life-cycle housing and its benefits to the community. ❑ Establish housing or human services commissions or task forces to work on affordable and life-cycle housing issues. Benchmarks : .T ••••C.• . I Planning Areas and `� �OC North Bo P•S OA GAC S t. Paul Sectors North AN0KA Minneapolis COLur•W Developed .Ar.[. •reov[. .•r . Fully Area �•■• !'."_ „t,,,�,q,,, T u•c Developing Area •""" .° :�,, ,:, Northeast t. Paul "� Freestanding Growth •�TTOw stAtRt r•T Center Northwest Cm1.11/1•1 .r� Rural Area Minneapolis .....� yt®� OY OtCOa rt e AFtller! % �_ ® STRL•r Tt. HEN' �] 000 . ._.Pe� a _" all !Aa GRANT .. . . ... ... . • il ��JC a. N. .. AL7 Sector names in •�ealne . 'g0•1te. r italics Ir 0•s•.s[.e• :.. .Nt.,,to alert. :PL7tt4UYr R MTL tall[ 'MA". � FtA1N 4 41EY. •DIRT y lA R[ T 0.6! xtle = nro ... �_. f t.TOr. rr..CM*TA —'3% _'- +.[u° u.a y, �....i►:•••• ate �_ •.r.--•a._ - uRew >•ott+r000 ••••: ... z T.a =� 0P_Ald =-.-�: •--• wo.[• raeQew r0 ::'Clw •••Tr.�N-, e' -..� CT.Cori pAC. T. rA.r•.a.T Southwest .reee:..••:' -�.- = pMinneapolis.r. .,,, ,;,;; ■' m_ Southeast r.Ce.r.�' LAR[TOre ►fArar[ -:: St. Paul CArO[. rA•RA RAewr -:'[rwa NAM- '"Mem Ot.r AAR CARVER _' ....... . .«,...'. .0.r ...t.,“ D•wtfJKr .. .. .. • - APRL'S::: ROMaterrt' TOu.0.r[w,C. ruA.es;; ... r. C0.eor! • .as•••lima* :iialrM^•• .•.•..-..... COWS= S.. .•.COCK ntANCJ[CO a.re ........ ......."4Rtritt'S CREEK / a•w WANG tate arta .. ' awRt 0 r•asw.N Am..u■■r. �V� i:.., •:. veraLo. •A rr South St. Paul N ••,''*J► • South Minneap1 ..lis' r.t� o eouau Namur, CA WOK.WOK. SL •L.A[LT AOCT.t ■tr MITI watt .elotA Mote tate SLR. +Arno•1 rr[evItl• r4 atm•••out _ IS•WW0 •..00t. 0 10 20 30 SWIt...t[ tGer. •.sots. I 1 I I Miles RAMSEY County ST. PAUL City LINWOOD Township I SPRING LAKE PANT( 11 FALCON TIEIGHTS 21 wOOOLANO 2.COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 12.LILYOAL S 22.WAYZATA 7.WIULERNIE 17 MENOOTA D AIRPORT ..BRCHwVOD 1A SUNFIBH LIKE 24.V.'S.GOVT. 7.PINE SPRING'S IS SPISNO PARIS 20.MEDICINE LAKE • LANDFALL I°.ANNNETONKA BEACH 24 ROBdN'SOALE I MOUNOBVIEW 17 TON(BAY 27 CRYSTAL A wHRE BEAN reels 1A.EACELSIOR 44 NEw HOP! O OEM LAKE +0.GREENWOOD 2e.BROOKLYN CENTER II.LAUDERDALE 30 DEEPHAVEN DRAFT HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The city of Chanhassen supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. 1► CITY L'iDEX 11 BENCHMARK 1j GOAL Affordability Ownership 37% 60-69% Rental 44% 35-37% Life-Cycle Type(Non-single family 19% 35-37% detached) Owner/renter Mix 85/15'/. (67-75) / (25-33)% Density Single-Family Detached 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre Multifamily 11/acre 10-14/acre To achieve the above goals, the City of Chanhassen elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. CERTIFICATION Mayor Date