5 Tollefson Development CITYOF
~00 Made~ Baulev'a'd
PO Box 147
Chanhass~n, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Pax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Ph(:me: 952.227.1180
Fax:. 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 9,52.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax:. 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952227.1130
Fax: 952.227.'1110
Public Wod=
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952227.1300
Fax: 952227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
wv^,/.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: June 9, 2003
SUB J: Tollefson Development, Inc. ~,~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicants, Tollefson Dev¢lopment~ Inc. and Charles Matt,son, are requesting
a Land Use Amendment from Offi~~ to Residential - Medium Density to
permit a townhouse development and Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
approval for a 427 unit townhou~ project.
The proposed land use amendment represents a reAucfion of 7.6 percent of the
industrial acreage in the community. This 7.6 of industrial land use equals an
estimated 16 percent of future industrial development and future industrial tax
base. A reduction in the city's industrial land use for current expediency is not in
the best interest of the community in term.~ of maintaining an appropri~ balance
of land uses, preserving a tax base mix, or providing a range of employment
oppommities. Nor is this the best site for residential development given the
arterial roadway to the west, the railroad to the north, the industrial development
to the west and south, and the electrical substation in the south end of the land.
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the
motions denying the land use amendment and concept PUD.
PLANNING COMMI~qSION UPDATE
The Planning Commiasion held a public hearing on May 20, 2003, to review the
proposed development. The Planning Commission voted to deny the land use
amendment and Concept Planned Unit Development.
CONSIDER A COMPREI~F. NSWE PLAN LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO RF3IDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMF~NT
APPROVAL FOR A 427 UNIT TOWNHOME PROPJECT ON 94.8 ACRES
LOCATED SOUTH OF ~ TWIN CITIES AND WES~~ RAILROAD
EAST OF LYMAN BOUleVARD AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK ON
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICY~ A2~
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT~ INC. AND CHARLF$ MATI'SON.
The City of Chanhassen · ^ growing community ,,',qlh clean lakes, qual;b,, schools, a channing dov,,ntown, thriving businesses, windino trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play.
Todd Gerhardt
June 9, 2003
Page 2
Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
Land Use Map amendment from Offi~dustrial to Residential-Medium Density based on
inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and
nonconformance with the pcrformancc stan~. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends dgnial of the
concept Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development based on inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan. All voted in favor, except Slagle who abstained, and the motion can/ed with a
vote of 6-0-1.
With the railroad on one side, the mad that's going to become a four lane road on two others, across
of which is going to be industrial, with a power station that's going to have to be expanded on the
south comer, it does not sound suitable for resident/al use. Because there is demand right now for
this particular product claes not make it suitable for residential. The site is better suited for
office/industrial. It's been guided ~y in this case based on the adjacent land use in Chaska,
and just the general surroundings in that area.
One commissioner expressed interest in tabling the item to permit the applicant to timber
articulate the concept plan: "This might be a premature concept to change it [the land use] at this
point. I would definitely be in favor of tabling this to get additional information and a
perspective sort of both favoring and opposing. I will say this to my fellow commissioners, if
we were to approve a land use change and followed it up with a PUD, I would be highly
interested in some really creative, and I'll look at the applicant as I say this, creative approaches
to planning for this parcel."
Basically, the Planning Commission agreed with the staff report analysis and recommendation of
denial of the land use amendment and concept PUD.
RECOMMF~NDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. 'Whe Chanhassen City Council denies the Land Use Map amen~t (g2003-2) from
OfficeYIndustrial to Residential - Medium Density based on the following findings:
The proposed land use amendment has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of the comprehensive plan and has been found to be inconsistent with the official
City Comprehensive Plan. City land use goals and policies require that the city maintain an
appropriate balance of land uses, preserve a tax base mix, and create new employment
opportunities. The city needs to preserve industrial land for development since only 8.3
percent of the land is guided for office/industrial uses. The proposed land use amendment
represents a reduction of 7.6 percent of the industrial acreage in the community. This 7.6 of
Todd Gerhardt
June 9, 2003
Page 3
industrial land use equals an estimated 16 percent of fima-e industrial development and future
industrial tax base.
The proposed land use amendment will be incompatible with the present and future land uses
of the ares~ Industrial development exists and is planned to the south and west of this
property. The noise from the substation located in thc southern pm't of the site is
incompatible with residential development. Noises, tra~c and smells from the ind_ustrial
development conflict with any residential development in this location.
B. "The Chanhassen City Council denies the concept Plmmed Unit Development (g2003-1) for a
townhouse development based on the following findings:
Development must consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan deai~on of the property for office/industrial
uses. The proposed development does not conform to all performance standards contained in
the Zoning Ordinance for office and industrial development. The development of the site for
residential townhouses does not preserve the bluff area aa required by the bluff protection
ordinance, nor adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor."
ATI~A~NTS
1. Planning Commission Minutes of May 20, 2003
2. Letter from Melissa Noyes dated 5/20/03
3. Letter from Saaon Osberg to Bob Generous & Planning Commission dated 5/19/03
4. Email from Al Gomez to Bob Generous dot_od 5/15/03
5. Letter from Kevin Ringwald to Bob Generous dated 5/15/03
6. Planning Commission Staff Report for 5/20/03
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
.
If fill is i .reported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route
plan for approval.
.
The property is subject to sanitary sewer and wamr hookup charges. The 2003 trunk
utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for
water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1~.75 per unit. These charges are collected prior to
building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building
10. Show the existing 2 foot contours.
12.
The total SWMP fees of $4,451 are due and payable to the City at time of final plat
recording.
13. Building Official conditions:
Soil reports must be submitted to the inspectiom Division before building
permits will be issued for any building pad con'ections, or if poor soils are
encountered at excavation.
b. The new lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
14.
The applicant shall work with engineering to ensure adequate drainage from the
All voted in favor and the motion can-led unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLI(~ I~RING:
CONSIDER A COMPREI~NSIVE ~ LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
0m¢~ n~OUSaaUAL aX) RgZm~ ~gnlVM om~rY ~ C0NO~
PLANN~ UNIT OEV~O~ APPROVAL FOR ,~ 4~7 ~ T~WNnOM~
PROPJ~Cr oN 945 XCRg$ LOCAaa~O sotrrn og a~rg. awn~ crrm$ moo
WESTERN RMLRQAD EAST OF LYMAN BOULI~ARD AND WEST QF BLUFF
CREEK ON PRQPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL E~ATE DI~II~C'F, A~
TQLLEI~ON DEVELOPMIZNT~ INC~ AND ¢~IARLKS MA~I'SON.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Saccbet: Questions from staff.
Lillehaug: Yes I had one. If you could turn to page, let's go to page 3 first. Your table at the
bottom there. I don't have a previous table in front of me and it was for the Town and Country
Bemardi property but does thi.% it seemed to me that the table that was prepared for that property
was kind of flip flopped and is that an accumm statement? And if it is accurate, would that be
due to the fact that these are based, that thi~ PUD represents basically all residential townhouses
rather than more of a mix?
Aanenson: Well I think it's pretty consistent.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillchaug: Oh it is consistent?
Aanenson: Yeah. The townhouses pay more but then what's not being showed is the service
and that was the same question that was raised on the other. I think it's eons~C
Lillehaug: Okay. Then my next question would be on page 4. The second panigraph down it
says in doing so we need to assure the land is provided for various lmad uses rather than
responding to currem market, whatever it's supposed to be there. C-'unent market trends.
Darling, whatever is there. But could you elaborate on that statement. What says we need to do
this and why? I think that's important.
Generous: Well the developer would probably be bettn' at that but the townhouse devel~ is
a hot market fight now. Land is expensive. There's not a lot of it available for residential
development and so they can bring forward the townhouse proj~ and the absorption rate would
probably be fairly high. We concur with their analysis as far as that is. However our concern is
we're giving up land to do that. Land that could be developed otherwise and maintaining a long
term balance in our community. So we get contacts almost daily about converting industrial land
Lillchaug: And that's what I'm getting at is why, why is this so i .m!xaXant to keep it industrial? I
roe, all I tlaink I know why. The tax base.
Generous: Well yeah, to keep that balance long term. Gen~y residential doesn't pay it's own
way. After you hit a certain price point it does. Office industrial pays in excess of it's tax rate so
especially on the school side. Them was a study done in the early 90's that showed residential
cost $1.04 for every dollar of revenue you received. Office industrial and commewial cost 40
cents for every dollar in revenue, so it helps to balance out and keep your tax base reliable. Also
you don't want to put everything in the same mix as far as maintaining a healthy community.
Just like we don't want to have all esm~ homes because there's not a long term mark~ for thaC
You want to have a life cycle type housing.
Lillehaug: So what you're saying is this acreage is significant in the overall Chanhassen goaL
Generous: Right. It represents approximstely 16 percent of our future industrial development.
Lillehaug: So it is significant?
Generous: Yes.
Lillchaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Slagle: A couple questions. Bob, you mentioned on page 2, ai~ the figures. You noted 183
acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. Cam I assume that
that has all been developed into industrial?
Generous: Yes, office warehouse, showroom space.
Slagie: So we didn't divert any of it to medium density or so forth?
Generous: No.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Slagle: Okay. Next question. I'm not a traffic person but I guess I just want to know these
figures that you're showing for round trip for 188 aa~ peak and 231 for medium density
residential. Where do you get those?
Generous: Well it's one of the a_ttsehm~ts to the reix~. I use the Institute of Traffic Bngineers
Trip Generation Sixth Edition Manual and it's based on eilher the housing type of in this instance
the square footage of the industrial development.
Slagle: Okay, so it's using square footage as sort of the baseline.
Generous: Right.
Slagle: So really ff you had a different type of industrial office, say less labor intensive, you
might have fewer trips.
Generous: ...it may be less.
Slagle: Okay. I'm still not sure I understand the tax capadty taxes and dty share. Completely,
but maybe someone will ask that. If you have a chance to describe that a little later, that would be
great. And I think the last thing I want to get at is, from staff's perspective we have this many
units being proposed if we were to do a land use change. What do we have for Town and
Country? Ballpark units.
Aanemon: 370. Something like tha[
Slagle: Okay. So potentially you could have within a mile, using Audubon as your point to
point, 800 or so units that could be developed if we went aheaut with this. It'd be inte~ to
think what would happen if this was first and I mean fellow commissionem, it'd be inteaesting to
see how the dialogue would have been over the last 6 months. That's it.
Sacchet: Kurt, any questions?
Papke: Yeah. One of the issues is going to be the transition into Chaska here. What's across the
street from the development in essence? Right now it's Crosby Office Park directly across the
street but the last time I drove by them I thought I saw a for sale sign on the ~ just across
from the sub-station in Chaska. What is that zoned for?
Generous: That's office industrial.
Papke: Office industrial, so essentially the whole bcader along Chaska is all going to be office
industrial eventually?
Papke: Okay. $o we do have that issue. One of the things that the letter from the City of Chaska
I just saw for the first tim~ just before the meeting does bring up the issue of wheaz And I'd just
like to point out, I worked in that Crosby Office Park for 6 years and them used to be an animal
feed manufacturing facility in there that emitted some very interesting odors, okay. And this
development will be down wind of that facility. I don't know if that still is in production but that
might be worth checking into. It could be a consideration at some point
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacehet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjomhorn: I have a question regarding homing. Is Chanb,usen, is there a need for more homing
or is there a need for more induslrial parks?
Generous: There's a need for both. However, based on our comp, plan we believe we can
accommodate the housing on land that's guided for residential. But we need to also offset that
with industrial where there's not a lot of land guided for it and the more you give up, it's very
difficult to replace.
Tjomhorn: So then would there be another spot this could, thi~ development could go into?
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: Yes.
Papke: Just a question of clarificatiom When we say need, who is having that need you're
referring to? Are you talking about a demand for housing versus the demand for industrial? I
think the developer's perspective is that there's denmnd, more demand for multi-unit housing
fight now as opposed to industrial office parL which tends to have a high vacancy rate. Now
from the city's perspective, what's our need for tax base that you know, maybe it's worth just
clarifying that one. Who's perspective are we stating need?
Aanenson: Sure. Are you asking that as a question?
Sacchet: We are in questions right now.
Papke: Yes.
Aanenson: Well if you go back to page 3 where the city just completed the Key Financial
Strategies, looking at tax base. Diversification. Trying to ~ that one-fouah/one-third so
part of the complexity is if you take thh out, whe~ do you replace it? And so okay well, we
talked about that in the Town and Country one and it kind of goes back to Rich's question. The
absorption and having that much at one intersection. In good faith they waited, waiting to, so ff
this went in, would that absorb some of the need for the other piece? I'm assuming that's what
your dynamics and I guess that's the assumption that we n'u~de that this would stay industrial and
based on that, moving the other piece, advancing that, allowing that one to go forward as the
residential, based on this pace. It adds that complexity because where would you replace this, if
we wanted to maintain that one-fourth to one-third, or 25 to 30 percent. Now we're going to go
over here and say well, you're going to change from residential to industrial next to you, it just
adds, it's hard to replace that That much when we're already trying to replace some of that with
Town and Country. So does that answer your question?
Papke: Yeah. I was more looking for clarification about Bethany's point than really asking an
additional question.
Aanenson: Well I think Bob tried to answer that. It's the immediate market demand and long
term making solid decision, financial long term that's why I guess I couched it back in the Key
Financial Strategies to go back and say, that would be the more.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Papke: On that topic just want to, you rr~d~- a broad statement before that residential tends to
require a $1.04 for every.
Generous: Well that was based on the study, I believe it was Lakeville did in the early 90's.
Papke: Do we know where the average price of this development fits in that spectrum?
Obviously you said there's a break over point where we begin to bre~ even.
Generous: R used to be $300,000. I'm not sure now. We use $240,000 as a part of our analysis.
Sacchet: Thank you. That's all your questions?
Tjomhom: Yes it is.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feilc Yes. In here you said it's going to require mass grading for any development on this site.
Being respective of the bluff area. Along with the mass grading we've got a total site here of 94
acres, if I'm not mistaken, correct?
Generous: That's correct.
Fei.k: Of the 94 acres, how much of it is developed into townhomes? As planned.
Generous: 53-54.
Feik: 53-54 acres. And those are, the 53 or 54 acres are consistent with the revenue dollars you
show on the bottom of page 3 for city share.
Generous: I just used the ordinance.
Feik: Okay. If this were to go commercial, and I spoke with you today on this earlier. If this
were to go to commercial, is it fair to say that you could even achieve this kind of density with
commercial given the hills, the bluffs, the large pads you're going to need for 30,00040,000
square foot footprints, truck turn around' s, everything else. What I'm getting at is, do you really
think it's reasonable, the dollars that you show here for the office warehouse revenue dollars, are
~_n~innble given the slopes and the condition of the site? Can you get at that density to get those
kinds of dollars7
Generous: It's possible to do it and they've shown a plan for development of this site.
Feilc But to do that you're going to, you mentioned you'd have to have probably some office.
Pure office. Some higher.
Generous: Well yeah, higher valued.
Feik: Higher valued properties, so where I'm getting at is, the office warehouse city share or
revenue dollars here are, is fairly speculative.
Generous: Right. It's based on the assumptions.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Feik: And there's only about $55,000 a year difference between townhomes and the industrial.
Generous: Yes.
Feik: Okay. So it's not much. Let's see here. I think the rest of my questions or comments I can
wait for later. Thank you.
Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce.
Claybaugh: Most the quesfiom have been asked but KAro I wanted to direct you to page 2. The
second paragraph up from the bottom where you went through the sentence, since 1988 the year
of the latest comprehensive plan was adapted, or adopted. Pardon me. 183 acres of the vacant
758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. That z~m~e~ts 25 pexcont since 1998.
Is that pretty much on pace with what you saw the office industrial being developed or is that
behind the pace? I'm just trying to get a sense of.
Aanenson: Maybe a little lower, yeah.
Claybaugh: Maybe a little lower.
Aanenson: We had in the late 90's, we took down a lot of offw, e ind--. That was actually out
pacing residential.
Slagle: Say that again, you took down?
Aanenson: Yeah, them was a lot of development tha~ was occmring in the industrial parks that
were moving pretty quickly. Mark Undestad's project for example.
Generous: CSM on the ease
Slagle: So we built up?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Yes, fight. They were actually more valuation historically differem than what we've
experienced in the past generally residential permits have been higher value. Acaudly there was a
number of years where we were actually mom commexchl industrial value.
Claybaugh: I'm assuming by recommending denial of this that you assign a lot of weight to
maintaining that divexsity. My concern is that we see applicants wanting to rerxme office
industrial residential but we're not going to see anything going back the othe~ way. And it sounds
like city staff is very committed to that divea'se mix. Is that
Aanenson: Yes.
Claybaugh: Thafs all the questions I have.
Sacchet: A couple more questions, l:rn'st of all, the role of the Planning Commission is not to
deal with tax issues, is that correct?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Aanenson: Well it's couched in. We gave you the policies of the city and certainly it's a fact~
in looking at the stability and economic viability in our comprehensive plan is an element so.
Sacchet: Okay. In the staff report it refers compliance, or as it is non-compiiance with
performance standards. Could we just clarify what kind of performance standards you're
referring to7
Generous: It's based on the concept plan that they submitted that we're providing sensitive
development in the Bluff Creek corridor. Reducing i ,mpervious surfiw, e. Taking account of the
topography. That's why some of our, should you approve it we had some recommendation that
they look at different homing types and different configurations of the ~ to make it work
better.
Sacchet: That answers it. And then one more quick question on top of page 7. There is a
summary of what it, benefits of a PUD and it states that in return for a PUD for the flerdbility, the
city is receiving developing that is consistent with the compmbensive plan. Now in thig particular
case it is not consistent, correct?
Generous: Correct. This is what we would expect
Sacchet: Alright. That's all my questions. Any more questions?
Slagle: One question. I'm sorry I didn't ask,. The W~ Pipeline easement. The applicant
puts in one of their documents that that is a reason to be open for a land use change. Any
thoughts on that?
Aanenson: That's their argument. I don't think it's an argument for residential.
Slagle: Okay, so it wouldn't in your opinion it wouldn't rr~er if it's office indusu'ial or
medium7
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Alright. Yep, one more Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah I just wanlx~d to check- When the church w~nt in, is it Woodside?
Feilc Westwood.
Claybaugh: When that went in we had I believe it was Hoffman Developrm~t come in
afterwards for a round table session concerned about tapping into the infrastructure that they
expected to when we went through that rezoning. To me that was something that I found out
after the fact that was unexpected. That they were counting on the infrat~'nctl~'e tO be expanded
through that propert~ to the back side to feed furore development. With that church going in, that
no longer appears to be the case. Is there anything with respect to in~a~:rl~U~ that's been
geared towards the zoning that's there that could cause any future hiccups with the surrounding
development? You understand my question? You come in with your capital i .mpmvenguts
you've geared those towards office industrial, Fm assuming.
Generous: Right. Sizing.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Claybaugh: Right. With making a change in mzoning it, is them~ anything on the peripheral
properties that may be affected, similar to what happened, yeah.
Aanenson: Well that was one of the things under the EA that if you did choose to go forward,
there isn't enough information on the concept at that level.
Clayhaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Actually that triggers another question on my part. There isn't really much surrounding
development expected because it's either across the street or across the wetland, but there is that
power station. In the letter from the City of Chaska pointed out that they have an easement of
access across. Do we know where that easement is? Could you point that out Bob or Kate?
Generous: It's also included in the attachment they have a description. The stuff I handed out
tonight .... about in this area.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you. Only if the~ are more questions, I'm very interested to hear
the presentation of the applicant. If you want to come forward and pmsem your story. State your
name and address for the record please.
Jason Osberg: ~ evening. My name is Jason Osberg. I'm with ToHefson Development. Our
address is 17271 Kenyon Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota, 55044. I'm here tonight as a means of
presentation for our pwposed Wwnhome development, land use amendment on the Mattson
property here in Chanhassen. I feel that we have a lot of information I'd like to share with you
tonight that might help look at this in a more positive manner, and maybe take a look at it frotn
our perspective. I know Bob has done a good job with the staff memo. Communicated with ~m
on a regular bash for the last few weeks and while the infonmfion in there may be opinionated,
we respectfully disagree with a lot of his gugements that have been made and that's what I want
to share with you this evening. But maybe right away on some of the ~ that I ~ from
the commission, it's impo. ~t to keep in mind that 16 pewent number of your inventory for
comu~rcial industrial, that only half of this site is usable because of steep slopes or...open space
as part of that Bluff Creek corridor, which we ceminly intend to provide as part of our
development here on the concept plan~ The concept plan itseff is a means or a tool that is
workable. We submitted this as a method to get the dialogue going, as we heard that term earlier,
dialogue. We want to get the discussion going with the city. We're open to exploring just about
any opportunity on this site that's residential in nature. Now we have presented townhomes, 427
units which approximately is 8 units an acres on the net density, but if there are other thinG on
the site, smaller lots, single family, detach~ vilhs, that type of thing~ we are also amenable to
looking at that if the city's open to this land use amendment. Some of the advantages I guess that
we will see, I don't know how well that's going to show up. Thank you. You talked a little bit
about tax base revenue~ I mean I know this works both ways because we're going to be creating a
residential development which is going to increase services, but it's also i .mportant to know that
you're going to have a near term or ~ absorption rate and you're going to have tax
revenue coming into the city and that' s going to help balance what taxes could be generated in the
future for the commercial induslrial. Park decision is a huge issue in many communities that we
work in and we feel that this is a good opportunity to get the developer and the city working
together on something that we can ~, take the l:n'ivate land that's tnv. senfly owned by Mr.
Mattson and used for agricultural purposes, and convert some of that into public open space for
the good of the community and the benefit of not only the residents of our proposed development,
but surrounding areas here in the hinterland. We talk about land end cash. We talk about a new
concept that we see popping up in alternative to pools which is a spray parlL I'll go into a little
45
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
more detail. I've got some pictures and some ideas to share with you of that in the fimm:, but
we'll also have interpretative areas because this is a nature corridor. We'd like to do some
signage. We'd like to bring out the natmal anaenities of the site. We can create overlook areas on
some of the bluff areas that capture the view sheds of the immediate area. Bob mentioned a
$240,000 price range or a price point, and that's kind of an average of what the builders are
telling us that they'd like to be at, at this density. What we want to really bring out is that we can
create affordability on this site and we can also have upscale housing as well. There's many areas
on the sim that lond it~ff better to back to back units and there's sites that, locations on the site
that lend itself to twin homes or single family homes with view sheds. So it's a wide range of
affordability levels or income levels can be achieved. We talk a little bit about the grading. That
was a concern that we heard earlier. Residential development, k~ep in mind, can be ff it's done
correctly, you can create a development that enhances and utilizes the topography of the tn'olzaW
whereas most commercial industrial sites and one of the commigsions mentioned, is going to take
a ton of grading, and the flat surfaces and the large i ~mpervious areas, you're going to get that with
residential but at least with, or you're going to get that with industrial but at least with resi~
you have some flexibility in working with the land and the contours. The pipeline easezm'm was
brought up as an argument. Well we feel as, if you're going to do commercial industrial
development, you're going to need large parking lots. You're going to have larger buildings that
are continuous and how do you build over that without creating problems or moving that
easement. Residential can provide that flexibility. Reduction of the non-resideutial traffic
through neighborhoods. In the staff ~ the staff indicated that our proposed development
would have a smaller i ,mpact on traffic trips in the neighborhood. Well ff you look at those
numbers based on what Bob put together, that's about haft. We would reduce truck traffic
through the neighborhoods. You've got really nice neighhozhoocls to the north and to the east.
The ongoing maintenance of these buildings would be done by an association. Therefore the
quality and the overall look and curb appeal would be kept to a higher standard whereas a
commercial industrial development, I know the City of Chanhassen has high building standards,
but who's to say that those can't be blighted buildings in the future as well so that's positive.
Additional housing opportunities. Commissioner asked do you need this housing in Chanhasae~
today? Yes, you need housing. Yes, you need co~ indusuial as well, but we're here to
try to provide that opportunity for housing becan~ that's our hitch. And then lastly the
advantage would be a development related fees paid to the city now, and that's a big thing in
communities that we work in because with the tma_~t cuts at the St~_ te_~ you're losing LGA.
You've got a reduced city budget. Development fees can help subsidize those losses. One of the
things that we saw in the e-mails was they didn't lik~, the neighbors didn't like townhomes being
here and they bought into it being co~ induslfial site. Well we respect that and we would
be willing to or open to having a neighborhood meeting if the city would be in agreeance with us
to pass this land use amendment. We'd be glad to work with the neighbors on site characteristics,
site planning. Again the concept is something that can be tweaked. It's nothing that's in stone.
So that's one other thing. On your adverse affects that the staff memo talked about, one of the
big things is that this is incons~t with your comp~hensive plan. Well we undearmml that.
That's why we're here tonight. We're asking to chan~ that so that our proporaxl application is
consistent with your official document. You talk about incompatibility in the staff memo with
adjacent land uses. Well if you look at the land use that's out there today, agriculture is
inconsistent with single family residential and is incon~igtent with industrial across the street in
Chaska, so no matter what you guide it, commercial industrial, residential you're still going to
have those inconsistencies and non-compatible land uses side by side. One of the commissioners
talked about performance standards. Yes, I mean we tmderstand that, in Bob's staff report he's
referencing commercial industrial standards. However, if thig is allowed to he residential, we
would be open to meeting whatever perfornmnce standards your residential code would call for. I
touched on some of the other issues already earlier here but we have a financial analysis that was
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
prepared by professionals on tax impact. Now, if the Planning Commission would like Fve got
the full financial analysis. I know that's, you're here more for ordinance and comprehensive plan
but that information's available not only to you but City Council and if there's members of the
general public that would like to see that, I do have additional copies here but it's the big word to
note is that we are showing in this financial analysis the difference of close to 11 million dollars
in the year 2021 from the difference of residential, our proposed residential development versus
commercial industrial office site utilizing the Mattson property. Now as Bob mentioned, he
thought the appreciation values were high. I can't speak for or against that That's not my line of
work, but we can certainly take another look at that if the Planning Commission's more
interested. But we are, like I said, we're open to different homing types. I've got conceptual
pictures of different units that may be appropriate on the site, if the City re-guides it to residential
uses here, if anybody's interested in looking at those. And then I also want to just take the last
minute of my presentation and show some of this sgrinkier concept. This is again a concept that
is kind of taking the place of public pools in neighborhoods and they're a little less safety hazard.
They're zero depth. They're quite fun from what the people who produce ~ told me. This is
a manufacturer out of Can~ds and these are some pictures that they sent me but this is just kind of
a general gist of if we were to do a residential development, we'd like to offer something unique
and different to the City of Chanhassen. Something that you presently do not already have. So
with that, I've got a million other things but I know we're short on time so I'd love to talin any
questions. I know there are membem of the public who are also here to talk about this.
!
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicam. No questions from the applicant?
Lillehaug: I do have a question. I mean we're also hem to look at the approval of a concept
PUD, correct? So looking at the plan hem, just a couple details on it that I'd like you to address.
It appears that on the north we have a railroad tracks. On the west we have a county road. On the
east we have a wetland with a power line running down the edge of the property that we're
talking about here. On the south you have a substation. In your mind as a residential
neighborhood, kind of locked in by these parameters, does it really fit in there? Maybe in the
inner it does but in your opinion does the very outskirts of this property, is it good for residential
neighborhood to be in hem?
Jason Osberg: You know the rear, lace is telling us that it is because there's that type of
demand. If you look at the concept plan, we do show a trail system. We show some spraying.
We would provide adequate buffering along County Road 18. We'd provide buffering around the
substation. It's no different, I mean there's I believe Pulte has a project here in Chanhassen that
is on the comer of 5 and 41, if I'm not mistaken. I mean I think it would kind of be in that same
framework, It's just going to take, you know you're going to orientate your houses a little
different, away from those high traffic areas, but it's definitely workable. And I do have our
engineer from Sathre-B~~ here tonight if there are any teclmieal questions about the plan, I'm
sure Bob would be happy to answer those.
Sacchet: Kate.
Aanenson: Can I ask a question? I did receive a lot of phone calls from developem so it was my
understanding that you would sell this and you are the developer, is that cotxect?
Jason Osberg: We are the developer.
Aanenson: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Jason Osberg: We do not build homes. We're simply a land devel~ex.
Aanenson: So someone else would come in and do the project.
Jason Osberg: Yeah. No, what I mean is, we would be the lead applicant Now if it was Home
Builder A, B, C, they would come in along with us and then they would submit their product type
and then it would have to get all the.
Aanenson: I believe it went out for notice because I did receive phone calls. I was just trying to
understand the relationship of who's going to be, if this were to go forward the, showing the
product?
Jason Osberg: Okay. We have.
Aaneuson: Does Tollefson Development have a product or do you work with somebody else to
present the product?
Sason Osberg: We work with several home builders, both national and local.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that's i ,mlxnxanC Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Two questions. I will come back and ask for some examples of who those folks are. But
what Pd like to ask you is one, would you be open, and I refer to an article that just was in the
paper the last few weeks of how, if you MIL Ameri~ now lives in homes and drives to the store,
to whatever. No one walks. My question is, is would you be open to some commercial call it
support?
James Osberg: Like a maybe a new urbanism that's kind of a mixed use? Maybe lower level
retail, above level living or separate units entirely? At this point we're open to anything that
works in the marketplace. We're open to anything that the City of Chanhassen would allow
residential. We just need to apply for the land use amendment and able to get to that next step.
$1agle: I understand. Couple more questions. One is, I'm more looking for a feel on this versus
a raw number. But what do you think of the number of units that you're asking for? I mean axe
you amenable if you will to lower number of units?
James Osberg: Again, we' re open to anything at this point. We understanfl that to make this land
use amendment there's going to have to be give and take. We represent a typical 8 unit per acre
townhome development that some of the builders have told us that they'd like to build ~
product type, that's what we show here. We don't show Builder A, B, C's exact profile here but
we show something very, very similar. No, we are open to working one way or another. I've got
examples of 40 foot wide detached lots that some builders have indicated interest in that look
fairly nice, and may kind of lean towards that new urbanism maybe you were referring to in your
previous question.
Slagle: Last quexdon then would be some of the examples of the builders that you cummtly work
with.
James Osberg: We deal with the national builders are, and I'm not going to say any specific to
this development because, we deal with Pulte Hoxnes. We deal with Orfin Thompson, US
Homes, Lenox. We deal with, had contact with Town and Country Homes, and I know that was a
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
development that was brought up near here. Ryland, Rotflund, David Bernard Homes. We have
relationships with the National Home Builders, but we also have local home builders and some of
the larger ones like M.W. Johnson, Nettegard Consm~cfion, Donnay Homes, Avalon.
Slagle: Let me ask you more specifically. Can you give me some examples of some
developments that you've actually been the lead on that I could see?
Jam~ Osberg: For a strict townhome development, there's one in Cottage Grove called Shots at
Elmar Village. That incorporates a neighborhood retail center along with it. That builder's M.W.
Johnson. We are in fact tonight going in front of the City of Shakopee with Pulte on another deal
where we would do the exact same thing hem where we're the lead developer, and that one
actually has about 1,300 units on 160 acres. So that I can give you conceptual plans for that.
Slagie: Okay. That would be enough f~r me to see. Okay.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: Does your model and analysis take into account as far as the drive for all ~ units,
does it take into account the possible concept PUD that was proposed south of here? Does it take
into account the 300 or whatever homes that are.
James Osberg: From Town and Country's development? No. What our's does is specifically
addresses the Mattson property. We haven't, we didn't look beyond our development for trips, ff
that's what you're referring to.
Lillehaug: Not really trips. More the market drive. Absorpfi~
James Osberg: Absorl~on.
Lillehaug: Right.
James Osberg: Yeah, we're looldng at a 4 year absorption rate is what the financial analysis uses,
if I recall correctly. And that' s at 110 roughly, or 107, 106 units.
Lillehaug: So you're saying it doesn't take into account, I don't know which one may or may not
be here first but if it doesn't take into account another equal size development next to it?
James Osberg: No, because I can tell you this from the marketplace, that builder aside, they're
doing their thing. There's plenty of other builders who have stepped up to the plate and said, if
this goes forward we'd like to build in there. We honestly probably have requests for about 1,000
units in Chanhassen. Our site doesn't even accom~ that, if that were to be approved. So
the market is definitely the~ by other builders.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, how about which direction, the other side of the room. Kurt tim.
Papke: Yeah, I couldn't find it when I read through it again just recently but I believe you made a
comment somewhere th~ the site is amenable to a walkable situation, that them are thin~ within
walking distance. Just curious as to what you think is within walking distance of this
development?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
James Osberg: I guess the easy answer to that is you've got walking trails hem in your parks and
open space just to the east of the property. From a non-vehicular standpoint, utilizing these trail
connections to where they lead in Chanhassen, I believe they go up to County Road 5, is that
correct?
Generous: Yeah.
James Osberg: Leading to County Road 5 and the area that we're in right now, you've got some
retail. You've got some food. You've got some beverage. You've got that type of non-vehicular
option if you were to connect with this trail development.
Papke: So you're referring primarily to the trail
James Osberg: Correct. But again, like commissioner said earlier, we can look at doing a mixed
use development right here on the site. One of the reasons why we didn't do that however is the
D.R. Horton application that was turned in in '96-97, they had a mixed u~e and that was denied.
We thought we'd go with something different.
Sacchet: Bethany?
Tjomhom: Nothing.
Sacchet: Bruce?
Feilc Just one, and it's kind of a joint question. You had said a lx~rtion of this was guided for
park and rec. How many acres was that7
James Osberg: From what I've seen.
Feilc Or Kate, if you want to answer jointly.
Aanenson: There is nothing guided parks and rec. That would be a taking. There would be some
extraction. There is the Bluff Creek overlay zone that they have to accomm~at~- but them is no
per se park dedication. There is wetlands. Them is the overlay district which they have to
dedicate. It's shown on the map, the green, the Bluff Creek overlay. But it would be an
exlracfion. Where there's commercial industrial we would take the extraction in the trails. For
the park fees, excuse me. I'm using jargon. We would take park and trail dedication fees. We
would also put trails in place whextx~ it be residential or indusUiaL
Neilc Okay, so there's not a si~ificant amount of acr~ge that's called guided if you will, to
inappropriately use that word.
Aanenson: No, there is shown on the comp plan but that's, this goes back to the original comp
plan where we're trying to preserve. It's really encumbered within the overlay district, the
primary overlay district. That's the no touch zone so no matter what the land use is, that overlay
district still remains in place so that's a no touch zone.
Feik: Okay, so out of the 94 acres how much of that is, falls in that portion7
Aanenson: Well there's 53 developable acres so that.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Sacchet: 40 percent.
Aanenson: 40 percent. Some of that's wetland. Some of that's the slope.
Slagle: But you could under a PUD request.
Aanenson: A density Ixansfer?
Slagle: Or request land to be set aside for a neighborhood park or whatever.
Feik: You're saying there's 30-35 acres or something like that?
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: So therefore in this table then, instead of this being 94 acres, it should be 34 acres less
because no matter what you do with it, it's not going to be office industrial
Aanenson: Yeah, but you know what, you'd have to take that same philosophy and apply it to
every project. We took every project on the gross acreage.
Feik: Oh you did?
Aanenson: Yes. AH whole.
Feik: That's the question.
Aanenson: So we'd have to try to extrapolate each one and it's too complex so.
Feik: That's the question, thanks.
Sacchet: Craig?
Claybaugh: Nothing new to add.
Sacchet: Really quick, because I want to get to the residents. I want to address this. There's two
things kind of peaked special interest in your presentation. One is _more a question for staff. Like
you pointed out that the 16 percent of the city's office industrial space are correlated with really
only a little more than half of this property being developable. So I'd like to clarify with staff,
what are the 16 percent? Is it the developable part or how does this correlate?
Generous: It was based on our ass~on of the developable, the square footage that could be
developed on the site.
Sacchet: So the 16 percent is the developable part?
Generous: Right, if we take out 15 percent for right-of-way, and 30 percent for open space.
Sacchet: Okay, so that is factored in. And the other thing, that's not really a question but I am
puzzled how you reason that demand makes it suitable for residential but that's more something
that's going to come into comments I would think. Did you want to add anything else?
51
Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003
James Osberg: If I could Mr. Chairman. Getting back to the parks and open space and trail~. We
show on the concept plan, sorry. We show this so~t comer as 12 ½ acres as open space for
the park system. We also would be showing internal tnfil system. We also show this
neighborhood park near the bluff area that was identified in the staff memo as a potential
neighborhood park as a location potential for that spray park. Now this Bob is about 4 acres?
The neighborhood, roughly 3 ½4 acres. Some of this 12 ½ acres is not usable, from what L
Aanenson: It's all in the primary zone and the bluff is the no touch zone so they're crediting
themselves for giving that as park space and that's I guess what we were trying to clarify.
Sacchet: That there wouldn't be any possibility to do much in there, okay.
James Osberg: And we have thi.~ additional remnant piece here that because it is a PUD we
understand that we have to be flexible in terms of what we provide. This is an area the City
would like parkland here. Or if there's other alvas within the collce~ plan, we're open to
working with that.
Sacchet: Well I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. With that I'd iiim
to invite the public. This is a public hearing. If you want to come fca'wa~. Address this item.
This is your time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, and curious
to see what you have to say.
Al Gomez: Al Gomez. I live actually across the way from the water preserve. I've got to tell
you I'm a little disappoinmd. I assume you're all taxpaying members of the community. You
guys obviously have some very comprehensive plans in front of you. We're here with a letter
that basically states nothing more than ~'s a planned development, so as you are all asking
questions and referencing numbers, and maybe we don't need that much detail, but I sure would
like more than this letter that states what is going on. The big proposition that we talk about is
changing the zoning disturbs me a lot as a taxpayer because when I bought the ~, I called
the city and asked what that zoning was and made a business decision to buy the property based
on what was ~. And if we can change that at the time, because I know you asked why is that
intpoRant, that we change it or not change it, it is exactly that. We made those decisions. The
builder's obviously here for a main reasom They're here to make a profit. We talk a lot about the
taxing and taxation that would generate revenue. I didn't hear anything about the e~ that
come with 427 units being put into Chanhassem I personally can't afford another referendum for
more schools. Will ToUefson or any other developer pay for those additional schools and/or
classrooms that are going to be required. In~. We talk about that corridor and the
commercial properties that are there. The railroad, I think it's perfect for that continued
developn-~mt. I don't see how putting in commercial property's going to generate that much more
traffic than when we put 420 units and the families that could potentially come and to f~om there~
You also refer to another development that for again for all of us that are just here on behalf of
this one, have no idea about so that's all new to us on another 300 and some traits. Rich, I think
you referred to what's within the one mile of that prope~. I think if you take Gal~ onto 5, it's
amazing how many of these townhomes we've developed in this area and the influx of traffic, of
people. Yes, tax revenue but also the expenses that come with iL Again a lot of things that I saw
that personally I would prefer to get a lot more information for a better summary than a one page
saying here's the proposition. What are the ira?acts?
Sacchet: It's my understanding that the staff reports are available to the public.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Aanenson: Yes, we did ~ to several neighbors and staff reports were handed out. Anybody
that calls us, we always offer them to come get a copy or send them an e-mail them a copy.
Al Gomez: Could you add that to your letters in the future saying,
Aanenson: This is how big this staff report is.
Sacchet: But it should be noted.
Al Gomez: But what I'm saying is that is available upon request
Aanenson: It is on there.
Al Gomez: Is it on here? Then my problem
Generous: We will have our e-mail addresses in the furore.
Al Gomez: The e-mail, you and I talked about that and again if you have e-mail addresses, it's a
quicker means of communication.
Aanenson: We always encourage people to get the staff mporC
Sacchet: Also you have to be aware that these staff reports are available like middle to later part
of the previous week so they're not available really a 1.ong time before but they are available.
Al Gomez: And I don't know that I need the details that you get but something a little more than
this one page...otherwise a lot of it is philosophical as to why we're here. And you've got a lot
more detail to base your decisions and your questions that we don't see.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comments very much.
Lillehaug: To make a comment on one of your questions. The staff repcn~ does address the
impact on the schools, etc, so that is in here and it's not left untamed. So we are aware of all that.
Al Gomez: Bob, could I get a copy7
Aanenson: sure.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. F m sure there are other people that want to address this item
Next please. Please state your name and address.
Andy Kayati: My name is Andy Kayati. I'm at 8715 Valley View Place. I'm in the Bluff Creek
Estates community fight there, and on the east side of the proposed development. When I moved
here 9 years ago I looked at this beautiful area and I said you know, this is wonderful I really
like what it looks like. I said I can envision that at some point in time there's going to be
something there. I could envision, you know knowing that it was light industrial, that I could live
with light industrial there. I have light industrial just to the north of me on the other side of the
adjacent parcels, just to the other side of our residential location ~. I said if there's anything
that I don't want there, it's what I call high density housing, and I don't care how you term this,
this is high density housing. The number of vehicles on the roads there, I don't see that they
could sustain them for years to come because I don't see any rapid changes coming to the
53
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
infras~ of that area any time soon. Looking out my back kitchen window I can observe the
traffic light that was just put in a couple years ago at the comer of Audubon and Lyman. The
traffic essentially backs up there at 5:00 in the afternoon, probably 20 or 30 cars deep. Try to
make that mm when you're going to Chaska High to pick up your kid, which I do. The
watershed area that they alluded to, and if you don't mind I'd like to bring thin up. This area
here, probably you've got, you've got maybe an inch. It's not usable.., so to consider that park
use, it's ridiculous. I'm also very, very concerned I think with looking at the amoum of the
percentage of utilization that you're taking out of office and light industrial. 16 peax:ent. That's a
considerable amount to be taken out of that usage. And you're taking that out of, I know we're
not supposed to bring up taxes here but the in~ base and the tax base and transfen'ing it
over to the residential. What kind of impact is it going to have on police sea'vices? I know
schools are taken into consideration, but there's a school right up the sueet, Bluff Creel that you
can't even get into now. All of those things with 437 new units corning in, and by the you know,
by the slightest estimates if there's 1 ½ cars per unit you're talking about 600 vehicles a day. So I
guess I take issue with the reduced trips for thin type of residential versus industrial use there. In
addition to that, any type of smaller lot usage for single family houses I would oppose that in
addition to this. ff they're reasonable sized lots, which we have there, which I consider to be
reasonable sized lots which are approximately a third of an acre. We're just a little under thaL
Something like that may be reasonable but anything as far as a smaller use lot I would never
agree to. You know as I said, the i ,mpact on the area and for that reason I do. oppose thin
wholeheartedly.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address the cornmiasion7 Please do so at
this time. I also want to remind you, it doesn't necessarily add more weight if you repeat points
that have already been made.
Marsha Strand: Good evening. My name is Marsha Strand and I live in Bluff Creek Estates as
well at 8631 Valley View Cou~ My biggest concerns have been pretty much presented but I
want to add_ the component of noise. The topography of that area has a valley in there and right
now the kids love to go down and play in that swampland and you hear evea3t word bouncing
around our cul-de-sac that they're saying down tlm~, and I think that their water park or
whatever they call it, spray park, sounds like a great amount of fun to a lot of small screamin~
children. And I live you know among a lot of children and I know that when they have fun they
scream and holler and run around, and I would not expect that that would be any differ in that
kind of park. And so that adds another compounding factor that again we didn't anticipate
residential when we bought our property them and hope that unless there's a much more
compelling reason to change the planned development, than we've heard tonight, that you choose
not to do that. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else wants to address this item7 This is your moment to
do so. Please come forward. State your name and ad_d,reas for the rec. oxt please.
Mike Solheim: Hi there, I'm Mike Solheim. My address is 1780 Mound, Minnesota. I'm not
actually from Chanhassen but I just want to stand up and give you a little bit of background or
what I think of Tollefson Development. I've worked with them and I know the family. It's like
Jason says, they're very amenable to any kind of proposal that the Council and the community
and the members that live out there who it's going to affect, for this project to work. So I'm just
asking that everybody think that this is just a footprint of what's going to happen, but it's very
much amenable to what the City of Chanhassen and it's membem want. So I just wanted to get
up and say that. Appreciate your time.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Slagle: I have a question for you though. Sust so I tmdemtand the relationship, when you say
work with them
Mike Solheim: I work with them Affiliated with them to a point~ I am a mortgage broker so I
do loans, so I work with builders and develotx:rs to try to get them to secure the end loans.
Slagle: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I don't live in that area but I am con~
about the development of that axeac Our caymp plan is 5 years old, to 1998. That's 5 years ago. I
think dedicating that land for industrial use was in the best interest of the city and I think it is
now. I don't think things have changed that milch- I also have a point to make about Town and
Country. I kind of get the feeling that Town and Country is a done deal. Okay, it's a concept
Sacchet: It's not a done deal.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. And the other thing is, the City Council agreed to spend about what,
$110,000 or more on a study that did not include this area I believe, com~? But it's the land
adjacent to this area, and I wonder why this parcel, which is also zoned industrial was exclnd_~
from that development study.
Sacchet: Can you address that please?
Aanenson: That's a very good question and that would be one of our concerns is the timing on
this whole thing is, the implication is that we're doing a large environmental a~sessment to the
south area. The 600 acres in the 2005 MUSA. Looking at the right land uses, trip generation, all
that and to change this now at this time seem~ a little ~ which is I would c. ollcur with
that.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah I'd like to see what the outcome of that study is.
Aanenson: Well this does require an EA also. If this was to go forward based on the number of
units, it would require an EA but you're right, the two need to be working together.
Sacchet: EA meaning Environmental Assessment.
Aanenson: I'm sorry, yeah to look at the traffic. All those sort of things. Wetlands.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you Debbie.
Carrie Krych: I'm Carrie Krych and I am at 2127 Boulder, other side.
Slagle: Stone Creek?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Carrie Krych: Stone Creel yep. And we're just, some of us on Boulder have a little bit different
viewpoint than what's been said today. None of us, that we've spoken to of my neighbors on
Boulder want to see 427 townhomes. Absolutely none of us would ever think that was a good
idea. However, light industrial or whatever is a little fearful as well. It's right in my back yard,
as I'm sure it's in some of your's but I'm fearful of what else could be put there that would be
great for me to look at every day. Every day for 6 months of the year I've got woods. I can't see
anything. Build whatever you want. It's real qulet...but and it's my 3 kids that scream, but 6
months I see everything. Everything because them are no trees. There's no leaves and so I see
everything so if it were you know, you know nice residential, that would be a better solution for
me than industrial. I don't really want trucks hauling in and om in my back yard either so. So I
think we, my neighbors as we talked and as I came t~xlay, we didn't, we were that boy, we want
to be, it's going to be residential. We'd choose residential and be screened as best we can from
some light industrial because we don't want the trucks. We don't want that pattern and then you
know the fear, I don't even know. I want to ask, where is this Town mad Country? No one else,
maybe you all know. I don't know where it is. Where's it supposed to be going? I want to know
because that frightens me to deat~ I mean all of a sudden you're bringing up 800 ~ or
500 potential units on top of each other, that's crazy.
Slagle: Go south on Audubon up the hill,
Sacchet: On tbe east.
Slagle: Now on the east side.
Saanz This is the proposed development.
Aanenson: But I think what they need to recognize is that...
Sacchet: Past the metal dinosaur.
Aanenson: 600 acr~ that are going to be coming into development. Not just all residential but
there's 600 acres that in the year 2005 they're starting to implement. Some of it's industrial and
some of it's going to be residential.
Carrie Krych: I am concerned, I mean Chanhassen is an expensive city for a homeowner to live
in and we live in nice priced homes and I want to live in neighborhoods where it's thoughtful
planning where we have, to plot industrial into certain areas, sometimes I'm ~ that
Chanh~sen is a liRle, not as thought out as some of our other communities and so I get concerned
about that and concerned about the light industrial.
Sacchet: I don't know whether it' s any consolation to you but we do have a very well worked out
comprehensive plan and the matter in front of us tonight is an applicant requesting a change to
that. I would also want to point out, and I don't want to belabor this but it's likely that you could
have buffering, berming with industrial as with residential.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify too the ordinance does require from residential to industrial 100 foot
landscaping berm. Buffer.
Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that.
Carrie Krych: That is helpful.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much for speaking up. Please go ahead.
Mary Frey: Just one thing that, Mary Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail Nor& I'm opposed for
everything what they've said too and I guess if it were, yeah obviously single family residential
would be preferential over light industrial but if you were trying to win us over you probably
shouldn't have done a, I mean as I calculated it out, that'd be 427 units on 53 developable acres
which puts it about 8 units on an acre. In addition to that a water park plus parking and driveway.
That's incredible. I mean you know, why not start out that way and then if you want to talk with
the neighbors, we would have listened probably if it would have been residential single family.
Sacchet: If I could ask you to address the commission though. That's really the purpose of this.
Mary Frey: That's all I wanted to a~
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright, who hasn't spoken yet? Who wants to
speak? Please, it's your mm.
Greg Scallon: My name is Greg Scallon. I live at 1814 Valley Ridge Trail, and I guess you
know, I've heard what all the neighbors say and I kind of agree. I just look at, you know I see the
City of Chanhassen Land Use Plan and theo the~'s a lot of time and money that has gone into
this plan over the course of the years and this is the vision that we have and I guess I just have a
question as far as the, you've got the current market is hot for residential but this is looking at a
long term plan. I guess I don't know what, how compelling of a reason that you would need to
change, make a significant change in this plan. And I guess that's just my only questiom
Sacchet: Thank you. That' s definitely the question in front of us tonight Anybody else want to
address this item? This is your chance.
Slagle: Any farmers?
Sacchet: Doesn't look like ih Any non-farmers7 Alright, if nobody else wants to address this
item I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments.
You is inclined to start ~_dd~ressing this item7 Any, do you want Wjmnp in? Go dw. ad.
Feilc Sure, at the risk of alienating all of my neighbors by the way, which is all of that crowd. I
think we need to keep some things inW perspective. This land will be developed. It's going to
happen. There's some issues regarding when, or noise and odors that, current issues I should say,
coming in from the commercial stuff to the we,sc If this goes industrial, just let me warn you
those odors could get that much closer. They could be fight across the pond. Just something to
be aware of. Schools, it's been mentioned we've got a very large AUAR going on down the
street~ 600 acres. It's guided 50/50 commercial/residential. At 300 acres at anywhere near
reasonable density, less than this but more than single family, we're looking at 1,000 units that
are going in in the next 10 years, who knows what. So the school issue is really an issue. It's
going to happen. We're going to be having all of the referendums and everything else so I guess
in part of it I want my neighbors and everybody to think about is sometime~ it's better, the devil
you know and the devil you don't. I'm wondering if we would be having the same concerns up
here if the density was proposed something significantly less. I'm not sure we would. So I guess
I can be persuaded to approve this, much to the chagrin of my neighbors but again, but I'm not
sure that this is necessarily as bad as everybody says. I think_ like I say, it's going to be
developed and somefinw~ it's better to have the devil you know than the you devil you don't.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thanks. Craig, do you want to jump in next?
Clayhaugh: I can't argue with logic like that but I guess the one point I'd lilm to make is that ff
the commission as a body was of a mind to entertain this, entertain approving this, I would prefer
to table it and have staff come back and prepare the documentation geared more towards an
approval so we're looking at it from that perspective and all the things that go to that. From an
approval standpoint I'm not getting from the package what I do when it's prepared in that
fashion. This is prepared for denial and I know that you've touched on some thin_ms should we
consider approval but I just, it seems like a lot of information and not enough time and not
enough material to really break it down. So that would be my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bethany, do you want to make your comment or?
Tjomhom: I think I'd just second what he just said. I think it's a thick packet. It's a lot to think
about. It's a lot to understand but I do think that this was geared for industrial pmtxa~ and
people have purchased homes. They have businesses in the industrial park area because of this.
They've been promised something that it was for commercial and I don't know if it's right to all
of a sudden change our mind.
Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Kurt, do you want to address it?
Papke: Yeah. One of the issues that was brought up tonight was the, them seems to be a fair
amount of surprise in the neighbors about the pace of development. That the Town and Country
development seems to have been news to a number of people, and I think that's a relevant issu~
I think one of the other residents mentioned they don't see the compelling reason to change from
the comprehensive plan at this point. I think if you put those two things together, from my
perspective anyway, it seems like we have an oppommity to change our plans and do so at a time
when there's already another development that's being consi~ and the timing just seems poor
to move forward. Why would we want to change a plan that's been around for 5 years that a lot
of thought went into, just because we have an oppommity to change it.9 At a time when there's
another development going on. So not that plans are meant to be cast in concrete and live for 20
years, but on the other hand you don't just change them because you have an oppommity to
change them so that's my perspective.
Sacchet: Good point, thanks Kurt. Rich.
Slagle: The only thing I'll ~dd is, I go back to my gut reaction when I first saw this ~ and
I wondered how in the world we would build office, factories, plants on that protnxty. I mean
there's going to be a ton of grading to be done if it stays within the current land use that it's
proposed. On the other hand, as commissioners have stated, this might be a prematu~ concept to
change it at this point. I would definitely be in favor of tabling this to get sdditional information
and a perspective sort of both favoring and opposing. I will say this to my fellow
commissioners, if we were to approve a land use change and followed it up with a PUD, I would
be highly interested in some reafly creative, and I'll look at the applicant as I say this, creative
approaches to planning for this parcel. A little different than what I accepted on prior nights here
so basically what I'm saying is, I think I'm okay keeping it the way it is, but if the majority at this
point feel like we can explore it some more, I'm willing to go down that path.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Steve.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: This is my first choice for where we want to put the school. I wish the school would
go there. Could staff explain to me what precedence the applicant needs to set maybe for us even
to consider changing the land use. Is them findings?
Aanenson: We have findings to recommend that you not change it, correct
Lillehaug: Okay. So when I read through your findings, I agree with most of them $o in that
regard I don't see any extenuating circumstances. Why wc would want to change thc land usc
guidance here in this case. So I would support denying the applicants in this case to change the
land use. And then I also want to discuss the idea of tabling this. I'm not sum if we can get
enough clear guidance to the applicant or staff on what we expect out of this to even change our,
or to come back to this tabling and make a better decision here. I think what's been proposed is
enough for us to consider the request at this point and I really would encourage the rest of the
commissioners to make a decision here tonighL The key is the land use change. Ei~ you're
comfortable with changing it or you're not. At this point I'm not comfortable changing it. I think
it's been guided correctly in this case based on the adjacent land use in Chaska, and just the
general surroundings in that area. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I'm pretty clear about this. I do want to commend the applicant for
bringing forward a very well thought through and proposal argued very well the benefits of it.
However, I think I would be misl~g you by supp~ even tabling this because I cannot
support the proposed change of the land use. With the railroad on one side, the road that's going
to become a four lane road on two others, across of which is going to be industrial, with a power
station that's going to have to be expanded on the south comer, it does not sound suitable to me
personally for residential use. There are some advantages, and given that according to our studies
the industrial use is going to have a higher U'a~c load. As a miner of fact did he say about twice
the traffic load, that is something to consider and I don't think some of the residents were quite
clear about that. However, the design of Lyman Boulevard is, the concept for it is such to
actually be able to carry that sort of traffic with 212 freeway coming in, that's going to be, that's
all in the plan that it can carry that traffic load from an en~neering viewpoint. That's been all
considered. In terms of the tax base, that's really _more a City Council issue than one for us.
However, looking at the financial aspect, even though that is not really in our scope that much in
terms of consideration, I understand the predicament of the current owner wanting to move this
property. I understand the interest of the developer wanting to make it residential because that's
the hot item in the market right now. He can move it. However from a viewpoint of the city, I
would be tempted to consider that short sighted, as a reamm to make it residential. I mean
because there is demand right now for this particular product does not make it suitable for
residential. And I also want to point out for the benefit of the commissioners here that with an
issue dealing with the comprehensive plan, the city has trermmdous leeway. I mean that's
actually the area where we as commissioners have the most flexibility. I mean this is not a
situation where we map it to a particular ordinance or a piece of code and we have to determine
does it fit or not. This is really a point of decision where each of us has to make a decision
whether this is suitable, is in the interest of the city overall. That's our responsibility with this
recommendation, and ultimstely a decision of the City Council. So basically in view of demand
for housing for this particular product of housing does not make this site suitable, and I think this
site is better suited for office/industrial. It has good access to roads. It's next to industrial. It has
access to rail. It can be buffered from the nei~g residential use by berming, by
landscaping, what have you. As a matter of fact as our Director of Planning pointed out, that's a
requirement for residential to go in there. The topography, it's not ideal for industrial residential.
There is no ideal situation here but I clearly think that the reasons to change this land use
59
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
amendment are clearly tilting me to be opp~ clearly opposed to this change. So that's my
comment. Are there any other comments or more discussion from, yes Rich.
Slagle: I just have one real quick one Mr. Chair, and very well spoken if I may acid. I want to
share with mostly the neighbors. I want to say this before the vote. I would encourage all of you
to, if you will, recruit additional membem of your neighborhot~, w~ you support it or are
against it, for the upcoming meeting ff it carries on to City Council, which I think it will. Because
I have to be honest, Swne Cr~k, them mi/bt bc one or two people l~. I nmm the~'s a lot of
home~ just ~ross the railroad and I'm surprised tha~ we don't see mc~e. 8o please, ~t th~
neighbor~ involved. I know the City Council would apl~chte hearing from mare folks.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Any other c~? More discussion7 In the absence of that I would
like to.
Claybaugh: The interest that I had or in throwing out tabling was ff peop~ were of a mind to the
thing that I didn't add to it is, I am not inclined to vote for this but if others are, like Rich said. ff
you're interested in exploring it, also I'm willing to go down that path.
Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. I think we're ready to try a motion. This will be interesting.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Corr~,~sion recommends denial of the Land Use
Map amendment from Office/hdustrial to Residential-Medium Density based on inconsistency
with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with sturo~ uses and nonconformance with
the pedormance standard.
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Lillehaug moved, Saechet seconded that the Planning Commi~ion _reomnnends denial of
the Land Use Map amendment from ~ to Residenfial-~m Density based
on inconsistency with the eompreheasive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and
nonconformance with the performance standard. All voted in favor, except Slagie who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Sacchet: This item goes to City Council on June 6~, is that com~7 Sune 9~. Do we want to
summarize?
Lillehaug: Do we have to vote on the second one7
Sacchet: We have B. We're not done yet. There's a second motion,
Lillehaug: The Planning Commission reconnmm~ denial of concept PUD for a townhouse
development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
Sacchet: With condition as attached. I second that.
Lillehaug: Is there any conditions?
Generous: Not for denial.
Sacchet: Okay, the denial is none. Okay. Second.
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Lillehaug moved, Saeehet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
the concept Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development based on
inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. All voted in favor, except Slagle who abstained,
and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1.
Sacchet: Do you want to say why you're, abstaining Rich?
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: Do we need to summarize for coundl any of the highlights of our discussion? Do we
want to summarize some of the points? Basically we agree with staff report. That's the basis for
our denial, correct? Okay, we leave it at that Thank you very much. Appreciate your proposal.
APPROVAL OF MINUTF~:
Commissioner Feik noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May
6, 2003 as amended by Chairman Sacchet to change the vote on page 2 to include one abstenfiom
So the vote should be recorded as 3-0-1.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commi~lon meeting.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community D~velopm~t ~
61
5/20/03
subj~c~
Propos~ d~we~m~t at Lyre-- lxml~ard by T~ D~ Inc.
I ~ at 8622 Vall~ Vmw Ct ~.~ m opposed m this dev.,pratt ~ ~ r~- _~-S beom~ ~t~
fo~owh~ .l~a~ons.
2. The ~ ~e to tlm sun~n,~-~ road~
3. Tllee-h~nLq~tomed-del~~ilga'e~tlg z]aigleve3~ tkqt_mRm]bO:[l:L~ Rndawagr-
ThRnk you for listening to my
May 19, 2(X)3
Mr. Bob Generous, City Planner & Planning Cornmlsslon
City of Chanh~,.en, MN
Dear Mr. Generous & Planning Commission:
I appreciate your efforts in sending me a copy of yoLr staff memo prior to the Planning Commission
meeting regarding our application for a Comprehensive Plan Amerx:~ent and Rezoning for the
statements made in the staff memo prepared by Mr. Generous.
13
Creek corridor'. Our stance is that any proposed development on this site ,eil~er residentS,
commercial, industrtal, institutional, etc. will not easily accommcxla~ lite topog~y of the site.
corddor, we am more than willing to work mutually w~ the City on preservation of this corridor if
lhe application is approved.
On the bottom of page ~3, a table re~ a staff generated tax analysis for residential
townhornes. We have provided a tax analysis and supporting documenta~m from experls In ~t
field, we ask that their work be strongly consk:lemd while debating lhe tax impact for this
On the top of page ~4, a reference to an office ~ent is made. NI current market studies
and market analysis show lhat this area of the market Is extmme~ slow and will continue to be
way as long as exLsflng office building vacandes continue in Chanha.ssen and lhe surrounc~ng
areas.
incons~ wi~ the comprehensive plan,...' We realize that this application does not meet the
comprehensive plan and lherefore am asking for the land use amendment to reguide the zoning
for the comprehensive plan for the Mattson property.
On page #5, under finding 1, fit is unclear if the deve~ would minimize site grading visa-vis
an industrial development. Keep in mind the mass grading and-expansive fiat areas thet an office
park or a commercial development typically requires. On the other hand, a res~
On page #5, under finding 2, 'does not adequately mix residential densities nor efficien~ nor
effectively use the land'. We have provided a concept plan for disc~__~sion purposes and to saJJsfy
· Page2 May 19, 2003
on a variety of product types and styles thus creating a mix of densities. However, we strongly feel
that the site is efficiently and effectively used under our proposal. Critics of urban sprawl
charactertze larger single lots as Inefficient and suggest ~ dertslty is a way to effeclively use the
land. We provide density in our application on areas that am suitable for development. We
respect ~ natural amenities of the property and the adjacent areas and will work to preserve, and
On page 5, under finding 3, 'the proposed devel~ is not compat~le ~ surrouncr~g
industrial uses'. The proposed development provides a transition area between higher Income
single family areas in Chanhassen and the Industrial area across ~ road in Chask~ An Industrial
development next to the Bluff ~k corridor and the eingle family residential neighborhoods would
also be inconsistent with the adJacer~t land use in Chanhassen.
On page 6, under finding 5, we again would like to note that we am asking for an amendment to
the comprehensive plan so that the development proposal would not be inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan.
On page 6, under finding 6, we would like offer ~ this spray park may definitely be a public park if
the City so desires. In addition, our parks and open space dedication under this proposal could be
handled in a variety of ways. We understand thet the City has identtfi~ part of this property In their
concept plan. We plan to provide trail corridors throughout the site which would connect to City
parkland / open space. We show a possible parkland area in the bluff Impact zone area thet may
tool, and is subject to change based on mutual agreemer~
On page ~6, under finding 7, provision of affordable housing. As ~ed earlier in this letter, we
can provide a mix of densities and product types thus creating 'affordabilty' on the site.
On page #7, in the middle of the page "the proposed plan does not, in staff's opinion, lead to a
higher quality or greater presewation of ~ site..."l'his proposed plan provides an opportun~ for
a high pdority goal for the planning and park departments and commissions? We also look at this
as a chance for the City and its rasldents to take the entire private open space and corwert areas
into public open spaces, we see this as a huge beneffi to the City and its residents.
Within the same middle paragraph on page #7, a comment is directed toward the site for an
Industrial developer for rail access. Again, we point directly to the market study and current
marketplace trends. This site has bcc~ offered to end industrial users for several years with rail as
General comment regarding the staff memo addressing; Concept Plan Review, Bluff Creek
Overlay District, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Tree Preservation and I..~,
Utilities, Access and Streets, and Parks and Open Space, ~ on page #7, many of the Issues
that have been raised am Preliminary and Final Plat application discuas~ and requiremer~ts.
Residential - Townhome unit $2,000.00 427 $854,000.00
$47s,00o.oo
· Page3 May 19, 2003
On page #10, under recommendation, recom~ for denial based on inconsistency ~ ~
comprehensive plan. Again, we am asldng to amend the cornpreha~ive plan.
surrounding land uses. The land presently used for agricultural purposes Is Incompatible with the
surrounding land uses. Allowing an Industrial development is still going to create irmom~lity
with neighboring Chanhassen land uses. Our point is that no matter whet the land use is on the
Mattson site, inconsistancles will occur.
On page #10, under ~mendation, recommendation for denial based on nonconformance ~
density zoning district.
On page #11, staff outlines many items / Issues to be addressed by the developer should the
Planning Commission approve the land use amendment and concept PUD. We would like it to be
any item that may surface dudng the development applica~on and constnJClion process. We
appmcia~ the open mlndedneas to inco~ this list Into the staff report.
We thank you for the opportunity to present this application to the City of Chanhassen, and ask that it
be treated with an open mind. Please consider these comments as you make your recommendations
at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. I look forward to meeting with you and discussing our
application ~ the City on May 20~, 2(X)3. Please let me know if them are o~er items that I may
provide to help with your decision.
Jason Osberg
Project Manager
Page 1 of 1
Generous, Bob
From: Al Gomez [Al.GomezOgenmilis.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:33 AM
To: bgenerous Oci.chanhessen.mn.us
Subject: Response to proposed Tollefson Development Notice
Bob - just want to get you a quick message with my thoughts on the notice I received on May 9th regarding the
proposed development of 427 townhome project by Tollefson Development, Inc. I am opposed to this proposal
and have laid out my thoughts below.
· First and foremost, I have a strong feeling about us re-zoning property all the time. Most consumers will
check with the city on the surrounding properties to their home and determine what they are zone for.
They in turn make life-long decisions based on this information. It is not fair to change the rules
midstream.
· I am sure the pitch has been the tax revenue that this development will generate. Well, what about the
costs Incurred by approving such a development. Is the infrastructure in place to take on this type of
increase In population? What about our schools (we are already rnax'd out)? We can not afford another
referendum to build an or expand more classrooms.
· The area, I believe, was zoned light Industrial because It has access to a main road, the railroad track, and
easy access to the future 212 expansion. It is also an area where industrial companies currently sit now,
and or are expanding to.
· It was explained to me about 4 years ago, by then Mayor Manclnl, that part of the goal of the Chanhassen
City leaders was to retain the natural flow/look of the terrain. On this specific property, I would believe
Tollefson would have to level the property to build this many townhomesl
Bob, thanks for forwarding this to the proper committee members at City Hall. As you can see, I am completely
opposed to this development. I will plan on attending the meeting as well. Thanks.
Al
A1 Gomez
General Mills Bake#es & Fooclservice Division
Segment Sales - Manager N. Central Zone
~ Voice-Mall 1-800-318-4757 Ext. 6159
~ 952-361-6774/?ax: 952-361-6775
[] al. gomez @ genmills, com
5/15/2003
Chaska
May 15, 2003
City of Chanhassen
Attn: Bob Generous, AICP
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota
55379
Re'- Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Mattson property
Dear Bob:
Thank you for forwarding to us for our review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment of
the Mattson property by Tollefson Development. ! hope that you will find our comments
helpful.
The City of Chaska does not support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed and
would encourage Chanhassen's Planning Commission and City Council not to approve this
request for the following reasons:
.
Wind. The Crosby Industrial Park, in Chaska, is west of-the subject property. It is
anticipated in the Chaska Comprehensive Plan that this area will remain as an
Industrial land use. The prevailing westerly winds will carry any odors and noise from
that Industrial area to this site. As we are all aware, the dose relationship of
Industrial land uses to residential land uses has previously caused considerable
friction between those land uses along our common border (i.e., MGK). The same
relationship exists In this situation and It would only seem to make sense that the
same issues might arise, if this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved.
.
Proximity to Bluff Creek SubstaUon. The City of Chaska owns and operates an
electric substation that is located at the soubheast comer of the proposed
development site. This subs~Uon is a critical link in providing reliable and Iow cost
electricity to the surrounding area. As this area continues to grow and
correspondingly the electric demand Increases, It is expected that various electric
improvements will be required to this substaUon. The placement of residential units
in close proximity to this substaUon has the potential to create a future'land use
conflict that will be difficult to resolve.
City Of Chaska Minnesota One City Hall Plaza 55318-1962 Phone 952/448-9200. Fax 952/448-9300
!
Access to Bluff Creek Subsl~tlon. Access to the Bluff Creek Substation Is
provided via a driveway, which accesses County Road 18 opposite of Lake Hazeltine
Drive and then crosses the Mattson property and then enters the substation see
about midway on the substation's weste~ property boundary. 'The City of Chaska
has an easement (see attached document) across the Mattson property that Is not
reflected in the Tollefson concept plan. Tt would appear that the development plan
negatively Impacts this easement, which we object to.
We look forward to worldng with you cooperatively and collaboratively on future planning and
development Issues along our common boundary. Zf you should have any question or
comments, then please contact me at 952-448-2851.
Sincerely,
Director of Planning
~d Development
cc: Steve Wilker, Director of Electric Utilities
-i
--'-377.00- S 89°'
CiTY OF
PC DATE: May 20, 2003
CC DATE: June 9, 2003
REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/20103
CASE ~ 2003-1 PUD & 2003-2
STAFF
Iff ¥' m lin lflm
--. . --- · ·
Z
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Request for a Compmhemive Plan [,and Use Map Amen~t from Office-
Industrial to Residential Medium Densi~ and Concept Planned Unit
Development approval for a 427-unit townhome project.
South of thc Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, east of Lyman
Blvd. and West of Bluff Creek
Tollcfson Development, Inc.
17271 Kenyon Avenue, Sm 103
I_akevillc, MN 55044
(952) 435-1010
Charles Mattson
2870 Wheeler Street North
Rosevillc, MN 55113
(651) 633-0512
.Ltl
PRESENT ZONING: 3.2, Agricultural Estate District .and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial and Parks & Open Space
ACREAGE: 94.8 acres
DENSITY: Assume 8 Units per acre
suMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a land use'amendment from
Offi~dustfial to Residential Medium Density and concept Planned Unit Development approval for a.
427 unit townhouse project on 94.8 acres of land. Thc ~ is located within the Bluff Creek'
Overlay District.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet.
!
LEVEl. OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
- .
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving IgTDnings, PUD8, and amendments to the
land use map because the City is acting .in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD must be
consistent with thc City's Comprehensive Plan. .. ~:
yman
City of Chaska
Lyman 'Ooule'
/ard
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2O03
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Tollefson Development, Inc. is requesting and land use amendment from Office2industrial to
Residential - Medium Density to permit a townhouse development. At this stage of the
development review, the primary issue to be resolved is the land use desi~on of the ~.
The following information and discussion investigate the potential impacts of the proposed land use
amen~t.
Figure 4 Current Mattson
land Use
Land Use Acres % of Total Pmposal Chance Land Use
Percent
Commercial 214 1.5% 214 0 1.5%
OfficeAndustrial 1,229 8.3% 1,035 -94 7%
Office 117 0.8% 117 0 0.8%
Parks & O~ Space 1,466 9.9% 1,466 0 9.9%
Public/Semi-Public 1,242 8.4% 1,242 0 8.4%
Residential Large Lot 2,247 15.2% 2,247 0 15.2%
Residential Low Density 5,471 37.1% 5,471 0 37.1%
Residential Medium Density 669 4.5% 763 +94 5.2%
Residential High Density 398 2.7% 398 0 2.7%
Mixed Use 134 0.9% 134 0 0.9%
Undevelopable 1,573 10.6% 1,573 0 10.6%
TOTALS 14,760 99.9% # 14,760 0 99.3% #
(# Does not equal 100 due to rounding.)
The proposed land use amendment represents a reduction of 7.6 percent of the industrial acreage
in the community. This 7.6 of industrial land use equals an eatimaled 16 percent of furore
industrial development and future industrial tax base. Since 1998, the year the latest
comprehensive plan was adopted, 183 acres of the vacant' 758 acres of industrial land use area
has been developed, leaving a vacant industrial land area of 575 acres, including the 94 acres on
the Mattson property.
Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use for current expediency is not in
the best interest of thc commullity in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses,
preserving a tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. Nor is this the best
site for residential development given the axtefial roadway to the west, the railroad to the north,
the industrial development to the west and south, and the electrical substation in the south end of
the land. In addition, the applicant has not proposed a development that maintains or
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 3
accommodates the topography of the site or adequately preserves the Bluff Creek corridor.
The Key Financial Strategies that the City Council has been working to adopt makes the
following find as a part of the LOCAL TAX BASE CONSIDERATIONS
"D) Diverse tax base- the city has a diverse tax base with 69% residential and 28% commercial.
The balance includes a variety of open space and institutional uses.
Implication: Tax base diversification is a positive trend for stability in city servi~ requirements
and property tax production. Continued effort to maintain this ratio of resideotial to co~al
base would benefit the community (1/4 -1/3 or 25 -33%)."
A 427 unit townhouse development of this site would generate an estimated 86 additional
students for the Chaska School District 112. The development of the site with industrial uses
will generate no additional students for the school district.
The proposed development would reduce the potential impacts on the sun~unding road system
due to the reduction in the daily traffic generation.
l.and Use Avg. Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
OfficMindustrial 5,088 599 629
Medium Density Residential 2,502 188 231
However, as stated previously, the roadways accessing this property are classified as axtefial
roadways in the city's and Carver County's comprehensive plans. Arterial roo_~ are planned to
carry higher traffic volumes than local street. Eventually, Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road and
Galpin Boulevard will be four lane roadways. With the common of Highway 212, the site
will have even greater accessibility for an industrial user.
Staff has also prepared a tax analysis of the different land uses. Based on this analysis, the
development of the site for office/industrial uses would genemle gtv. ater tax revenues than a
residential development. Additionally, office/industrial uses tend to have a lesser demand on
local services and expenditures, than residential projects.
Use
Tax Capacit~
$ 730,250
Taxes
Industrial $ 874,555
Office-warehouse $1,241,950 $1,487,372 $312,348
Office $1,753,650 $2,100,189 $441,040
Residential Townhouse $1,024,800 $1,227,311 $257,735
City's Share
$183,656
Staff has used thc applicant's valuation of $240,000 per unit in calculating the residential taxes.
For the industrial development, we have presented three options representing a range of the type
of development that could oocur. The industrial development would consist of large warehouse
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 4
or manufacturing buildings with minimal building upgrades. The office development would
consist of a corporate office type facility that encompasses almost all office space with some
office-showroom development.
Comprehensive Plan l.,and Use Goals and Policies
The city's highest land use goal is to achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high
quality of life and a reliable tax base. In doing so, we need to assure that land is provided for
various land uses, rather than responding to the current "hot market" development trends.
Planned industrial development will be encouraged as a means of providing tax base growth and
creating new employment opportunities.
The city will seek oppo~ties to provide transitions between different uses of different types.
The Bluff Creek Corridor and the railroad and wooded area provides a transition from residential
to industrial development.
Staff is recommending denial of the land use ~dment due to inexmsistency with the
comprehensive plan, incompatibility with sumaunding development, and noncompliance with the
performance standards. Without the land use amendment, the concept Phumed Unit Development
is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and must also be denied.
BACKGROUND
In April 1993, D. R. Horton submitted a proposal for a land use amendment to _permit a concept
plan of a mixed townhouse (52 acres), support comm.~ncial (5.5 acres) and open space (24.7 acres)
development on this property for review by the city. The Plmming Commisusion and staff
recorded denial of the amendment. The applicant withdrew their requeml~ amen~t prior
to City Council review.
The site, as well as the Holasek and Volk pmtmtties at the intersection of C. ral~ Boulevard and
Lyman Boulevard, was guided for officedin&~strial development as part of the 1991 comprehensive
plan partly because it was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south and west in
Chaskat. In an attempt to accommod_m_o a reasonable amount of office-industrial development
within the community and in order to promote a balance of land uses and accompanying mix of tax
base, these lands and others (odrling approximmely 640 acres) were guided for office/industrial
uses. The site is also adjacent to an a_tterial roadway, which provides high levels of ~, as well
as adjacent to an active railroad corridor.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 5
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 95 acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development - Residential. The project consists of townhouses. The following review eonstimle, s
our evaluation of the PUD requesC The review criteria is token from the intent section of the PUD
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most nomufl zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety
of uses, internal transfer of density, c, om~on 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 pmtmsal than would have been
thc case with the other more standard zoning districts.
It will be the applicant's respomibility to demonslmm that the City's expectations are to be realized
as evaluated against the follov~g criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site c~stic8 and ~ space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep dopes, restore trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
Finding. With modifications, the development will preserve portions of the Bluff Creek
corridor located in the southwest comer of the site. However, it is unclear if the development
would minimize site grading vis-ii-vis an industrial development.
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 develo~t, as proposed, does not adequately mix the ~idenfial densities
nor efficiently and effectively use the land.
3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building m'chi~ should reflect higher
qtmlit~ design than is found elsewhere in the commtmity.
Finding. The proposed development is not compatible with surrounding industrial uses.
There were no specific building standards provided for review.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 6
4. Sensitive development in tramitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouragecL
Hnding. The development has attempted to be the transition from low density residential
east of the development to office industrial to the west by providing a townhouse, medium density
project. The development provides life cycle housing crppofluffifi~. It maximizes the total number
of units per acre on a net acre based on 8 units per acre or 427 units. It is unclear how the density
total was calculated since the acreage of wetlands and roads were not provided.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The proposed development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan subject to
denial of the land use amendment to medium density residential. This amendment is nece~ry to
permit the concept development
6. Parks and open space. The cre~on of public open space may be required by the city. Such
park and open space shall be consistent with the Com~~ve Park Plan and overall trail plan.
Finding. The applicant is preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. An internal sidewalk and
trails to Bluff Creek are proposed to permit residents of this development to access the trail along
Bluff Creek. A sprinkler, water park was mentioned in the narrative. However, it is assumed that
this would be a private park. Outside of the required open space, no additional park was shown on
the plan except for the 12.5 acres of hnd located in the southeast comer of the ~ which is in
the Bluff Creek primary zone and flood plain.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups ff at~opriate with the PUD.
Finding. The proposed development will provide a variety of housing styles: twins, single
loaded townhouse and double loaded townhouses. However, the PmtX~al does not, currently,
include affordable housing to a wide range of income groups. Housing prices, as proposed, will
start in the low $200,000s.
8. Energy conserva on through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. The proposed mix of housing types provides energy conservation through the
efficiencies related to site development.
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.
Finding. All appropriate traffic management techniques will be ineorimmled in the
development.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 7
Smmnary 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 tmique features can be better protected. The flexibility in
standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique feap. ff~ of the site. In
remm for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Diversity of housing types
Preservation of desirable site chaxaetefisties (trees, topographical features)
Sensitive development in trmmitional areas
More efficient use of land
The proposed development is inconsistent with the Office/In--al Dmd Use desi~on of the
property. The proposed plan does not, in staWs opinion, lead to higher quality or glvamr
preservation of the site than could be accomplished through an industrial office park development.
Mass grading of the property would still happen with any development scenario. The Bluff Creek
Corridor acts as the transition between land uses. Lyman Boulevard is an arterial roadway and is
intended to provide higher levels of traffic. With the construction of proposed Highway 212 less
than a mile from this site, the deairabi~ty and suitability of the site for industrial developmem is
actually improved. Additionally, this site provides one of the few areas where an industrial
developer could have rail access for shipment of rn _~ri__'als and products. One potential benefit of
approving a townhouse devel~t is the provision of affordable housing. However, this project
does not provide any affordable housing.
CONCEPT PIAN REVmW
The applicant is groposing a mixed unit type of residential development on appro~ly 95 acres.
Within the development are twin unit homes (8 units), single load townhouses (63 units) and eight
and ten unit, back-to-back townhouses (356 units) totaling 427 units. If the land use amendment
and concept PUD-R is approved, the scope of the development xequires a mand_atory
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be tnepazed. Two of the proposed stxeem are public
providing access from the site to Lyman Boulevard. The balance of the streets, those providing
access to the townhouses, would be private. Sidewalks are provided on one side of the public
street~ A trail system connects the site to the Bluff Creek Con'i~ and to Lyman Boulevard.
Staff would recommend that as part of the design od_~ifional single load townhouse units be provide
at the ends of the private streets. This will eliminate some of the im.r~'vious surface and provide
walkout type units which will better utiliTe the site gt'a_~_e~s. The development should be ~
articulated to provide for internal view sheds, building orientation and mix of housing types and
values.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 8
A bluff is located in the east cen~ portion of the site. This bluff must be tnvoserved. The Bluff
Creek Corridor runs along the eastern side of the ~. The primary zone must be ~ed in
its natural state. A final determination of the ali~ment must be made. as part of the development
review process.
BLI~F CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
The site is partially within the Meadowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This
region of the overlay district is clmracterized by fragmented forest communities, high quality
wetlands and diverse wildlife populations.
The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resoumes Managemm~ Plan
(BCWNR_MP) for the Lowlands Region are to:
1. Preserve high-quality wetland systems, riparian areas and remaining forests;
2. Regenerate impaired ecosystema, especially wetlands, to the extent pm~eal trader the
present land use conslr~ts;
3. Re-create natural links between major naumfl feaW. ues within the Bluff ~ corridor, and
4. Develop environmental educafi~ oppofamities within the corridor.
The applicant should keep these goals in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work
with staff to achieve these goals for this property.
The mapped boundaries of the primary and seconda~ cottido~ of the Bluff Creek Overlay District
vary between those shown in the Plan and those included on City maps. The applicant shall an~an~
for the boundaries to be field-verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for
this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland adjacent to Bluff Creek have, histofi~y, been
included within the primary zone. ~ location of the corridors is essential for proper
planning of the site. There are a number of items that are directly influenced by the ~dor, for
instance, minimum smacmre setbacks of 40 feet from the primary corridor, preservation of all
natural features within the primary coffin, a detailed plan identifying the resources located within
the corridors, etc.
In addition to the ~ park land dedication, the city ~ that a minimum of 11210 feet
contiguous to the creek be dedicated to the city in areas that have less than that currently. This
would facilitate the city's ongoing management goals for the creek in this area.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 9
GRADING~ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
Storm Water Management
The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. On-site storm water
ponding must be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards. Calculations
should be submitted to demonstrate that the site meets City standards.
The ~ if developed as an officefmdustrial park would pay a total storm water fee of $10,665
per developable acre and $5,342 per developable acre if developed as medium density residential.
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Bluffs
It a~ that a bluff exists on the protx~rty. The applicant shall identify all areas that meet the
criteria for a bluff (the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff and the grade from the
toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater).
According to ordinance, all smaclan~ must be set back at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff and
no vegetation may be removed or altered within the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff. Staff has
concenls about the portion of the nalxative that discusses sledding and snowboarding within and
adjacent to the bluff area. Such uses would ~ the vegetation and overall integrity within the
bluff. The bluff area must be preserv~ and should not be subject to other uses and must be
Erosion Control
An erosion and sediment control plan should be stflmaittecL Type 11I silt fence should be provided
adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserv~ at
the delineated wetland edge. Any dis~ wetland areas should be reseeded with MnDOT seed
mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas diso. gbed as
a result of consuucfion activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched,
covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Erosion control blanket should
be installed on all graded areas with slopes ~ than 3:1.
Tltl~.E PRESERVA~ON AND LANDSC~G
The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with
canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. For a medium density residential
development the minimum canopy coverage ranges between 20- 30% depending on existing
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 10
cover. Boulevard trees will be required along all main roads. Foundation plantings will be nxluired
for each unit. Because of the development's proximity to Bluff Creek an emphasis will be placed
on the utilization of native plants for lan~ p~. The application would also be
encouraged to enhance the natural and open space areas of the site with native plant lan~g.
The city recommends that the wooded area along the north ~ linedmil_rmd be preserved in its
entirety because of its value as a buffer and greenway corridor.
A trunk water main will be needed to service the development and surrounding axe~ ~y,
municipal water exists at the intersection of Lyman/Galpin Boulevard and Lyman/Audubon Road
(north). An 18-inch diameter mink watermain will have to be extended down Lyman Boulevard to
connect with the existing mains at Galpin and Audubon. The City's share of this cost would be the
cost for oversizing the watermain.
ACCESS AND STR~.ET~
In order to maximize the distance between the entry points to the site, the northerly road should be
moved as far north as possible. Also, many of the private streets that connect with the public streets
do not meet the 300-foot spacing requirement.
The Fire Department recommends a second means of access to the area located north of the
Williams Pipeline Company easement. In the event the main road to that area becaxnes blocked
(due to watermain breaks, pipeline ~, storm related or other causes) emergency access to
approximately 159 units could be comprorni~ed. Submit option for a secondary means of access to
the Ftre Department for review and approval.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The review of the project for park dedication requirmx~nts is prem_ .rare at this level of review,
concept stage. Land within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone is not, generally, taken in
fulfillment of park dedication requirements. Parks fees are $2,400 per unit for the two-unit
smmmms and $2,000 per unit for the multi-family traits. Industrial park fees are $'7,000 per
developable acre.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following motions:
A. 'Whe Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map amendment from
Office/Industrial to Residential - Medium Density based on inconsistency with the comprehensive
plan, incompatibility with murotmding uses and nonconformance with performance standard.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 11
B. 'q'he Planning Commission recommends denial of the concept Planned Unit Development for a
townhouse development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
Should the Planning Commission approve the land use am~dment and concqx PUD, the
following issues will need to be addressed by the developer.
2} An Environmental Assessment Worksheet will need to be prepared.
} The Bluff Creek Corridor primary and secon~ zone boundaries will need to be
determined and surveyed.
~* The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Reso~ Manage~nent Plan
(BCWNR_MP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the furth~ development
of the plan.
~ The applicant shall arrange for the boundaries to be field-verified by staff prior to the
development of a more detailed plan for this site. In determining the boundaries, wetland
adjacent to Bluff Creek have, historically, been included within the primary zone.
3, A wetland delineation report will need to be prepared for all wetlands on site.
~ The ~ development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. On-site storm
water ponding must be sufficient to meet all City water quality and quantity standards.
Calculations should be submiRed to demonstrate that the site meets City standards.
~ Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
~ The applicant shall identify all areas that meet the criteria for a bluff. The development plan
should realistic protect the bluff and remain outside the bluff impact zone.
~ Additional single load townhouse units shall be provided at the ends of the private streets.
This will elimillate some of the impervious guI'f~ and provide walkout type units which
will better utilize the site grades.
~ The development should be further articulated to provide for internal view sheds, building
orientation and mix of housing types and values.
), A preliminary grading plan must be ~
~ An erosion and sediment control plan should be submiRed. Type Ill silt fence should be
provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areats to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is
to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 12
A trunk water main will be needed to service the development and sun~unding area.
Preliminary utility plans will need tn be submiUed.
The applicant will need tn submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along
with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation.
The northerly road shall be moved as far north as possible. Also, many of the private streets
that connect with the public streets do not meet the 300-foot spacing requi~m~t.
A second means of access tn the area lw. nmxt north of the Williams Pipeline Company
easemenc Roadways should be linked on both the east and west sides of the public streeC
ATFA~S
1. Hndings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reducext Copy of Concept Plan
4. Let~r from Jason Osberg tn Honorable Mayor and City Council membem, Planning
Commission and City Staff
5. Tollefson Development, Inc. Traffic and Tax analysis
6. Email memo from Joni Nelson tn Bob Generous
7. Letter from Phil and Marga~ Standafer tn Bob Generous dated 5/14/03
8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 13
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEP~ CO~, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Tollefson Development, Inc. and Charles Mattson for a land use map amendment
from office/industrial to residential - medium density and concept Planned Unit Development
for a 427 unit townhouse development.
On may 20, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedtfle
meeting to consider the application of Tollefson Development, Inc. and Charles Mattson for a
land use amendment from office/industrial to residential - medium density and concept Planned
Unit Development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
Acr
le
2.
3.
4.
The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2.
The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/In,ffiai uses.
The legal description of the ~ is: see attached Exhibit A
Findings for Land Use Amendment:
The proposed land use amen~t has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of the comprehensive plan and has been found to be
inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. City land use goals and
policies require that the city maintain an appropriate balance of laud uses,
preserve a tax base mix, and create new employment opporttmities. The city
needs to preserve more industrial land for development since only 8.3 percent of
the land is guided for office/indus~al uses. The proposed land uae amendment
represents a reduction of 7.6 percent of the industrial acreage in the community.
This 7.6 of industrial land use equals an estimated 16 percent of future industrial
development and future industrial tax base.
The proposed land use amendment will be incompatible with the present and
future land uses of the arum Industrial development exists and is planned to the
south and west of this ~. The noise from the substation located in the
southern part of the site is incompatible with residential development. Noises,
Tollefson Development
May 20, 2003
Page 13
traffic and smells from the industrial development conflict with any residential
development in this location.
Findings for the Concept Planned Unit Development:
Development must consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
development is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation of the
property for office/industrial uses. The proposed development does not conform
to all performance stan~ contained in the Zoning Ordinance for office and
industrial development. The development of the site for residential townhouses
does not preserve the bluff area as required by the bluff protection ordinance, nor
adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor.
The planning report W2003-2 Land Use Plan Amendment dated May 20, 2003,
prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein.
I co , T ON
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Land Use
Amendment the Concept Planned Unit Development.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20m day of May, 2003.
CHA_NHASS~ PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
ATrF_~T:
Secre~
E,~H I KIT A
PARC~.L 1
That part of the South half of the Northwest Quarter (S ~, NW lA ) of Section 22. Township
116, Range 23, lying easterly of the centerline of County Road 117 (Excelsior and Shakopee
Road) and that part of the Southwest Quart~ of the Northern.st Quart~ (SW lA, NE lA ) of said
Section 22 lying westerly of a line running from a point on the south line of said Southwest
Quart~ of the Northemst Quart~ distant 660.00 feet eamt of the southwest comer thereof to a
pointon the north line of said Southwest Quart~ of the Northeast Quarter distant 330.00 feet
east.of the northwest comer their, of. Less and except the following ~b~l tract:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE lA, NW lA ) of Section 22.
Township 116, Range 23, Carver County. Minnesota. descri~ as follows: Commencing at
the southeast comer of the Northeast Quarter (E lA comer) of said Section 22; thence South
89057' 53" West, assumed beating. 2649.54 feet along the south line of said Northeast
Quarter to the southeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE lA,
NW IA ) of Section 22, said point also being the point of beginning of the tract to be
described; thence continuing South 89o57'53" West 499.83 feet along said south line; thence
northwesterly 247.29 feet along the center of a public roadway on a non tangential curve
concave to the northeast with radius of 954.93 feet through a central angle of 14°50'14'',
chord bearing North 72°54'36" West 246.59 feet; thence North 00024' 57" West 592.50 feet;
thence North 89°35'03'' East 377.00 feet; thence South 71°53'06" East 377.58 feet to a point
on the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00o24' 57"
East 550.00 feet along said east line to the point of beginning. Subject to a public roadway
easement on the south side thereof and a power line easement on the east side thereof.
Subject to other easements, reservations or restrictions, if any. Subject to a public roadway
easement along the south side thereof and other easements, reservations or restrictions of
record. Subject to all easement for utilities and ingress and egress, being 40 feet in width,
lying 20 feet on each side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at the southwest corner of the above descri~ tract; thence North 00024'57'' West
321.50 feet along the west line thereof to the point of beginning of the centerline to be descri~;
thence North 76°30'00'' West 45.00 feet; thence southwesterly 46.69 feet along a tangential
curve concave to the southeast with radius of 50.00 feet through a central angle of 53°30'00";
thence South 50°00'00'' West 224.89 feet tangent to said curve to a point on the center of a
public roadway and said centerline there terminating. It is intended to extend or shorten the side
lines of said easement so as to terminate at said centerline of the public roadway and at the west
line of land described as follows:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE lA, NW lA ) of Section
22, Township 116. Range 23. Carver County. Minnesota. descri~ as follows:
Commencing at the southeast comer of the Northeast Quarter (E 1/4 Cor.) of said Section
22; thence South 89°7'53" West. assumed bearing. 2649.54 feet along the south line of
said Northeast Quarter to the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SE~~ of Section 22, said point also being the point of be~nning of the tract
to be described; thence continuing South 89°57'53'' West 499.83 feet along said south
line; thence northwesterly 247.29 feet along the center of a public roadway on a non
tangential curve concave to the northeast with radius of 954.93 feet through a central
angle of 14050' 14". chord bearing North 7205436" West 246.59 feet; thence North
00024'57'' West 592.50 feet; thence North 89035'03'' East 377.00 feet; thence South
71 °53'06" East 377.58 feet to a point on the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter; thence South 00024'57" East 550.00 feet along said east line to the
point of beginning.
Parcel 2
Outlot B, Chanhassen Business Park
Parcel 3
That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North. Range
23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian describe~ as;
Beginning at the north q~ comer of said Section 22; thence on an assumed tw. au'ing of
North 89 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 969.75 feet along the north
line of said Northwest Quarter, thence South 56 degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds West a
distance of 1138.88 feet to the center line of County Road No. 117; thence South 32
degrees 02 minutes East a distance of 56.45 feet; thence southeasterly 484.22 feet along a
tangential curve to the right having a radius of 3322.60 feet; thence South 23 degrees 41
minutes East a distance of 241.78 feet to the south line of said North Half of the
Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of
1570.38 feet along said south tine of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter to the
southeast comer thereof; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of
1326.84 feet along the east line of said Northwest Quarter to the point of beginning,
according to the Government survey thereof. Subject to easement for County Road No.
117.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-t100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: ~'~1 ~¢v'e'/o~a~ ,.~ ~.
TELEPHONE (Daytlme)L ~.,~'~) ~]F"-//O/0
w,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
~ CondiUonal Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan RevieW*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Vadance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign )~7 ~'-
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/~ey Cost**
($50 C U P/S PR/VAC/VAPJWAP/Metes
and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE
A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with see plan reviews.
*Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5~e ~/-;;/~?J
j
WETLANDS PRESENT 7~ YES NO
PRESENT ZONING /~L~ r/' ¢ U/. ~/~/~'/,-
REQUESTED
PRESENT ~O
REQUES~D ~D USE DESIG~O"
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
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.
A determinaUon of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
nofica of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of 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'fide or purchase agreement), or I am the au~odzed 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
undemtand 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 am true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
~i~~ by the applicant.
~ignature of~licant
Signature of Fee Owner -~
Application Received on ~/~-~/~) ~
17-'o ,
Date
Date
FeePaid ~/~'~..~,~D ReceiptNo. "700~~'-
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.
'ONI '.LSlnO~I=Je'3~II-I-LVS
A.LI~dO~d~VI~
!
i
i
i
i
I
/-
i!
.
/
/ /
i/
//
jii /
Developers · Land Investment · Property Managers
Apdl 17, 2O03
Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers
Planning Commission
staff
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
7700 Market Boulvevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Dear Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers, Planning Commission, and City
Staff:
Our company, Tollefson, Development, Inc., represents the 94.8 acre Charles
Mattson property located in northwest Section 22, Township 116N, Range 23W,
along County Road 18, and north of Lyman Blvd. We are asking for the following:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment for the property from lOP (Industrial
Office Park) to Medium Density Residential (8 units per net acre), Rezoning to R-8 or
R-12 - whichever zoning district will allow 8 units per net acre.
Our future development proposal includes an estimated 427 townhome units on the
site, broken up into "nodes" or "mini-neighborhood" areas. All proposed units will
meet the extedor matedal requirements identified by the City. Physical
characteristics include many amenities that lend the site toward a residential land
use, including expansive viewsheds, rolling topography / grade changes, and direct
connection to the existing public park to the northeast of the property. The
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan identifies the southeast 12.5 acres of the site as
future parkland, we feel that the use of that comer of the site as parkland is a benefit
to our proposed development and the community as a whole, and would happily give
the land as park dedication. In addition to the 12.5 acre dedicated park, we are also
proposing to create a trail / sidewalk network throughout the site with elaborate
landscaping and common open spaces. Our trail/sidewalk system will meander
through the site and ultimately connect to the City's park system. Ail stomwvater run-
off created by this development will be treated effectively on site and will not impact
the adjacent wetlands. Ail utility connections to the site will be coordinated directly
with the City's engineering department at the time of Preliminary / Final Plat. We will
assume any directly related development impact fees, trunk charges, etc. as they
relate to this proposal.
17271 Kenyon Ave., Suite #103 · Lakeville, MN 55044 · Phone (952) 435-1010 · FAX (952) 435-1020
Email- info~tollefsondevelopment.com
www.tollefsondevelopment.corn
· Page 2 Apd] 17, 2OO3
Advantages of a medium density residential land use on the Mattson property
include:
Near term and ongoing tax base revenue for the City of Chanhassen and school
district. Our proposal, if approved would begin late 2003 and have homes under
construction before the end of 2003 (weather permitting). At the present time,
there does not appear to be any non-residential users looking at the property. In
addition, it is the property owners desire to reguide the property to a residential
land use.
Park Dedication. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies 12.5 acres in the
southeast comer of the property to be future parkland. By platting the property in
the near term, the City and its residents will have the ownership and accessibility
to use that piece of land for parkland purposes. In addition, we would create
another neighborhood park and greenways / open space corridors throughout the
site. Please see attached information regarding parkland ideas.
It is anticipated that any such townhome units will be owner occupied and have
an entry level selling cost of the Iow $200's and go up from that pdce level.
Comparable valuation tax studies reveal that these products at a minimum would
bdng about $2,000.00 on an annual basis in lax revenues. This tax revenue can
be used to pay for local school facility upgrades and City expenditures.
The proposed land use is compact and efficient. The site is close to local
employment centers, schools, transportation corridors, essential services, parks,
and other City amenities. This type of development promotes "walkability', and is
supported by most local, county, regional, and state planning agencies.
The existing topography on the site is not suited for non-residential land uses.
Massive grading and excavating will need to be done in order to create an
industrial / office park development. Steep slope development / bluff protection
ordinances may further hinder-a non-residential development.
Accessibility to the site is through existing residential neighborhood areas. It may
not be the best choice to bdng truck and delivery traffic through these areas.
Allowing this property to develop as a residential use keeps patterns land use
consistent in the area. At a minimum, the City would want to "transition" land
uses, and buffer its current residents from differing land uses. This proposal
would provide a proper transition to the non-residential development across the
municipal boundary in Chaska.
The proposal would include a multi-family neighborhood homeowners
association. The end result would be the most desirable architectural standards
for extedor finishes and ongoing maintenance plans. Blighted neighborhood
situations would be avoided. We are open to reasonable architectural standards,
requirements, etc.
The housing product could be marketed toward "empty-nesters" who may
currently live in the community in single family dwellings which would like to stay
in the area without the hassle of extedor maintenance, lawn mowing, shoveling,
etc. The proposal would offer life-cycle housing and additional housing
opportunities in the community. The market for this type of product is continuing
· Page 3 Apnl 17, 2003
to do well, in fact cities like Victoda and Waconia along Highway 5 are seeing
more and more of this type of product in their cities.
In addition to the additional tax base, the City would benefit financially in other
ways. Aside from the sidewalks / trails, and open spaces that would be provided
on site, we would pay park fees based on the total number of units approved in
the plat. Also, sewer access and water access fees (SAC /WAC) are anticipated
as part of any approved development. The City may also have other
development related fees as part of the approval process. In a time when the
State continues to decrease local aid to municipalities, development related fees
may help to fill the gap.
The higher elevation may make an attractive site for future City water storage
needs, we would be willing to discuss the donation / dedication of land for any
such purposes as part of the development requirements.
Lastly, we would develop a townhome neighborhood using both public and
private streets. The end result of this scenado is less public maintenance and
capital costs to the City, a sham of maintenance, repairs, etc. would be paid by
the homeowners association rather than the City.
In addition the aforementioned advantages listed, a detailed financial analysis has
been included for your review.
We certainly appreciate your time and input on this matter. If you have any further
questions, comments, etc., please do not hesitate to call me. I can be reached at
(952) 425-1010, or by cellular phone (612.205.1226). Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Project Manager
Attachments:
concept plan, site location map, financial analysis, park & open space info.
Parkland / Open Space narrative:
Parks and open spaces are a vital part of our everyday lives. We reco~ their
importance and desire to include them as a major component of our proposed
development. Since the residents of this proposed development will choose a home that
does not have private land ownership, they will need public open space and parkland for
recreation and enjoyment.
Our proposed development takes into considemlion all ages and ability levels, city codes
and ADA standards will be incorporated. Some of our poss~le features may include:
1. Extensive t mil / sidewalk sy stem throughout the development and connections
into adjacent city parkland. This trail / sidewalk system will be landscaped and
will have resting areas such as benches, and overlooks, to fully maximi?~ the
recreational experience. All trails and sidewalks will meet the specifications in
the ADA guidelines.
2. Interpretive areas - Along the trail corridor, users will experience a cxmnection to
nature. We would like to add to their experience by offering interpretive signage
identifying certain plant species, hydrology, geology, etc. We would enjoy
working with the City's park department on this venture ifposm~ble.
3. Play structure area- We anticipate children within the development and wi~h to
construct and wish to provide recreational activities that meet their expectations.
All play structures will meet specifications in the ADA guidelines.
4. Spray park or "spmyground" - After researching the Chaahassen area, we were
unable to find a spray park. Spray parks are catching on across the nation as an
alternative t o community pools, t hey d o not pose t he sa me type o f safety and
staffing concerns that pools usually have. They are used by people of all ages
and can be used by people in wheelchairs. This proposed spray park can be
either an amenity enjoyed by those in the development and operated under the
homeowners association, or if the City would like, it can be dedicated to the City
for general city u sage. The exact 1 ocation o f the s pray p ark h as not yet b cam
determined. All elements of the spray park will meet the specifications in the
ADA guidelines.
5. Wintersleddinghill- Anareaofthesitefallsunderthespecificationsofthe
"bluff impact zone". We feel that thi~ area could be utiliT~l by people who wish
to enjoy sledding or snowboarding near their homes.
6. Picnic shelter- along the trail corridor, in a location where soils are suitable, we
wish to construct a picnic shelter for families or groups to enjoy near their
homes. This exact location is yet to be determined.
7. Overlook area(s) - This site contains changing topography which lends itself to
magnificent viewsheds. We would like to work with the City on the best
possible location(s).
8. Possible mini-golf area / putting green - An area for mini-golf and / or a putting
green may be set aside and created if there is interest.
9. Possible shuffleboard area- An area for shuffleboard may be set aside and
created if there is interest.
We are open to any other suggestions, ideas, etc.
Tollefson Proposal Page 1 of 1
Generous, Bob
From: Nelson, Joni [Joni. NelsonObestbuy.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 9:52 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: RE: Tollefson Proposal
Thanks Bob for o-mailing me..
I am very concerned with the project that has been proposed by Tollefson Development.
This is the 2nd time that a housing development has been proposed for l~e Office Industrial space. Chanhassen
needs to be patient and wait for the appropriate business project. We do not need any add'l housing to create an
even mom overcrowded school district and force our taxes higher than they already am.
This project goos way too close to tho power lines and will put too many people on Lyman Blvd. It will also
increase traffic on our paths and force out the wild life we all enjoy.
Please consider my comments to help TURN DOWN this project.
Jonl Nelson
LC: Tollefson Proposal
Jonl:
Comments can bo emalled to mo and I will pdnt them and include thom as an attachment to tho public
record. Staff is opposed to the proposed land use amendment. Schools are only one of the issues we
have. However, we will need residents to provide their comments so that the Planning Commission and
City Council hear from the public.
Attached is the concept plan submitted for the project.
Please contact mo if you have any questions or need additional Information.
Bob Generous
<<MATTSON.JPG>>
<<Generous, Bob.vcf>>
5/12/2~3
...
May 14, 2003
Mr. Bob Geaerous
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Bob:
Concerning the proposed development off of Lyman Blvd. By Tollefson Development, we want tn share
our opinion~ We are not in favor of this proposal for a number of reasons. These are outlined below:
The plan shows many housing units locat~ on and below the bluff facing the wetlamt park and creek.
In order to rosice this happen we believe that the developer will need to chan~ the geography and
virtually destroy the bluff.
.
When we start talking about ~ sqxutents, many of these new _s~__~ would attmxi Bluff Creek
Elementary. This likely would include yet another round of school boundaries. The smdems at Bluff
Creek have just recently gone through major boundary changes and as parents, we can ~___m-_-st to how
difficult it is on the kids.
.
This many residents moving into the area will put a strain on local services including utilities, public
safety, and schools while not expo~y im:reasi~ the tax base the city would receive from a new
office-industrial resident.
4. It seems as though the majority of the new housing construction in Chanhas~ recc-ntly has been
medium- and high-density consmaction- Do we really neo4__ more?
When we purchased our home we did so with the knowledge that the land was zoned office-imiusuiaL
We knew that at some point the land could be developed but that homes were not in the plan_ A new
industrial area would obviously result in some changes to the area but it was always our hope that the
bluff would remain and, along with it, the view and semi-privacy of this n~ighborhood.
Thank you for miring time to consider our point of view.
Sincerely,
Phil and Margaret Standafer
8767 Valley View lq, Chanhassen
952-368-9840
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL:
Proposed Development
APPLICANT: Tollefson Development, Inc.
LOCATION: Lyman Boulevard
NOTICE: You am invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Tollefson
Development, Inc. and Charles Mattson, am requesting a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from
Office-Industrial to Residential Medium Density and Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a 427 unit
townhome project on 94.8 acres located south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad east of Lyman Blvd. and
west of Bluff Creek on property currenlJy zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The appllcent will present plans on the project.
3. Comments am received from the public.
4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by Clty Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Bob at 952-227-1131. ffyou choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 8, 2003.
CHARLES W MATFSON
2870 WHEELER ST N
ROSEVILLE MN
55113
LEBRON K PATTERSON &
BEVERLY Y SMITH-PATTERSON
1748 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GEORGE W & CAROLE A PHILLIPPE
1711 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY C BOYCE &
TANA I ERICKSON
8941 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
DOUGLAS V & ANN M JOHNSON
PO BOX 83
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT M & KATHRYN S KEELER
1721 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES W MATTSON
2870 WHEELER ST N
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
JAMES M CULLEY &
SARA B TSCHIMPERLE
1772 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
CARL M JR & KlM A ILIFF
1731 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHASKA
CIO NOEL GRACZYK
1 CITY HALL PLAZA
CHASKA MN 55318
WILLIAM M & LAURJ J WEISMAN
1771 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS A & SUSAN A KODET
1741 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEAN & LOIS DEGLER
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
9111 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
CHRIS D & SUSAN A MONSON
1759 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JACK R BECKER &
DEBRA J TRONES
1751 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GAYLE & LOIS DEGLER
1630 LYMAN BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
THOMAS M & PENNY L RICE
1747 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEBORAH A HUM &
THOMAS O MAU
1761 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CIO BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICARDO A & RAYLENE S SEGURA
1740 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE H & CLARICE G FEIK
1773 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANTHONY D & PAMELA R STRAND
8640 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGORY W & SUSAN I PROVO
1762 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
OUTHAI SOLEYA &
DALOUNY KHOUENGBOUA
1700 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY T & JUANITA M SCRIBNER
1780 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL A & JULIE A SALENTINE
1784 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS J WINZENBURG &
LUCY L WINZENBURG
1710 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY S & KRISTI J STRANG
1701 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J & CAROL L FELLNER
1796 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD A & JILL M GATES
1795 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG H & HOLLY L MELL
8670 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHILIP D & MARGARET STANDAFER
8767 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD & JENNIFER HARMS
1783 VALLEY RIDGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOR C & LYNN M HEIMDAHL
8671 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY A & BARBARA A STRIKER
· 8755 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEBRA KAY NOTERMANN
1766 VALLEY RIDGE TRL I~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LAWRENCE P & HOLLY WHITE
8657 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAMELA K KERBER
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
8743 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JEFFREY B & PAULA A PETERS
1750 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY L & JENNIFER T BENKE
8643 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS S & SUSAN M TISCHER
8729 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOA LE CA
1738 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CAESAR JAMES CRUDUP
8712 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW J KAYATI III
BARBARA A KAYATI
8715 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ROBERT FU &
VIVIEN SHEN
1718 VALLEY RIDGE TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHEN B & SANDRA L MEYER
8724 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ABDALLAH A EL-SANJAK &
SAIWA S MATAR
1839 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG S & WENDY L O'CONNOR
1702 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS A & CINDY L MERRIGAN
8736 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK & LAURA THORNE
1827 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY D & JOYCE D THEIS
1696 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALVARO J & NANCY A GOMEZ
8748 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
P SCOTT & JENNIFER G PHARIS
1815 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL D MUFFENBIER &
MICHELLE M MUFFENBIER
8652 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAY & BARB~ GRIZZLE
8760 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN T & JANET K ST ANDREW
1811 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID A & ANGELA A PHILLIPS
8658 VALLEY RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL C & JENNIFER ANDERSON
8772 VALLEY VIEW PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICK L & SHARON M ARBOGAST
1801 VALLEY RIDGE TRL ~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SALLY E STUCKEY
1785 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES
8634 VALLEY VIEW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK K & RACHEL D ANDERSON
1797 VALLEY RIDGE TRL I~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J & BEVERLY ANGLUM
1841 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC & MELISSA NOYES
8622 VALLEY VIEW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK R & LAURA G JOHNSON
1807 VALLEY RIDGE TRL I~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KAPIL K & NEETA K RAJVANSHI
1848 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 5,5317
TODD M & JONI J NELSON
8610 VALLEY VIEW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J & MARY M YAZCEC
1813 VALLEY RIDGE TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGG J & AMY M KLOKE
1836 VALLEY RIDGE TRL 8
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEBRA LYNN LUDFORD
8615 VALLEY VIEW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY G GEEHAN
1819 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DUANE D & MARY JO CHAMBERS
1824 VALLEY RIDGE TRL 8
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENNETH A & MARCIA S STRAND
8631 VALLEY VIEW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHEAVANH SOUVANNALATH &
HATHAPHONE SOUVANNALATH
1829 VALLEY RIDGE TRL !~
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY & BRENDA MOORE
1812 VALLEY RIDGE TRL 8
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL K & KERI L JOHNSON
1806 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LDW PROPERTIES LLC
1340 PARK RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID R & CHERRI A SALTZMAN
1800 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN F & PATRICIA G VANNUCCl
1798 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CATS PAW INVESTMENT LLC
1851 WEST LAKE DI~UITE 250
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS R & AMY B EDSTROM
1834 VALLEY RIDGE TRL k
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK A & NANCIANN S OLSON
1792 VALLEY RIDGE TRL k
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LYNDELL F & MARY F FREY
1822 VALLEY RIDGE TRL k
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM B & TERRE D KEMBLE
1782 VALLEY RIDGE TRL k
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES W MATrSON
2870 WHEELER ST N
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
GREGORY S & SHELLY M SCALLON
1814 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KRISTOPHER E & MINDI L H DAHL
1774 VALLEY RIDGE TRL h
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CIO BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL & JACQUELINE R MROSKO
2305 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MERLE D & JANE YOLK
16925 CO RD 40
CARVER MN
5,5315
MICHAEL J & JOANNE COCHRANE
1751 SUN RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT T & NICOLE M BRUSH
2301 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
EDWARD E & ELLEN L RAWSON
2266 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DENNIS & RUTH CHADDERDON
8900 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RUDOLPH T & JEAN A I_ARSON
2291 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & CHERYL A HARTMAN
TRUSTEES OF C A HARTMAN TRUST
2254 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPJEN J & MARY P MONSON
8850 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J & MARY C KRAFT
2279 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 5,5317
MERLE L & ELIZABETH J OELKE
2242 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHRIS B & LESLIE J ERICKSON
1831 SUNRIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY J & KARLA M ALTHOFF
2326 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERHARD G & SALLIE L BERGESON
~0 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL K & ROBIN L EDMUNDS
1861 SUNRIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 5,5317
DOUGLAS V & CHRISTINE JOHNSON
2322 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT D & MICHELLE A BARTOS
2208 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER S RISER &
SABRINA D RISER
2321 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES M & JENNIFER D LARRANAGA
2318 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHAD A & JULIE M EVEN
2198 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS G & SARAH P HIPSKIND
2317 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DONALD W & CATHY BORGMANN
2308 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS M & CAROLYN D THOMSON
2186 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RORY D & AMY J LEA
2313 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN T & SONYA A BENKSTEIN
2292 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY N & TERRI L RENDALL
2174 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERHARD & HELENE A SCHOCK
2309 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL D & BETTY WRIGHT
2280 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENNETH D & DIANNE W KEMP
2162 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD HALL ROWLAND
2267 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CIO BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J KRYCH &
CAROLYN J TICHEY-KRYCH
2127 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL J & NANCY R LYNCH
2255 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN T MORAN
2150 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
CHAD M & JILL C HAKE
2115 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT H & SUE J FERRELL
2243 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG T KURVERS &
MARGARET A MCGOUGH
2136 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK R & CARLEEN A I_APINSKI
2103 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY L FELDICK &
DONNA G NOVAK
2231 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM J & ANGELA J LAWRENCE
2122 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD D & CHRISTINE M BALM
2093 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHADWICK HOUWMAN
2219 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J & CHRISTINE R FINN
2108 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD W & JANICE K CRAWFORD
2079 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LUIS O SISON JR
SIRIWAN CHUTIKAMOLTHAM
2207 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAYSON & JEANE3-rE KIRMEIER
2094 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHILIP DAVIS &
KELLY L MCDONOUGH-DAVIS
2252 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID HESTER &
RENEE STEWART-HESTER
2199 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID J & LISA M KIRKBRIDE
2080 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES P & KELLY M WHITE
2238 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD M & DEBORAH S DOLAN
2187 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J & KATHLEEN C BATTIS
2066 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS R & SANDRA E SCHMALL
2224 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRADLEY J & RENEE L VANBERGEN
2175 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY R & KAREN H JONES
2151 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICK J & CAROLYN H TOMMINS
2210 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM D & MICHELE L HAAS
2163 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOR E SMITH
2139 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG J & DEBORAH J FORNERIS
2196 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALAN D & CHARLENE S SHERWOOD
2182 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALBERT B & JANET K BEETY
2193 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
EUGENE C & JAN M KRUCHOSKI
2030 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GILBERT JR & SUZANNE CASTANEDA
2168 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM D & LEZLIE M DAWSON
TRUSTEES OF W D DAWSON TRUST
2181 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY R & EDITH M STEARNS
2052 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL M & KATHRYN E SKROVE
2154 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R & DANA B HOWE
2169 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THEO A & TERRY L JENSON
2065 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER T HARTWIGSEN &
VICTORIA S HARTWIGSEN
2140 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & PAMELA E SCHWARZ
2157 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JONATHAN C TURNER &
KAREN J KENNEDY
2051 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID W & LYNNETTE A BAILEY
2273 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEAN L & SHELLEY L BUSSEY
2145 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS TODD COOK &
ALISON CAULEY COOK
2037 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS E & DIANNA M WEILAND
2259 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID & JACQUELINE VERETTE
2133 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT L MEYER
2023 BOULDER RD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
FRANK JR & KATHLEEN BOUDREAUX
CIO COURTLAND REAL ESTATE
1107 HAZELTINE BL~I]IITE 535-MD12
CHASKA MN 55318
PAUL & LINDA SPEKMAN
2121 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARVIN V & CAROLE J LUECK
2019 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KAJ & JODI M DOERRING
2231 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN T & KELLY A LABATT
2109 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIK M & LISA A MAGNUSON
2001 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL L & LYNETTE M ERICKSON
2217 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD S & LAURIE A BLUM
2081 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANA R BENSON &
JOLENE K SATRE
2203 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID M & LORI J KENDALL
2063 STONE CREEK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOWARD K RIEBLING &
CYNTHIA PENA-RIEBLING
2214 STONE CREEK LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHADWICK G & NANCY A HANSON
2222 STONE CREEK LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LARRY B BENNETT
8950 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY W & GAlL H MOODY
1800 SUN RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317