7. Town & Country Homes First Addition: Land Use Plan Amendment, Conceptual and Preliminary PUD, Rezoning, SIte Plan and Wetland Alteration Permit.CITY OF DATE: 6/5/96
6/19/96
C S C DATE: 7/8/96
SEN
ASE #: 96 -2 PUD, 96 -5 SPR,
95 -1b LUP, and 95 -2b WAP
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:' Mixed medium density residential and industrial office development on 45.21 acres, a land
use .plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 ± acres from office /industrial to residential medium density,
conceptual and preliminary PUD approval for a mixed townhome and office - industrial development,
rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit . Development, site plan approval for 140
townhome units, a wetland alteration permit, and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and associated
right -of -way, Town & Country Homes First Addition.
,a
LOCATION: The northwest corner of Lyman and Galpin Blvd.
APPLICANT: Town and Country Homes
6800 France Avenue South, Suite 170
Edina, MN 55435
(612) 925 -3899
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: gross: 45.21 acres netoess wetlands, 3.7 ac., and ROW, 8.96 ac.): 32.55 acres
DENSITY: 7.1 units /acre (gross), 8.17 units /acres (net)
ADJ CENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Trotters Ridge, single - family homes
e S - A2, Lyman Boulevard and Holasek's nursery
E - RSF, Galpin Blvd. and Stone Creek Add., single- family
W - Industrial. Park in Chaska
r
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
1.
`s
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property has farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of the site;
mining and excavating operation on the western and southwest portions of the property; and landscaping
operation is located on the central portion of the property. A house is located in the southeast corner of the
property. Three large wetland areas are located in the east central, northwest, and southwest of the property.
The site is significantly wooded in the north central area. The property has a high point of approximately.
980 feet the north central and low point of 940 feet iri the southwest comer of the property. The property
is bounded by Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
rage �
PROPOSAUSUMMARY
The applicant, Town & Country Homes, is requesting conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit
Development, PUD, approval for a mixed office /industrial and townhome development on 45.21
acres of land. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6± acres'
from office /industrial to residential - medium.density, rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to
PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan�approval for 140 townhome units, a wetland alteration
permit to fill and excavate and mitigate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat approval creating 24
lots and associated right -of -way. The proposed development is called Town & Country Homes
First Addition.
The office /industrial component of the development consists of two lots of 6.29 and 9:4 acres.
Separate site plan approvals will be required for each of the two lots - subject to the development
parameters contained herein. Staff estimates the office /industrial development will be between.
100,000 and 150,000 square feet which represents a F.A.R. of 0.14 - 0.22. The square footage,
could be increased if the development were to incorporate two or three story buildings.
The proposed townhouse units are proposed as condominium type units in ten 6 -unit and ten 8 -unit
structures. The townhomes. will be developed on lots ranging from 125 to 155 feet in width with lot
depths of 72 feet. Each lot will accommodate either 6- or 8 -unit structures. Each home will have a
minimum of a one car garage.' The majority of units will be slab on grade, with some.lookout and
walkout units depending on topography. The estimated base price for units will range from
$85,000 to $115,000 which would meet the criteria established by the Metropolitan Council for
housing affordability. Staff believes that the final range will be between $85,000 and $150,000
with the higher values for the end units, which are larger, and the walkout and lookout units,
and units with basements.
The net developable acreage for the residential portion of the development is approximately 17.8
acres. This acreage permits a total number of units of 142 to comply with the medium density land
use being requested which permits a maximum net density of 8.0 units per acre.
Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment, the concept and preliminary.PUD the
site plan, and the wetland alteration be approved with the modifications to the plan and the
conditions of approval contained in this report. Development design standards are being
established for the future development of the site as well as for the review of the current
application for the residential component.
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 1995, $cherber Partnership Properties, requested a land use map amendment
from Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density; a rezoning to Single Family Residential,
RSF, and preliminary plat approval to permit 59 single - family ;lots. City staff recommended
denial of the land use map amendment and consequently the rezoning and subdivision. The
'I
I.
. I
1
1
' Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
' Page 3
' Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the development, and the City
Council tabled the item, with the consent of the applicant, to permit staff and the applicant to
work out a compromise for the development of the parcel. However, in February, 1996, the
applicant formally withdrew the development application.
As part of the discussion of the proposed single - family development, City Council directed that
' the following issues be looked at:
• The possibility of buffering the existing single - family developments to the north and east of
the site through the inclusion of higher density residential or a mixed use development with
residential to the north and industrial to the south.
' • Tree preservation, wetland protection, and minimization of the site grading.
• Tax and expenditure consequences of the change from office /industrial to residential as well
' as the overall balance and viability of the community.
On February 13, 1987, the City Council approved CUP #87 -1 for a landscape contractor's yard
' and a wholesale nursery and a variance to permit a contractor's yard within one mile of an
existing contractor's yard (on the same property) subject to the following conditions:
' 1. The hours of operation shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday - through
Saturday and work on Sundays or holidays is not permitted.
' 2. All truck traffic leaving the site must be southbound on County Road 117 and
truck traffic entering the site must be northbound on County Road 117.
' 3. Outdoor lighting and speakers are not permitted.
' 4. Berming and landscaping shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated
January 22, 1987.
' 5. Any expansion of the operation shall require a conditional use permit.
On November 19, 1984, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), #84 -13, to
' permit a contractor's yard for R & W Sanitation on the southeasterly 32 acres of the site. Such
approval included the storage and repair of garbage trucks. The CUP was subject to the
condition that "Any expansion of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or an
' increase in the number of vehicles beyond what is represented in request #84 -13 must be
approved by a conditional use permit. The property was zoned R -IA, Agricultural Residence
District.
On November 12, 1980, a rezoning request from R -lA to I -1 on the parcel was considered by the '
Planning Commission. At that meeting, the request was revised to an ordinance amendment to
permit contractors' businesses and storage yards as conditional uses in the R -lA district. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council subsequently ,
denied the request on January 5, 1981.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 4
'
On November 19, 1984, the City Council also approved CUP #84 -14 for a contractor's yard for
Mr. Volk to include the storage and repair of construction equipment for Volk Trucking and
Excavating. The permit was issued subject to the following conditions:
'
1. All equipment must be stored within the confines of the yard area as identified on
the submitted site plan and must be kept out of site (sic) from adjacent properties.
'
2. Any enlargement of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or
an increase in the number of vehicles beyond what has been submitted in this
'
application must be approved by a conditional use permit.
3. Unlicensed, junk vehicles must be placed in an enclosed building or removed
'
from the premises.
4. Installation of evergreens along and on top of the berm on the south side of the
'
yard.
In April, 1982, the property owner, Volk, applied for a building permit to reconstruct a pole barn
'
which had collapsed due to heavy snow. The building permit was denied because the storage and
repair of excavating equipment in the pole barn was not a permitted use in the R -lA district at
'
that time. Mr. Volk petitioned the Council on May 17, 1982 to issue the building permit. The
City Council approved the issuance of the building permit subject to Mr. Volk applying for a
rezoning request from R -lA to I -1. Mr. Volk made an application for the rezoning and a
'
comprehensive land use plan amendment. On June 25, 1982, the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the request. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the
applicant have the option of returning to the Planning Commission with a CUP request. The City
'
Council considered the request on October 4, 1982. The Council tabled the item until staff
completed a survey of all contractors' yards as well as other non - conforming uses in the city. The
City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as CUPS in the R -1 A
'
zone on August 20, 1984.
On November 12, 1980, a rezoning request from R -lA to I -1 on the parcel was considered by the '
Planning Commission. At that meeting, the request was revised to an ordinance amendment to
permit contractors' businesses and storage yards as conditional uses in the R -lA district. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council subsequently ,
denied the request on January 5, 1981.
Town and Country Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 5
' SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The property has abandoned farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of the site;
' abandoned mining and excavating operation on the western and southwest portions of the
property; and a landscaping operation is located on the central portion of the property. A house
is located in the southeast corner of the property. Three large wetland areas are located in the
' east central, northwest, and southwest of the property. The site is significantly wooded in the
north central area. The property has a high point of approximately 980 feet in the north central
and low point of 940 feet in the southwest corner of the property. The property is bounded by
' Galpin and Lyman Boulevards.
REZONING /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 acres of the
property from Office/Industrial to Residential - Medium Density. This property was one of four
' areas that was designated for Office/Industrial use as part of the 1991 comprehensive plan
update. At that time, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant industrial land in
Chanhassen. For the continued well being of the community and in the interest of promoting a
balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a plan that would accommodate a reasonable
amount of industrial office development in the future. With that goal in mind, the city assessed
where it would be reasonable to allow this development to occur. In undertaking the analysis, the
' location of existing industrial office development in Chaska was reviewed, existing and proposed
roads and highways necessary to provide high levels of access were assessed, and the need to
provide the buffering of existing residential neighborhoods were examined in detail.
' The result of the analysis was to add additional office /industrial land totaling 638 acres for a total
Y g
' industrial land use area of 1,099 acres representing 8.2 percent of the city's total land area of
13,327 acres. The proposed amendment would eliminate 22.6 acres of office /industrial land
from the city. This represents approximately two percent of the office /industrial land in the city
' or 0.2 percent of the city's total land area.
In 1992, the American Planning Association undertook a study of land use ratios in 66
' municipalities. The summary of this survey was published in the American Planning
Association, PAS Memo of August 1992. Industrial land use ratios for communities under
100,000 averaged seven percent with a range of 0 to 25 percent. Included in the study was a
' summary of a land use study by Eisner and Associates of land use ratios compiled between 1939
and 1985. The Eisner study showed a range of industrial land uses between 10 and 11 percent.
It is illustrative to look specifically at two communities: Columbia, Maryland, a 1960s planned
community, and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, an upper midwest community comparable in population
to Chanhassen. Columbia's residential land use components is 43 percent of its land area. Its
t
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996 '
Page 6
commercial and industrial land uses represent 20 percent of the land area. It is assumed that the '
uses are evenly distributed between commercial and industrial. Oak Creek's land uses are
distributed as follows: residential - 37 percent, commercial - 8 percent, and industrial - 12
percent. Chanhassen's land use ratios are as follows: residential - 42.2 percent, commercial - 2.1 '
percent, and industrial - 8.2 percent. As can be seen, Chanhassen's industrial and commercial
components are smaller than either of these communities, while its residential component is
proportionate to both of the communities. These ratios will also be considered when we examine '
future land use of properties currently outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA).
Staff believes that in this instance the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the
'
community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an
appropriate tax base mix, providing a range of employment opportunities, and providing for
lifecycle and affordable housing opportunities. The applicant has proposed a development that is
'
unique to the community and fills a niche in the housing needs for either current or future
residents of the city. This subdivision attempts to maintain the natural features of the site,
locating the residential development in a compact design in the more environmentally sensitive
,
areas of the site and locating the office /industrial uses in the more open and currently impacted
areas. The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development locating multi - family that meets
some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant has proposed a development that
'
includes both industrial and residential properties within the site, placing industrial lots on the
southern portion of the site in areas that are less desirable for residential development adjacent to
the expanding industrial property to the south and Lyman Boulevard and residential on the
'
northern portion of the site adjacent to Trotters Ridge.
This site was designated for office /industrial use partially because it was being used for non- '
residential and non - agricultural purposes and was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming
from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two collector roadways, providing ,
high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive
buffering between industrial uses and single - family residential.
Financial Impact '
Staff has performed the tax revenue analysis of the proposed development by Town & County '
versus an entire industrial office development on the site. Since valuation of the property can
only be estimated at this time, staff has provided a range for residential and industrial uses. For
the Town & Country development, staff estimates residential property values at an average of ,
$100,000 and office industrial square footages at 150,000, which represents a floor area ratio of
0.22. For an entire office /industrial development, staff estimates building square footages at
140,000 square and 338,000 square feet. These industrial square footages represent floor area '
ratios of 0.086 and 0.209, respectively. Based on gross acreage of the site (46.27 acres), these
ratios are 0.069 and 0.168, respectively. Asa comparison, the estimated floor area ratio for
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 7
Chanhassen Business Center is 0.149 (13.85 acres of building divided by 93.02 acres of land) for
the gross site area.
Residential:
Town & Country
Value:
$100,000
One Percent of first $72,000
720
Two percent of balance
560
Subtotal
$1,280
Tax Capacity 149 percent
$1,907.2
Multiply by 142 units
$270,822.40
City's share of taxes 20 percent
$54,164.48
Office/Industrial
Building Square Footage
150,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot
$5,250,000
Three percent of first $100,000
$3,000
4.6% of balance
$236,900
Tax Capacity 137%
$357,451
City's share of taxes 20 percent
$71,490.20
City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent
$178,725.50
Total Tax Revenues:
without TIF
$125,654.68
with TIF
$232,889.98
Office/Industrial
Building Square Footage
140,000 338,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot
$000,000 $11,830,000
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
'
Page 8
Three percent of first $100,000 3,000 3,000
'
4.6 percent of balance 220,800 539,580
Subtotal $223,800 $542,580
$33,462 $808,444.20
,
Tax Capacity 149 percent
City's share of taxes 20 percent $66,692.40 $161,688.84
'
City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent $166,731 $404,222.10
'
(In order to facilitate industrial development, the city may establish a TIF district. That is the
reason for including the TIF tax share figure. These figures represent the impact of fiscal
disparities on industrial office development because the city currently is a net beneficiary of
'
fiscal disparities. It should also be pointed out that the majority of these tax dollars would be
used to retire debt incurred within the district, rather than as an increase to the general fund.
'
However, the use of a TIF district permits the city to perform infrastructure improvements, e.g.,
purchase of parks and the building of trails, roadways, stormwater facilities, or utility extensions,
that would normally require the use of other funding sources.)
'
Other potential revenues that are impacted are enterprise funds for water and sewer usage.
Industrial developments are large users of these services and pay higher rates than residential
'
developments. Nor does this analysis quantify the spillover benefits from industrial
development. Nonresidential development, generally, brings in additional dollars in the
community from employees and visitors. All industrial development creates an economic
'
multiplier for the local economy which has the effect of magnifying the fiscal benefits of each
dollar of wages that are put into the industry. Without industrial and commercial employment,
local residential development would be unable to support the existing level of retail and service
'
industries in the community, not to mention the additional commercial development that is being
planned and development.
'
At resent we are unable to determine the expenditure side of the fiscal impact equation in
A p P
Chanhassen. However, based on a study in "Land Patterns," Winter 1996, residential
development averaged $1.04 in expenditures for every $1.00 in revenues and commercial
'
industrial developments averaged $0.39 for every $1.00 in revenue. This represents a net
revenue of $41,442.45 for the Town & Country development of both residential and
office /industrial and a net revenue of $40,682.36 to $98,630.20 for an office /industrial
,
development only of the entire parcel.
Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be approved.
,
Town and Count ry Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 9
' REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 45 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate, to
PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are two components to the PUD: industrial /office and
' medium density residential. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request.
The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
' the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
' FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
' 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
' Finding The proposed development is preserving and enhancing the major wetlands on
site. Significant areas of woodland are being preserved along Galpin Boulevard, to the
' west of the easterly wetland, and between the office /industrial and residential area in the
center of the project. The development utilizes topographic changes by stepping
buildings up the slopes.
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 proposed development effectively mixes residential and office /industrial
land uses, incorporating topographic and vegetative areas to transition the uses. Large
' areas will remained undisturbed in their natural states.
Findin . The office /industrial portion of the site is consistent with the comprehensive
'
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
'
Page 10
'
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
,
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
'
Finding. The proposed development incorporates topographic and vegetative areas to
'
transition the uses. In addition, the low density residential development to the north
transitions to medium density residential then office /industrial uses. The proposed
development is sensitive in the treatment of the site, preserving large areas of undisturbed
'
natural areas and minimizing the grading of the site by matching to a large extent the
existing topography of the site.
,
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findin . The office /industrial portion of the site is consistent with the comprehensive
'
plan. The applicant is requesting a land use map amendment for the residential portion of
the development. The proposed residential development complies with many elements of
the comprehensive plan including community development, land use, housing, and
'
transportation goals and policies.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
'
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. While no public park space is being provided in the development, the applicant
is creating large areas of open space on site as well as trail connections and sidewalks to
'
the city's trail system along Galpin and Lyman Boulevards.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
'
Findin . The estimated price for units will range from $85,000 to $115,000 which would
meet the criteria established by the Metropolitan Council for housing affordability.
'
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
'
Finding . The proposed development conserves energy through the mixture of land uses
in a compact area. Site design preserves topography and existing woodlands to provide
'
natural shading and wind blocks for winter.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
,
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 11
Finding. The proposed development incorporates a commercial cross section for street A
and a local cross section for streets B and C. Pedestrian trails and sidewalk will be
provided in the development to separate motorized and non - motorized traffic.
Appropriate traffic control signage shall be installed in the development.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements. The site's unique features can be better protected through the
use of narrower street right -of -way and reduced front yard setbacks. The flexibility in standards
allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return
for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, trees, and topographical
features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The applicant, Town & Country Homes, is proposing a Planned Unit Development, PUD, for a
mixed office /industrial and townhome development on 45.21 acres of land. The applicant is
requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 + acres from office /industrial to
' residential - medium density, rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit
Development, site plan approval for 140 townhome units, a wetland alteration permit to fill and
excavate and mitigate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and
' associated right -of -way. The proposed development is called Town & Country Homes First
Addition.
The office /industrial component of the development consists of two lots of 6.29 and 9.4 acres.
Separate site plan approvals will be required for each of the two lots subject to the development
parameters contained herein.
The proposed townhouse units are proposed as condominium type units in ten 6 -unit and ten 8 -unit
structures. The majority of units being proposed are rambler type units. However, where existing
site elevations permit, lookout and walkout type units will be included. End units in structures
contain two -car garages with central units containing single -car garages. The end units of each
structure are two story units with interior units being stacked, single -level units. Front elevations
consist of face brick on the lower levels with vinyl siding. The applicant has proposed using five
different exterior color packages for the structures (attached) with an entire structure incorporating
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 12
one package. Roof lines are varied and differentiated in orientation. Structures can be shifted
horizontally along slopes with changes in finished floor elevations varied up to three feet within an
individual structure.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
RESIDENTIAL
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD medium density residential. The use of the PUD
zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more
sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for
development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined
below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to 140 townhouse units and a private or public
park area.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building
Galpin Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback
C, 50'
Street A: Buffer yard & Setback
B, 25'
Street B: Buffer yard & Setback
B, 20'
Street C: Buffer yard & Setback
B, 20'
Perimeter Lot Line (adjacent to industrial)
C, 50'
Perimeter Lot Line (adjacent to residential):
Buffer yard & setback
B, 50'
No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 13
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for medium density residential uses.
The maximum building height shall be three (3) stories and forty (40) feet
e. Building Materials and Design
The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, vinyl siding, decorative block, or approved equivalent as
determined by the city.
3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or
with landscaping.
5. Variation in building facade shall be provided through architectural detailing including
the use of half round and square window treatments, circular, half round, and square or
rectangular attic vents, and the vertical breaking of structures.
L Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. The buffer yard plantings, in
particular, need to be established immediately.
2. All open spaces and non - impervious surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, covered
with plantings and/or lawn material, or left in natural condition.
3. Storage of material outdoors must be screened with wood or masonry fences and/or
landscaping to 100 percent opacity from property outside the plat.
g. Signage
1 One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development. which shall not
exceed twenty -four (24) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 14
height and shall be located on Galpin Boulevard. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
h. Lighting
Lighting should be consistent throughout the development. The plans do not provide for
street lighting. The City requires the developer to install street lights throughout the street
system.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with an ornamental,
natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone
is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as
defined below. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City
Council shall make that interpretation.
1. Light Industrial The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or
testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure,
with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding
environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants.
u
2. Warehousing Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property entirely
within an enclosed structure. I
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 15
3. Office Professional and business office, non - retail activity except for showroom type
display area for products stored or manufactured on -site provided that no more than 20
percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building Parkins
Galpin Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback
C, 50'
50'
Lyman Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback
C, 50'
50'
Street A: Buffer yard & Setback
B, 30'
30'
Interior Side Lot Line (adjacent to industrial):
Buffer yard & setback
B, 30'
20
L tenor Side Lot Line (adjacent to residential):
yard & setback
D, 50'
50'
No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses.
2. More than one (1) principal structure,may be placed on one (1) platted lot.
3. The maximum building height shall be four (4) stories and fifty (50) feet
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels,
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 16
decorative block, or approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be
introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement
( "cinder ") blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials
or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with
material compatible to the building.
7. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid
wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color,
fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in
keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory
structures.
L Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and
plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the
higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be
screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of
the site plan review process.
2. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered
with plantings and/or lawn material.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited.
0
0
u
' Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
' Page 17
' 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to Tin height, south of Street A and along Galpin and
Lyman Boulevards shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility
construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be
' required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required
boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
' 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
g. Signage
1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. One Industrial Office Park
' identification sign shall be permitted for the development which shall not exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height and shall
be located on Lyman Boulevard. Each lot is permitted one low profile ground business
' sign. Such sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus
should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color,
size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be
introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. The
' applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
' 3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous industrial
parks /roadways, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the
street system.
2.
A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with an ornamental,
natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be
used in the private areas.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 18
1
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 I
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
WETLANDS
There appears to be five wetland basins on site. Staff requires a wetlands report documenting the
character, locations, types of wetlands, and alternatives to the plan to try to avoid impacts. The
applicant has hired a delineator to prepare a report and will be required to provide the City a copy
of the delineation report prior to final plat approval. Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of
the wetlands as they appear on the grading plan.
The wetlands on site can be broken into five separate basins that are described as follows:
Wetland A - is located in the northwest corner of the site. The northern part of this wetland is
located on the Trotter's Ridge development. It is an ag/urban wetland and does not appear to be
directly impacted by the proposed plan. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot
wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin.
Wetlands B and C - are located on the east side of the property and are aligned north to south along
Galpin Boulevard. These basins are classified as ag/urban. They have been heavily grazed and
cropped over the years and have previously been identified as a candidate for a wetland restoration
project. It appears that these basins B and C were connected at one time. Wetland B has been
identified to act as a utilized wetland in the City's Surface Water Runoff Plan (SWMP). Wetland C
will be filled as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation is proposed on the south west corner of
Wetland B. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average
buffer width of 10 feet around the existing and created basins.
Wetland D - is located in the southwest corner of the property. It is an ag/urban wetland that will
not be directly impacted as a result of the proposed plan, however, the current earthwork operation
which has occurred in the past has impacted this wetland and needs to be restored. The applicant
will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet
around the basin. This area has also been proposed to act as a nutrient trap in the City's SWMP
recommendations. However, staff is requiring a pretreatment pond which the applicant has shown
on the plans.
Wetland E - is located in the west central part of the site in an area that is heavily wooded. This
wetland has not been given a classification, and will be evaluated after the city receives the wetland
report. If it is classified as a natural wetland, a buffer "strip of 10 to 30 feet wide with an average
buffer width of 20 feet around the basin is required. Approximately 3/4 of the wetland (4,498
1
J
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 19
square feet) is proposed to be filled to meet building setbacks. If this wetland is classified a natural
wetland, staff would like to see alternatives to this presumed avoidable impact.
Miti ag tion
On April 12, 1996, the Governor of Minnesota signed into law amendments to the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act. The new rules will be in effect for the next 60 days along with the existing
laws. The new law increases the de minimis exemption (the amount of impact not regulated)
from 400 square feet to 2,000 square feet.
The City of Chanhassen ordinances are written to comply with the 1991 version of the Wetland
Conservation Act. Because the City of Chanhassen has not adapted these changes to its
ordinances, nor have they carefully discussed the impacts such an exemption would have, City
staff has decided to take a discretionary approach to approving this exemption, on a project to
project basis. Because the City has been a leader in the state in the field of wetland and surface
water management, we feel it may defeat the purpose of previous work to approve such an
exemption before studying its impacts on the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
The applicant has proposed the following mitigation plan for the 0.11 acre of fill to Wetland C and
Wetland E: Of the 5,012 square feet of wetlands that are proposed to be filled, the applicant is
requesting 2,000 square feet be exempt under new WCA rules. Mitigation would then be
completed at a 2:1 ratio of the remaining 3,012 square feet. This would create 6,024 square feet of
new wetlands that would be added on to the existing Wetland B. Since the mitigation area will
expand Wetland B, City staff would like to see restoration of the existing wetland as a condition of
approval.
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands
located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a
minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to
20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these
wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance.
' The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the
applicant $20 per sign.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP serves as a tool to
protect, preserve, and enhance the City's water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater
quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future .
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996 '
Page 20
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year
'
design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William
,
Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An
ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land
'
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to deter-
'
mine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
Credits will be given if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's
'
The City requires storm water quantity calculations for pre and post developed conditions and water
q
quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat. After review of the calculations, the City
'
will make recommendations for approval of the stormwater plan in accordance with the SWMP.
'
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication
,
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon
a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
'
The water quality charge has been calculated at $ $1,530 /acre for a townhome with 3 to 8 units.
Credits will be given if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's
'
SWMP standards. The total fee will be determined at the time of final platting.
'
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an
average, city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all
'
proposed SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas
for temporary runoff storage. Medium density developments will have a connection charge
of $2,975 per developable acre. The connection charges will be calculated after review of
t
the final construction plans and will be due at the time of final plat recording.
GRADING
'
The developer and staff have been working together in designing a development plan which
minimizes impacts to the site characteristics, i.e. trees, wetlands, and site grades. The grading
,
plan submitted incorporates design elements as a part of our meetings. Staff believes the grading
plan minimizes the site grading over the residential component as much as possible. This area
has been designed to take advantage of the site's characteristics by proposing a number of
'
different building unit styles, i.e. walkouts, lookouts, and rambler -type dwellings to conform with
existing grades thus minimizing grading. Staff is in support of the preliminary grading plan as
shown.
' Town and Country Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 21
The commercial/industrial component (Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3) will be mass graded
with the exception of vegetative areas in the easterly portion of Lot 1, Block 2. This portion of
the site is fairly void of vegetation and grading is necessary to prepare site for
' commercial/industrial use. These lots may be subject to further alteration when individual site
plans actually are submitted for review and approval.
' A berm is proposed to be located adjacent to Lyman Boulevard on the south side of Lot 1, Block
3. On Lot 2, Block 1, the site is proposed to be leveled off by taking the average grade of the lot
which is proposed to be 11 feet lower then the residential component to the north and east. This
' grade separation will provide added buffer between the residential and industrial use.
DRAINAGE
The plans propose a series of catch basins to convey stormwater runoff to three stormwater
quality treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands. Given the grade differences on
the property, the three ponds are warranted. Storm sewers are proposed to "link" the wetlands
together to maintain water levels throughout the development.
' The City of Chaska has also requested that some site improvements be incorporated into the
development to alleviate current drainage problems along the west side of the site. Based on the
drainage plans it appears the applicant has attempted to address Chaska's concerns by installing
the storm sewer system along the westerly property line. This should be worked out with the
City of Chaska prior to final plat approval.
' The stormwater ponds will need to be designed and constructed with side slopes of either 4:1
overall or a 10:1 bench for the first 10 feet at the normal water level and 3:1 slopes thereafter for
' safety purposes. It appears the plans have incorporated the 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 bench at
the normal water level. Detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events
along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PondNet methodology shall be submitted to
' staff for review and approval. Outlet control structures for water quality and emergency
overflow may be required for the wetlands.
' At the time of final plat submittal, staff will be reviewing final construction drawings which may
require minor changes to the storm drainage system. One such change could be to relocate the
storm sewer outlet between Lots 20 and 21 to the easterly side of Lot 21 for ease of maintenance
' and access. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all utilities outside the street
right -of -way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Access to the ponding areas
for maintenance have been addressed.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 22
EROSION CONTROL
The preliminary grading and drainage plan does propose erosion control measures throughout the
development. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to the wetlands and steep slope
areas. Additional erosion control measures shall be incorporated on the final grading plan
submittal for example between the berm proposed on Lot 1, Block 3 and Street A.
All disturbed areas as a result of construction will need to be reseeded and mulched within two
weeks after site grading is completed. The entire site must be graded prior to issuance of
building permits with the exception of one model home permitted adjacent to a hard surfaced
street.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water services is available to the site from Galpin Boulevard. In
addition, a 12 -inch water line has been extended southerly from Trotters Ridge in the northeast
corner of the development assuming commercial development. Even though the land use has
changed, the applicant should propose to extend this watermain to loop the watermain in Street C
and modify the watermain diameter to an 8 -inch water line in C Street. Upon completion of the
utilities in this development, they will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership.
Detailed construction plans and specifications of the utility and street improvements should be
submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review. The construction plans and
specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. The developer will also need to enter into a development
contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements.
The site has existing wells and septic systems which will need to be abandoned in accordance
with local and state health guidelines.
ST_
The site is proposed to be serviced with a looped street system for the commercial /industrial area
and two cul -de -sacs in the residential component. Staff has met with the applicant and agreed to
compromise the 60 -foot right -of -way width down to 50 feet in the residential area (Streets B and
C) to minimize impacts to the environmental features of the site. Street A right -of -way will be
60 -feet in accordance with City ordinance. The street widths on Streets B and C, however, will
remain the City's standard width of 31 feet. Street A is proposed to be constructed in accordance
with the City's commercial/industrial standards which is 36 -feet wide, face -to -face concrete curb
and gutter and to a 9 -ton street design. Staff has reviewed the street layout and finds the
1
r
' Town and Count ry Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 23
alignments acceptable. Staff will further review the street, utility and drainage plans with the
final construction plan submittal in conjunction with final plat review.
' Decorative landscaped islands are proposed in both cul -de -sacs. The island radiuses may not
exceed 12 feet in order to maintain turning radiuses for the fire apparatuses. Also, the cul -de-
sacs will have to be posted for no parking to ensure free traffic lanes.
' TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING
Applicant has submitted plans for tree removal and landscaping for the residential and
industrial/commercial areas of the development. Since tree preservation requirements are
different between the two uses, canopy coverage calculations have been done for each of the land
use areas rather than the development as a whole. Staff has made the following calculations:
Residential Industrial /Commercial
Total Land Area 22.6 ac. 16.59 ac.
(Area +ROW - wetland)
Existing Cover 8.68 ac. 2.66 ac.
(% coverage) (48 %) (20 %)
Required Minimum Cover 6.78 ac.
(% coverage) (30 %)
Proposed Removal 5.63 ac.
Remaining Coverage 3.05 ac.
(% coverage) (13 %)
2.3 ac.
(14 %)
1.91 ac.
0.75 ac.
( %)
1.86 ac.(74 trees)
' Replacement Requirement 4.48 ac. (179 trees)
(Required - Remaining) x 1.2
As can be seen, the applicant is removing in excess of the required minimum coverage and is
therefore required to reforest at a rate of 1.2 times the difference between the required and
remaining coverage. Applicant is required to plant 179 trees within the residential area, however
in the proposed landscaping plan, 361 overstory, understory and evergreen trees area scheduled
to be planted.
Since the residential area of this development borders many different uses, such as
industrial /commercial, county road, and low density residential, special attention should be paid
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996 '
Page 24
to providing appropriate landscape near the uses. It is approximately 720 feet from the corner of
'
the first townhome in the northeast corner to the edge of the wetland in the northwest along
which there are the townhomes to the south and the Trotter's Ridge development to the north.
The width of this area is narrowest at the eastern end with 50 feet; each succeeding townhome is
'
further from the property line with the last one before the wetland approximately 120 feet from
the property line. Using the city's buffer yard ordinance No. 250, the required plantings for this
area is 7 canopy trees, 14 understory trees and 14 shrubs of which the developer is only
'
responsible for 75% of the totals. On the landscaping plan submitted, the applicant is proposing
groups of evergreen and deciduous plantings totaling 28 trees, but no shrubs. There are
potentially 5 existing trees in that area scheduled for preservation. The western and southern
'
sides of the residential area abut industrial use. the townhomes on the southern edge are across
the street from the industrial building and their garages front the street. Each home is being
provided with one tree near the driveway. On the industrial lot, 41 evergreens and 9 deciduous
'
trees are scheduled to be planted by "others." On the eastern sides where it is homes not garages
facing the industrial buildings, a berm, 67 evergreens, 3 oaks, 43 understory trees, and 25 shrubs
are scheduled. According to ordinance, the developer is required to provide 75% of the
'
following 30 foot buffer yard: 22 canopy trees, 54 understory trees, 54 shrubs, and a structure.
The western edge of the development borders Galpin Blvd., a principal arterial. The buffer
requirements along this road are 7 canopy trees, 14 understory trees and 14 shrubs. There are
,
existing trees that will be preserved along the road which more than meets the requirements.
However, staff feels it is necessary to provide increased landscaping at the entrance off Galpin to
help screen traffic and headlights from the first townhome unit. For the same reasons, a couple
'
of trees should be added to the landscaping at the townhome on the northwest corner of street A
and street B.
'
Since the existing trees in the development are mature and valuable oaks, staff recommends that
the applicant inventory all trees, including those to be saved or removed. Any trees scheduled to
be saved lost due to construction will be replaced at a rate of two times the diameter by the
'
developer. The same would apply to the industrial development as well.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on May 21, 1996 to review this proposal. The '
Commission voted to recommend that full park and trail fees be paid pursuant to city ordinance
in lieu of park land dedication. The Commission recommended that a private trail connection be
made from the end of street C to the trail on Galpin Boulevard and a five foot sidewalk shall be ,
incorporated along the north side of street A from Galpin to Lyman Boulevards. In addition, the
Commission requested that the applicant look at providing a tot lot area within Lot 22, Block 1.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 25
MISCELLANEOUS
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be
reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the
submitted documents.
Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary
to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan
review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed
lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be
shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors
during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Demolition. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition
permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system
abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition
permit.
Setbacks. Exterior walls (at bays and optional bays) and projections (at overhangs and decks) are
regulated by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown,
decks will not be permitted as shown, overhangs will not be permitted in some cases and exterior
walls must be of one -hour fire - resistive construction in some cases. Openings shown in some walls
will not be permitted with the building and property lines as shown. To avoid opening protection
and one -hour fire- resistive wall construction, the property lines should be at least four feet from any
wall of the building where a twelve inch overhang is planned. Decks may not be built within three
feet of the property line. These requirements are found in UBC Table 5 -A, 503.2.1 and 705. Since
these issues involve property lines, they need to be resolved before preliminary plat approval.
Soils. The Carver County Soil Survey indicates the site may contain some glencoe soils. Glencoe
soils are given a building site group 10 rating, which indicates they are unsuitable for building. A
geotechnical evaluation, which includes an FHANA lot by lot tabulation for land development
' with controlled earthwork, should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review. The report
should also include a copy of the grading and drainage plan.
The developers and designers my desire to meet with the Building Official as early as possible to
discuss commercial building permit requirements.
' One project identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. Such sign shall
be located on Galpin Boulevard only and shall comply with the City's sign ordinance.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 26
FINDINGS
Subdivision, Section 18 -39 M
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The
applicant has worked extensively with staff to develop a proposal and site design
that addresses many of the concerns of the city.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision of the property for the residential component
is inconsistent with the existing land use designation of the property which is
office /industrial. Subject to the city amending the comprehensive plan from
office /industrial to residential - medium density, the proposal would be consistent
with the land use designation.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: While some of the site contains poor soil conditions for development
(Cordova silty clay loam and Glencoe silty clay loam) on proposed building sites
or roadway, it is possible through soil corrections to make the site suitable for
development. As a condition of development, the applicant will be required to
incorporate best management practices for erosion control and demonstrate all lots
would be buildable.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision attempts to minimize impacts to the
environment. While some tree. removal and wetland alterations are oftentimes
necessary to develop sites through tree preservation measures and the use of
J
' Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
' Page 27
smaller right -of -way widths and front yard setbacks., the applicant has reduced
potential environmental damage.
' 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
' rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
' b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
Finding The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure.
' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
' Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20 -407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
' 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that the have attempted to avoid or minimize
g PP Y p
' impacts to wetlands through redesign of elements of the development.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
' implementation.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize
' impacts to wetlands through revisions made to the plan to move structures and roadways
away from wetlands.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 28
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality
ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by
creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement and
long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater
plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be
provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland
areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to
8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. This wetland has been
altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to
enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area.
Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held public hearings on June 5 and June 19, 1996 to review the
proposed development. The Planning Commission tabled the item at the June 5th meeting to
permit staff and the applicant to address the concerns expressed by the neighbors regarding the
proposed development and to permit the applicant to provide rear views of the type of units that
are incorporated in the development. Specifically, the Planning Commission requested the
following:
1. Staff shall validate the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant.
2. The applicant was to bring back front and rear elevations of the specific units that will be
located facing the community to the north.
P
3. An aggressive landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the
property to the north be presented. '
7
n
-
r-,
�
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 29
4. The Engineering department was to review the water (i.e., drainage) issues to reassure the
neighborhood to the north the water issues can be solved.
5. Review the buffering to the northeast and also to the northwest.
The applicant has submitted revised site plans in response to the comments received at the June
5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing. These plans reduce the number of units from 146 to 140
by eliminating one structure from the development and relocating units that backed up in the
northeast corner of the site in the area of closest proximity to the Trotters Ridge development.
Views from Trotters Ridge will be of the sides or front of units in this area. Where eight units
structures are located backing on the Trotters Ridge development, views will be oblique to these
structures.
The revised landscaping plan concentrates the enhanced landscaping in the northeast corner of
the site, an area where views will be of the side and fronts of buildings. Staff believes that we
can work with the developer to create a better screening plan. The applicant has agreed to work
with the city to create an acceptable landscape buffer along the northern property line of this
development. In developing this plan, staff will strategically locate landscape to screen direct
views to existing dwellings within the Trotters Ridge development.
The applicant has provided the city with a copy of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared by S.A. Partners of the subject property dated May 16, 1996. The conclusion of the
assessment states "This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the subject property." The report did note suspected asbestos -
containing building materials and recommended that sampling and testing be conducted prior to
demolition of the structures. In addition, the report notes that two above ground diesel storage
tanks have been removed from the site. Staff recommends that soil samples be obtained and
tested for these areas. In addition, city staff has met in the field with the applicant's wetland
consultant to verify wetland issues on the property. Staff has attached a copy of the conclusions
from a Phase I Environmental Assessment that was done for a prior development proposal for
the site. The applicant has requested that the two consulting firms meet to discuss discrepancies
between the two reports. The applicant has agreed to perform additional testing to resolve
questions of possible site contamination.
The applicant's revised plan has incorporated a storm water inlet in the northeast corner of the
site to convey storm water to the treatment pond located in the eastern portion of this
development. This structure will give another drainage outlet in the southeast corner of the
Trotters Ridge development. However, other drainage problems in the rear yards of the Trotters
Ridge development are due to improper grading by the individual builders of the homes and
cannot be resolved through the Town & Country Homes development, but rather can relatively
easily be corrected by the property owner through regrading of their rear yards.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 30
The city is working to create a significant open space wildlife habitat within the general vicinity
of the project. Just north of the Trotters Ridge development, the city is attempting to assemble a
100 plus acre area for passive park uses. Currently, the city has a portion of the northern edge of
the Trotters Ridge development as well as approximately 60 acres donated by Betty
O' Shaughnessy. Additional land will be included from the Gateway property located west of
these areas.
Staff believes that the applicant has addressed many of the concerns expressed at the June 5
Planning Commission meeting and is committed to work with the city and neighbors to create a
harmonious development.
The City has received a petition from residents requesting that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) be performed for this site. The City is the Responsible Governmental Unit for
EAW. Staff has reviewed the rules governing EAWs and determined that an EAW is not
mandatory. As part of a separate report, a determination of the need for a EAW will be made.
At the June 19, 1996 public meeting, the Planning Commission again permitted public comment
regarding the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend denial of the Land Use Map amendment, rezoning, and development proposal.
Some of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission were that the designation of the
property for office industrial use was still appropriate; the transitioning from the more expensive
single - family detached to "affordable" townhomes should be more gradual; the concentration of
affordable units (initially it was discussed that all units would be affordable); the design of the
development presented large, unattractive views from the residential development to the north to
the backs of the structures; the apparent consensus of those neighbors present that
office /industrial development would be more acceptable; and the need to provide a greater
diversity in housing pricing within the development and integrate affordable housing in the
community.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the Land Use Map amendment and development
proposal. As part of the single - family proposal that was previously reviewed, staff stated that a
residential development proposal that met some of the market niches that are not currently being
met for housing may be a justification for the redesignation of the property from Office/Industrial
to Residential. Staff believes that this project is an acceptable compromise that not only softens
the potential industrial impact to the Trotters Ridge development, but also provides some
affordable housing units for individuals who could not afford traditional housing units in
Chanhassen, individuals who may work at manufacturing or service jobs. While the applicant
originally looked at potentially providing all units that met the affordable definition, $115,000 or
less for owner occupied housing units, due to unique features of the site and the different unit
types, staff recommended that 50 percent of the units meet the affordable criteria. In addition,
1
7
L
L i
' Town and Country Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 31
the city does not want to concentrate affordable units in one location and instead would like to
integrate the units throughout the community. Currently, single- family detached units represent
77.6 percent of the city's housing stock with 22.4 percent consisting of life cycle housing. The
' city's policy for life cycle housing is 34 percent of the housing units, as stated in the Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan and the Livable Communities Resolution.
' The applicant has strived to preserve as much of the natural features of the site as they
realistically could. They have worked extensively with staff to address city concerns regarding
the development, revising the plans several times prior to submittal. They have attempted to
' address the concerns of the neighbors, redesigning the development between the first and second
Planning Commission meetings to lessen the impacts of the project on the single - family homes to
the north.
RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Land Use Map Amendment #96 -1b from Office/Industrial to
' Residential Medium Density for the northerly 22.6 acres, conceptual and preliminary approval of
PUD #96 -2, preliminary plat approval for 23 lots and associated right -of -way, Site Plan Review
#96 -5 approval for 140 townhouse units, and Wetland Alteration Permit #95 -2b subject to the
' following conditions:
1. The development shall comply with Development Standards established within this
' report, incorporated herein by reference.
' 2. The developer shall ensure a minimum of 50% of the units meet the Metropolitan
Council's definition of Affordable Housing.
' 3. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division and Fire
Marshal, for review and approval prior to final plat approval.
' 4. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using
standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
5. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
' 6. Adjust property lines to permit openings in exterior walls or revise plans to remove
openings. Adjust property lines to permit- code complying projections or revise plans to
J
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 32
remove projections. Adjust property lines to permit decks or revise plans to remove decks.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
'17
1
7. Provide a geotechnical evaluation report to the Inspections Division. This should be done I
before any permits are issued.
8. Eliminate center islands in both cul -de -sacs. Exception: Submit drawings for City
Engineer's and Fire Marshal's review and approval to accommodate the turning around of
the Fire Department's largest apparatus. This would have to take into account parking in
the cul -de -sac.
9. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
10. Additional fire hydrants will be required. City Engineer and Fire Marshal will review
plans and make appropriate changes. (Note: Maximum hydrant spacing is 300 feet.)
11. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
12. A separate sign permit shall be required for all development signage.
13. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. Such sign
shall be located on Galpin Boulevard only and shall comply with the City's sign ordinance.
14. Full park and trail fees shall be paid pursuant to city ordinance in lieu of park land
dedication. A private trail connection shall be made from the end of street C to the trail on
Galpin Boulevard and a five foot sidewalk shall be incorporated along the north side of
street A from Galpin to Lyman Boulevards. In addition, the applicant should look at
providing a tot lot area within Lot 22, Block 1.
15. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to any grading.
16. Any tree(s) scheduled to be saved that is lost due to construction practices shall be
replaced by the developer at a rate of two times the diameter.
17. A tree inventory shall be submitted to the city prior to the final approval of the
development.
L
Town and Country Homes
' June 5, 1996
Page 33
' 18. Increase landscaping at two locations: The north side of the entrance off Galpin Blvd.
and the northwest corner of Street A and Street B to screen homes from traffic and
headlights.
' 19. Developer shall guarantee plant material installed for two growing seasons.
20. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Additional erosion
control measures may be incorporated on the final grading plan submittal.
I 21. The applicant shall "loop" the watermain in Street C with the existing 12 -inch watermain
in the northeast corner of the site.
22. All wells and septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health
codes.
' 23. The cul -de -sac island radius shall not exceed 12 feet. Parking in the cul -de -sacs shall be
prohibited and posted accordingly.
' 24. Street A shall be construction 36 feet wide face to face and to a 9 -ton street design within
a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. Streets B and C shall be constructed to the City's urban
residential standard with a right -of -way of 50 feet versus 60 feet.
25. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked b the applicant in accordance with the
Y Y pP
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
' construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
26. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and
' maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands.
' 27. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the first
ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for
safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading.
28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived. Water quantity
fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The
fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans.
29. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 34
33.. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, '
i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
34. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. '
On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi -lot grading
project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the '
Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
35. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas.
'
30. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
,
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
'
31. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
'
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds in
'
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
,
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-
d eveloped
storm water calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and
t
high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a
10 -year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine
if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design
'
calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Drainage data and any
improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Chaska.
'
32. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
'
33.. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, '
i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
34. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information. '
On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi -lot grading
project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the '
Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
35. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas.
'
36. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of two (2) feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
,
37. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
'
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
38. Preliminary Plat approval is contingent upon the applicant preparing a wetland
,
delineation report of the site: In addition to a wetland inventory the applicant is
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 35
responsible for receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental
agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and Watershed District.
39. On wetlands A, B, C and D the applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide
buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin. On Wetland E the
applicant will be required to maintain a buffer of 10 to 30 feet with an average width of 20
feet.
40. The report did note that suspected asbestos - containing building materials and
recommended that sampling and testing be conducted prior to demolition of the
structures.
41. In addition, the report notes that two above ground diesel storage tanks have been
removed from the site. Staff recommends that soil samples be obtained and tested
for possible soil contamination."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan narrative
3. Building Elevations and Floor Plans, reductions
4. Site Plan, reduction
5. Town & Country Homes 1 st Addition Exterior Color Packages dated 5/29/96
6. Letter from Kenneth Adolf to Bob Generous dated 5/29/96
7. Letter from Al Block to Bob Generous dated 5/24/96
8. Letter from Jim Hirz to Bob Generous dated 5/16/96
9. Letter from Charles D. Folch to Bill Weckman dated 5/15/96
10. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/24/96
11. "Land Patterns," Winter 1996, Vol. 1, No. 1, page 6
12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List (6/5/96)
13. Wetland locations
14. Letter from Peter and Lu Ann Sidney to Bob Generous dated 6/2/96
15. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 5/31/96
16. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 6/5/96
17. Letter from Robert P. Smith to John Fisher dated 6/10/96
18. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/5/96
19. Notice of Public Meeting and Mailing List (6/19/96)
20. Findings and Conclusion Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepare by Peer
Environmental & Engineering Resources, Inc., dated 5/16/96
21. Conclusions Phase I Environmental Property Assessment prepared by Pinnacle Engineering,
Inc., dated stamped 6/1/95
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 36
22. Letter from Lu Ann Sidney to Bob Generous dated 6/5/96 with responses
23. Letter from Al Block to Bob Generous dated 6/13/96
24. Letter from Jim Hirz to Bob Generous dated 6/17/96
25. Letter from Dan Schlenk to Mayor Chmiel dated 6/24/96
26. Revised Site Plan dated 6/17/96
27. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/19/96
28. Letter from Allan J. Block and Robert P. Smith to the Mayor and City Council dated 6/20/96
A I t
ur
1
-
LOCATION
LYMAN BLVD. ................... .......... . . . . . . •.
0
0
9700—
I
FS a 0 0
0 0 0
C. 0 0 0 0 0
i � io
0
8 T 0-
0
0
10
kTY OF X 9000-
9100-
&HASSEN 9200-
ASE MAP 9500
9400-
9500-
J0400•
10500-
I -V
7ANS
960C
9?00
9800
9900
10000
foloo.
%SSM ENGINEERING DEPT.
10200
10300•
REVISED JAN, 1995
I -V
7ANS
FROM :SCHOELL & MRDSON 612 546 9065 1996.05 -01 12:33 #1694 P.02/05
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
u
APPLICANT. 77�'
- L� L►.� i L//
v ,
ADDRESS 00 AFAMM DRESS: 47 o f-
TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE:.!4!7
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
4K CAP
5900
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
,,- - Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
_ Variance
Non -conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Pem`*> , 75 �G
Planned Unit Development"67( G
_ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign SD.� rp�
4 Site Plan Review*
f
77 i ��� "'�
X Escrow for Fling Fees /Attorney Cost -
($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision , •r ��
TOTAL FEE $ 3 opt
A list 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 site plan reviews.
*Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8 X IV 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.
' - FROM :SCHOELL & 111:M50N 612 546 9065 1996.05 -01 12:33 #694 F.03/05
PROJECT NAME Town & Country Homes First Addition
' LOCATION N.W. Corner of Galpin and Lymar
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached legal description
TOTAL ACREAGE 45.2
WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO
' PRESENT ZONING A-2
REQUESTED ZONING Planned Unit Development
' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Office /Industrial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed Use Office /Industrial and Mid - Density Residentia
' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To sub - divide the land to provide a townhome community and office/
industrial space for future development.
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 determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice 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 Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
' I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
0
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
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Town & Countr�'
'\ nat�f Ap�IA , 1
i0nature of FeeTTw
Inc. /Industrial Equities Inc.
Partners
Date
Dat
Application Received on Fee Paid �-�� �� D
Receipt No. � � � 1
and /or SA Land
John R. Fisher
' 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.
TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION
JOHN FISHER PROPERTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
May, 1996
Submitted by:
Town & Country Homes, Inc.
6800 France Avenue South, Suite 170
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(612) 935 -3899
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
II. INTRODUCTION
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
B. Legal Description
C. Zoning
D. Project
E. P.U.D. Criteria
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan /Density
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
3. Traffic Access and Circulation
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
IX. COVENANTS
X. CONCLUSION
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The developer of the Fisher property is Town & Country Homes, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation located in Edina, Minnesota. The Town & Country tradition has been
synonymous with quality neighborhoods throughout various Metropolitan Areas for 38
years.
The Development Team is coordinated by Allan J. Block, President of the Minnesota
Division and Project Manager of this development.
Planner: The site plan design by Schoell & Madson, Inc.,
Minnetonka, MN
Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell &
Madson, Inc., Minnetonka, MN
Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by
Analysis: Svoboda Ecological Resources of Shorewood, MN
Landscape Architecture: Landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to
obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval with
a wetland alteration permit.
I Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
This proposed mixed use Planned Unit Development by Town & Country is
located in Chanhassen in Section 16, Township 116, Range 23. The 45 -acre
site is served by County Road 19 (Galphin Boulevard) to the east and Country
Road 18 (Lyman Boulevard) to the south.
' North of the Fisher property is Trotter's Ridge residential development. East of
County Road 117 is Stone Creek residential development. The development
plans have been carefully designed to provide adequate spacing and buffer
areas adjoining these areas. The property is adjoined on the south and west
by industrial /warehouse usage. Additionally, the south and west boundaries
also represent the city limits adjoining the City of Chaska.
' B. Legal Description
That part of the East Half (E 1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4), Section
' 16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, which lies South of the North
1065.41 feet, westerly of the centerline of County State Aid Highway No. 19,
and North of the South 100.00 feet; ALSO
' That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15,
Township 116 North, Range 23 West, lying westerly of the centerline of County
' State Aid Highway No. 19 and northerly of the centerline of County State Aid
Highway No. 18. Said property being subject to easement for roadway
purposes for County State Aid Highway 19 and County State Aid Highway 18.
' C. Zoning
' The project consists of land owned by John Fisher. The property is currently
zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate. The Developer proposes to rezone the
property to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development.
' D. The Project
' The project consists of 146 residential townhome units that will be developed
on lots ranging from 125' to 146' in width with lot depths of 72'. Each lot will
accommodate a 6- or 8 -unit pre- designed townhome structure. Each home will
' have a one car garage with a driveway. A majority of the units will be slab -on-
grade; however, the Developer will attempt to incorporate lookout or walkout
basements where topography allows. This site plan was developed in an
' attempt to maximize the preservation of trees and natural terrain. In addition,
two office /industrial lots will be platted for future development by others.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3 '
1
Proposed Building Setbacks: '
25' Front Yard Setback Typical along Street "A"
20' Front yard Setback (minimum) along Streets "B" and "C"
50' Side and Rear Yard Setback (minimum) along Exterior Boundaries
25' Minimum Combined Between Buildings
40' Rear Yard Wetland Setback (minimum) '
Large wetlands and groups of mature existing trees create a variety of
constraints to development, requiring unique approaches and mitigative efforts '
aimed at providing quality homesites while maintaining the integrity of the site
topography. Measures such as reduced setbacks, road design, and restrictive
covenants all contribute to this and will be discussed later. '
As previously noted, townhomes will be available in 6- and 8 -unit buildings.
The range of topography and building mixture provides an opportunity to '
accommodate different home styles. Besides offering the advantage of a
quality streetscape, the mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help the City
achieve affordable housing goals while maintaining density which is in '
conformance with R -8 requirements.
With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we
propose, such as preservation of wetlands and large trees with additional
ponding, creates a development that is aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally responsible. '
These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and
successfully create the ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to '
affect.
Development Summary ,
Total Acreage
R.O.W. Dedication (CSAH 19)
R.O.W. Dedication (CSAH 18)
R.O.W. Dedication (Interior Streets)
Lot 1, Block 2 (Industrial Lot)
Lot 1, Block 3 (Industrial Lot)
Net Developable - Residential
Number of Units
Net Density - Residential Area
45.21 ac.
4.27 ac.
3.90 ac.
6.29 ac.
9.40 ac.
20.56 ac.
146
7.10 units /acre (146 _ 20.56)
I Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan
I E. P.U.D. Criteria
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines four expected
attributes of Planned Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the
Developer's findings are outlined below:
I I
I
4
Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity
beyond normal ordinance requirements.
Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of an
individual neighborhood defined by the road system and the integrated
open space system as well as preservation of existing site topography.
This community was designed to accommodate moderately - priced
townhomes while providing generous amounts of open space.
The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by
ponds, wetlands, berms and depressions and combines them with the
landscape elements such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees.
Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and
enhance existing natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and
groups of existing mature trees. Open space can beneficially influence
the micro climate by improving heat radiation and by providing channels
for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as more
than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal
recreation.
and to offer a range of housing pricing options
Finding: The proposed plan offers a development which provides
sensible transition between land uses. Properties to the north and east
contain R -1 single family residential developments, while the properties
' to the south and west contain industrial /warehouse use facilities. This
project, utilizing medium density residential concepts, provides
transitional land usage between these uniquely different parcels.
The Developer has used this process that embraces the delicate
balancing act of locating roads and home sites where it has the least
effect on the wetland and trees to create a development that is
innovative and harmoniously sensitive to the environment.
'
2.
Attribute: The City should be offered sensitive development in
transitional areas between different land uses. Lot sizes should be
'
mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and opportunities
and to offer a range of housing pricing options
Finding: The proposed plan offers a development which provides
sensible transition between land uses. Properties to the north and east
contain R -1 single family residential developments, while the properties
' to the south and west contain industrial /warehouse use facilities. This
project, utilizing medium density residential concepts, provides
transitional land usage between these uniquely different parcels.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5
3. Attribute: The City should be offered the provision of housing affordable
to all income groups. '
Finding: The proposed plan provides for 146 units, ranging in estimated
price from $85,000 to $115,000. These units will fall into the City's '
defined affordable housing guidelines.
4. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality, I
provision of public /private open and recreational space.
a. Landscaping - By design, the road system locates entrances
,
which identify points of arrival to individual neighborhoods. The
entrance features will include extensive landscaping. The cul -de-
'
sacs, while allowing development of rolling hills and creating
'
niches for smaller more private neighborhoods, also affords the
,
opportunity for landscaped islands, another feature of this
development. These areas will be maintained by a homeowner's
association as well as covenants on the land that must be
adhered to by owners.
potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its
'
b. Construction Quality - Town & Country invests a great deal of
time and money periodically upgrading its entire home product
line keeping current with design trends that are the most in
'
demand and efficient. The latest innovative construction
techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the building
industry. Town & Country has been developing residential
,
developments and building quality homes for 38 years.
C. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space
'
together with the neighborhood trails and the numerous ponds
created within the development are a direct result of the flexibility
allowed under a P.U.D. Additionally, because of reduced setback
'
requirements, the Developer is able to provide reduced natural
topographical disturbance.
,
d. Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks, yard ares, lot sizes and other minimum requirements
and performance standards associated with traditional zoning,
Planned Unit Developments can maximize the development
potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its
,
unique and valuable natural characteristics.
I Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan
I F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1 The site is within the MUSA. Sanitary sewer and watermain were
stubbed into the property during utility extension to serve Trotter's
Ridge. 12" PVC sanitary runs south on CSAH 19 and east through
' Stone Creek. Sanitary and water laterals would be extended off of
these stubs.
' The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in
streets which will discharge into storm water treatment ponds. These
' ponds will outlet into existing wetlands. Storm sewer outlets are also
provided from all of the existing wetlands to allow controlling the water
levels. In general, the site drainage pattern is from the north portion of
the site to the large wetland in the southwest portion. The drainage
facilities will be constructed in connection with the other site
improvements.
6
' 3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system, open space system and trails have been developed to
best facilitate the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in
accordance with the City's designated road system, while at the same
' time providing a unique neighborhood community consistent with
Chanhassen's high standards.
' Primary access to the development will be off of an east -west collector
connecting CSAH 19 and CSAH 18. The road system is designed to
identify a hierarchy of traffic with cul -de -sacs running into this collector.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The Developer intends to develop the project in one phase and will build as the
market demands dictate. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time
frame and special areas of development. The industrial lots will be graded in
' conjunction with this project and will be provided utility service stubs. They will be
sold for future development by others.
1. Land Use Guide Plan /Density
The property is currently guided for Industrial Office Park Development
'
by the City's Land Use Guide Plan. The Fisher property development
plan proposes 146 residential townhome units and two industrial /office
sites for future development in accordance with the Guide Plan.
'
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
1 The site is within the MUSA. Sanitary sewer and watermain were
stubbed into the property during utility extension to serve Trotter's
Ridge. 12" PVC sanitary runs south on CSAH 19 and east through
' Stone Creek. Sanitary and water laterals would be extended off of
these stubs.
' The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in
streets which will discharge into storm water treatment ponds. These
' ponds will outlet into existing wetlands. Storm sewer outlets are also
provided from all of the existing wetlands to allow controlling the water
levels. In general, the site drainage pattern is from the north portion of
the site to the large wetland in the southwest portion. The drainage
facilities will be constructed in connection with the other site
improvements.
6
' 3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system, open space system and trails have been developed to
best facilitate the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in
accordance with the City's designated road system, while at the same
' time providing a unique neighborhood community consistent with
Chanhassen's high standards.
' Primary access to the development will be off of an east -west collector
connecting CSAH 19 and CSAH 18. The road system is designed to
identify a hierarchy of traffic with cul -de -sacs running into this collector.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The Developer intends to develop the project in one phase and will build as the
market demands dictate. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time
frame and special areas of development. The industrial lots will be graded in
' conjunction with this project and will be provided utility service stubs. They will be
sold for future development by others.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
As the optionee, Town & Country intends to develop the Fisher property once they
receive every governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Town &
Country is a principal developer in many cities and has never failed to meet is
obligations throughout its history.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
The topography is generally rolling terrain with the highest elevation being 982 feet '
and the lowest elevation being 940 feet. There exists four acres of five separate
protected wetlands on the site with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of
Chanhassen having jurisdiction. '
The 45 -acre site is a mix of open space, wetlands, areas with miscellaneous
vegetation and some significant wooded areas. The Developer has taken these '
features into consideration in the planning of this neighborhood community.
In addition to these natural features, the development will include significant ponding '
and enhancement of existing wetlands, and along with additional landscape elements
proposed by the Developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that
is attractive and enduring. '
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
The project contains a total of 4 acres of wetlands of various types. Generally, the '
wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage
activities. Virtually all of the wetlands on site have been subjected either to ditching '
or subsurface tile line installation. In some cases, this drainage activity has been
effective enough to eliminate wetland hydrology, and in others it has rendered historic
wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, functional wetland values. ,
After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact
on the site, approximately 0.12 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are
'
proposed to be filled. In general, the impacts would be incurred by the smallest and
most degraded wetlands on the site. All of the impacts associated with the project
will affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Because of the extensive
'
distribution of wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be
avoided.
'
Sedimentation ponds will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to discharging
it into the wetlands. The Developer's intent is that upon its completion the site should
have equal or greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than existed prior to
'
development. This should provide an improved variety of plant types and a better
1
F
�
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8
habitat for more species of wildlife.
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of
wetland creation projects adjacent to the easterly wetland. We have tentatively
identified 0.14 acres of potential wetland creation. This site would provide 1:1 acre
for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project. The acreage
encompassed by this site is exclusive of storm water storage /treatment ponds to be
constructed for the project which are utilized to compensate for the other half of a 2.1
total mitigation package. The wetland would be contiguous to and become part of
the existing east basin. This basin would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create
wet meadow or shallow marsh conditions. In general, the wetland type to be created
will provide substantially higher wetland functional value than the degraded wetlands
affected by the project. Bottom substrates for the created wetland will consist of
organic material excavated from existing wetlands to be affected by the project.
A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of
this easement shall show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the
wetland. The depth of the easement shall vary. This easement, combined with a
usable backyard of 40', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 40' minimum.
The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and
wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement, combined with the
proposed sedimentation ponds, will work together to improve and maintain the
character of the wetlands.
' Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a
fringe of upland habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter
that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the conservation
easement shall vary depending on the classification of the wetland.
In addition to the aforementioned wetland alteration the Developer anticipates some
' alteration of the utilized wetland located in the southwest corner of the parcel.
Because of the classification and condition of this wetland, it is anticipated that no
mitigation will be required beyond normal NURP basin construction.
' VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
The vast majority of the existing trees along the east and north boundaries will be
subject to minimal impact by any home or road construction. In addition, a large
grove of trees will be preserved as a buffer between Lot 1, Block 2 and the residential
' areas.
The design attempted to locate other large stands of vegetation in rear yards to
' preserve them and also provide a screen to adjacent lots.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 9
There will be tree loss occasioned by this development, but it is the expressed
intention of the Developer to keep tree loss to a minimum.
IX. COVENANTS
Protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of
each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements. In addition, maintenance
and protective measures will be addressed by the homeowner's association.
X. CONCLUSION
Town & Country feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of the John
Fisher property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen.
It is our pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your
acceptance.
tf
U-4 k ew*a r,
Ak
Rr
w
--
LEB
ue 80M I AM=
a.� wowApo s
1s Tkw k— IL 0-oft W wM
to wias • w ov3sm
TOWN &
COUNTRY
HOMES
v
Tom i ootmw
HMM
FIFRIST ADOMON
TOWNHOIES
CHANMSSM W.
�w
6-'LEX
FIRST FLOOR &
FND. PLAN
wsww
C8D -1
IIV-r
i M ME >aNGflnl �µ �
V aS WT. r ar •T•�MT.
LEB
__
1
1
I
I
J LJ
-_�
LJ L 1
�
1
1
I
' ;
I
W 1 wIM.IM
DU rnY.A.DU.
I
n11111 Ana t *.-Pk w YID
'IL IYA7Ha1 • fm owls lY
R
x�
T
�x
COUNTRY
HOMES
lA rrcom Fto w yl M Aa.�r A,..a.,..•.Ir,. n l
uv
r-r r-r aron yr rrrc r crvwA wwa � xw
v r-r ercx sme v ..0 arAmnw v.0
w rw aa.o a TORT ax srcr .a
-r
n.w .n
rv« ni.
rxler
Aux ui. nw .n
1R.n.iID1 oTnrwl. rT
o v .Alec
r ___ i
rn o iunw
��` �ibn
ian
inn sl r.am Aar
�i � I
r 00
00 0
' �1Wa
0 00 0; 00 1
0
�
y_
0
®
� y � h • _
8 &
TGWU a cowril1r
- -
HMO
• w � ° D
` P
S �
ar�ra�
I 1
° D
1 w
TTOWNH01E$
CHANHAWK WL
"not
6-PLEX
----- - - - - -- --
1 -
2nd 2nd FLOOR
w w l I
I I
w ______________
w
I I s ••
1 1
I
______________
w w
ROOF PLAN
ate..
.b.'aA
ar •wwnT.o
�A N(1f1F Pl AY
..0 vrVi
aar0
C -2
LBB
L-----i
us BSS 1 IWaIIECTS
Daum wa�roua
NO iW A -L MWPMkW WO
19 ftax= - Fm a/=40
nv
TOWN &
COUNTRY
HOMES
"-d. ft w_ a
Tmicc"
Nays
F RST ADO
CHANHASSEN MIL
6 -PLEX
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
wow+.
rr Nu.
wt � +.wonro
wiw r --aau
C6D -3
I1. NI1W IV.. M• IINM MI.
I I T7, - = -v LBB
US BONN I AMIM
Daum w.lcvar
I I I Rw m - 'U IW
1 1
= 1
� I
x x
COUNTRY
----- - - - -- HOMES
gig Arua l.�w.rl. w.t .4.iw ti � i
____� ,
L -__� LJ I
1 1
M.IrT _ i �Y�IiY .
aM'w.wi.m -
•sru �• - 7
O
;
�. yr ww yr
1 = I I I I
1 I
I :+ _ 4YLI 00LI _ _ I - -_ —_ —_ II j Y�
fir,• •iirw I ' t , _ —_ .VAIN c p 1
F IRST A IC
- - - -- ` T S
- -- - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- r
- - - -- - --
- ,--- - -- ' ' CFIAMIASSEN. IN.
1 l i r .•r I 4 �
I i I I ; ; I wwl♦fr
8—PLEX
s FIRST FLOOR III
— FND. PLAN
� w>•wr
L I Z - - .wu.,.
�
—t61� FOUNDATION FLAN
- C8D -1
l..d 11J
UB OBW 1 IIAg=
Daum . WMEA.ow
266 n A— ItA..p*wwa
IR@Vn M . FAXOMM
TOWN &
COUNTRY
HOMES
vrlY M at
@ figg MOM FL[M PLM .�aa....wawnavaa auaau
asmn yr mr T .ntu .u..n . ima
d N 00 6 iMWi �mQi K VML
r - - t
oo a ; o0
0 0 0 011—
�o o o oA ' a a.. po an. a
i r-
al
o� o — J ■ 2 -- � I p
I
IA
iwua
Tom i Comm
HOW
TOOWN O S
CHA*%M. WL
8-PLEX
2nd FLOOR
ROOF PLAN
mow.
w�ww
r �aan1
Iw .V..pNlap�
w.w.af .awa.
wL VNi
C8D -2
°
°
4-.
wr°
I
a
al
o� o — J ■ 2 -- � I p
I
IA
iwua
Tom i Comm
HOW
TOOWN O S
CHA*%M. WL
8-PLEX
2nd FLOOR
ROOF PLAN
mow.
w�ww
r �aan1
Iw .V..pNlap�
w.w.af .awa.
wL VNi
C8D -2
LEB
ue ems a �wgnECrs
DAM 1..rn.ow
M M1 A— t M.MIK 1118 M
R K/=40 . i11 wlnR M
TOWN &
COUNTRY
HOMES
mm
FRET ADDRION
TOWNIOAES
CWWUSSEN. MIL
8-PLEX
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
1 ft.
wow..
r �rw
wM .u.wnnm
w.wr w ....
ww m.r
i
+r :. • E= .I RIDGE ! 7 ADDITION �
1 S !
_ 1 r a • �•��. tab i��� .:\ '�'; _ ~ 14
Is
i
4
lo
i BLCI.'K 1
w it ' 2 G
1 .� E FT 1 r
i iE= -j
BLOCK 2
/ i/Af1
( %\ 1 ,
...
I\
PRETRIINNII• s" PLAN
BLOCK I\
17 1AUpY8 W � 1 1
npAN 1 1 1
BOUNDAAI• SIWLEY
PRElANNM7 PUT
1 i 1
PRnJUKAA ORAD04, DRANAOC
I I 104
9 ,
20
1
I
i
1
' i
\ Ar
DEVELOPER
TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES
6800 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 170
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435
OWNER
JOHN FISHER
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
1 LOT 1 1. _•. = 1 l — 21 1 1
1
ftwx or bQETt
SHEET I
PRETRIINNII• s" PLAN
SHEET 2
�
_
BOUNDAAI• SIWLEY
PRElANNM7 PUT
SHEET 3
PRnJUKAA ORAD04, DRANAOC
_ - , ANDUSmw - (LOT I, BIOCN 2
-- INDUSTRUL - 4 101 1. BL 3
OL
8 EROSION CONTA RAN
SHEET 4
SHER 7
PRELAMW WILM PLAN
TREE PRESEANATION PLAN
SHEET R
CHEET 9
i
/
1 1E:
- - - - --
I
T ----------------------- -- - --------------
r
f _
IA•
- i BLOCK 3
LOT
i E_
=t:
- -
-
__
1
1 I
I
EE
_2_
_3
C.i:A,N. -46— -- -LYMAN BLVD: — .__.... ...
R[AS.T.NS :;� �• _ '° . ^. y SCHOCLL t MADSON, INC. a RNi Lop•
SITE PLAN
'a '',,. n rw:n. lNrra,s . rwgrORL . nS PNIQ
1. @. 0M4 f x m I TOWN t COUNTRY HOMES
.� 19Rp...E.7AexE�rP...E 1 TOWN d COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION
IE1s)601- oi,P,,.99+ ulr 1 046 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
S.M.I PROJECT NO. 67468 -002 SHEET 1 OF 9 SHEETS
5106E "EEN
opNt
ENGINEER /SITE PLANNER
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55305
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW & UBAN
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
ftwx or bQETt
SHEET I
PRETRIINNII• s" PLAN
SHEET 2
EmsnNp Copono S
SI1[E7 3
SHEET A
BOUNDAAI• SIWLEY
PRElANNM7 PUT
SHEET 3
PRnJUKAA ORAD04, DRANAOC
_ - , ANDUSmw - (LOT I, BIOCN 2
-- INDUSTRUL - 4 101 1. BL 3
OL
8 EROSION CONTA RAN
SHEET 4
SHER 7
PRELAMW WILM PLAN
TREE PRESEANATION PLAN
SHEET R
CHEET 9
PRELIUMn LANDSCAPE RAN
LANDSCAPE DETNLS
DMLOPYDR DATA
e M.
R O: Dfd ((C.SwN. 19)
IV
•9
3AS9 SS / 2? C
R.O.M. DEDICATION 11.51".
i R.O. DCDKI110N ((wTEINOR STREETS)
3..535 S.E. /0.79 AC.
170.045 SF. 390 AC.
_ - , ANDUSmw - (LOT I, BIOCN 2
-- INDUSTRUL - 4 101 1. BL 3
777.760 s i. /0.29 C.
.M.:e7 sr./9. Ac
RESIDENn4 AREA - (LOTS 1 -22. BLOM 11
895.6• Sr. /:0.50 AC.
1074 H1prs
DE%TLOPED DENSITV
' 1
1.4 wan
TAD LNrs PER ACRE
TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES
I ST ADDITION
CHANHASSEN
EXTERIOR COLOR PACKAGES
PKG
BRICK
ROOF
SIDING
SOFFIT,
ACCENT
(Wunder Klein)
(Owens Corning
(Rolex Vinyl)
FACIA, TRIM
COLOR
Supreme)
& GARAGE
DOOR
A
Spaulding Tudor
Dri ftwood
Clay
Cottage White
Burgundy
B
Winyah Bay
Estate Gray
Sandcastle
Shell
Forest Green
C
Briar Cliff
Barnwood
Mist
Heather
Federal Brown
(Newport)
D
Valleywood
Weathered Wood
Shell
Sandcastle
Wedgewood Blue
(Cape Charles)
E
Wellington
Chapel Gray
Cobblestone
Frost
Tuxedo Grey
(Dartmouth)
* Accent color is for entry door and shutters
June 19, 1996
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners '
Soil Testing • En vironmental Services
10590 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 -1525 '
Office B12- 546 -7601 Fax B12 -54H O
May 29, 1996 MAY 3 0 RECD
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bob Generous, Sr. Planner
P.O. Box 147
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147
Subject:
Town & Country Homes First Addition
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is intended to clarify that the site plan and related information for the two
industrial lots shown on the preliminary plans is intended to be conceptual only as noted on
the plan. The owner wishes to retain the full flexibility offered by City codes for the future site
planning and development of these lots. Detailed site plans will be submitted for City review
in the future.
The grading plan shows a significant earth berm on the industrial lot south of A Street.
However, the berm includes a note that the height of the berm may be adjusted based on
availability of soils. We have since prepared an earthwork analysis and found that there is a
shortage of soil to grade the site as shown. It will be necessary to reduce the berm height to
four to six feet above the street elevation. The storm water basins shown on the industrial
lots are also conceptual. If possible, the owner intends to eliminate the pond on lot 1 block 3
and to convey the storm runoff to the pond on lot 1 block 2.
The site plan and related information for the townhouse portion of the project
illustrates the actual project proposed to be developed by Town & Country Homes after all
approvals are obtained. The intent of the preliminary plan submittal for Town & Country
Homes First Addition is to obtain these approvals.
Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
KEA/cj
cc: Al Block, Town & Country Homes
.John Allen, Industrial Equities LLP
Ron Bastyr
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Kenneth Adolf
n
1
Hmrmauve Hction cquai UPPUFLUMLY r-riiNwyCi
TOWN Si Cctly HOMES
Minnesota Division
' May 24, 1996
City of Chanhassen
' C \O Bob Generous - Senior Planner
690 Coulter Dr
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Neighborhood Information Meeting
' Dear Mr. Generous,
' Town & Country Homes cordially invites you to attend an informal neighborhood meeting for
our proposed townhome development at the northwest corner of Lyman Blvd and Galpin Blvd.
' The meeting will be held at Bluff Creek Elementary School in the Recreation Center meeting
room, located at the rear of the school. The day and time of the meeting will be Thursday, May
30, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.
We wish to present our proposal to you as a neighborhood, in an informal question and answer
format. At this meeting we can also hear your concerns and comments and respond to them.
This meeting is scheduled for approximately one week before the city planning commission
hearing.
' The site is a 45 -acre parcel and presently has a comprehensive guide plan designation of
industrial. We are proposing 142 owner- occupied townhomes on 20.5 acres. The remaining
land will have 2 industrial lots, with approximately 9 acres of wetland and many exisiting trees
being retained.
' We look forward to talking with you Thursday. If you have any questions concerning this
project, please contact Mr. Bob Smith or myself at 925 -3899.
' Cordially,
' Al Block
President/Minnesota Division RECEIVED
i MAY 2 8 1996
CITY OF CHAIVHASSEN
' 6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina, MN 55435
(612) 925 -3899 MN Builder License #9137
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners
So // Testing • Environmental Services
10590 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 -1525
Office 612 - 546 -7601 Fax 612 - 546 -9065
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
May 16, 1996
Dear Bob,
As you requested, I am herein providing calculations for tree canopy loss on Town & Country
Homes First Addition. These calculations are based upon existing site topography as located by
Loucks & Associates and provided by Ron Bastyr.
Residential Area Industrial Area Total Area
Total Tree Canopy 377,928 S.F./8.68 AC. 115,760 S.F./2.66 AC. 493,688 S.F. /11.34 AC.
Total Canopy Loss 245,379 S.F. /5.63 AC. 83,206 S.F. /1.91 AC. 328,585 S.F. /7.54 AC.
Percent Loss
65%
72%
67%
If you have any questions regarding this information or need further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
im Hirz
Senior Engineering Technician RECEIVED
CC: Al Block, Town & Country Homes MAY 171996
Ron Bastyr
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Auirmauve Hciion Cquai UPPUILUMLY �niNwyei
1
1
i
' May 15, 1996
Bill Weckman
Carver County
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: Galpin Boulevard Reconstruction Project from Lyman Boulevard to Timberwood Drive
SAP No. 10- 619 -04, City File No. PW026E
Dear Bill:
There were a couple of items which were brought up and discussed at a recent department head
staff meeting regarding the Galpin Boulevard Reconstruction Project from Lyman Boulevard
south to Timberwood Drive. The first item involves the elimination of the north access to the
proposed Southern Oaks development (Fisher property) located at Station 61 +34. Thus, this
curbcut and the associated southbound right turnlane can be eliminated. This development is
proposed to be served via one access off of Galpin Boulevard which is to be located immediately
across from Stone Creek Drive at approximately Station 10 +00.
Item No. 2 involves confirming the City's desire to see a trail also extended along the west side of
Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard (this is shown on the plan).
This trail is in addition to the trail to be constructed along,the east side of Galpin Boulevard to the
Stone Creek Development as shown on the plans. Again, this point is merely made to confirm the
City's intent to have:complete trails constructed on both sides of Galpin Boulevardfrom
Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard.
The final item involves the issue of the Pioneer Cemetery. As we have discussed, it is the City's
intent to have the driveway entrance and main drive aisle into the Pioneer Cemetery paved with a
bituminous surface. City Maintenance staff will conduct the grading and rock base placement
activities prior to the placement of bituminous by the road paving contractor. The Maintenance
staff have asked for approximately a two -week advance notice of when the paving might occur so
that they would have ample time to conduct the necessary preparatory work. As we get closer to
the paving operations, please let me know of the schedule so I may forward this information on.
1
Mr. Bill Weckman
May 15, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions or further comments on any of these of any other issues related to the
project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
L,�,.� 6J. 'o Imo— /
Charles D. Folch, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CDF:jms
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
g:\eng`c6arle s\letter4alpin.ltr
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I *
n
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO:. Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: May 24, 1996
SUBJECT: 96 -2 PUD, 96 -5 SPR, 95 -1b LUP and 95 -2b WAP (Town & Country Homes, First
Addition; Town and Country Homes). ,
I was asked to review the proposal stamped
06, 1996 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DE
Analysis:
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts
by the Public Safety Department. Propos
Structure information. Locations
enable the Inspections Division an(
structure at the time of buildingpen
as well as garage floor elevations
designations (FLO or RLO, R,
*;,.. r.
standard designations lessen the bh
these desianationsAsericlosed_
CHANHASSEN RECEIVED, MAY
above referenced project.
usion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed
names are not included with the submitted documents.
of proposed dwelling pads
Engineering Department to
flit issuance. For the same rea
are required to be indicated
the type of dwelling is necessary to
orm a satisfactory plan review of the
proposed lowest level floor elevations
the proposed pad location. Standard
i for proposed dwelling types. These
:view process. The memo explaining
' Demolition. Existing structures ori'the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits.
Proof of well abandonment must be furn ished' to the City and a.permit for septic system abandonment must
be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
1 � r
Setbacks. Exterior walls (at bays and optional bay� d projections (at overhangs and decks) are regulated
by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown, decks will not be
permitted as shown, overhangs will not be permitted in some cases and exterior walls must be of one -hour
Bob Generous
May 24, 1996
Page 2
fire- resistive construction in some cases. Openings shown in some walls will not be permitted with the
building and property lines as shown. To avoid opening protection and one -hour fire- resistive wall
construction, the property lines should be at least four feet from any wall of the building where a twelve
inch overhang is planned. Decks may not be built within three feet of the property line. These requirements
are found in UBC Table 5 -A, 503.2.1 and 705. Since these issues involve property lines, they need to be
resolved before preliminary plat approval.
Soils. The Carver County Soil Survey indicates the site may contain some glencoe soils. Glencoe soils are
given a building site group 10 rating, which indicates they are unsuitable for building. A geotechnical
evaluation, which includes an FHANA lot by lot tabulation for land development with controlled
earthwork, should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review. The report should also include a
copy of the grading and drainage plan.
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early
as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final
plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
4. Adjust property lines to permit openings in exterior walls or revise plans to remove openings.
Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to remove projections.
Adjust property lines to permit decks or revise plans to remove decks. This should be done before
preliminary plat approval.
5. Provide a geotechnical evaluation report to the Inspections Division. This should be done before
any permits are issued.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
glsafery\sak\ nemos \plan \m &crty1
L]
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.D. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
Fi 0 o: RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with me basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level. _ t' =•
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many level dwellings.
SE Designatcs Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level. approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
' TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
' WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU SiE FLO k ;
R SEWO Wp
a� PLO
- - - - -- i- - -- r — — — - - --- - - =A§.
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
t engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
I1'
�i� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1_00AQ ?. �ke r n S r
Vo)t I , 4. l
Residential Taxes aren't Farmland's
Most Valuable Harvest
sy LEE R ONNmNG
Revenues
A rguments for saving fertile farmland from being destroyed
Perhaps the most ironic finding of this study is the fact that
by urban sprawl often center on the environmental and
sprawling residential developments can result in less funding for
social impacts of rampant development patterns. But for better
schools. In Minnesota, state aid is used to hold down property
or worse, it's the financial bottom -line that carries real weight
taxes. Because this aid is usually distributed based on population
with decision makers. As a result, the environmental and social
or school enrollment, it increases the share of education
havoc wreaked by urban sprawl is often justified on grounds that
funding attributable to the residential sector. Minnesota's
new development increases the tax base, thus improving schools
school aid is dependent on the total property valuation of a
and other community services.
school distrcti as well as being a function of enrollment, thus
261,056
school districts receive less state aid per student as growth
Farmland
occurs and property tax bases expand.
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE
CITIES OF FARMINGTON, LAKE ELMO AND INDEPENDENCE
Revenues
Expenditures
Balance
Ratio
FARMINGTON
Residential
11,641,596
11,860,275
(218,679)
1:1.02
Commercial & industrial
1,227,644
966,588
261,056
1:0.79
Farmland
80,940
62,008
18,932
1:0.77
Grand Total
12,950,180
12,888,871
61,309
LAKE ELMO
Residential
7,492,273
7,996,164
(503,891)
1:1.07
Commercial & Industrial
717,942
143,861
574,081
1.0.20
Farmland
95,240
26,025
69,215
1:0.27
Grand Total
8,305,455
8,166,050
139,405
INDEPENDENCE
,
Residential
4,656,443
4,817,233
(160,790)
1:1.03
Commercial & Industrial
218,266
41,304
176,962
1:0.19
Farmland
197,913
93,513
104,400
1:0.47
Grand Total
5,072,622
4,952,050
120,572
Perhaps the most
ironic finding of this
study is the fact that
sprawling residential
developments can
result in less
funding for schools.
However, recent financial analyses of the costs of urban sprawl
are knocking the legs out from under the economic justifica-
tions for uncontrolled urban sprawl. Simply put, sprawling
residential developments often cost communities more than
they contribute to tax coffers.
That was the conclusion of a study recently conducted by the
Land Stewardship Project and the American Farmland Trust in
three metro -area communities: Farmington, Lake Elmo and
Independence. Farmland and the Tax Bill: The Cost of Commu-
nity Services in Three Minnesota Cities, traces the flow of rev.
enues and expenditures generated by specific land uses in the
three towns. On average, farmland adds twice as much to local
tax bases as it demands back in services, according to the study.
Using data gathered from the Minnesota Department of
Revenue, Office of State Auditor and the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Education, the analysis found that in those three
communities, for every $1 in tax revenue generated by residen-
tial development, on average $1.04 was spent to provide
services. According to a study conducted in Wright County by
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the further away
from existing infrastructure development is located, the more
costly it is to provide services.
�I Te conducted the three-communiry study in hopes of
providing localized, bottom -line information that has
already been well - documented in other states. We hope this
data will help city officials better evaluate the impact of land
use decisions on municipal and school district finances.
The three communities studied were chosen because they
represent cities undergoing various stages of development
within 25 miles of the Minneapolis -St. Paul downtown area.
Independence is just beginning to grow slowly, while Lake Elmo
is.expenencing moderate growth and Farmmgton is being -
developed rapidly.
Normally, the expanded tax base would offset any loss of state
aid. But if residential development is the source of the expanded
development, then the increased cost of servicing that develop-
ment could actually lead to the need for higher property taxes
to fund schools, the study found. It's clear Minnesota's tax
structure makes it very difficult to determine who is paying the
true costs of sprawling residential development.
And our research finds that farmland protection may be
financially beneficial not only because of its contribution to the
tax base, but also because it holds down property tax valuation.
Lower property tax valuation leads to more state aid, which
reduces the share of local government costs paid for by local
residents and property owners.
T he tax revenue -to cost of services ratios this analysis
reported are similar to those found in eight studies of
farmland development in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New
York and Ohio. Those studies found that any apparent gain in
tax revenue from residential development was lost when the
cost of delivering necessary public services — from roads, sewers
and parking lots to education and public safety — was consid.
ered. A study released last year by Utah State University's
economics department found that for every $ I in revenue
collected by residential property taxes in one of that state's
counties, $1.27 in services was being provided.
These studies come at a time when sprawling growth is destroy.
ing the state's farmland at an alarming rate. The 20 -county
growth corridor from St. Cloud to the Twin Cities to Rochester
is the fastest growing metropolitan area from the northern
plains to the eastern seaboard. The seven - county Twin Cities
metropolitan area has lost 235 square miles of agricultural land
to urbanization since 1970. Since 1980, most of that growth has
occurred in second -ring suburbs. The Twin Cities area is the
third least densely populated metropolitan region in the
country, but one of the fastest growing geographically. The
amount of metro -area land devoted to urban land uses has
increased by 42 percent since 1970, almost double the 22
percent population growth rate during this same period.
These trends are accelerated by an all too common attitude
that farmland is property that is "vacant" or "wasted," until
it sprouts subdivisions. But ag acres fuel a powerful economic
engine in the region. Despite the rapid urbanization of the
region, metro -area agricultural activity produced more than
$500 million worth of farm output and generated 7,000 jobs
in 1990. Nationally, 56 percent of agricultural production
comes from counties on the edge of cities.
Farmland and the Tax Bill concludes that Minnesota and metro.
area communities should continue to support existing farmland
protection activities, such as the Metro Ag Preserves and the
state's Green Acres programs. For economic and environmental
reasons, the study recommends exploring other techniques to
retain this valuable resource base, such as purchase of conserva-
tion easements.
The statistics reported in this study will justify such measures.
Perhaps even more importantly, they will help put to rest the
fallacy that the most valuable crop farmland can produce is
residential taxes. e
6 Winter 191)6
'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
'
MEETING
Wednesday, JUNE 5,1996
'
at 7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
'
Project: Town and Country Homes
First Addition
Developer: Town and Country Homes
Location: NW corner of Lyman and
Galpin Blvd.
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
' area. The applicant, Town and Country Homes, is proposing a mixed medium density residential
and industrial office development on 45.21 acres located at the northwest corner of Lyman and
Galpin Blvd. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 acres
from office /industrial to residential medium density, conceptual and preliminary PUD approval for
a mixed townhome and office - industrial development, rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to
PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 146 townhome units, a wetland alteration
permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and
associated right -of -way, Town & Country Homes First Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
' meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
' 2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
' Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 1996.
Gerald & Lois Gustafson Roger & Gayleen Schmidt Earl Holasek
8341 Galpin Blvd. 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8610 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rene & Lisa Schroeder John & K. Sumners Joel H. Lehrke
2337 Boulder Road 2333 Boulder Road 2329 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kelly Morlock Chad J. Gniffke Douglas & S. Hipskind
2325 Boulder Road 2321 Boulder Road 2317 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hans Hagen Homes &
Merle & Jane Volk Gregory K. Ziton Don & Ann Esping
Suite 300 2334 Boulder Road 2330 Boulder Road
941 Hillwind Rd. NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fridley, MN 55432
Douglas & Christine Johnson Jeffrey & Karla Althoff James & J. Larranaga
2322 Boulder Road 2326 Boulder Road 2318 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & Cathy Borgman Scott & A. Weldon Lisa Kilpatrick
2308 Boulder Road 2292 Boulder Road 2360 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy & Vicki Dempsey Lewis Engineering Co. Rory & Amy Lea
2301 Lukewood Dr. 4201 Norex Drive 2313 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -9414 Chaska, MN 55318 -3046 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerhard & Helene Schock Stephen & Melinda Pittorf Jeffrey Palm & Cheri Swiertz
2309 Boulder Road 2305 Boulder Road 2301 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rudolph & Jean Larson John & Kym Staples Merle & Jane Volk
2291 Boulder Road 2374 Stone Creek Dr. 16925 Co. Rd. 40
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver, MN 55315 -9635
John & L. Sullivan Peter & M. Cunningham Stephen & N. Dragos
2346 Stone Creek Drive 2332 Stone Creek Drive 2318 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
F1
L
' Michael & Mary Minear Moberg Homes, Inc. Steven & Nancy Cavanaugh
2421 Bridle Creek Trail P.O. Box 57 2441 Bridle Creek Trail
' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Daniel & Dona Lee
James & Mary Stasson
Craig & Nina wanestad
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
William & M. Nason
John Moran
Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
Edina, MN 55435
2361 Stone Creek Drive
2150 Boulder Road
2765 Casco Point Road
' Arvey
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayzata, MN 55391
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey & Lindsey Finch
Steven & Blanche Neuwoehner
Brian & Sally Snabb
' 708 Main Street
2304 Stone Creek Drive
2375 Stone Creek Drive
2333 Stone Creek Lane W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
David & Yael Rubin
William & Lorraine Rodriguez
Kevin & Cathleen Dilorenzo
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
,Chanhassen, MN
2345 Stone Creek Lane W.
2357 Stone Creek Lane W.
4013 Montery Ave. S.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edina, MN 55416
Jr. & Pamela Franzen
Kip & Diane Hanson
Neil & Beverly Butchart
' William
2370 Stone Creek Lane W.
2356 Stone Creek Lane W.
2342 Stone Creek Lane W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curt & Hope Enerson
Mark & Christine Fischer
Rodney & Janice Melton
2403 Bridle Creek Trail
2407 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Michael & Mary Minear Moberg Homes, Inc. Steven & Nancy Cavanaugh
2421 Bridle Creek Trail P.O. Box 57 2441 Bridle Creek Trail
' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Daniel & Dona Lee
James & Mary Stasson
Craig & Nina wanestad
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
6566 France Ave. S., #1001
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edina, MN 55435
& Marlene Eeg
Michael Voigt & Deborah Skubai
Thomas oc Marcia Kladek
' Arvey
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
2483 Bridle Creek Trail
2491 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
New Creations Industries, Inc.
Steven & Deborah Watts
Hearth Homes
' 708 Main Street
2563 Bridle Creek Trail
10025 James Road
Elk River, MN 55330
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bloomington, MN 55431
Dennis & Carol Medo
Edwin Susi
Ken & IA. Hoiirah
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
,Chanhassen, MN
2430 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Westenberg Homes, Inc. Willard & Rebecca Bury
7150 Willow View Curve 2460 Bridle Creek Trail.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ronald & Jeanne Lindberg Bruce & Julianne Diehl
2480 Bridle Creek Trail 2490 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey & Cynthia Olson Dream Builders, Inc.
2520 Bridle Creek Trail 10420 49th Ave. N.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Plymouth, MN 55442
Todd & Ann Mack James & Kathryn Liddell
2542 Bridle Creek Trail 2550 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
The Nordick Group, Inc. Williad Morton
701 12th Ave. N. 4035 Norex Drive
West Fargo, ND 58078 Chaska, MN 55318 -3043
Richard Riegert
c/o Rieker Enterprises
27110 62nd St. W.
Excelsior, MN 55331
David & Monica Kilber
2470 Bridle Creek Trail
1
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Boyd & Debra Aarestad
2510 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
'
William & Donna Hartwig
2536 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Conopco, Inc.
,
c/o Van Den Bergh Foods Co.
2200 Cabot Drive
Lisle, IL 60532
'
Chaska Watertower Mini Storage
149 Jonathan Blvd. N.
,
Chaska, MN 55318 -2342
m = = = m
i
W FTLAN n
`�'1 (,oGatioilS
1
1
i
1 1�= B _
1 1 i 1 �1 - 111 ` - �. •• '
BLOCK 2 1�_ _3 1 -
\ ..
�RC- 'S I RIDGE, ,ADDITIO �
=rte
It i
�BIAGK 1' E a
, '`�- � ilk O i � —, . - � � 1 �•
BLOCK 1
22 BLOCK I
•� '
1 I w_
r 1, t
t11
1 ,
20
3 -- •_
,• o
21
I •..w�., i `'
C� m.i
r
=3
Tq !
i
r
r _
1
L_____ ___________ ______—�
` '
1
1 `
BL - -
CC �c
K 3
-
LOT t - -�-
_•
I
IF
�' _
—
•:. C.94A.M.44—
-
-LYMAN BLVD.
$1 � C�[I• I
npHl
C.ts +,r n.•• .. •.. aICN, lDi.1��•.
SCHOELL k MADSON, INC.
'•" "." .• "�° SITE PLAN
TOWN A COUNTRY HOMES
IOMO .•nl RIIVMO. rra ,
TOWN l COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION
,a. I,gIW -p 1••W ,,.., CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
S.M.I PROJECT NO. 62166 -002 SHEET 1 OF 9 SHEETS
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
June 2, 1996
Mr. Bob Generous
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Generous:
I am writing to express our vehement opposition to the proposed development
of 142 townhouse units by Town & Country Homes, to be located off Galpin
Road between Trotters Ridge and Lyman Boulevard. This development will
have detrimental impacts on both the environmental quality and the quality of
life of our neighborhood and the entire community. We believe it is an
inappropriate use of the site.
A large percentage of the mature trees on the site will be lost if the
development is built as proposed. The plan that was presented on May 30 by
Town & Country to the neighbors affected shows that the north -south road in
the development, with townhouses lining both sides, will be routed directly
through the heart of the trees.
Beautiful, mature trees are part of what gives Chanhassen its special character
and makes it a desirable place to live. Whatever use is made of that site
should be planned to retain as many of the trees as possible. It is my
understanding that the earlier proposal for single - family homes on that site
planned to save 70% of the trees. One of the reasons given for rejecting it was
that 70% was not enough. The Town & Country proposal appears to save
fewer trees.
The Town & Country proposal also includes alterations to the wetland on the
site. These changes threaten to cause drainage problems for several
neighbors bordering the site on the north. Construction of townhouses across
drainage routes from their properties into the wetland area will inhibit natural
drainage patterns. There have already been dramatic changes created in the
wetlands bordering Trotters Ridge on the south which have been made by
activities of the property owners to the south and west.
We are also concerned about the added congestion, traffic and noise. Building
142 higher density units housing 300 -350 people in a compact area can't help
but mean higher traffic burdens for Galpin Road and Lyman Boulevard. ��CEIV
� E
JUN 0 4 1996
CITY OF CHANH
L71
1
Since the closest units will be located only 50 feet from the lot lines on the
southern edge of Trotters Ridge, our privacy will be adversely affected. Decks
' and back yards in the townhouse development will look down into our back
yards and directly into our second story windows.
'
Finally, a proposal for entry-level townhouses seems very much out of keeping
with the character and price range of the surrounding areas of single - family
homes in Timberwood Estates, The Oaks, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. It
'
certainly cannot enhance the marketability and property values for homeowners
in the immediate vicinity.
A single family home development would better maintain the beauty and
environmental quality of the site. Even industrial /office property, for which this
site has been zoned, would be a better use and less objectionable. I urge you
'
and the Planning Commission to reject the Town & Country proposal and
maintain the industrial zoning designation for the entire site or rezone it for
'
single - family homes that would fit the surrounding environment.
' Sincerely yours,
�J J
Peter Sidney
Lu Ann Sidney
I _
I May 31, 1996
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters -1 00 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (612) 772 -7910 Fax: (612) 772 -7977
Mr. Robert Generous
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY
(CITY #96 -2 PUD, 96 -05 SPR, 95 -1b LUP, & 95 -2b WAP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the plans dated May 3, 1996 (received May 8, 1996) for Town & Country Homes, a project
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Lyman and Galpin Boulevards (E1 /2 SE 1/4, Section 16,
and SW1 /4 SWI /4 Section 16, T116N -R23W) and have the following comments to offer:
' 1. The Town & Country Homes site does not appear to contain any Public Waters or Public Waters
Wetlands; therefore, no DNR Public Waters permit is required.
' 2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. Settling basins
remove pollutants and reduce peak discharges that would negatively impact the water quality,
' recreational values, wildlife values, and aesthetic values of properties downstream of Town & Country
Homes.
F
J
3. There are wetlands on the site of Town & Country Homes that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in
wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the
Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
4. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the property adjacent
to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that the Town & Country Homeowners Association is
aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Chanhassen, and the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without
appropriate permits.
5 The site of Town & Country Homes does not appear to be within a shoreland district.
6. There are no FEMA- designated floodplains on the Town & Country Homes site. However, the wetlands
on the site will have 100 -year flood elevations. The structures of Town & Country Homes must be
constructed in compliance with applicable floodplain regulations of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District. RECEivF
DNR Information: 612 -296 -6157, 1- 800 - 766 -6000 • TTY: 612- 296 -5484, 1- 800 -657 -3929
:\n rqual 0pp0t,nnit% Employer OVA, Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a JUN 0 3 1996
Who Values Dixersity Minimum or 10% Post- Comumer Wale
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mr. Robert Generous '
May 31, 1996
Page 2 '
7. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: '
a. Chanhassen should require strong erosion control measures to be used due to the existence of
steep slopes on the Town & Country Homes site. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and ,
Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of
Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should
be followed Chanhassen should regularly inspect the erosion controls to be sure that they are
being maintained. '
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per
year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes '
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, the contractor must apply for a
'
stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 612/296-
7219).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and
,
concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a
particular project.
,
Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have questions.
Sincerely,
,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
'
c: Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, Paul Neumann
'
F
� P4k PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Carver County Government Center
Administration
Administration Building Parks
' CARVER 600 East Fourth Street Engineering
COUNTY Chaska, Minnesota 55318 -2192 Highway Maintenance
Phone (612) 361 -1010 Fax(612)361-1025 Surveying & Mapping
RECEIVE
1
June 5, 1996 JUN 0 6 RECD
CITY OF CHA►vhA,
TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner r 1
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer /
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Town and Country Homes First Addition (96 -2 PUD)
Previously Southern Oaks
Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Town and Country Homes First
Addition subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated May 7, 1996.
A memo was previously sent when this was proposed as Southern Oaks. A copy of that memo
is attached. Most of those comments still apply to this proposal. Additional comments include:
1. The comments concerning the CSAH 19 road right of way including utility permits, access
permits, and restoration would also apply to the proposed work along CSAH 18 (Lyman
Blvd.)
2. There is a proposed reconstruction of CSAH 18 scheduled for 1997 or 1998. Agreements
for this project are just beginning to advance. The proposed setbacks should provide
adequate area for potential CSAH 18 or CSAH 18 /CSAH 19 intersection changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
Attachment
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
1'1'i17ter1 011 10% Post - Consumer Recycled Paper
CARVER
COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
600 East Fourth Street, Box 6
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone(612)361 -1010
Fax(612)361 -1025
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Surveying & Mapping
April 11, 1995
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties
Following are comments regarding the Southern Oaks Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County
by your memorandum dated March 27, 1995:
Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Urban Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 120'
Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
120' 150'
Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
140' 170'
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 (Galpin Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor
Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The
minimum right of way needs for this corridor include a 100 foot width. The corridor as shown
would not meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane undivided roadway.
The other platted properties along this corridor have included a preserved right of way width
of 50 feet from centerline or a total 100 foot wide corridor. It is expected by Carver County
that this plat will not be approved until that dimension is reflected in the plat.
The reconstruction of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. We would ask that Carver County has
an opportunity to review any proposed lot configurations on this property abutting CSAH 19
(Galpin Blvd) prior to approval. of the plat. There may be a need to make minor roadway
alignment changes at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. to facilitate the reconstructed
intersection.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may
also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10% Post - Consumer Recycled Paper
n
u
I
r
�
77
I �
1
1
2. The accesses being proposed to CSAH 19 from this subdivision will need review and a permit
from Carver County. No direct non public road accesses to CSAH 19 will be approved by
the County from this subdivision.
3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right -of -way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right -of -way of CSAH
19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right -of-
way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be
completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than what
existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the
developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final
condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will
result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city.
6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County.
When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable
sight distance at the CSAH 19 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right -
of -way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration.
7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 19 will increase. The increased traffic will
generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement
project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development.
TO"'A N � A1 HOMES
Minnesota Division
RECEIVE[
JUN 11 RECD
June 10, 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mr. John Fisher
8470 Galpin Blvd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I am writing this letter concerning information I received Friday afternoon that you have drained the wetland
in the northwest corner of the property, which we are proposing for our townhome development.
I, and we, at Town & Country Homes are gravely concerned about your action. We do not condone your
draining of this or any wetland. This blatant conduct may be in violation of Federal, State, City, and
Watershed District laws, rules, and regulations.
I strongly suggest and urge that you personally contact these agencies to report your actions. Additionally,
I implore you to seek professional recommendations and to carry out mitigation and remediation of this
action of drainage of the wetland.
Sincerely,
3bert P. Smith
ice President of Land Development
cc: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina, MN 55435
(612) 925 -3899 MN Builder License #9137
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM
OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, CONCEPTUAL AND
PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE -
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BLVD., REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146
TOWNHOME UNITS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE
WETLANDS ON SITE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS
' AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION,
TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES.
' Public Present:
Name Address
Al Block
Bob Smith
Ken Adolf
Jeanne Lindberg
Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh
Dona Lee
Craig & Nina Wallestad
Peter & LuAnn Sidney
Rodney Melton
Doug Johnson
Mike Minear
Dan Schleck
Roger & Gay Schmidt
6800 France Avenue So. #170, Edina
6800 France Avenue So. #170, Edina
Schoell & Madson, Inc., Minnetonka
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
2441 Bridle Creek Trail
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
2475 Bridle Creek Trail
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
2322 Boulder Road
2421 Bridle Creek Trail
2250 Lukewood Drive
8501 Galpin Boulevard
Bob Generous presented the staff repoit on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Conrad: Sure. A couple. What's our buffering between the project to the north and this
particular property? Is it just space?
Generous: Basically. There is some evergreen plantings but not a whole lot.
10
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: And the guidelines that we had for buffering. Our new buffer ordinance probably I
doesn't govern in this particular instance.
Generous: Well it would because you have medium density adjacent to single family but Jill '
did the analysis so they would have to provide additional plantings to meet that but not a
whole lot. We have to take into consideration with that additional space, the wetland
preservation. You can give them a proportionate reduction in that.
Conrad: Okay. I'm going down through what the City Council directed back in February or
maybe earlier in terms of what they were looking for when they turned down the office ,
industrial project. Tree preservation, wetland protection. How did you respond to that in this
report Bob?
Generous: Well as far as tree preservation, we did the analysis and the are actually
'
Y Y Y
preserving. It appears that they're preserving additional treed area or canopy area. The
configurations have changed. Unfortunately these two scales aren't quite the same but we '
pick up additional savings on this area and elongated the central area. And there is a little
additional savings within the center. I didn't loop the road going through because of the '
layout of the previous cul -de -sac. They were going in there and they were going to have to
grade that area. And then on the south side they had houses backing up there to there.
Conrad: Okay. Now the big question that I think maybe you can summarize for me. I read '
the staff report but I think you've got to interpret it a little bit for me. The reason we tabled
or we turned down the last project was because it was zoned industrial or guided and that for ,
commercial so we weren't comfortable taking that off the tax rolls or the benefits would
achieve the city. Here's a case where we're sort of getting a little bit of the benefit and
putting in a transition based on planning so it's a transition. Can you summarize again for '
me, and maybe the people here, what the tax loss will be because of this. I think you did two
different analysis so we have one estimate is pretty close to a wash and another one is further
away from that. I
Generous: Right. I summarize it. If you look at this development versus a smaller ... I
believe it's 140,000 square feet. While this proposal has a net benefit, tax benefit, revenue '
benefit to the community of estimated $41,442.00 so they pay that much more in taxes than
they use in expenditures based on some assumptions of average expenditures per revenue that
came out of the study that we were able to find. If we go to the office industrial component, '
we're to develop at the highest intensity that we believe feasible on the site. The net tax
revenues would be $98,630.00. Obviously it was a smaller development so you have 130,000
square foot development, it would be a $40,682.00 net revenue. So it actually is less.. At
about 150,000 square. feet. they would, the net revenues balance out. And that's not to say if
11 I
J
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
this were to develop as a corporate center and they go up higher, then we can get higher
square footages on those sites.
Conrad: So we might be losing $50,000.00.
Generous: $50,000.00.
Joyce: How do you appropriate the costs of new residents that will be in this development
versus the schooling and stuff like that as opposed to office industrial?
Generous: Well that was the average cost of $1.04 per.
Joyce: $1.04? Okay, that's.
Generous: The range was, I believe it was $1.02 to $1.07 in the study.
Joyce: I have one other question regarding the tree loss, removal situation. In that site, the
trees I see that are being removed are really mature trees. There's a couple of groves in there
that kind of make me a little leery here and they're going to be replacing those how?
Generous: Well their landscaping plan has 360 some trees in it.
Joyce: But they're all like ball and burlap type trees?
Generous: Yeah, I believe it's 2 1/2 inch.
' Joyce: So we are taking down very mature trees and putting up saplings.
Generous: The next generation. However we are trying to preserve large lots of that and the
developer has told staff that they are interested in looking at providing additional retaining
walls within the development. That could save additional trees so that we have to get to a
more definite detail for them to be able to work with that.
Skubic: Recommendation 16 regarding trees lost due to construction practices. Dealing with
schedules in the city. I would assume that a rate of 2 times the diameter would buy the sub-
' total of some of the smaller trees to replace the larger trees.
Generous: Well unfortunately when we do inventory it's based on caliper inch. You
' generally will come out ahead because if you dig a 48 inch tree and double that, you're up to
96. inch caliper inches. Area wise you can do it also. That's where you take, if you do it by
' 12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
canopy area that's removed, then you can two times that area and there's a formula that tells
us how many trees. We believe if they're going to, the saplings have a better chance of
survival than the big trees and that's what this is considered.
Skubic: So if they lose a tree that's 24 inches of caliper, you have to replace it with one
that's 48 inches?
Generous: No, not one that's 48. 48 caliper inches so they go let's say, four inch trees and
put 12 of those in. But we would then be able to hold them specifically responsible for that
replacement.
Peterson: Other questions of staff? I'll continue on the same round with trees. In the event
that an office /industrial complex went in there, would it be fair to assume that the majority of
those trees would, more of those trees would be gone with an LP than it would be with this
unit, or one similar to it?
Generous: Yes.
Peterson: Just because of the impervious surfaces and.
Generous: And because they have to have the flatter.
Peterson: Flat grade.
Generous: We could save, depending on the design probably of that middle area but the rest
of it would be...
Peterson: Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission?
Al Block: Yes, thank you. I'm Al Block, Town and Country Homes. Chairman, members of
the commission. We appreciate the opportunity to present some information to you about our
development. Bob Smith who is also with our company will also be participating in this. I'll
try to be as brief as possible. Just a little bit about Town and Country Homes. We are
somewhat new to the area. We have been building here for about 4 years. We started out in
Maple Grove ... and now we are building the townhome product that we are proposing tonight
in Burnsville and Eagan. However our company is 38 years old and we are a family owned
company and Minnesota is a division for the family that is located in Hinsville and West
Chester, Illinois. A few general comments about how we've approached townhome
development and it is a significant part of.our..business today overall. Probably 50% to 60 %.
And that is, first. of all we believe in these developments being tightly controlled with a full
13
F IB '
n
u
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
set of covenants and conditions that take care of exterior maintenance of the buildings
themselves, as well as the landscaping and so on. The covenants are very extensive, very
detailed. A couple of examples. If you have a two car garage, we require that if you have
two cars, they both be in the garage overnight. Not on the street. We enforce this. We hire
professional property management people from day one, when we start building. From the
local area that begin to put a program together as buildings are being built so that they are
ready to maintain the landscaping, etc from the very early conception. That's something that's
very important to us. Some experiences that we have had with developments such as this.
First of all, all of the units are for ownership. They are not intended for rental. We have
found that for a community of the size we are proposing, typically you will have one or two
units on average that actually will be rented out. On rare occasions we will have investors
that will buy, purchase a home and rent it out. Or you will have people that own a home, get
' transferred out of town but are going to be back in a couple of years but they prefer to keep
ownership of the home while they are away and while they're away they rent it out. So you'll
have that kind of situation. Secondly, another comment that we get a lot is that this is going
to be a community that will have tons and tons of children and therefore lots of problems, etc.
This has not ever been our experience and our buyer profile in Burnsville and Eagan where
' we now have quite a few buyers for whom we are building homes, proves out that in a
community of this size, we typically will have about 30 children to 35. Many of our buyers,
in Burnsville and Eagan as well as all the other townhome communities, are young
professionals or they're empty nesters. In the case of empty nesters, a lot of times they're
moving down to smaller homes and also looking to the idea that somebody else will maintain
them. One of the things that we always do is we have a small area set aside within the
' community that if we end up with a number of young children, we will install our own
privately maintained by the property owners association, a totlot facility where there is
playground equipment that encourages those young people to stay within the community and
not transition out of it as far as trying to get to a playground that's across the street or up the
road and that kind of thing because it puts them in danger. Another thing that I'm sure will
be discussed this evening is what are these homes going to be priced at. The base price,
' without options, without basement, is in the range of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 to as high as
$120,000.00 for the largest unit. However, many of these homes will have basements. We
are experiencing in Burnsville and Eagan that most buyers are purchasing quite a few dollars
' worth of options. We have a number of townhomes units there that are in the $150,000.00
price range and going on down from there. I'd like to take a few brief minutes to just show
you some pictures of the models of the two communities in Burnsville and Eagan and I want
to forewarn you that these were opened in March. These pictures were taken in March so
there's no landscaping installed yet. It's just been installed now. I'd like to just point out a
few features. Of course this photograph is slightly misleading in that the garage will open
' instead... these kinds of doors because this is a temporary model situation in this area. But the
end units are two car garage.. They are the largest unit as far as square footage. They are
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
approximately 1,480 square feet. All of the townhomes are two bedroom. They're all two
story except we do have the capability in some of the interior units to create a situation where
we put two different units side by side together, creating what we call a flat or all of the
space being on one floor, and therefore much more handicapped accessible. In that case there
is... It is standard and typical to put brick on the entire front of the units around the garage
door units. The garage door openings, I'm sorry, as well as around the openings to the
buildings themselves. Just an example of entry door and ... some brick around it and so on.
The siding with all the vinyl we found to be the most durable and least susceptible to denting
and that kind of thing. The interiors are designed with a lot of openness to them with
skylights, these kinds of features. All of the bedrooms of course are on the second level,
except in the case where as I described... At this point I'd like to turn it over to Bob Smith to
talk a little bit about the land plan itself and some of the features that are incorporated in that.
One thing I want to emphasize is Bob will be reporting to you on a neighborhood meeting
that we conducted last week. The number of comments that came out of that from the
neighboring property owners that I thought were, and Bob thought were very beneficial and
you will see some things tonight presented, there is amendments to the plan that we have
presented to your staff prior to tonight. Any of those amendments that should you deem it
appropriate... these amendments that we present, we are committed to implement the
establishment of. So I want you to know that... With that, I'm going to turn it over to Bob
Smith... I should also mention that the owners and developers of the investment office part of
this are here tonight and they wish to make comments...
Bob Smith: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bob Smith and I'd like to present to you this evening a little bit more detail about the site.
First of all, I have a photograph here of the aerial of the overall neighborhood. As you can
see here, Galpin comes down along here. Lyman comes into here. The school, this was
taken about a year and a half ago. The school under construction is right in this area here.
We have a large lot estate development here. We have some woods, swamp in through
here... This development here, as you can see is under construction. It's built up now. Our
development lies in here. Directly to the north is Trotters Ridge. On the west side, as you
can see are the industrial buildings. Pretty hard surfaced area through here. It's hard covered
through here. Along the south of Lyman is the greenhouse, or an agricultural type industrial
use. So as you can see here, these development transitions from the industrial to agricultural
to the more office industrial use to a medium density residential to a low density residential
into this very large wetlands here. Very traditional transition concept that planning people
use to get to the lower densities of the Trotters Ridge type development. If I may, I'll go to
the overhead and just very briefly go over some of the plans and some of the details. A little
closer detail here you can see where Galpin comes along this side with Lyman in here. We
have some of the older buildings that are in this area in here and in here.. As part of the
recommendations in the staff report, we will get a demolition permit. Those will be removed.
15
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
' Any wells in the area will be removed. The wetlands that are on the site are in this area here.
There's a wetland in this area. There's a wetland in this area. Each one of these wetlands
stands independently of the other. There's a small little wetland in this area. The vegetation,
' treed vegetation primarily is through this area. There's some scattered trees along here as
well as some trees and vegetation along Galpin. Just recently Galpin has been widened and
that slope along here is quite steep. There's a proposed walk, 8 foot bituminous bike trail
' along the top of that. A subsequent planting you'll see where we've proposed to tie into this
walkway on this end. Very quickly you can see how..., and you have seen this already. We're
proposing this evening is a request to a guide plan amendment, 22 acres. 22.6 acres on this
north side from industrial to medium density residential. We're also proposing this evening or
requesting that a rezoning amendment be made on the entire development from agricultural
estate lot to PUD mixed development. The guiding is along this side is already industrial.
As you can see there's two conceptual industrial buildings on this. This is not a request this
evening for an approval of these two industrial sites. However part of the request is for the
' site plan approval as well as a preliminary plat on 24 units. Excuse me, 24 lots with 142
townhome units. Very briefly, and it's pretty hard to see sometimes on these because they are
very detailed. I'd like to illustrate on this is just very briefly the grading. As I said
previously, the grading of another development came up' the side of this hill where this
curvature is here. This curvature has not been built now because of the steep slopes in here.
We've proposed to come up to the edge of the slope and actually keep the trees that are in
' this area here. One of the things at the neighborhood meeting that was discussed was this
corner in here. The proximity to the lot line. In another plan you'll see how I have resolved
a little bit of this area in here. Earlier Mr. Generous had discussed the request to drop from
146 units to 122 units. That plan will also show that we have taken this building here and
dropped two units and changed this a little bit around in here. Additionally this unit, this
building in here has dropped two townhomes that we've reconfigured as somewhat to loosen
' this up which would also help with the sidewalk access into the cul -de -sac. One of the things
that I would like to show on this is the grading. Just conceptual on industrial. That it is a
very large, a very flat area in through here that in fact this whole development were to be
industrial, which would end up creating a large, flat areas like this. Typical of office
industrial type development. What we've done here is, by putting a street in this
configuration, we've been able to take say all of the trees in this area, as well as saving all of
the trees in this area. In addition there's trees out in this area as you can see, as well as these
trees and a lot of the back here remains undisturbed also. Very quickly, utilities. There's
utilities available in Galpin at this location. We propose that sanitary sewer be brought
through the streets into the tie in that's in Galpin as well as water brought through here. This
plan does not show it. We worked with the City Engineer and we're proposing to loop water
back through the back side of the road side of the industrial site so that we can have adequate
water pressure. Storm sewer is located on the ends of the cul -de -sac to pick up the storm .
water that comes off of the driveways. Off the roof 'tops as well as off the streets. Pick up
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
the low spots with the catch basins that brought it through pipes into a wetlands. This
'
location as well as this location and brought into here. These wetlands is created design
wetlands and sediment... before they would go into the wetlands. These have been designed
and meet the watershed district criteria. There's also a wetland that will be created in this
t
area to pick up the water through here. The industrial site and the wetland basins that will
catch water here. Level across into a basin here before it comes into this wetland. Planting
plan. If you look at Town and Country, we want to create a very lush, green street tree
'
planting as well as a unit planting. These trees along the street are planted as ball and burlap
trees. They have a two year guarantee on them. We've found that anything that lasts two
years do last. Often times there is a mortality after one year. We've put a two year guarantee
on these trees so that they, anything after one year to replace, they're once again guaranteed
and then after two years the guarantee goes off and we've found that there's a very good
mortality and they don't die. We're putting in pine trees along this area and this plan shows
red maples. The subsequent plan ... we will put pine trees along this to increase the buffer
along with that lot line. Unit plantings are proposed all along the sidewalks, in the fronts,
between driveways, trees, in the fronts as well as approaches along the sidewalks or the side
,
entrances, as well as plantings all along any of the stoops and patios which may be in the
back trees. Small plantings all along all sides, all the way around. We've proposed to put
about $2,000.00 worth of plantings into each unit, which is identified by a very rigorous... and
identified by both scientifically and common names provided by nurseries and planted by
registered nursery people. Last week we had a neighborhood meeting. Very good discussion.
We had about 32 people at the neighborhood meeting and there was a lot of discussion,
specifically on this last cul -de -sac. Galpin will be along this side. Trotters Ridge along this
side. Some of the discussion was how close these units are to the property line. And how
close these units are to the homes in this area here. ...drop two of these townhomes in this
area here, what we've done is reconfigure this area. Right now it shows that this townhome
is approximately 50 feet from the property line. As we get down to this end we're looking at
'
approximately 65 feet and it continues to be farther down. I'm going to lay this over the top
here and then I will put them separately so you can see the change. Before we do that, one
of the things I'd like to identify that brought this issue up and with this issue was you'll notice
right here, and we can look at it on a larger plan if you wish. There's a storm catch basin
that was put in here by the developer of Trotters Ridge. This catch basin has been put in
such a way that it's caused a drainage problem. It's been put in too high and the people in
Trotter's Ridge here are becoming inundated with their own storm water. What we've found
by doing this is that we could, with participation from the city's engineering department, that
they could do the design. We will construct and fix the drainage in this area here. Not our
t
responsibility but as good neighbors, we want to take and fix the drainage in here so that
everyone works well as well as the drainage works in our development. But as part of that,
as part of reducing two townhomes. Let me line this up here so we have this north property
line all lined up here..._ What_ we've done, this is .where the location of the old townhome
17
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
' layout was, as well as in here. As well as the cul -de -sac around this way. What we proposed
is taking this cul -de -sac, tipping it slightly. Not disturbing this unit. Taking this group of
townhomes. Sliding it around. Taking this group of townhomes and centering them out. By
doing that, we've created about 65 feet of distance. We've increased this distance by 15 feet.
We've also put a berm in this area here and in this area. We've left an open spot in here,
which will create positive drainage coming through here. The berm is proposed to be about 6
' feet tall. Between 5 and 6. Each one of the grading lines represents 2 feet, as well as a 4 to
5 foot berm on this area to screen anything here. What this does, it creates a positive earth
berm then it will have a continual screening that these people here will have separation from
' the townhomes. In planned section we've cut directly through this area right here. Let me
take this off so we can get it a little clearer. We've cut through this berm to this unit, to the
street. To this unit in here. Center line of the street is here. Trotter's Ridge property line is
here. What we've done is created a berm that comes up this way. The unit, the street, the
unit then drops down into this which will be a walkout unit here. As you can see, this is a
' solid berm. Pine trees will be planted on the berm. Let me go back here. Now the
landscape plan which shows pine trees in this area. We'll increase the number of pine trees in
here and rather than putting in a deciduous tree, which will get very tall, with nothing
' screening in the bottom, we'll put all pine trees along here. Also which will be planted on the
berm. Finally, this is pretty easy to see how the development will lay out. This does not
have that most recent change in this area here. This is how it was before. We will take and
' tip this cul -de -sac out so, what the black lines represent here is the trail system that we
propose to put in. This will connect to the sidewalk along this street here. It will tie in
through the woods onto this cul -de -sac. It will come through the woods here on the end of
this cul -de -sac. This dashed line in here represents a cul -de -sac, excuse me. Off the end of
the cul -de -sac, represents a sidewalk which will loop around and rather than coming straight
up, we will bring it around at an angle to transition up this hill here so it's a nice easy slope
' coming up ... get the bituminous bikeway down into the development. The other thing that this
illustrates, that this coded drawing illustrates is that the trees in here and in here, along in
here are all natural trees. As well as this area remains undisturbed back in here. This area
' has been left ... the industrial site simply to show that this is the concept and it's not the final
site approval. Lastly, once again looking at the aerial photograph here. In a little more
detail. Once again we're asking for the approval of the guide plan from off=ice industrial to
the northern, on the northern 22.6 acres to medium density residential. We're asking for
rezoning of the entire development from estate lot agricultural to a mixed planned unit
development, PUD. We're asking for 142 townhomes as well as a preliminary plat of 24 lots.
To summarize this is really, as I've spoken was a classical study of transition. Going from
industrial to agricultural type industrial to office warehouse industrial type through here.
Medium density at about 7 units per acre to the low density of Trotter's Ridge. Finally to the
wetland which is to the north. If you have questions of myself, Mr. Block, we'd certainly like
to answer them. Thank you.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant?
'
Conrad: Two. They're all 6 and 8 unit complexes. You don't have a 4 unit design?
Al Block: We did not include a 4 unit design in this case. Part of the reason is, every time
you have a break between buildings, you start to take out more trees. Existing trees, those
kinds of things. By massing more town units in a building, you can have a little more
,
attrition situation as far as tree removal.
Conrad: On your eight - plexes, I need a better elevation of your units. I just don't have a
'
good feel for what you're proposing. And what.
Al Block: This happens to be a 5 unit building.
Conrad: That's a 5 unit building. Do you have your 8 unit building here?
Al Block: We do not.
Conrad: How wide is that 8 unit building?
Al Block: The 8 unit building would be approximately 150 -160 feet. I believe the I
architectural plan you submitted there was a floorplan.
Conrad: Real tough for me to read it. I'm real worried here in terms of-back on the project.
It's hard for me to look at what's presented and get a sense for some fairly massive structures,
because of the 8- plexes and see how that looks on the project. So that's why.
Al Block: There are a number of different things we do and are incorporated to break up that '
linear feel. For example as it was pointed out by Mr. Generous in the staff presentation,
many of these buildings have vertical breaks in the roof line. There are some changes in '
elevation. There's a transition from one to the other and Bob, could you kind of point out the
building roof line.
Bob Smith: Some of the roof lines break along in here. There's a unit that could step down
to a grade. We'll have a break along in here. You want gables and hips through here. That
will all break up. As you can see down in here, these as Al had pointed out earlier do have
doors in them because they're models but this is what the garage doors actually look like. So
that this is the actual view that you will see in the field. Out in the neighborhood. The
garages will have hip roofs in them to break up the front of the roofs and pop outs for the
windows.so that we do have a good break all along the front.
19 ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
' Conrad: You said this is a 5 -plex?
Al Block: This is 5.
Conrad: And we don't have any in this project. We have sixes and eights.
Al Block: We just didn't happen to have one colored to scale. We certainly could... and
submit it as a 6 and an 8. Obviously a 6 unit building is not going to be a whole lot longer
and I believe, I should correct the information I gave you on...
Generous: It says 149 in the plan.
Y P
' Bob Smith: The overall dimension of the 8 -plex is 149 feet 0 inches.
Al Block: By a combination of, the way the garages are placed, and the way the roofs are
constructed, it breaks up.
Conrad: Well you can sell me on that but you don't have anything here tonight that does.
This is not what you're building and.
Bob Smith: Actually we have submitted this, if I may approach, to I believe what this
gentleman is talking about...
Conrad: I think the City Council's going to want to see that.
Joyce: Especially with a PUD, right?
Conrad: Yeah. It is a PUD obviously and also the real elevation is real important. I think
we'll all have concerns about the neighbors and visuals and anyway that's.
' Joyce: You're going to have eight garage doors on an eight unit that will have a two garage
on each side and six garage doors.
Al Block: Yes.
Joyce: I was curious about the property manager. Are you going to have a property manager
living on site? Is that the plan? I didn't understand that part.
' Al Block: No. It will be a professional property management company that is in charge of
that as opposed to not having anybody really that checks on things or that is just on call.
20
I�
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Joyce: So they maintain the.
Al Block: Everything on the exterior, yes. All exterior maintenance to the buildings and
landscaping and grounds.
Joyce: Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions. Going back to the property management aspect of it. Once it
becomes an association townhouses, how much control is there really at that point in time?
Don't the individual owners really have the control to pick the property managers and you
talked about, you don't allow the cars to be parked out. Is that realistic long term? I mean
that the owners eventually could change that upon transferring the property management.
Al Block: They could by a vote of a certain majority make those changes. That's never
happened to us and typically they will retain the property management company we select at
least for several years.
Peterson: A couple other questions. A little bit about the berming height. You said towards
the residential to the north you've got 5 to 6 feet. Is that the maximum that would be
reasonable? Or possible. Can we go higher or not?
Al Block: I suspect if we took a look at it, it'd be possible to increase that one...
Peterson: I mean I think it'd be beneficial to go as high as we can, depending upon obviously
the space and the angle. The slope.
Hempel: If I could just interject one comment here with the berming back here. Mr. Smith
did indicate about the watermain loop with the cul -de -sac. This is one location that we had
recommended a watermain loop as well. There's currently an existing waterline that runs
down the next lot line east of where that storm sewer line exists. There's a 12 inch
watermain. We'd want to loop in the cul -de -sac to see which would be underneath the
isolated berm there. We could work on relocating that berm to an area ... and that location is
the existing water line that we'd like to see extended for water quality and water pressure
reasons. So that may impact their shifting those units a little bit more in that cul -de -sac.
Peterson: What about the berming to the office industrial to the south? That wasn't
discussed. I think it was maybe in the ... height of that.
Bob Smith: Right now that is conceptual....
21
11
11
1
1
i�
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: So the berm would not be in this property but it would be on the IOP property?
Al Block: That's correct.
Bob Smith: Which is located in this. This is what is conceptual.
Peterson: Lastly, we spoke earlier to Ladd's question about the front of the building and how
we would be breaking up the front. Talk a little bit about the back of the building. I think
I'm comfortable with the design of the front and how it does break it up versus being a solid
wall but certainly with the back you don't have the opportunity to do that as much. Without
the rendering of the back, give us a sense of what the back would look like if you would.
' Al Block: Bob, can you throw up a landscape drawing of the back side. On the back side
there's an opportunity to break it up with quite a bit of landscaping inbetween the decks and
' patios. That landscaping certainly could be brought around behind those decks and patios to
make that rear area nice.
Bob Smith: One of the things that ... it's difficult to see here, that this would be a gabled roof.
Very similar to what these roofs would be so you have face breaks, roof breaks coming down
as well as window breaks. Patios coming out of the back and plantings inbetween. So we'll
get some breaks up and down and along the roof line.
Peterson: So each walkout unit then would have a patio and a balcony? Is that right? Or
not.
Bob Smith: Yes. Along the Trotter's Ridge, I don't believe there are any walkouts. I think
' those are all at grade type things.
Peterson: So those would be the lower. The lowest structures would be towards Trotter's
' Ridge.
Bob Smith: That's correct. The only walkouts or lookouts would all be internal would be
these, these, these, and that's it. All the rest would be no walkout or lookout.
Peterson: If you had to prognosticate, how much of the building, in looking from Trotter's
' Ridge, how much of those buildings would you see with the berm and with the evergreens on
top of the berm.
' Bob Smith: With the berm being about let's say 6 feet tall, the evergreens that we would
plant would be anywhere from 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall standing at that point. If you use a 6 foot
' 22
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
tree, a 6 foot berm, you have an automatic 12 foot. 14 foot. 16 foot depending upon which
size tree. So we're looking at anywhere from 12 to 16 foot automatic berm which would
bring it up pretty close to the second, above the second story.
Peterson: It's just Trotter's Ridge is at a lower elevation.
Bob Smith: Actually where these would be at, Trotter's Ridge is actually at a higher
elevation than what these are. The back yards here are about 62 to 64. We're proposing
these, right now—at about 62. With that new design that's going to drop the street about a
foot so these will be about ... so they will be slightly lower than the back yards of Trotter's.
And by the time you get to the homes, you have a slight rise. Actually even a dip because
the water's flowing out...
Peterson: Thank you.
Bob Smith: Realistically the combination of the two does pretty much cover a first floor and
begins to impact the upper floors.
Peterson: Other questions for the applicant? Thank you. May I get a motion to open the
public hearing.
Comnad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened.
Peterson: I have some sense that we have some conversations to be going on tonight. I
would ask that we certainly want to hear everything that is said from all people that do wish
to come up tonight. I in turn though would ask that if what has been said by the previous
individuals, that I think we will soon get a sense that there is a theme so that if we can
maintain a number of people that wish to come up, please do so and listen to the predecessors
so with that, is there anyone that would like to address the commission. If so, please come
forward and give your name and address please.
Dan Schleck: Good evening. My name is Dan Schleck and I live at 2250 Lukewood Drive,
which is northeast of the proposed subdivision. And let me say this. One of the reasons that
I wanted to come and speak tonight is because I recently relocated here from the western
suburbs of Chicago, which also happens to be the home of Town and Country Homes. And
one of the things that I guess I wanted to talk about tonight is what I'd call SST, and that is
Suburban Stacking of Townhomes which is so prevalent in the western suburbs of Chicago
and which is something that I wanted to get away from when I came here and I don't think
it's in the. best interest of the city. Let me start out by saying that I think the staff has done
an excellent job in reviewing this project, however there are a few things that I think need
23
L
L 1 - 7
1
1,
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
maybe a little bit more study. First of all I'd say that the impacts on infrastructure to the city
need to be investigated further. I think that it's been shown in the plans and in the study by
the staff that there is going to be some impact of runoff in the area of surface water. That the
topography of the area is very complicated and given the level of study that's taken place so
far, maybe the total impact of this runoff hasn't been adequately investigated, and I think that
possibly some more study needs to be done. Secondly, in my subdivision I know that we are
1 constantly have problems with electricity and I think that if this proposed subdivision was to
go in, it would put a significantly higher draw on the electrical system in the area. I wonder
if any investigation has been done at all with the electrical cooperative to determine what
impact, if any the subdivision will have on power supply to the area. And what changes
might need to be made. Next I'd like to say that in reviewing the report of the staff, on page
8 it's indicated that the cost part of the equation has not been adequately defined. What does
i this mean? Does this mean that the cost potentially could be much higher than $1.04 for
every dollar of revenue generated?
t Generous: Or it could be less.
Dan Schleck: Either way it hasn't been... And that's something I think needs some more
study. I think on page 6 of the report, it also discusses the loss of tax revenues to the city
and that needs to be looked at carefully as well to determine is it in the best interest of the
city to rezone property that results in a loss of tax revenue. The second major area that I
want to talk about is environmental impacts that may be presented as a result of this
subdivision. Page 19 of the report discusses some of the wetland issues associated with the
proposed development. However it notes that based on the new law that was passed in the
last legislative session, the city has not adopted the new wetlands legislation and
developments are being treated on a case by case basis. I think more study needs to be done
' on the wetlands issues and the impacts of this project. Given the wetness of this whole area
of town, and I also think it may be inappropriate to trade -off wetlands at a 2 to 1 ratio given
the nature of the area of town. It may be appropriate to go with some higher ratio in trade-
off. Next, one of the issues I think that has not been adequately addressed is what impacts, if
any this development might have on ground water quality in the area. The report of the staff
indicates that there's significant number of wells and septic systems in the area that are going
to need to be closed and abandoned but he said they will be abandoned according to State
Health Department guidelines. Is that appropriate? Is that enough to protect the ground
water in the area? That hasn't been addressed. Next I think that based on my review of the
staff report, there's been no investigation of the presence of any endangered species or critical
habitat in the area. I think that this is important for the community and the State as well.
The environment has been a very important part of the state of Minnesota and I think these
' things should be investigated in the wake of development. Lastly, with respect to the tree
preservation program that's been addressed by the city. I know that in my subdivision,
' 24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
although many of the trees were "saved ", they've been significantly impacted by the
construction. Several of them are not expected to last more than 2 or 3 years and I just
wonder if this has been looked at in terms of conservation of the trees. Yes it may be
appropriate not to take down the trees to build a road but if you build a road right next door,
it's still going to die. Next I think some of the issues with respect to public safety have not
been adequate addressed. Page 10 of the report addresses some of the traffic issues with
respect to this new subdivision but it seems to focus on the new street, or rather the street
layout... some of the traffic issues associated with that. There doesn't appear to be much
report on what would happen to Galpin Boulevard. And what would happen with respect to
the increased traffic from the subdivision during both construction and occupancy. What
impact might be to the number of school buses that run of Galpin every day and also the
school children that travel to the school on the corner of TH 5 and Galpin. The next issue I
think that has not been adequately addressed is the changes in aesthetics that will result from
this proposed subdivision. There really is not a good discussion in the report that discusses
the impact on the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood has traditionally been a
single family neighborhood and the introduction of multi - family dwellings will impact the
neighborhood and it's aesthetics. Additionally the noise and the dust generated during
construction, and the crowding of what I called the SST before, I don't think is good... Next I
think, and most importantly, there is some discussion in the staff report about consistency of
the proposed development with the comprehensive plan of the city. But let's face it, the
proposed development is not interested in the comprehensive plan because it requires an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. I think that everybody here realizes that there is a
need for affordable housing in Chanhassen, and that's an important part of the community, but
I also think that a community can't rush to build affordable housing. That some type of study
to look at the community as a whole is necessary to find out the best and optimum location
for such affordable housing. And again I'll restate with respect to the comprehensive plan, the
result of this amendment will again reduce the tax revenue that could be generated by this
property under it's current zoning and I think that has to be looked at a lot before you
consider that's best for the community. I, to some extent think that I speak for the local
residents of the community when I say this. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to
re- evaluate this planned unit development. I think that the developer has to some extent
attempted to address the concerns of the community but has not adequately done so. I think
that members of the local community would agree that the buffer area between Trotter's Ridge
and this proposed development needs to be increased. This increase in the buffer zone would
better facilitate a transition and would have less impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
I think that it would be appropriate to require more industrial development and reduce the size
of the acreage for the planned amendment for the comprehensive plan. I think that this is the
fiscally responsible route and that it is more acceptable to the local members of the
community. I.think that.the developer needs to better address the environmental issues
associated with this development. I think that it's appropriate to require a 3:1 wetlands trade-
25
1
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
' off for any wetlands destroyed and I think that some type of environmental study of the area
is necessary. I'll finish by saying this. This commission was created and empowered to
protect the community. This mandate necessitates that any developer work with the neighbors
and the community so that the developer and the community can result in a situation that is a
win /win for both. I think that if the developer is not forced to work better with the
' community and address some of the concerns of the community, that this commission is
doing a disservice, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the people in the local
community of this development are committed to having this proposed development changed.
I think if nothing is changed, the commission's actions will force the community to pursue all
judicial and administrative remedies available to them. Potentially including petitioning the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board or Pollution Control Agency to require an
' Environmental Impact Statement for the project. I leave you with a question. Is it in the best
interest of Chanhassen as a community to allow an out of state developer to come in and
become rich at the expense of the local community's quality of life? Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
LuAnn Sidney: I'm LuAnn Sidney and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and I wish to present
a few items. I was really concerned after I heard about the meeting last week with Town and
Country Homes ... and so concerned that I went out to Town and Country Home developments
that are currently in the Twin Cities, in Eagan and Burnsville and took a look at the type of
product that this developer wishes to build in Chanhassen. And I took some photos and I was
really concerned because you know we talked about the back elevation... and to me what they
look like are apartment building type units from the back. And for me, as residents of
Trotter's Ridge, our property would overlook this type of development. I don't know if that
was... I think the other point about what I saw in Eagan and Burnsville is that the surrounding
areas where these townhomes are being built are nothing like Trotter's Ridge or Stone Creek
or even the industrial portion of Chaska which we are opposed to. What I saw there in Eagan
was a SuperAmerica. I saw Meredith Cable. I saw Highway 13. Highway 77 ... forming a
' triangle where these townhomes are located. There was very low vegetation and none of the
additions that were given in the statement here tonight. In Burnsville... similar in nature in
that it was up against Highway 13. There is a school in back of the development. Very large
apartment complex which actually abuts one of the rear portions of one of the units that they
were starting to work on, and also a strip mall and I guess in my opinion what they have
chosen in Burnsville is ... strip mall development in the R -4, you know incorporations in
Chanhassen as it is proposed in this development. I'd like to present the photos for you to
look at them. It does have some examples of the landscaping that you'll see. In Eagan I
'
have ... of the back of one unit... Hopefully you'll get a sense of what the land is like. In
Burnsville it's a similar situation. I have some photos of landscaping put in the front. A little
similar to what you saw in the drawings and the:... I was. surprised, and I guess not surprised
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
at they did not show you a detailed photo of the orientation of the backs of the units. I guess
I'm surprised that ... from Chicago... I think what I'll put on top here is an example of the
landscaping. I guess another point that I'd like to make, and a personal type of observation.
We just recently moved here to Chanhassen and I actually work in Eden Prairie in a small
chemical company ... and we're looking to build and we'd like to build somewhere in the area
because that's where ... and we've been looking at properties and one of the selections was the
property in the commercial development which is along Audubon Road and I kind of told my
colleagues at work that just think, I could walk to work at some point if it were possible. So
I guess I have a feeling that this commercial would be something that I would support. Also,
I guess just to wrap up here hopefully. I had looked at the Mission Hills townhouse
development off of Market Boulevard and there are a couple of homes which the rear portions
of the lots that are... fronts of homes which to me are much more appealing. Also I looked at
Lake Susan Hills Drive and the Prairie Creek development and those are a very similar look
to the type of structure there. It's not as massive as what you're talking about in the proposed
so those are the three points. The photos. You can take a look at those. Also the fact that
personally I'm not objecting to office industrial. Also the fact that these townhomes as
proposed do not seem to fit the pattern which has developed here in Chanhassen.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Nina Wallestad: Hello. I'm Nina Wallestad, 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. A lot has been talked
about the northeast corner of this development, especially where it butts up against Trotter's
Ridge but as somebody who lives on the northwest corner I'm very concerned. Looking at
the plans of the area, and knowing the wetland that I see when I'm standing in our house,
they don't jive. The wetlands is huge compared, in fact two years ago when my husband and
I were looking at the lot and considering buying it, in the middle ... there was absolutely no
water anywhere to be seen. Now there are very large wetland areas and I look at the drawing
of the map and to me they just don't jive so I would just really keep, encourage you to make
sure that we're working with the right data here when it comes to the topography of the area.
Another thing that I just discovered just recently walking around back there is that there's
actually a little creek connecting that big wetland area to, it seems to be the far area and it's
just running right along the east /west border. I guess it would be considered that border line
between Trotter's Ridge and this development and I don't see that addressed at all on this plan
and considering that there are wild turkeys, ducks, even a pair of deer that we saw this
morning. Tons of frogs. There's a lot of wildlife here that's going to be impacted and given
all of that, I would just urge the denial of this plan until a further study of the wetland area
can be made. And if not denial than I would urge a further setback on this development to
make sure that it does not encroach upon, not only our lot lines but especially the wetland
areas that makes this area such a beautiful place to live. Thank you very much for taking our
comments.
27
1
1
1
1
IF
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Thank you.
Mike Minear: Good evening. My name is Mike Minear and I live at 2421 Bridle Creek
Trail and out of respect for your time I have one issue that I share with you and it's also
water and drainage but a different angle. When we met with the gentlemen from the builders
about a week ago we brought up a lot of the drainage concerns and I think my concern was
that they really didn't know about them. And in more of a deep discussion with them about
the draining and so forth, they said that they needed to do further study and what concerns
me is that they submitted to you a plan where by their own admission they had not really
studied a lot of drainage issues and I'm wondering if we're really ready to approve that. I
thank and commend them for trying to address that issue with us but I have the following
concern. My builder clearly did not do the drainage correctly. As they point out, Trotter's
Ridge did not do it correctly. We tried to work with the city and the city has been kind
enough to send letters to our builder. Our builder was not a local builder. Basically ignores
them and after about a year of this, just this week the city engineering people basically have
say look. We tried to write the letters to help you but we really have no authority and we
can't do anything to force developers to do it. I live right on the other side of where they're
proposing the berm: In a deep rain, or even a moderate rain, we get... standing water in our
yard and it stays there for a number of days and we are at the bottom of a hill that I'm not
sure where it comes through on the drawings. Basically what their drawing is doing, and I
can appreciate any effort to berm our view but we're going to be at the inside of a V where
the water's going to come down. It already pools at 10 to 12 inches of water and my concern
is, will it pool worse? Will it come up to my basement? Are these folks, are they going to
be any more responsive than the builder that we paid our money to and is the city going to be
unable to help us with that problem too? And again, I appreciate the need for tax revenue. I
just feel that before we approve this, we need to study the water issue further and really nail
it down once and for all. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek
Trail. I want to go back to the issue of the aesthetics' and the... Those drawings you see don't
reflect the topography at all. The berm would only protect something on a parallel, flat
land... The topography rises dramatically from that flatland and I know from my house, which
is only two houses away from the gentleman who just spoke, the land rises precipitously so,
and so. the townhouses will be placed 50 feet away from my property line, which is the
wetlands come down to here so ... and I do have photographs and that wetland does go out
quite a bit beyond my property line. My wife and I take photographs... So nevertheless, 50
feet beyond those lines, we're talking a hill that goes up. So when you see the back now, the
aesthetic beauty of the back ... so those go up the hill. So it's going to take a berm the size of
28
J
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
a small mountain, that high in order to protect us from that view. So I don't know what the
berm issue is even about. I really don't understand that and I think you've also seen pictures
there of the type of pine trees that they see as berm type of pine trees, arborvitae type of pine
trees ... that are dead. So those ... The aesthetics are very serious. If they'd like to come back
with another proposal where there may be more land dividing it, but right now it's a transition
that really doesn't transition at all. It's just that it butts up to... That's all I want to say.
Thank you.
Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 2461 Bridle Creek Trail and our property
also will be looking out over this sea of townhomes. I, a person can tell by my sweatshirt
and my earrings and everything, I'm very much into preserving the environment. I'm very,
very concerned about the number of trees that would be taken out. As I look at the property
on the east side of the property, a majority of those trees ... that they're proposing the road right
through. And we talked about these are 100 year old oak trees and... I'm very concerned
about that. I'm also wondering why Town and Country couldn't... and this would allow a
buffer that everyone is so concerned about between the developments ... industrial over in that
area. We just recently purchased our property in November. At that time we were concerned
about what was going to happen over there and we had spoke to Sharmin and she said that
there wasn't going to be anything unless it was back, up over on the other side of that berm.
The already existing natural berm. So now to have somebody tell me different... Also I guess
I'm curious how this ... with the number of people that would be coming in and we are of
course all of us here are concerned about depreciation of our properties... It's true at one time
we've had everything from pheasants to like they said, wild turkeys to wild minks and
pelliated woodpeckers and everything coming into this area so it really is a beautiful area.
We'd like to see it preserved. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Peter Sidney: My name is Peter Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and my lot also
borders the proposed development to the north. We would be about 65 feet from the back of
the townhouse. I also have a number of concerns about this proposed development. It seems
to me it is an appropriate use of the property. I'm concerned that it's based upon a
redesignation of the zoning that was laid out in the guide plans on the industrial to medium
density residential development. Sufficient justification for... economic impacts ... that it was
industrial behind there. We could live with that. We already have industrial to the west of
us which is Chaska right now. I'd also like to address the tree issue. I have two concerns
about the loss of trees. It's a beautiful area. One of the things that makes Chanhassen special
is the mature trees on the property. In reading the staff report I see that the tree loss would
be 65% in the residential portion of that. Going from, I believe 48 % coverage down to 18%
when the requirements is at least 30 %. As has already been pointed out, that these trees...
29
1
1
i!
t
1
i
ii
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
' townhouses as close as 50 feet away. Another point is that I think it really does not fit the
character of the rest of the surrounding area. Single family homes in Trotter's Ridge, Stone
Creek, Timberwood Estates, etc. so I really believe that this is an inappropriate use of the
property and I think certainly further study is warranted. Thank you.
' Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission?
Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin Boulevard. That's not in
Trotter's Ridge. It's across the street ... but first of all as a long time resident of Chanhassen,
again I look at this is a very appropriate type of development to put in... I think maybe it
might be a good idea, and some of the residents -in Trotter's Ridge are interested and that they
should probably take a look at some of the multi - family housing that we brought up earlier
and look at, I know some of those places are not new at all but I think that some of the ones
that are mentioned here in Chanhassen were probably quite a bit ... as far as what type of
multi - family townhome housing is and also... Also I think if you want an idea of what the
backs of these look like, I'm sure you all have these. It'd depicted right here and this is
probably the back, this is the area ... going to see and I agree, you've got to look at the
topography of the berm and the trees. I don't think it's going to be very much of a screen
effect. Maybe 20 years from now ... but for the next 10 -15 years. That's all I've got to say.
' Dona Lee: My name is Dona Lee. My address is 2451 Bridle Creek Trail... First thing that
we also have a wetland in our back yard and it's not on these drawings that is just... And then
also just to represent the mom's, we're a very close community... There's probably 10 to 12
mothers that are home during the day. We're housewives and we see everything that goes on
and this would definitely bring up a lot of different issues. I mean we'd like to support the
idea of office ... office buildings that are at ... and they look very nice. You can hardly see them
from TH 41 over to Lyman Boulevard and ... thank you.
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek. We've been here before. We
moved from Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. I think you're familiar with Frank
Beddor so we've been to a lot of these things. I'd just like to point out when we decided to
move, I talked with staff. They said trust us. We won't do anything that you won't like so I
' hope I can. Thank you.
' Peterson: Anyone else have any comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion to close the
public hearing?
' Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed.
Peterson: Ladd, do you want to tackle this one?
' 30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: Sure. Why not? I'm going to have to sooner or later. I appreciate the comments
from the residents. They're real good. Very nicely said. I'm always amazed when we get
into here. Sometimes neighborhoods like things. Sometimes they don't. Just so you know,
from a standpoint of good conceptual planning, what was presented tonight isn't bad. If we
were to design something and say this is how to do it, what they're presenting isn't. We'd
probably say this looks pretty good. City staff also represented the City Council fairly well in
terms of direction so I think what you're seeing is some direction given by the Council and
the city staff listened to that and working and making something happen. Real issues, you
know we talk about revenue and then all of a sudden we see it and now we have to make
decisions based on, I think we're pretty committed to keeping this an industrial area. And
now I see a $50,000.00 amount that we may lose and you sort of say well, what do we gain,
what are we losing? And it's real tough to deal with. A couple things that I see that I don't
like tonight and again I'm not sure, I personally want to get this up to City Council. They set
a lot of the direction on this and I think they have a lot to offer in terms of guiding this but I
see a couple things that bother me and I guess some of these are words for staff. I think the
community brought up some things about accuracy of the data. I think the staff has to check
the accuracy of the data. Whether that be size of wetlands or setbacks or whatever, I think
they brought it up enough that we should really challenge some of that. I'm concerned about
the massiveness of the townhomes on the north side. I don't really like 8- plexes going into
Trotter's Ridge. That just doesn't, that bothers me. It's too massive and even though I think
we've grown accustomed and used to townhomes here, I still think in terms of a gradual
transition, the 8- plexes are, and it looks like there's a 6 and it's hard for me to tell what's there
but again, a better transition would not be a massive wall there. I'd also make sure there's a
little bit better landscaping transition to the north into this particular development. I'd like to
see what, you know you can, I think the developer could sell me something in terms of
appearance if they had a four color elevation or rendering that I could look at but I didn't
really see that. I really think the rear elevations are a problem. I wouldn't want to live next
to that. I don't really have a problem putting townhomes next to single family. That's okay.
But it does have to be appropriate. It does have to be something that is visually a feeling,
and I didn't see that tonight so that's a real issue. So I see all these things that I just
wouldn't, I couldn't accept the plan as submitted. But then I get back to the $50,000.00, the
money aspect and I guess the other side of this, before I even get to the money aspect is the
fact of affordable housing and this developer may do that. Now that's going to help in terms
of what our guidelines are in Chanhassen so that's one of those benefits that the developer
brings but in terms of the money that we're saving, or we could make in terms with the IOP
there, hard to turn that down. I guess so bottom line for me is I'm going to listen to what the
other Planning Commissioners have but I really see a loss of revenue to the community and
although I think this is a terrific transition plan, I still have a problem losing $50,000.00 or
$40,000.00 or whatever dollars it may be.
31
F I
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Thank you.
Al Block: Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to insert something just to respond?
Peterson: No. That hearing is closed so.
Al Block: All I was going to offer ... table it and we will work with the neighborhood and
come up with...
' Peterson: We can discuss that at the end.
Joyce: A lot of what I have to say kind of echoes Ladd so I'll be very brief but I do want to
i say that staff is under some pressure to develop, make these kind of developments. I think
they did a good job. I think it's a good concept incorporating this multiple use. I'd kind of
like to see it work. They have a mandate from the Metropolitan Council that somewhere,
some way they have to abide by it. I certainly commiserate with the neighbors but as you
guys know, this will be developed somehow. I mean we're going to lose some trees
somewhere. That isn't going to be a nature park. At least I don't see that as being planned.
So I did exactly what Ladd did. I put a T here and I put pros and cons and see if I could
weigh this thing out. And I definitely see that there's a need for affordable housing here and
this might satisfy this need so that's a plus for this development. What I'm uncomfortable
about is a couple of things on this left land side, is changing the comprehensive plan. Ladd
addressed that so I won't go into that any further. I'm uncomfortable about changing, totally
changing the character of the area. That bothers me a little bit. A lot actually. I think it's a
lot of tree loss and I think the reason for that is that the development is overly large and I'm
sure that's an economic concern for the developer. I mean he has to make some sort of
' amends here to make his money but it's a lot of units. That's taking up a lot of trees and
changing this area of our community so I'm concerned about that. Another concern I have is
being a PUD, I know we'd like to see something kind of unique and I don't see it right now.
' I'd be willing to look at it again but it looks like all the other sea of townhouses out there and
it just doesn't seem to fit into this particular area. So I would have a hard problem voting in
favor of this. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I think staff did a fine job of reaching a compromise here to meet the needs of the
city. I agree with them entirely in principle that it makes a good transition zone and offers a
mix of commercial and low cost home thing and so forth. But in practice I too agree with
the site and read the plan. I'm a little disappointed that there's still so much tree removal
And—to Trotter's Ridge and view the area from the residents desires. I. imagined what it
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
would look like. There's certainly a need for buffering there and I think the applicant is '
attempting to address that with the berm and landscaping on the northeast side but I'm
concerned on the northwest side where you have a lot of open area and that hasn't been
adequately addressed. Looking at the rear elevation, it does look like an apartment complex.
Especially the walkouts. A lot of windows that everything is very symmetrical and I think
something should be done with that to go forward and taking Ladd's lead, I think a good
diagram with some kind of pictures from the neighbors yards with elevations where you can
see what the back of the units would look like with the landscaping would be very beneficial.
I know we've done that in the past when we had sensitive areas like this ... very convincing to ,
what the final project is going to look like from the neighbors standpoint. I ... think that the
photographs that were brought in by the resident actually looked a lot better than the diagrams
we have here. You might want to leave those at home next time. Regarding the medium '
density housing. The city really has a need for this. It has to be somewhere and it isn't a
perfect fit here obviously... The industrial business areas of the city have a hard time finding
employees and affordable housing is certainly a very credible use of the land here. I think
there are things that have to be done in the buffer area to enhance the rear elevations of the
buildings there.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I don't have a clue as to what else to say about this that hasn't already been said. I
agree with what's been discussed here and I just basically guess I can't really support it
without seeing it come back with some additions and changes and further evaluation by staff
from some of the points that have been brought up.
Peterson: Thank you. I guess I'm a little confused. It never ceases to amaze me how the
residents can, how residents look at things. I guess my perspective, if the project is right, and
I think it can be, my perception, it would be better to have some type of residential between
single family and IOP, and I think if this project were tweaked a little bit, I think that can be
a better transition than having an office industrial park potentially 60 feet away from a back ,
yard because as Kevin shared, it is going to be developed. I think that it seems to me to be,
if we are going to change it from IOP'to a medium density residential, it would be better for,
a much more smoother transition to accomplish that than simply having it from single family
to a small office complex or a small manufacturing company or something like that. But I
also agree with Ladd that work needs to be done to make it a little different. Make it a little
more acceptable between single family and the beginning of that multi - family. I think the ,
back of the building is an issue. I think there's further ways to separate that and break it up
and make it look a little more smooth, if that's the size. It's probably the appropriate thing to ,
do. And you'd also be able to see that from the road, Coulter, Boulevard. It's going to be a
prominent piece as you drive by. The back of those buildings also. I assume that staff, you
33
LI
1
7
i
1 L
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
looked at the materials to be used and the colors. They're there? Okay. So I don't know
whether we have an agreement on the commission or not. My sense is that there's a feeling
on behalf of all of us that we would table it for the developer to work with staff and work
with the neighbors to come to a more reasonable agreement as far as what types of building
and the relationship between the two. But I'd like to see, personally like to see it work. But
I'm frustrated I can't give the staff better direction than I'm doing. So with that, do I hear a
motion?
Conrad: Well I'm going to make a motion and again, this is tough. This is a tough one to
make. I was ready to turn it down but I tell you what I'd like to do and it may take the
community, the neighborhood to work with the developer a little bit. I'd like to give the City
Council. I just thought about it. The City Council has to make the decision based on
economics. That's going to be their job. Not necessarily our's here so their job will be
whether they want the revenue or not and our job is to make sure we have enough land
available to generate the revenue and taxes from IOP and maybe we can't do that tonight but I
guess what I'd like to do is send the City Council the, if it was to be developed this way, the
best possible that it could be. Which means the developer would have to come back and
show us what it really could be, and I think you've heard some of the issues that the
neighborhoods are saying. That doesn't mean we go along with the neighborhood, and also it
doesn't mean we're going to approve the project either. I guess there are no commitments
either way but I think what I'd like to, I'll make the motion Mr. Chairman to table this
particular planning case #96 -2 PUD, the #96 -5 SPR and the #95 -113, the LUP and the #95 -2B,
Wetland Alteration Permit. And table it to do the following things. For staff to validate the
accuracy of the information presented tonight. For the applicant to bring back a front and
rear elevations of specifically, the ones I want to see are the ones that are facing the
community to the north. Three, I'd like to see a real landscaping plan. An aggressive
landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the property to the
north. And I'd like to see Dave and the engineering department maybe reassure the
neighborhood that the water issues can be solved. The buffering I'm concerned with, not only
to the northeast but also to the northwest. I think we should take a look at that. So that's a
lot of work and again, there's a lot of work that we're laying on folks but I think at least when
this gets to City Council, Council will have a decent alternative to vote on and make a
choice. That's my motion.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion to that? Any other, points that Ladd, I think he hit most of
mine.
34
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Comnad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission table Land Use Map
Amendment #96 -1B from Office /Indushial to Residential Medium Density for the noithedy
22.6 acres, conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #96 -2, preliminary plat approval for
24 lots and associated fight of -way, Site Plan Review #96 -5 for 142 townhome units, and
Wedand Alteiution Peimit #95 -2B and to further review the following points:
1. The staff to validate the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant.
2. The applicant to bring back front and rear elevations of the specific units that will be
located facing the community to the north.
3. An aggressive landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the
property to the north be presented.
4. The engineering department review the water issues to reassure the neighborhood that the
water issues can be solved.
5. Review the buffering to the northeast and also to the northwest.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I received a letter from Don that he's going to retire at the end of the month.
From the Planning Commission.
Conrad: Don?
Aanenson: Don Mehl.
Mehl: This Don.
Aanenson: This Don. So we were sad to hear that but I did let the City Council know. We
had their packet this week going out so.
Conrad: How come?
Mehl: The biggest problem is that I have this hearing problem and I have trouble hearing._.:
what's going on. It all started about 47 years ago. It turns out my left ear is, everything in it
35
1
1
NOTICE OF
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, JUNE 19,1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
' Project: Town and Country Homes
First Addition
Developer: Town and Country Homes
' Location: NW corner of Lyman and
Galpin Blvd.
Notice: You are invited to attend a Planning Commission meeting about a development
proposed in your area. The applicant, Town and Country Homes, is proposing a mixed medium
density residential and industrial office development on 45.21 acres located at the northwest corner
of Lyman and Galpin Blvd. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the
northerly 22.6± acres from office /industrial to residential medium density, conceptual and
preliminary PUD approval for a mixed townhome and office - industrial development, rezoning from
A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 140 townhome
units, a wetland alteration permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat
approval creating 24 lots and associated right -of -way, Town & Country Homes First Addition.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Gerald & Lois Gustafson
Roger & Gayleen Schmidt
Earl Holasek
'
8341 Galpin Blvd.
8301 Galpin Blvd.
8610 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Rene & Lisa Schroeder
John & K. Sumners
Joel H. Lehrke
2337 Boulder Road
2333 Boulder Road
2329 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kelly Morlock
Chad J. Gniffke
Douglas & S. Hipskind
2325 Boulder Road
2321 Boulder Road
2317 Boulder Road
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hans Hagen Homes &
'
Merle & Jane Volk
Gregory K. Ziton
Don & Ann Esping
Suite 300
2334 Boulder Road
2330 Boulder Road
941 Hillwind Rd. NE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
,
Fridley, MN 55432
James & J. Larranaga
'
Douglas & Christine Johnson
Jeffrey & Karla Althoff
2322 Boulder Road
2326 Boulder Road
2318 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & Cathy Borgman
Scott & A. Weldon
Lisa Kilpatrick
,
2308 Boulder Road
2292 Boulder Road
2360 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy & Vicki Dempsey
Lewis Engineering Co.
Rory & Amy Lea
2301 Lukewood Dr.
4201 Norex Drive
2313 Boulder Road
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -9414
Chaska, MN 55318 -3046
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerhard & Helene Schock
Stephen & Melinda Pittorf
Jeffrey Palm & Cheri Swiertz
2309 Boulder Road
2305 Boulder Road
2301 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
'
Rudolph & Jean Larson
John & Kym Staples
Merle & Jane Volk
2291 Boulder Road
2374 Stone Creek Dr.
16925 Co. Rd. 40
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Carver, MN 55315 -9635
John & L. Sullivan
Peter & M. Cunningham
Stephen & N. Dragos
'
2346 Stone Creek Drive
2332 Stone Creek Drive
2318 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
William & M. Nason
' 2361 Stone Creek Drive
John Moran
2150 Boulder Road
Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
2765 Casco Point Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayzata, MN 55391
Jeffrey & Lindsey Finch
Steven & Blanche Neuwoehner
Brian & Sally Snabb
Stone Creek Drive
2375 Stone Creek Drive
2333 Stone Creek Lane W.
' 2304
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Yael Rubin
William & Lorraine Rodriguez
Kevin & Cathleen Dilorenzo
2345 Stone Creek Lane W.
2357 Stone Creek Lane W.
4013 Montery Ave. S.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edina, MN 55416
William Jr. & Pamela Franzen
Kip & Diane Hanson
Neil & Beverly Butchart
2370 Stone Creek Lane W.
2356 Stone Creek Lane W.
2342 Stone Creek Lane W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curt & Hope Enerson
Mark & Christine Fischer
Rodney & Janice Melton
' 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
2407 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Mary Minear
Moberg Homes, Inc.
Steven & Nancy Cavanaugh
Bridle Creek Trail
P.O. Box 57
2441 Bridle Creek Trail
' 2421
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel & Dona Lee
James & Mary Stasson
Craig & Nina Wallestad
2451 Bridle Creek Trail _
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
6566 France Ave. S., #1001
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edina, MN 55435
t Arvey & Marlene Eeg
Michael Voigt & Deborah Skubal
Thomas & Marcia Kladek
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
2483 Bridle Creek Trail
2491 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
New Creations Industries, Inc.
Steven & Deborah Watts
Hearth Homes
708 Main Street
2563 Bridle Creek Trail
10025 James Road
Elk River, MN 55330
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bloomington, MN 55431
Dennis & Carol Medo
Edwin Susi
Ken & M. Hollrah
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
2430 Bridle Creek Trail
2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Westenberg Homes, Inc.
7150 Willow View Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ronald & Jeanne Lindberg
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey & Cynthia Olson
2520 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd & Ann Mack
2542 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
The Nordick Group, Inc.
701 12th Ave. N.
West Fargo, ND 58078
Richard Riegert
c/o Rieker Enterprises
27110 62nd St. W.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Willard & Rebecca Bury
2460 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce & Julianne Diehl
2490 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dream Builders, Inc.
10420 49th Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN 55442
James & Kathryn Liddell
2550 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Williad Morton
4035 Norex Drive.
Chaska, MN 55318 -3043
Patrick Minger
2218 Lukewood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Monica Kilber
2470 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Boyd & Debra Aarestad
2510 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
William & Donna Hartwig
2536 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Conopco, Inc.
'
c/o Van Den Bergh Foods Co.
2200 Cabot Drive
Lisle, IL 60532
'
Chaska Watertower Mini Storage
149 Jonathan Blvd. N.
,
Chaska, MN 55318 -2342
e�
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
36 ACRE PARCEL
8470 GALPIN BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN,IVIINNESOTA 55317
MAY 16, 1996
Prepared for:
S.A- Partners
c/o Mr. John Allen
1660 South Highway 100, Suite 536 W
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Prepared by:
Peer Environmental & Engineering Resources, Inc.
7710 Computer Avenue, Suite 101
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
(612) 831 -3341
PEER File #6071
r
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Page10
8,70 Galpin 131vd., Chanhassen, MN
5.6 ADJOINING PROPERTIES '
No evidence of bulk chemical or petroleum storage was observed from public roadways on '
e adjoining properties. . In addition, no monitoring wells, dumping, industrial waste water
discharge, or waste water treatment processes were observed on adjoining properties. As '
j� discussed in Section 3.3, there are petroleum underground storage tanks registered for the
u adjoining property to the south. However, no releases were identified for this site.
6.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS '
PEER has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property in
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-94. This assessment has
revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject ,
property.
i 6.2 ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Suspect asbestos- containing building materials including ceiling tiles and wall board were '
identified. Sampling and testing should be conducted prior to any demolition, removal, repair
or renovation activities that could disturb any suspect asbestos - containing materials and cause ,
them to become friable. Any materials found to contain asbestos should be removed by a
licensed contractor prior to those activities. '
t
According to the property owner, there is a water well on the property. Water wells which are ,
not in use should be sealed by a licensed water well contractor in accordance with Muinesota
Department of Health regulations.
A
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
JOHN FISHER PROPERTY
NW CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD.
AND LYMAN BLVD.
PREPARED FOR:
MR. GARY SCHERBER
ROGERS,
MN 55374
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
,purl 011995
�GIEERS DEPT.
P l�nacle W.
W
LI
8
4.9 Regional Geologic and Hydrologic Setting
'
Surficial geology of the area consists of ost g lacial terrace deposits of sand an
P g p d
gravel laid down during the Pleistocene (Late Wisconsisan) epoch. The
elevation of the site is approximately 950 feet above mean sea level. (Meyer,
'
Gary N., et.a1.,1993 / USGS, 1967)
The first aquifer expected to be encountered in the area of the Property is the
'
water table aquifer. Groundwater is presumed to be found at approximately
920 feet level
above mean sea (approximately 30 feet BGS) and reported to be
flowing southeast towards the Minnesota River. (Gary N., et-al., 1993)
'
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Pinnacle has performed a Phase I Environmental Property Assessment in
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 of the
,
north west corner of the intersection of Lyman Blvd. (County road 18) and
(�
1 �
Gaplin Blvd. (County road 19) in Chanhassen, MN 55317 (Property). The
walk -over survey revealed the following concerns:
'
• Area 1: Inadequate protection of the compost pile.
• Area 2: 1 250
'
- gallon Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) and light to
moderate staining on ground, possibly water. Gardneer Inc., a permitted
hazardous waste generator, may use a common practice for
'
lawn \landscape personnel to fill large truck mounted tanks with a
mixture of water and fertilizer when planting or fertilizing. There was no
odor associated with the stain. Pinnacle recommends that soil samples
'
obtained and tested.
• Area 3: 25 -30 tires. Incorrect) discar y e tires are considered a special
'
waste. Pinnacle recommends the tires be disposed of in accordance with
recommended waste tire management procedures.
'
• Area 4: 1 250-gallon AST, light to moderate staining on r
g g g g round below the
AST. Pinnacle recommends that the tank contents be determined and soil
samples be obtained and analyzed.
'
• Area 5: 1 1000 - gallon diesel #2 AST, 1 500 - gallon diesel #2 AST, 1 250
gallon unleaded gasoline AST. All AST's and a pump are located in a
,
catchment basin. The ground next to AST catchment basin is heavily
stained and has a diesel odor to a depth of at least six (6) inches. There is a
breach in the catchment basin. The potential environmental impact of
'
possible leakage from the catchment basin to the groundwater beneath the
Property is a concern, Pinnacle recommends that soil samples from
PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. PHASE I
'
8
beneath the catchment basin and the stained area adjacent to the ASTs be
obtained and analyzed.
• Area 6: 30 -40 old tires. Incorrectly discarded tires are considered a special
waste and Pinnacle recommends they be disposed of in accordance with
recommended waste tire management procedures.
• The Property is not connected to municipal water and sewer lines and no
listing could be found in the MGS County Well Index for T116, R23,
Sections 15 & 16. The CWI review did not reveal records of any wells
uu p' located on the Property. Notification of any current or abandoned wells
on the Property should be made to the Minnesota Department of Health.
A well exists at the residential dwelling.
Q'
Pinnacle recommends additional investigation to resolve the magnitude
of the possible sources of contamination identified in the preceding
paragraphs.
1�
PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC.
9 PHASE I
• Area 6: Various used and unused landscaping ties. Treated landscaping
ties may present an environmental
concern. Pinnacle recommends
suspect ties be tested and disposed of by recommended hazardous
procedures. waste
• Area 6: 2 5000- gallon unregistered Underground Storage Tanks (UST), 2
1000- gallon USTs, 1 500 - gallon UST located
are on the Property. The
potential environmental impact of possible leakage from the USTs to the
groundwater beneath the Property is a concern, Pinnacle recommends that
soil samples from beneath
the USTs be obtained and analyzed to
determine if contamination
exists.
• Area 6: 25 car and motorcycle batteries exist at the site. Incorrectly stored
and discarded batteries
are considered a hazardous waste and an
environmental concern. Car and motorcycle batteries
should be disposed
of or recycled in accordance with
recommended procedures.
• Area 6: 3 250- gallon ASTs. The potential environmental impact of
possible leakage to the groundwater beneath
the Property is an
environmental concern.
• The Property is not connected to municipal water and sewer lines and no
listing could be found in the MGS County Well Index for T116, R23,
Sections 15 & 16. The CWI review did not reveal records of any wells
uu p' located on the Property. Notification of any current or abandoned wells
on the Property should be made to the Minnesota Department of Health.
A well exists at the residential dwelling.
Q'
Pinnacle recommends additional investigation to resolve the magnitude
of the possible sources of contamination identified in the preceding
paragraphs.
1�
PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC.
9 PHASE I
i
i
i
0
0
0
0
n
a
t
n
a
JUN -05 -96 WED 09:07 KATZ ANALYTICAL SERYX CES 6129468701
�I
�II
J
1
Post-IV Fax Note
7671
Date
To
p
To
Co.
From
Phone # �3 , -`ell"
coJowt
Fax #
Co.
minimum coverage ratio" of trees.
Phone @
Tree coverage will drop from 48% to
Phono #
0 r 1
Fax #
5 5.7 ��
Faz#
!p
Mr. Bob Generous
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Generous:
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
June 4, 1996
POSt -it® Fax Note 7671
Date G
pagges� 2 -
To
From -, d /� � yr
Co. /Dept. S
Co.
Phone # ��( g76�
7
Phone # �3 , -`ell"
Fax # _ C O '
Fax #
P. 01
I appreciate the information you have provided me concerning the proposed
development by Town & Country Homes south of Trotter's Ridge and west of
Stone Creek. My husband Peter and I have read the Staff Report on this
proposal with great interest. We have a number of questions /comments based
on the statements in the plan which we would like addressed:
Statement/Concern
Question /Comment
� . eq4
"This property was one of four areas
What is the justification for changing
that was designated for Office/
the zoning designation in the Guide
Industrial use as part of the 1991
Plan?
comprehensive plan update." . 5
"As can be seen, the applicant is
Even though staff describes the
removing in excess of the required
existing trees as "mature and valuable
minimum coverage ratio" of trees.
oaks ", 65% of the trees are allowed to
Tree coverage will drop from 48% to
be removed. Hundred - year -old oaks
18% in the residential portion, the
will be replaced with 2 - 112 inch
required minimum Is 30 %. (p.24 -25)
saplings. Why is the developer
allowed to remove so many more trees
than regulations allow?
"The proposed development
There is a great deal of attention paid
incorporates topographic and
to transition areas and buffers within
vegetative areas to transition the uses.
the development and along Galpin and
In addition, the low density residential
Lyman, but almost no attention given to
development to the north transitions to
any buffering such as berms and/or
medium density residential then
plantings between Trotter's Ridge and
office /industrial uses." (p. 10)
the higher density townhouses only 50'
from the lot line.
It appears from the proposal that Town
More plantings should be required
& Country is planning fewer landscape
along the northern edge of the
'plantings between the townhouses and
townhouse development.
Trotter's Ridge than is required,
� � r � i• y2r�4�^�N
c 1f
knce,
TUN -05 -96 WED 09:07 KATZ ANALYTICAL SERVICES 6129465701
P.02 '
Vat �nVcL
". . . Some of the si contains poor soil
Where is this and how extensive is it?
conditions for development " (glencoe
"unsuitable
What are the soil correction
soils which are rated for
measures? -(s
building"). . 26
"Creation of public open space may be
No public space is proposed. Why
required by the city." (p. 10)
not? This could provide a buffer
between the townhouses and the
single- family lots and enhance the
views both share.
"Improvements to area roads and
What will be the traffic impact? What
intersections may be required as
improvements may be needed? At
appropriate." . 10
what cost?
We look forward to a reponse to our questions.
�y
Sincerely,
Lu Ann Sidney
L,
TOWN & ALY HOMES
Minnesota Division
I June 13, 1996
The City of Chanhassen
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Second Neighborhood Information Meeting
Dear Mr. Generous
' Town & Country Homes invites you to a second informal neighborhood meeting for our
proposed townhome development at the northwest corner of Lyman Blvd and Galpin Blvd.
' The meeting will be held at Bluff Creek Elementary School. The day and time of the meeting
will be Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in conference room #3 of the Recreation Center,
' located at the rear of the school.
A number of revisions to the site plan have been made as a result of the first neighborhood
' meeting and the first presentation to the Planning Commission. We wish to review this with you
prior to a second hearing with the Planning Commission on Wednesday evening, the 19th.
' If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Mr. Bob Smith or myself at
925 -3899.
Cordially,
' Al Block
President/Minnesota Division
0
' 6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina, MN 55435
(612) 925 -3899 MN Builder License #9137
RECEIVED
JUN 14 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Schoell Madson, Inc.
Engineer -s • Sur'veyors • Planners
Soil Testing • Environmental Ser viceo
10560 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 -1525
i
Office 612- 546 -7601 Fax 612- 546 -6065
June 17, 1996
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Bob,
As we did on the previous submittal, I am herein providing calculations for tree canopy loss on
the revised site layout for Town & Country Homes First Addition. These calculations are based
upon existing site topography as located by Loucks & Associates and provided by Ron Bastyr.
Residential Area Industrial Area Total Area
Total Tree Canopy 377,928 S.F./8.68 AC. 115,760 S.F./2.66 AC. 493,688 S.F. /11.34 AC.
Total Canopy Loss 249,450 S.F. /5.63 AC. 86,121 S.F. /1.91 AC. 335,571 S.F. /7.54 AC.
Percent Loss
66%
74%
68%
If you have any questions regarding this information or need further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
m Hirz
Senior Engineering Technician
CC: Al Block, Town & Country Homes
Ron Bastyr
Atrnrmative Action tquai upportunty Cripuyer
6 -24 -1996 9 :30AM FROM DS SCHLECK 6124742493
' 6/24196
7
Sincerely,
Dan and Laura Schlock
Print Name cha hass Lu k ewo 3 ?r
Address
P. 6
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
I am not in favor of the current plans for the development of the property
'
at the corner of Lyman Road and Galpin Boulevard here in Chanhassen. The
proposed Town and Country f=irst Addition will not enhance or improve the City
or the neighborhood. If this development goes forward as planned, you will
'
forever regret your decision to change the area in this way.
Please consider my opinion when making your decision and vote NO on
'
the approval of the Town Country First Addition. I will be considering your
decision when I vote in the next local election.
7
Sincerely,
Dan and Laura Schlock
Print Name cha hass Lu k ewo 3 ?r
Address
P. 6
x
N
O
G7
.D
ID
N
m
N
O
O
W
a
N
L7
Z
w
LL
r,
a
N
a<i
C
J
7
J
a
W
W
m
g ^ o nsf
N ^ en BRSR
a rn� a ci °M ��v' �� $
~ WN"� H z � F - > > I[1 tA
V, W'o,a _? a� Loin$ 7j¢j
O j W W Z W ~ H Z z Z
= �� OZ2 ozw C gg
2 Oo WJ OZ >J C en
z
2W a
�� W V W o z % z ^e.n.e ewew a a
-ki 0 RIM 111
o 10 a e ♦f
1 1
r MTrmTrmTrm TrmTrrnTrn
.11111111111111111111111111 I I I
nnnlnnllnlnnlnnl
iFH4*Hi+FH n 11FH+FHi1
n unn
— — — — -
IN R I ^ IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII(1
LUJILUJLLUILLUJLLUJILU- , I I I
; ----------------------
;;
1
Y ^
ilk I yy m
LL R R n R n 1 i ii i I I
\T----- - - - - -;
F mT—TrmrrnlrrnTTrnlrrnTTmi
� I � I $ � m I ; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ol 1\ 4� I" I
eee unnnlnllnll I I I I nlnnllllnn -
1l w L JIWJILUJLLW1l LLILUJLLUIL , I I
\� I --- --- ---- --- ------ --- - - I \, I I
------ - - - - - — - - - - -- ------- - - - -LI 1
� 1
1
NOi1GGV O�IIHI >12Jdd 808(\JV \� 1 \ 1►1 1.
1 \
1
/I --�
Z W
O N
L re w
O o
~ O
,
W xy�j �
I^ = 6
O< 6
of
1
3 Z
9 ~
W ,
O
Z
tz
Z
U
as
3 '
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 19, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Jeff
Farmakes and Don Mehl
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Skubic
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
' Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM
' OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, CONCEPTUAL AND
PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE -
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BLVD., REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146
TOWNHOME UNITS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE
' WETLANDS ON SITE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS
AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION,
TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES.
Public Present:
'
Name
Address
Al Block 6800 France Ave. So. #170,
Edina
'
Bob Smith
6800 France Ave. So. #170, Edina
Frank Svoboda
24000 TH 7, Shorewood
'
Ken Adolf
Greg Krauska
Schoell & Madson, 10580 Wayzata Blvd., Mtka
2209 Lukewood Drive
Cindy Skack
2209 Lukewood Drive
'
Tom & Marcia Kladek
Gayleen & Roger Schmidt
2491 Bridle Creek Trail
8301 Galpin Blvd.
Jeri ?
1840 Galpin
Bill Rodriques
2357 Stone Creek Lane West
'
Ron Lindberg
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
Monica Kilber
2470 Bridle Creek Trail
Mike Voigt
2483 Bridle Creek Trail
Debbi Skubic
2483 Bridle Creek Trail
Dennis Medo
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Name Addmss
Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh 2441 Bridle Creek Trail
James Stasson 2461 Bridle Creek Trail
'
Arvy & Marleen Eeg 2479 Bridle Creek Trail
Doug Johnson 2322 Boulder Road
Janet Snedeker 24000 TH 7, Shorewood
'
Bob Generous pmsented the staff mpod on this item, and in older to have continuity on this
item which was tabled at the last meeting, Vice Chairman Peterson conducted the public
,
healing on this item.
Peterson: Any questions for staff?
'
Mancino: Yes Mr. Chair, I have just a couple questions. In looking at the Minutes from
your last meeting, and I may be asking some questions that were answered at the last
meeting. I'm sorry I wasn't present but I did see that one of the questions that the Planning
Commissioners asked for was an aggressive landscaping plan. I didn't have in my packet any
landscaping Is has had if is
'
new plan. there one and staff time to review one, there one?
Generous: There was. It was submitted at 4:30 this Monday. We have looked at it. It is a I
significant increase in landscaping. We believe it's in the wrong locations.
Mancino: So we are going to see that tonight? I
Generous: Yes, they'll provide some details on that. They have increased the number of the
species. Evergreen trees. We think that we could do a better job to it's strategic location of ,
the landscaping rather than, they put it where they removed the buildings and now they're
hiding fronts of buildings and that didn't seem to be an issue before. We'd like to work with
them on that. '
Mancino: Okay. And included in that plan is also delineation of which trees will be
removed. That we think will come out during the construction process. Is there a, I know '
that on most of the landscaping plans that we see, we have a line that shows the delineation
of which trees will actually be removed and I have not seen that on any of the plans to date.
Generous: On the revised grading plan they show where that would be and that again came ,
Monday afternoon so we weren't able to get that into the packet.
Mancino: So that we will see that tonight also?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Generous: Right. And they also did do all the calculations for us.
Mancino: Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions? I've only got one Bob. You talk about this, the two
environmentals, Phase I that was done. How did you know there was a difference between...
Generous: We just looked up. I provided a copy of the conclusions for both of them. One of
them said they did not End any significant environmental problems on the site. And the other
one talked about some issues that have since been resolved such as tires and batteries that
were stored on site.
Peterson: That was the first one.
Generous: That was the first one and then between that and when this came forward, the
property owner went out and did some...
' Mancino: Cleaned up.
Generous: Cleaned it up. So again, the applicant has connected the two fronts so they can
further discuss it. One of the issues was an underground storage tank that was specified as
being a potential on the first assessment and didn't show up in the second one.
Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Mancino: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I have one more. I supposed soil contaminations, what do
' rules of city require for that whole area? I mean do we go in and every 2 feet do soil borings
to decide if there's any soil contamination you know under the ground. In the ground.
C
Hempel: Maybe I can address that a little bit. The building department with the demolition
permit of the buildings and so forth will require soil reports, excavation and with that they
will check for contaminants and deal with it accordingly.
Mancino: And that is a matter of what this becomes, whether this is industrial office.
Whether this is multi - family. Whether this is single family. Whatever. Do you go through
the same procedure?
Hempel: Any sort of development period.
Mancino: Thank you.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Peterson: Would the applicant or designee like to make a presentation? If so, please state
your name and address.
Bob Smith: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bob Smith, Town & Country Homes. This evening we're here before you as a continuation
from the last, 2 weeks ago the project and I'd first like to introduce some of the people out
there. We have Mr. Al Block, President of Town & Country Homes, the Minnesota Division.
Mr. Frank Svoboda, environmental, and Mr. Ken Adolf, our engineer. If you have any
questions later on, these people will certainly be able to answer them. Mr. Block will be
presenting some of the buildings later on after my presentation. The last Planning
Commission... specifically to look at how our development impacts along the property line of
Trotter's Ridge with all the landscape, environmental and wetland. The old plan, that you had
seen last week, which is this plan here, specifically the area that we are looking at changing
is identified in red. I this area here. This parcels has 142 homes on it. We identified
through discussions here and through neighborhood meetings, which we also had a
neighborhood meeting last night, that the neighbors would rather not see the rear of the
building but in fact would prefer to see the front of the buildings, ends or diagonal views. So
that's what we have done is changed our predominant design. Changed the street location and
that's mostly what you see request a 140 homes. We dropped 2 homes in the development on
this end. As you see here, the development has no homes at all along the property line. The
home on this side is a diagonal view, and in the subsequent drawings you'll actually see this
home as viewed from off the property in this location. We have, so you'll be able to see the
fronts here and the end on this one as well as the diagonal on this one. All along this edge
here is a berm that is about 5 to 6 feet tall and pine tree landscaping all along the top. The
previous plans that were submitted... plans had not changed to that point yet. They had shown
only deciduous trees, specifically red maples. This plan here does show pine trees. We can
change the locations, the species to whatever staff would like to see along that. This plan
shows that we do 'a solid screen of pine trees that are 6 to 10 feet tall. Staggering them so
we get a more natural look along the berm. This building here is an eight building. That's
looking down which is added to the angle. We have the end view here which shows, really
the minimal amount of impact. Visual impact on the building, or on the view. As I said, last
night we had a neighborhood meeting and many things were discussed. Two of them
specifically were the wetland and the environmental. Mr. Generous had touched on the
environmental. There is two, phase one environmental impacts. One associated with the
previous development that in fact we didn't know about until last night. The second one was
done by Pierre Environmental, which looks at the site. This morning we're having the two
consultants talk to each other. Seeing where the differences are in the two, phase one request.
Looking at such things as contamination. There's two particular diesel, above ground tanks
that were removed. Looking at those. Looking at.,.the soils that may have been
contaminated. There's tires that were on the site that are now moved. There are batteries that
4
I�
t
J
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
' were on the site that are now removed. All of those different items are being looked at.
Continuing on through with the environmental study, we are going to be taking soil samples
throughout the site. Continuing a thorough environmental assessment on the development. If
' delineation is necessary, we will do that in accordance with the city's ordinances and State
regulations through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Protection
Agency. Some of the things that were also discussed last night, that I already touched on
' were the berm along here and how this berm is screening and protecting. With a 6 foot berm
and the smallest tree of 6 foot, you're looking at a median 12 foot screen on there, all the way
up to a 10 foot screen with a 6 foot berm, looking at a 16 foot, a median screen of this entire
' area, as I said. This can be adjusted back and forth. Openings and closings. Different trees.
Closer spaced trees. Whatever would satisfy the development. The other issue was the, one
of the other issues was the wetland in this area here. Wetland people have delineated that in
' the past and have gone out there and again delineated that. We're studying that further
through final engineering as well as environmental and in conjunction with the city staff to
' determine where the appropriate water level would be at for the wetland. The trees that were
removed on the site, I don't have that plan with me this evening. The trees that were, and if
you look on here, there's trees in the entire center area in the massing. Right through the
' center here there will be trees that will be taken out in this location, all through the sides and
rear. All these trees will stay as well as all the trees along the edges of the wetlands and
behind the homes. The wetlands will not be filled in these area and in this, there will be
' some small filling in this small remote wetland filled in this area. We are mitigating, opening
up wetlands in this area to the 2:1 ratio in addition to storm water basins which are designed
in this area and in this area, which really gives us a 5:1 mitigation when you take into
consideration the new wetland created and the wetland used on sedimentation basis. We do
have this plan. Thank you. The trees that you see on the entire development, all the way
around through here, up in here, and down in here and all along in here. The removal area
is the shaded area through here and through here. The trees that will remain are up in here.
All these trees. There's trees all along the back and trees along in here as well as in the front.
In this area. The specific number of trees that are removed ... 234 trees are on the site. The
' number of trees on this plan that are proposed for removal is 137 trees. The proposal of the
tree replacement that we have on this development is 384 trees to be replaced on this so we're
looking at approximately 3 times the number of trees to go on the development as are
' removed. So from that we're adding trees, screen trees all along the perimeter, along the
street. We're adding trees along here and adding the trees in through here. All along the
perimeter. Along this area, as well as individual trees all along the, around the buildings
' themselves as part of the unit landscaping. At this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Block,
who will be presenting the. I have one more plan, excuse me Al that I'd like to take and
show as far as a cross section. Another question that had arisen last night, was very specific
' on this building right here, which is this building. On how much land was being cut down.
The comment was made last night that this hill is about a 30 foot hill, and in fact this cross
1 5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
section that was taken through right here with all these buildings is this cross section right
through here, and the cross section right through here. You go along the back, you're looking
at probably an 8 foot rise in the hill on this side is a little farther down through here.
Coming through here, we're looking at about 6 foot rise in the hill. These are actually the
buildings, the homes that come through here. Showing the slight fill to this area. There's a
slight cut through this area ... about a 6 foot cut in here. Along the back property line as you
can see is totally non - impacted. Another cross section that we took is right down the center
line of these two streets so we can see how much, where the land has been cut and filled.
Once again, starting at this end down here ... the green represents the existing grade. The red
represents the proposed grade. We are coming down about 9 feet right through this area.
Right in here. By the time we get out, we feel there's going to be a slight amount of fill and
a little bit of fill in this area here. That cross section that we want to look at is the cross
section through here, which is that berm area. Of big concern was, how high is that berm
and how high are buildings above the natural ground. The natural ground once again is the
grade of...through this area through here. This is a berm that we placed in here to create a
solid earth screen. As you can see, this area has been filled all through here. It undulates up
and down to create a more natural look. Coming through here ... C, Section C right through
the end of the building, that there is, it needs natural berming in the back. One of my
concerns was the previous neighborhood meeting, is that these trees were saved along here
and right out the back of the building ... so that these trees will not be impacted. If you have
any questions of myself, I'd certainly like to answer them but I'd like to introduce Mr. Al
Block.
Al Block: Thank you. Al Block. Home address is 6558 Kingfisher Lane, Eden Prairie.
Office address is 6800 France Avenue South, Suite #170, Edina. I'm going to take a couple
minutes and respond to one of the requests that was made a couple of weeks ago, and that
was that we show some more specific views of the buildings. How the landscaping fits in
with them, and what the visual approach would be looking from the property to the north,
Trotter's Ridge... And I'll start from this area here on the easterly end with the building that
you now have the end view of. And there are a couple of views here in these two displays.
By the way, these are photographs blown up of our existing buildings we're building in
Burnsville and then our landscaping plan as we currently have drawn it and added to those
displays. And so the end unit, starting out and of course trees, when we initially plant them
are going to be smaller. This is the end view of this building. There's a brick area around
the entry door. The rest of these ... little brick wrapped around this end. So the only traffic
movement, whatever you would have on the end of this building would be simply the
residents going in and out of the front door. This was one of the concerns that we heard a
good bit about, and naturally so is what about people looking out of these townhomes, into
the homes or their back door. This window here is not a part of any room that one could be
in that room and look out the window and be at a higher elevation and look in. It's strictly
J
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
the staircase area and it's designed for light ... area and so on. Bringing light both down and
up in the home so it's not an active living area where you could do that. Where you could be
looking into homes. That happens to be the area, by the way that is the closest to any home
and according to our calculations, to the rear of this home is 110 feet. The next area I want
to spend a little time on is this 8 unit building. Of course this is a sharp shoot ... has a lot
more mass to it. This happens to be a photograph of the rear of an 8 unit building that we're
just completing in Burnsville. Again we've added in the landscaping plan. Fortunately there
are a couple of relatively large trees. One is 30 inch ... caliper right in this area which brings
us the ... or comer of that building obviously is the closest to any home which according to our
calculations would be 165 feet. And then it angles away. Again we can work with your staff
and with the neighborhood as far as custom design this landscaping system to shield that
building from the neighbors to the north of us. And there, incidentally there are a number of
different approaches you can take. You can say we're not going to berm it. We're just going
to put in a lot of trees. You can get a very gentle berm ... trees or even high berm that was
presented by Bob. This happens to be the front of what that building looks like. This may
actually be, you know this is a 7 unit building so it actually is a little bit longer ... and see how
it stretched out. Over here we have a 6 unit building and again the landscaping would be
similar except you have two large units. I think this one actually is the rear of the 6 unit
building here. So that's how you see we tend to put landscaping in between the at grade
patios and so on and so forth. By the time you get, and that building by the way is 285 feet
to the closest home. This, your back to an 8 unit building... wetland. A lot of things in
between you and you have 305 feet in horizontal dimension. So I hope that answers, and
begins to give you an idea of what's going on with the landscaping plan and... I think I went
through the main points I wanted to make this evening. Now I do have panels of all the
materials, if you want to take a couple minutes to look at those. There are five different color
plans.
' Peterson: Why don't you briefly review them.
' Al Block: You would? Okay.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Block a question? Can you put those pictures back up a
' minute? Can you show me the front of the 7 units? Where's the, I just have a couple
questions. Where's the front door? I mean I haven't seen...
' Al Block: In here. In this area in here. We tend to put the front doors in back ... and in
corners so when you look in you don't see them except in this case. Then in here, the front
doors are hidden back in these areas on the side.
Mancino: And on the left ?.
e e t unit, what's the.
' 7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Al Block: Yeah, this space happens to be filled in temporarily with these kinds of doors '
because it's a model area. Ordinarily these would be garage doors in here.
Mancino: Oh, okay. I
Al Block: So if you can kind of imagine this... That's what it's going to look like.
Mancino: Then I have a couple questions on your middle p hoto. The backs of the units. A '
couple things. They're obviously different price ranges for the townhomes. Can you add a
screen porch? Can you add a balcony? What are some of the changes that can be made and ,
is there a difference between the lowest townhome and the highest priced townhome as as
the outside appearance? Or is it all done internally?
Al Block: I'll answer the last uestion first because it's probably '
q p obab y the easiest. Most of the
differences are in front as far as the difference in price. The other key element of course is
the interior units have the one car garage space. The end ones have two car. ,
Mancino: Okay, and you said most. '
Al Block: Most of the difference in price. I guess all of the difference in price.
Mancino: Is it all? Okay.
Al Block: As to your first question, our covenants would not permit anybody to make any '
modifications to the exterior of the building at all unless they were to get approval of the
property owners association. And that is very, very difficult to do because you haven't given
approval... '
Mancino: So once they buy in, that's it?
Al Block: That's it.
Mancino: But being a first time home buyer, I come in and I say can I add a screen porch '
right now? As you're constructing I would like to.
Al Block: No. No, during our construction process we allow no changes at all from these '
plans. From the exterior. All of the modifications are interior.
Mancino: Thank you.
8
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
I Joyce: I have a question Mr. Block, if you don't mind. You said you have this development
down in, a similar development down in Bloomington?
Al Block: No Burnsville and Eagan.
Joyce: I'm sorry, Burnsville and Eagan. Are they, how large are those developments?
' Al Block: In the case of Burnsville, it's 108 townhomes. In the case of Eagan, it's a total of
200. There are 90 in the first phase.
' Joyce: Okay. Are they of the same rice category as what we're talking about here? Are
P g rY g
they all?
Al Block: These will be riced higher than h
p g a tat.
' Joyce: They will be?
' Al Block: Yes. Because the costs are higher.
Joyce: So what you've built in those other two areas are six - plexes and eight - plexes basically,
' similar to what we're talking about here right.
Al Block: Yes. There are a few buildings that are 4 and 5 units, but the lion share are 6, 7
' and 8.
Joyce: Have you considered, I guess I'm just throwing this out. Putting some duplexes and
' quad - plexes into any of these developments that you're putting up?
Al Block: We always are looking at that. One of the difficulties, when we refer to it, it's not
difficult. One of the problems with it is, immediately your cost of construction goes up
significantly. It's always much more cost effective to build in the 5, 6 or 7, 8 unit building.
' Joyce: I kind of assumed that but it's a narrow price range is what I'm getting at. But that's
the price, basically you have a narrow price range in the other two developments as well.
' Al Block: Yes and no. I brought along some information and I'll address that for just a
moment. And I'll give a copy of this to your staff. It's kind of interesting. A lot of people
are kind of focused particularly on the lower price range home, since obviously for us a
concern and what impact is that going to have on the ... and so on. In Eagle's Ridge, the
community in Burnsville, the first 18 sales,-and we've gotten beyond this so this is... Out of
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
the first 18, at that price range by the starting price range is $79,900 to $105,000. Because of '
all of the options and upgrades and other things that everybody puts into these homes, there
were three that were priced at $87,002.00. Two that were in the mid -90's and 13 that were
$100,000.00 to at the top end, $130 something. In Eagan, a somewhat similar situation '
happened. Again the price range on the lots are slightly higher. It starts at $83,900 and goes
to $108,900. There were three in the high 80's, one in the mid 90's and 15 that were
$100,000.00 to $140,000.00. '
Joyce: Thank you.
Al Block: If we're ready I'll take a minute to get a ... And by the way, I'm going to give you '
an updated sheet here and you'll see some information, if you're interested here. What is
happening in the brick business is there are some things that previously were being put into '
brick and /or manufacturing processes. There were found to be somewhat detrimental to the
environment so the brick samples I'm showing you, there are going to be very, very slight
differences. The new name, and the slight difference in color is parenthesis on your sheet. So '
what is not in parenthesis is what was presented. And the first, A, I think is now called
Spaulding 2. It might have been 4. It's a combination of this roof material, brick, siding, t
facia, soffit, shutter. That should be item B on your list. Same scenario. Shingle, brick,
siding, facia soffit, shutter. This one's a little smaller. We didn't have a large, this is number
C, or letter C. Shingle, siding, facia, soffit, shutter. Letter D. Same rotation. E. A little ,
more of a traditional. We do by the way invoke, try to work with your staff if you choose on
this but we do invoke a very, very specific color rotation and so on these so we don't have...
Mancino: You've shown us five different bundles of brick and roof and siding. Is that, if I '
look at your layout of the preliminary plat, you take one of these packages and you apply that
entire area to one of the buildings, correct? ,
Al Block: Correct.
Mancino: And how do you decide which building gets which package?
Al Block: Take into consideration landscaping, location, direction of sun light. All those ,
kinds of factors. The surrounding features of the land and ... very professionally. We'd be
more than happy to include your staff in that process. It's a team... It's not one individual that
does it. The architect designing the buildings. The landscape person that designs the 1
landscaping system. Ourselves. We've also got...
Mancino: Thank you. ,
10 1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
' Bob Smith: Yes.
Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay.
Al Block: Thank you for your time.
Peterson: What I'd like to recommend now is that, there seems to be some issues and
questions that the neighborhood has and I'd like to offer that we open it up for another public
hearing. With that I ask my fellow commissioners to motion that we open it for a public
' hearing.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was
opened.
Peterson: Is there anybody from the neighborhood or the area that would like to make a
' presentation or comment before the commission tonight? If so, please come forward and state
your name and address please.
' LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I. spoke here last time at the Planning
Commission meeting. I live at 2431 Bridle. Creek Trail. I've got a few comments and
11
1
Al Block:
I think that pretty much covers... unless you've got any questions.
Peterson:
One more question from myself at least. The building on the eastern portion of the
development. Is that a eight -plex or is that six?
Al Block:
That is an eight complex.
'
Peterson:
The picture in front of me directly... that's a picture of the seven?
Al Block:
This one was an eight and that is a seven.
Peterson:
Can you give me some, basically the length of the back of the six, the back of the
'
seven and
the back of an eight approximately? I may have asked this last time.
S Peterson:
Al Block:
Eight is 149...
For the eight unit?
'
Al Block:
Yes. Six is about 125?
' Bob Smith: Yes.
Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay.
Al Block: Thank you for your time.
Peterson: What I'd like to recommend now is that, there seems to be some issues and
questions that the neighborhood has and I'd like to offer that we open it up for another public
hearing. With that I ask my fellow commissioners to motion that we open it for a public
' hearing.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was
opened.
Peterson: Is there anybody from the neighborhood or the area that would like to make a
' presentation or comment before the commission tonight? If so, please come forward and state
your name and address please.
' LuAnn Sidney: My name is LuAnn Sidney. I. spoke here last time at the Planning
Commission meeting. I live at 2431 Bridle. Creek Trail. I've got a few comments and
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
questions for the Planning Commission. I also have one question to start out for the proposed
buildings, about whether or not balconies can be placed on the backs of buildings. I guess I
wasn't clear from the presentation about that. I'd like to continue with a few comments and
then ask some questions, like I said. Last week the neighbors... petition drive and we wish to
inform the Planning Commission that we have filed a petition with the Environmental Quality
Board requesting to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Several of the
concerns cited in the ... included the potential for detriment to the effect of the surface quality
water. The ground water, wildlife and a lot of wildlife habitat, the danger to species,
historical and archeological resources ... and looking at some of those matters, they were very
interested in the fact that Indians, well I should say Native Americans, had been part of
history in this area and... Also as part of the discussion about the name Chanhassen. I had
never known what that was ... big tree. That's the maple. The other points that I brought up
have to do with aesthetics and... Also I have a question about the water quality issue. This is
one of the ponds... This occurred on June 5th. We were wondering about this as a
community. I would like to ask the Planning Commission if this is what is termed
commencement of construction under the Chanhassen zoning ordinances. Also, is this a
violation of the U.S. Corps of Engineers wetlands regulations and also the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency regulations. In wrapping up, we wanted to let the Planning
Commission know that we, as a neighborhood, will be canvasing again this coming Saturday
to produce a letter... Also wish to gather information from ... about what the ... about options for
industrial office or some other types of building mix. We intend to inform the Planning
Commission and City Council of this...
Peterson: Thank you.
Nina Wallestad: Hello. My name is Nina Wallestad. My husband and I own a house that is
under construction at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. I believe that the developers have tried to
address some of the concerns on the eastern portion of the bordering but I would like to
express my concern about the western portion of this bordering position. My husband and I
are in the tenth lot over, if I could point to it for just a moment. This one right here, and
because of the situation of the trees on our particular lot, 2 or 3 trees to be specific, we were
required to set our house further back on our lot. So although most of the Trotters Ridge
houses are fairly close to the curb, our's sits further back. So I would just like to have that be
addressed in this plan in that even though these buildings are a certain distance away from the
lot line, our particular house happens to sit even further back on the lot. And I would also
bring up the point that in order to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot, we were required to set our
house back. This plan is going to wipe out more than 100 trees, and it doesn't seem it seems
kind of incongruous that to save 2 or 3 trees on our lot we had to make that adjustment but
here a developer is about-to wipe out over 100 trees and it's not going to be xequired...address
the fact that these are huge oak trees that are of value and ... kind of inconceivable to me that,
12
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
it seems like a double standard basically is what I'd say. I'd ask you to consider that. We
were happy to do that because we wanted to save the trees and we believe they're a real asset
to this part of Chanhassen and I would agree that applies just as much, 200 feet to the south
' of our house as it did on our actual lot. Thank you so much for considering that. We
appreciate it.
Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek
Trail. I am the lot right here. This weekend my wife and I took a perimeter tour of the
various developments that have grown up in the greater Galpin neighborhoods. The only
' thing we noticed was that each different development was allowed to develop it's own
uniqueness and separate it from the other community developments that were ... next to it. And
we keep hearing the word transition talked about and the only think lacking in this transition
is transition. We're talking about light industrial, townhouses right up to the executive home
sites without, I think a natural buffer to protect those views. And I also think that if you are
looking at townhouses or you're looking at something to develop here, I would think a more
creative development would be in order. I mean the questions I've been hearing up here are,
well okay. Last year it was the Scherber Brothers, I remember that and one of the things was
' that they said cookie cutter neighborhood. That the neighbors opposed on this property and I
would look at this as a cookie cutter townhouse development. I don't see any difference in
the concept, except that it's for lower income. But I think the puralistic concept of mixing
' income groups in there, or trying to get different looks in different townhouses and try to
create a neighborhood in this property rather than just something that I frankly, I had a
meeting with this firm ... Twin Cities market and we're going to be able to drive ... so there will
be nothing unique in a neighborhood that is I think quite frankly for it's uniqueness of all
these different developments. So aesthetics is all I can say and I think that this does not
answer any, these tweakings that you're talking about, don't address the aesthetics at all and
' with that I would take my seat again. Thank you.
Mike Minear: Good evening. I'm Mike Minear, here with my wife Jeri from 2421 Bridle
Creek Trail and I just want to give you a quick update on the water issue. The builder, as we
talked to them last night, had offered to work with staff to address the water issue and they
had volunteered to help address it. I guess my concern is, as I understand this plan now,
' there is no specific plan or guarantee that the water issue for the homes here, and certainly
the water issues here, have really been addressed. As a homeowner I saw the ... on the water
issue and as I said two weeks ago, the city has told me that they really don't have the power
' to deal with this. And if that's the case, that's fair. So what I would ask however, before the
plan is approved, that the water issues are addressed and it's really dealt with upfront as
opposed to us having to try to deal with it, with the builders afterwards and they really don't
' comply with... I'd appreciate it if you'd consider that before you make your decision, thank
you.
' 13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Peterson: Anyone else like to address the commission? Hearing none, seeing none, is there a
'
motion to close? Oh, one more.
Jim Stasson: Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek Trail. Just a couple of questions. You had
'
mentioned that the Fisher property was cleaned up between the first engineering survey and
the second. I'm wondering, does that have to be supervised or can anybody just clean that
up? And if so, what are the supervised... The developer mentioned that there have been soil
samples. I think a lot of ..they've done a lot of soil samples but they've already done...
Peterson: Maybe you could comment on both, there's two questions that have been raised
,
tonight. Water quality issue and the ponding drain. Explain the scenario behind ponding
drain and undulating construction...
'
Hempel: As far as the ponding drain, it's my understanding from discussions with Mr. Fisher
that the pond outlet control had become plugged over the last year, which raised the water
level in the area. And what Mr. Fisher has done is gone and cleaned out that outlet control to
allow it to drain down to the water level that's been established for the past years. I believe
the staff person, Phil Elkin, the Water Resource Coordinator has been out there. Also a DNR
Conservation Officer has been involved. But that's about as much as I know on that. As far
,
as the clean -up goes, again it's going to fall back with any kind of demolition out there, an
additional soil test will be performed. Removal of storage tanks. Those sort of items require
the soil sample.
Peterson: Other comments? 1
Al Block: ...say, we mentioned it last night but not here tonight but along the one storm
drainage problem that exists, I believe it's inbetween Lots 2 and 3 on the northern half. ,
Either work with that and if there's any way ... there's a system being developed... And as to
the wetland, we're ready to work with the experts who know this kind of thing and city staff
in order to... '
Peterson: While you're up there, you may want to address the balcony issue was raised
earlier also. '
Al Block: Oh yes, thank you. No. Balconies are not allowed except ... in these plans it is '
possible as an alternative to build what we call flats and what we do is take two units and
actually convert them so instead of them both going two story, as currently, they're one level
so that all the living space is on the lower level and one living unit and all the spaces in the
upper ... so that was to create a balcony for the upper living area., We discussed at the '..
neighborhood meeting last night that we certainly would agree that on these buildings here,
14
1-7
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
we will not build that kind of units so ... our plans which would be submitted and approved by
your staff, no balconies on the backs.
Peterson: Okay.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have one question to ask Mr. Block. Another question was brought
up about trees and to what degree, seeing your drawing... move one of these units to save
some of the oaks ... as you go through the final planning, the final platting, the final grading
looking at that to move the building, cock it a certain way, etc. just to save some trees.
Al Block: Absolutely. We'll work with your staff in order to do that. Along with that, in
our landscaping plans, and the plan submittal ... if this were to get any kind of approval, it
would include some very specific things ... make sure that the trees are part of...very specific
procedures of training the roots, fencing them off, so on and so forth.
Linda Statton: My name is Linda Statton and I don't live in Trotters Ridge but I do live at
2209 Wood ... Drive, which is in the Oaks, on the other side of Galpin. And actually this was
' just brought to our attention, this proposed development... but I would very strongly urge the
commission to look at how developers of this type ... other communities in terms of, I
understand that Chanhassen has a need for a wide variety of housing price plans but I'm
' wondering about the fact that this is right in the middle of an area where the ... price point is
about $225,000.00 and I know from the surrounding neighborhoods it goes up to $400,000.00
and I really question whether this is the appropriate type of development... commission's really
' looked at that and what the impact has been in other communities about this type of
development having put in ... and I'm just wondering if they're in areas where the adjacent
properties are similar to this environment. It sounds like it's sort of that transition issue
'
again ... but I did want to speak out to that.... neighbor not just in the development next to this
but down the street. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin. Again not part of
' Trotters Ridge, but they've represented themselves quite well. Just for generalities, I too
support their views and I don't think this is the kind of development we want in that area but
as somebody that lives close by, there's a couple of points that I just want, a couple questions
' to ask. Number one, nobody really addressed the fact that this building along Galpin. Again,
they'd be sitting... and there's a lot of us what we in Minnesota call scrub trees, that's red
cedar, that are nevertheless they help. They help screen but I still think, that's still not much
' tree and I'm wondering if somebody's looked at the aesthetics from the street as having a lot
like that. The other thing is, would be that these are, a couple of the trees are being removed
' 15
u
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
and trees are being saved. I don't know, I haven't been on that property for several years but
I'm wondering if the trees that are being removed aren't primarily the prime trees there... The
trees, if they're just a number... red cedar, which they're not what I consider a prime tree. The
one other point is, and I don't know the answer to this either but how practical is a one car
garage in units like this? Living out this far, this far out from town and so forth.... parking in
the streets so those...
Peterson: Anyone else want to address the commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion
to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed.
Peterson: Kevin, may I get your comments?
Joyce: Thanks.
Peterson: You're welcome.
Joyce: Okay. Actually before I get into my comments I wanted to respond to some of the
correspondence I received from the neighbors in Trotter's Ridge. I think we all got letters in
the mail. And it was mentioned in a couple of the letters that I received, the concern of
increase in crime if this development is approved and built. I think there needs to be some
sort of clarification here. We're talking about affordable housing, not low income or
subsidized housing. And I think if this project becomes a reality, the people who occupy
these homes would, will qualify for mortgages. Will probably, I'm sure be gainfully
employed to necessitate the ability to pay those $90,000.00 - $100,000.00 mortgages. Certainly
they'll be different in financial position than the people in Trotter's Ridge and they'll have, I'm
sure some of them will have different life cycle positions. They might be retired or single.
Don't want the large expense of having homes that are hard to maintain and that kind of
thing. We're pretty confident they'd all be really good citizens here in Chanhassen, and I
believe that the level of crime for 140 units of this type of development would probably be
the same as the level of crime for 140 units in Trotter's Ridge if it was expanded. So I think
your group has done a great job and I think you're very well organized and I strongly urge
you to continue your presentation to City Council, but I just thought that bringing this crime
issue up was kind of irrelevant and maybe that's really the wrong way to pursue it. I didn't
hear about it at the meeting tonight but it was mentioned in two letters. And that kind of
leads me into what's really relevant about this situation is the affordable issue. Label that's
put on to these homes. I guess I'd consider it kind of a stigma attached to this project. As
has been stated before, this area is definitely going to be developed. There's no ifs, and's or
but's about it. We can delay the inevitable for as long as you want but you know it's by
16
v
L
17�
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Indian artifacts out there and everything else but this will be developed some day. The
neighbors I've found,or at least I'm hearing have basically stated they would rather see it
office industrial than these townhomes and if you consider the amount of tree loss and
grading and mitigations necessary to put the office industrial in, it kind of proves to me that
the neighbors just want anything that's not affordable housing is what it boils down to. I
mean that's really the nuts and bolts of this discussion here I guess. So affordable housing I
think is a central issue here. And I think it's a real problem with this development here too.
The Livable Communities Act was mandated by our legislature and I think it's a real nice
idea in theory. It's like every other nice idea, it's got real problems implementing these types
of things. And I think project is a kind of a good example of that problem. I would believe
that the Livable Communities Act goal was to integrate affordable housing into these
communities. With other levels of housing priced above affordable, and this is a real huge
development with a very narrow pricing. Marketing price. It's really kind of segregated from
the neighborhood to the north and the neighborhood to the east. And I don't think that's what
the Livable Communities Act wanted to do. You've got a big development that's going to be
called affordable in between a lot of large, other developments that have other price tags on
them. So I think it would be more suitable for this, I think this would be a good townhome
development but I really think it'd be more suitable to have varying levels of income entry. I
think it'd be much easier to accept this development if it was from $85,000.00 to let's say
$150,000.00 or $160,000.00 .... If we have, rather than six and eight plexes but we had some
duplexes in there that weren't "affordable ", you could have a more diverse neighborhood in
there. I think a more diversed housing appearances. I agree with some of the neighbors, it is
a cookie cutter looking neighborhood. I do think that the developer has gone out of his way
to appease the neighbors in this situation. I think they put a lot of effort into putting the
trees. The first rendition of this, I have a real problem with the tree loss... obviously attack
that aspect of it so I appreciate that. But once again you're berming up so that, it's not really
the transition... affordable housing in here. I just don't think that's the, I don't think that was
the concept of affordable. I think that this, I think that the planning staff did an excellent job
working with the developer to try and get a mixed use in here. I think that affordable
housing definitely could fit into this equation. But I'd like to, I'd be much more comfortable
with a balance of, what's the term? Non - affordable housing? I don't know. Whatever you
come up with that kind of term. And I think we're going to run into this problem again and
again and I think somewhere they can get a little more imaginative or the developers have to
get a little more imaginative with a large development like this to insure that we're not
plopping 140 units of "affordable housing "... I think if this was defined as a townhouse
development that had a range and didn't fit into, had some affordable housing but wasn't
classified as affordable housing, I think a lot of the neighbors...so those are my comments.
Peterson: Don. Your comments please.
17
Id
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
Mehl: I agree a lot with what was just said here. Some things have been done here that I
agree with in orienting the buildings. And in moving a couple buildings here right next to
Trotter's Ridge. It would seem that even though they're oriented and—that somebody can look
straight up the back of the building. It might be a few feet farther away so that concerns me
a little bit. I agree with the mixed use, the transition as we've tried to show here. But I also
have mixed emotions too about the price range of the houses immediately next to some of
those that are in the 2, 3, 400,000 range. So I guess I'd like to hear what the rest of you have
to say about it at this point. I'm not totally convinced but hear the rest of you.
Peterson: Jeff.
Farmakes: I apologize I wasn't at the previous meeting... As I recall, when Timberwood came
in and Stone Creek was put in and I remember one woman making a comment that we should
insist that each home sit on 2 1/2 acres because they had more acreage. It's kind of a slippery
slope when you get into varying zonement based on the value of the home. It's real, the
value of the home is determined by the market and although we indirectly sort of define the
basic price of the home, townhome or whatever priced zone, we don't zone by saying in this
particular zone of single family, all houses can be between $400,000.00 and $500,000.00, and
therefore transition on any development next to us can't be less than say 10% of that value.
We don't do that. That's just not how it's done. When someone invests in property, and
they're on the edge of a development, that developer sort of defines, by covenant or by
market, the value of that development and i.e., usually someone who develops the farmland
next to it, picks up on that and there is some transition. Unless there are extenuating
circumstances. In this case there's extenuating circumstances. The city obviously is looking
for areas to come up with affordable housing. Usually those areas predictably will be next to
an industrial area. Could be next to a freeway or next to a commercial zone ... any of the
properties around here where you see this type of house, and you can find them on TH 101
up here, and 78th. You can find them behind Byerly's. Those type of townhouses. Basically
in a $20,000.00 price range between $80,000.00 and $100,000.00. It's a very typical type of
townhouse that you'll see all over town. The cost of property in Chanhassen, the cost of
building this type of unit and the cost of selling it is pretty much dictating what type of home
is going to be. If the issue that we talked about here is affordability, and that $20,000.00
price range is basically what you're going to be working with. And the question is, is this the
appropriate place to put it? It does border an industrial area. But it also borders an area that
I think was referred to as executive homes. That's a marketing term. Not a zoning term. We
don't have an executive zone. And I don't think that we should. The issue of market is the
market's determined. We should be able to, at a minimum zoning and if we get into an area
of PUD, I think that we should be careful to note that we shouldn't expand beyond the
manageable amount that we're going to do affordable housing because I agree with you. You
can create a stigma to a neighborhood by doing that. It would be preferable to me if we deal
18
U
0
1
nl
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
' with this issue as part of a development. Where integration is an important thing. That we
try to do that. I'm not smart enough to know how to do that. But I know that that's a central
issue in the lot of stuff that we've discussed. The integration of affordable housing, and how
' we're doing this I think is very typical. People invest a certain amount of money into
property. They want to protect that. If somebody on the edge of that development changed
the rules, they'd be very upset. They're concerned about their investment. They're concerned
' about all this other stuff. The letters you said about crime and fire hazards, material, Indian
artifacts and stuff, they're skirting the issue of what we're talking about here. This is an
economic issue of certain economic classes in a situation and when we talk about this, I think
it's best that we talk about the real issue, rather than skirt around this thing. And at least
from a zonement aspect, we deal with minimums and I think we have to support that. From a
' political aspect, that's for your elected officials to deal with. I'll leave it at that ... the developer
has been cooperative dealing with some of these issues. But I don't think that you can deal
with the issue of solving both sides of the problem by waving his hand and saying, okay. All
' these townhouses now are going to be $250,000.00 and up. That's not how you solve the
situation. You either are or you aren't...
' Peterson: Nancy, your comments.
Mancino: Well I have, the last time this came in front of the Planning Commission it was
' single family. We, as a planning commission, I don't know if it was a unanimous vote or not,
said that we wanted to keep the IO zoning. The industrial office. We did not want to lose
tax base, etc. and that this had been when everyone moved into this area, they knew that it
' was industrial office. So when we moved it to City Council we made that recommendation.
That it not be rezoned to single family. That it stay IO. And I am still in favor of that.
When it came, has come back to us from City Council, and I guess Bob I'm asking this to
' you. It came back because City Council wanted us to look at including multi- family with the
IO?
' Generous: They mentioned a few different options. A compromise development was what
they directed staff and the Scherber Brothers to work on. Scherber Brothers did not want to
compromise.
' Mancino: They didn't want to compromise at all? So someone else came in and
compromised. I strictly speaking, and I don't know if it will, how we would handle the
' transition but I still very much believe in the industrial office zoning stay here. And to be the
entire, what is it, 42 acres. But I will say that I think staff and I think that the applicant has
' worked well with staff. Has listened to all of the neighbors concerns and has made a just, a
very faithful effort to try and take in all those concerns. So thank you.
' 19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
1
Peterson: Ladd.
'
Conrad: I'm glad I don't have to make a decision on this. I think the City Council is really
going to really do this and I think what we've done in the process is, we're bringing it forward
'
to the Council and Mr. Mayor, some I think a reasonable alternative for this land. I think that
it's probably along the lines of what the City Council was asking for. It's a pretty good PUD.
And I think that the neighbors do understand that no matter what goes in. The nice thing
'
about what's going on is I think something's going to go in here and we're getting our hands
around it and we're solving some of the problems. We probably will never appease the
neighbors in what goes in here, given the zoning. I'm sure they'd like to have something that
'
looks like what they live in right now. I've struggled with this because I've sort of committed
when I guide something, I hang in there with whatever I guide land for and that's what
neighbors can count on and that's pretty much the way I vote on issues unless I feel there's
'
neighborhood support. Because it's our communication with them beforehand is the one thing
we can do that lets them know what we want to do and what they are going to have to live
with in the future. Saying that, I guess I'm, it's one of these, I'm playing a role now where I
'
think, and I need to say it, I think I know what's best for you and I hate to do that. But my
real problem here is, I have a real easy time voting and keeping the current direction for the
,
land use as industrial area. It makes sense tax wise and, but it doesn't make sense though on
a couple issues. It doesn't make sense environmentally. This is probably a better
environmental plan than what we're going to get when we put commercial in there. Also
'
you're going to have some real big footprints when you put commercial in there. And it's not
going to be as good as this. So I'm trying to listen to what the neighbors are saying and a lot
of it is something I can't solve, like I think some of the commission have said, but in terms of
,
what I think would be more livable in terms of long range for them, this is probably better
than anything we can do with industrial commercial in that area. I can't imagine, and I've
been trying and I'm not a developer but I've been trying to figure out how I'd do it to be
'
sensitive to all the issue and I really don't know that I can, so the bottom line is, I see a
couple things that I think that the applicant has solved some of my problems. A couple
things I haven't solved yet. I still think the back sides of the buildings are exceptionally
,
boring and exceptionally bad. I really don't like that. I would have liked to have seen a
landscape plan in my packet so there's a couple issues that I would have liked to have seen. I
think maybe the variety of building materials might help us but again the back sides of things
'
are a problem. I also still don't think, my biggest issue still is the northern part. Still is the
footprints that I see so I'm not sure how I'm going to, you know I do believe that what's here
is probably in the best interest of the neighbors in the long run if we solve some of the
'
problems. And that's only because I see, I can't find a way I can put commercial in there
U b h h'
eg Utter t an t is particul
m ar plan. Would sure like to look at the building profiles on the
north side. Again the eight - plexes and the 150 foot, I think we've solved some of the
problems. I'd really like to figure out, and maybe that's what the City Council can do. See if
20
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
we can get down to some four - plexes on that northerly side. But that's my only other issue
with this plan.
' Peterson: Well I too am struggling like the rest of the commissioners and it really comes
down to a couple. One that Nancy mentioned earlier that this area came to us a few months
ago and we said that there wasn't... single family homes, there wasn't enough of a compelling
' reason to rezone it. It wasn't unique design and it didn't provide any additional character to
the community. That was one of the primary reasons that I chose to vote against it. So to
that end, I struggle with that on this same plan, which I think has less uniqueness and I think
in many ways we've defined uniqueness in this one as being affordable. I don't want to
accept that as a rationale to rezone in and of itself. As Ladd mentioned too, I think part of
' the reason that we'd consider rezoning is neighborhood agreement and in this case, we don't
have that seemingly. And as Ladd said also, I'm confused as to why they wouldn't agree. I
look at, if the back of my neighborhood were developed and was to be industrial office, I'd
much rather have it be a complex like this. But yet I'm not hearing that tonight, which
further pulls me to not approving this, and it's primarily for those two reasons so. Any
additional comments by members of the commission?
Mancino: I would like to have some discussion around, if we could, hear some comments
from one of the conditions of the approval in the report is, number 2. The developer shall
insure a minimum of 50% of the units meet the Metropolitan Council's definition of
affordable housing. I would just, I think it would be a good idea to give the Council support
or staffs recommendation of that or not. If you don't mind my asking, how did, and this may
' have been talked about at the previous meeting and I'm sorry to repeat any of this if it is so.
How did staff come up with a 50% affordable meeting?
' Aanenson: Sure, I'm glad you asked that question. Bob touched on it briefly but as you
recall, when Scherber Brothers came forward with their project, there was different zoning
options. And we said if we were going to change this, there had to be some advantage to the
' city. Obviously one of the goals the city needs to achieve is some affordable housing. When
Scherber Brothers chose not to pursue any other options, and there was four alternatives for
the property. Somebody else came forward. Originally they came in with a larger portion of
this property being multi - family. We ... as much industrial with the transition. When they
originally approached the city, they represented to us a product that was 100% affordable.
We had some of the same concerns. They knew what the price margin, and I think maybe
we should address that to the applicant to tell you what the price margin is because they are
greater than I think what you believe they are. So we said 50 %. Again, we don't want to put
them all in one spot but we said if there needs to be, if there is a reason to change the
zoning, then there should be something, a goal, and diversified housing is a goal of the city.
It's in our Comp Plan right now: And that is something that we would want to achieve. So
21
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 1996
we put the 50% in there. We don't see this whole, 100% so 115 is the price for affordable
housing as defined by the Metropolitan Council.
Mancino: 115.
Aanenson: Thousand. And more, correct. So there is product above that. There is various
options within this. There are walkouts. There are lookouts. There's slab on grade so there
is an opportunity for a wide range of, as they indicated, of add -on's and these start at a higher
price, and maybe the developer can speak to the price range on that but we believed that
50 %. Again, we don't want to see all of, the whole produce being in the affordable range.
Do you want to talk about the price?
Al Block: What the price range...
Aanenson: Right.
Al Block: The largest home ... with basement, with options, is probably $150,000.00. And the
lowest end probably $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 would be the lowest priced home.
Peterson: Any other questions or comments? Can I get a motion? Please.
Mancino: I will make a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council keep #96 - in the original zoning of Office Industrial.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Farmakes: I'd second that.
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council deny the Land Use Map Amendment 496 -1b from Office /Industrial to Residential
Medium Density, Town and Counhy Homes. All voted in favor and the motion canied.
Peterson: Thank you for coming.
Audience: I didn't hear the motion. Could that be repeated?
Mancino: The zoning stay IO, Office Industrial. Zoning stays.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1
L�
22 1
TOWN & ALY HOMES
Minnesota Division
June 20, 1996
Mayor Chmiel and Members of the Chanhassen City Council
P.O. Box 147
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel and Members of the City Council:
' Please refer to the attached report. In many of our townhome zonin g cases, we hear concerns
expressed regarding the potential negative impact that the price range of our townhomes will
' have on single family homes nearby, which are valued at a higher price. Some residents of the
Trotter's Ridge development expressed this same concern regarding our proposal.
' As the enclosed report suggests, if the property with a higher density is properly maintained,
there is no negative value impact. In the case studies covered in the enclosure, the price and
size of the homes were very likely less than what we are proposing to build in Chanhassen.
All of our communities are very well maintained, with professional property management
companies supervising this through property owners associations. Very comprehensive
covenants guide this process.
We hope the enclosed report will help alleviate any fears you may have had about this issue.
' Cordially,
Allan J. Block Robert P. Smith
President, Minnesota Division Vice President, Land Development
' 6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina, MN 55435
(612) 925 -3899 MN Builder License #9137
i
Michael S. MaRous, MAI '
Low - Income Housing in Our
Backyards: What Happens to
Residential Property Values?
A market analysis of four very low-income family housing developments in four
growing Chicago suburban market areas was conducted. Despite expecta-
tions to the contrary, the evidence indicated that low-income housing does not
necessarily lower the value of surrounding residential property or curb further
successful market development in the immediate area. The conditions con-
tributing to the success of the four projects analyzed include good community
planning, good design and buffering of the sites, and good property manage-
ment.
N ot in my backyard! This shout is espe-
cial1v strident when the proposed develop-
ment is low- income housing row after
row of crowded, ugly, cheaply constructed
buildings, garbage strewn everywhere,
dirty curtains partially hanging from bent
rods over screenless windows, and bat-
tered cars rusting to death in the parking
lot. This image gives rise to a typically neg-
ative reaction. Who would choose to live
next door to such a place as that?
Midway through the 1990s, 30 years
into "The Great Society" housing pro-
grams, and 20 years into the Section 8
housing experiment, can we answer these
questions?
• Is the low - income housing stereotype
accurate?
• Does the commonly held fear of low -
income housing have foundation?
• Will residential property values in the
neighborhood plummet when low -
income housing is built next door.
The certainty about low- income hous-
ing is that the residents have met govern-
ment- established income criteria. Every-
thing else is a variable —the density, the
construction materials and design, the
maintenance and management, and the re-
sultant effect on neighboring residential
property values. This study suggests that
the stereotype is not necessarily accurate
and the fear is not necessarily founded.
Further, it reveals that low- income housing
built right in our backyards might have no
effect at all on property values.
In mid -1994, a suit was filed seeking to
prevent the Illinois Housing Development
Authority (IHDA) from financing the de-
velopment of 180 units of very low- income
Michael S. MaRous, MAI, is president and owner of McRous and Company, a real estate appraisal
firm. In addition to providing documented appraisals, highest and best use studies, and marketability
and feasibility studies, he has served as an expert witness in litigation proceedings. Past president of the
Chicago Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, Mr. MaRous is currently chair of the Political Affairs Commit-
tee. A graduate of the University of Illinois with a degree in urban land economics, he has published arti-
cles in a variety of professional journals.
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE I
housing in a suburb in western DuPage
County, Illinois. The neighbors objected to
the project, primarily based on the effect
they expected that it would have on the
property values of their houses. IHDA be-
lieved that the success of such a suit would
be a deterrent to its activities statewide. As
part of IHDA's full-scale defense, the po-
tential impact of the development of the
project on surrounding residential property
values was assessed. In a relatively short
time, parameters for a market study were
set. Residential property values adjoining
similar low- and very low- income housing
complexes already constructed would be
analyzed. From a list of recent IHDA proj-
ects in the Chicago metropolitan area, de-
velopments that matched the characteris-
tics of the proposed development were
chosen: recently constructed projects (as
opposed to a rehabilitation project) adjoin-
ing single - family and /or market multifam-
ily developments; large projects with low -
income and very low- income family units
(as opposed to elderly developments); and
projects located in developing suburban ar-
eas with increasing property values.
Three projects on the list fit these crite-
ria. Despite its recent completion, Water-
ford Place was included to assess the ef-
fects on additional development in the
area. A fourth IHDA project built in 1981
and meeting all of the same criteria was
chosen to assess long -term impact on the
market. Although the specific loan guaran-
tees, tax credits, or rent subsidy programs
varied between the four projects, all were
entirelv either low- income or very low -in-
come family housing developments in de-
veloping suburban areas.
STUDY PARAMETERS AND
I IETHODOLOGY
The quality of the management of the pro-
jects chosen could not be determined in
advance. As it turned out, all of the pro-
jects chosen for the study appeared to be
adequately managed and were fully occu-
Victorian Park Summary
One Bedroom /One Bath
pied. Therefore, the conclusions assume
competent management —not an insignifi-
cant factor.
Because of the prevailing image of
low- income housing, some measurable
negative impact was expected; the method
developed for analyzing the projects at-
tempted to account for this impact. Each of
the four projects was evaluated with re-
spect to the compatibility of the develop-
ment with the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of design and construction qual-
ity; the condition of the buildings; and es-
pecially the density. The overall feel of
each development was measured by the
presence or absence of litter; the landscap-
ing; the age and condition of parked cars;
and the window treatments. The number
of children in the complex and their ages
were considered. Finally, the market was
surveyed by interviewing developers and
brokers, reviewing multiple listing service
listings and annual summaries, and re-
searching transactions with local assessors,
focusing especially on the units immedi-
ately adjoining or facing the low- income
housing. Summaries of the analyses of the
four projects follow.
Victorian Park, Streamwood, Illinois
The first project reviewed was Victorian
Park in Streamwood, Illinois (see Table 1).
Streamwood is located 33 miles from
downtown Chicago in DuPage County. In
1994, the population was 31,197; the value
of the average house was S97,ii� 4; average
income was $46,271. According to the
Streamwood Building Department, 1993
building permits totalled 257, and 1994
building permits through October 30, 1994,
totalled 1,91.
The entire 300 -unit development has
100 low- income units in a single section
and was constructed on a site of about 30
acres for a density of about 6 units per acre.
The allowed density under the site's R -5
zoning is 10 units per acre. The density as
built is consistent with the surrounding de-
velopment; the adjacent neighborhood is
Two Bedrooms /One and Two Baths
Total Number of No. of Size (in Monthly Rent per
No. of
Size (in
Monthiy
Rent per
Low - Income Units Units square feet) Rent square foot
Units
square feet)
Rent
square foot
100 750 S474 $0.63
37 (2Ba)
1,050
S600
$0.57
27
800 S546 S0.68
36 0 Ba)
955
S674
S0. 71
28 The Appraisal Journcl, January 1996
zoned R -3, a designation that allows 6
dwelling units per acre. The rear of the
low- income section borders the Windsor
Place subdivision, a single - family neigh-
borhood to the west.
Windsor Place is predominately frame
houses, some with brick facades; modest
ranches; and some two -story houses rang-
ing in price from $130,000 to 5130,000.
Other development in the area includes
slightly older single- family housing and
townhouses. Portions of the single - family
neighborhood border the unsubsidized
Victorian Park apartment buildings.
The Victorian Park project was con-
structed in 1987 under a Section 236 interest
subsidy.' Construction consists of four -unit
and eight -unit two -story frame buildings
with attached garages accented with dark
blue or black shutters, patios or balconies,
and some landscaping. The property ap-
pears to be in good condition. The manage-
ment reported that 30 to 40 children live in
the low- income housing units.
The MAP Multiple Listing Service
(MILS) reports that for the first nine months
of 1994, 405 houses sold in Streamwood,
with an average listing price of $136,240
and an average sale amount of 5133,096 (or
about 98 % of the asking price). Sales in the
single - family area immediately adjoining
the subsidized low- income units were ana-
lyzed over the life of the development.
Data concerning sales of similar houses in
the subdivision not adjacent to the subsi-
dized 'housing as well as resales of houses
bordering the subsidized units were col-
lected.
The research found 12 sales of single -
family houses in the immediate vicinity.
Sales of houses bordering the low- income
apartments showed increases in value
ranging from 2.5% to 3.61 per vear; the av-
TABLE 2 Liberty Lakes Summary
erage increase was 3.1%, a figure consistent
with the general market area according to
the brokers interviewed. Sale prices aver-
aged 98 of asking prices. Recent sales of
identical model houses showed no relation-
ship between value and proximity to low -
income units.
Liberty Lakes Apartments, Lake Zurich,
Illinois
The second project reviewed was Liberty
Lake Apartments in Lake Zurich, Illinois
(see Table 2). Lake Zurich is located 37
miles northwest of downtown Chicago in
Lake County. In 1994, the population was
14,947; the value of the average house was
$183,781; the average income was $76,876.
According to Living in Greater Chicago,
building permits were issued in 1993 and
in 1994; four were issued through Septem-
ber 30, 1994.
Liberty Lakes was constructed on an ir-
regularly shaped 8.05 -acre site. The density
as built is 8.7 units per acre, which is below
the density allowed under the site's R-1
zoning -12 units per acre. Although the
Liberty Lakes density is somewhat higher
than the nearby R -3 zoning, which allows
4.35 dwelling units per acre, because of the
mixed uses in the area, the density of Lib-
erty Lakes appears consistent with its sur-
roundings. Uses to the immediate north are
a public library, a church, and a parochial
school; uses to the northwest are the Lake
Zurich main post office and a fire station.
Two single - family developments are lo-
cated east of Liberty Lakes across a street.
Old Mill Grove is about 20 years old and
has housing prices from $120,000 to
$200,000, and Jonquil Estates is a new de-
velopment currently under construction
and planned for 22 houses in the 529,000
to $292,000 price range. The developer of
I. Under Section 236, tenants are required to pay at least 30% of their income, which must be lower than 80 01 0 of the median. Ac-
cording to federal guidelines for 1994, 80% of the median income for a family of four in DuPage, Lake, and Cook counties is
539,900.
Z CANTS Publishing, Inc, Living in Crmter C. ^.icago, I994 Edition (Deerfield, Illinois: CAMS Publishing, Inc., 1994),188.
MaRous: Low - income Housing in Our Backyards 29
L
One Bedroom /One Bath
Two Bedreoms /One Bath
Three Bedreoms /One Bath
Rent
Rent
Rent
Total
No.
Size (in
Rent
per
No. Size (in
Rent
per
No. Size (in
Rent
per
Number
of
square
per
square
of square
per
square
of square
per
square
Of Units
Units
feet)
Month
foot
Units feet)
Month
foot
Units feet
Month
foot
7 0
8
950
5867
$0.91
28 824
S907
$1.10
34 950
S1,055
$1.11
I. Under Section 236, tenants are required to pay at least 30% of their income, which must be lower than 80 01 0 of the median. Ac-
cording to federal guidelines for 1994, 80% of the median income for a family of four in DuPage, Lake, and Cook counties is
539,900.
Z CANTS Publishing, Inc, Living in Crmter C. ^.icago, I994 Edition (Deerfield, Illinois: CAMS Publishing, Inc., 1994),188.
MaRous: Low - income Housing in Our Backyards 29
L
TABLE 3 Waterford Place
One Bedroom /One Bath
Two Bedrooms /One Bath
Total Number No. of Size Cn Monthly Rent per
No. of Size M Monthly Rent per
of Units Units square feet) Rent square foot
Units square feet) Rent square foot
288 24 550 S480 S0.87
96 720 SWO $0.83
168 860 $500 $0.58
Jonquil Estates reports that, since an adver-
tising sign was posted in May 1994, six
contracts have been signed. The rear of the
Libertv Lakes site is open area with a de-
tention pond beyond which are some con-
dominium units. There are 270 parking
spaces on the site but no garage parking.
Constructed in February 1991, Liberty
Lakes is a dormitory-style development
that consists of 70 units of low- income and
very loco- income housing, all of which are
Section 8 units. Of the one - bedroom units,
six are for the elderly and two are for the
mobility impaired. The building appears to
be well maintained. The management re-
ports that about 120 children live in the de-
velopment, of which 10 are infants and tod-
dlers, 10 are high school age, and the rest
are elementary school age.
The ?ASAP MLS for the first 9 months of
1994 shows that there were 286 sales of sin-
gle- family houses in Lake Zurich, with an
average listing price of $197,825 and an av-
erage sale amount of $191,934, or about
97 % of the asking price. Data available for
sales in the single - family area immediately
adjoining the subsidized low- income units
were analyzed over the life of the low -
income development. Data concerning
sales of similar houses in the subdivision
not adjacent to the subsidized housing as
well as resales of houses bordering the sub-
sidized units were collected.
Eleven sales of new or existing single -
family houses in the immediate area were
found. Resales of houses bordering the
low- income apartments showed annual in-
creases in value of 2.8 %, 6.9 %, and 9.7 %.
These figures are superior to the 3.2% to
4.6 % increases in houses not bordering the
Liberty Lakes low- income house, and su-
perior to increases in the general market
area, according to the brokers interviewed.
720 S620 S0.86
Sale prices in the neighborhood averaged
97% of the asking price.
Waterford Place Apartments, Zion,
Illinois
The newest project analyzed was Water-
ford Place Apartments in Zion, Illinois (see
Table 3). Zion is located 45 miles north of
downtown Chicago in Lake County. In
1994, the population was 19,7 the value
of an average house was 596,496, and the
average income was 539,385. According to
Living in Greater Chicago,' 1993 building
permits totalled 134, and 1994 permits to-
talled 94 through September 30, 1994.
The Waterford Place site contains 17.42
acres for a density of 16.5 units per acre.
There is parking for 576 cars. The develop-
ment is denser than the proposed sur-
rounding development, but is part of an
overall design. North of Waterford Place is
an area planned for single- family houses;
on a deadend road, this single - family de-
velopment will eventually connect with its
extension in an area of existing houses. De-
velopment on both sides of this road is
part. of the developer's overall original
plan. The plan calls for commercial devel-
opment along the major arterial at the
front of Waterford Place, townhouses to
the northwest of Waterford Place, and sin-
gle- family houses to the north. Another
major developer has a single - family devel-
opment known as Butterfield Place under-
way northwest of Waterford Place. To the
east of Waterford Place is farm land, a
cemetery, and the Harbor Ridge single -
family development. High- tension wires
run along the northern rear boundary of
the Waterford Place site.
Waterford Place was constructed in
two phases in 1992 and 1993, using Section
42 income tax credits.' There are eight
'
3. Under Section 8, the government pays the owner the difference between the tenant contribution (30 70 of income) and a fair
market rent based on capital and for 20
operating costs a period of to 40 years. Tenants are eligible if their income is lower than
50'0 of the median income adjusted for family size. According to federal guidelines. 50% of the median income for a family of
four in Dul'age, take. and Cook counties was 525,650.
'
4. Living in Greeter Chicago, 2-
5. Section 42 Income Tax Credits are available for eligible new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
The tax credits may be taken for ten years after the project is placed in service with an annual amount of credit at a fixed per-
'
30 The Apprciscl Journal, January 1996
- TABLE 4
Brookhaven Summary
One Bedroom /One
Bath
Two Bedrooms /One or One - and -a -Half Baths Three
Bedrooms
/One
-and -a
-Half Both-
Total
No.
Size (in Rent
Rent
per
No.
Size (in
Rent
Rent
Cin
Rent
Number
of Units
of
Units
square per
feet) Month
square
foot
of
Units
square
feet)
per
square
of
square
Rent
Per
per
square
Month
foot
Units
feet)
Month
foot
181
70
700 S848
$ 1.21
82
1,1C0
$ 1,045
$0.95
16
1.250
$ 1,143
13
6C0 $818
S1.36
$0.91
i
i
F
a
buildings and 36 units per building for a
total of 288 units. Some of the units are
slightly below grade. Amenities include
two detention areas, landscaping, and a
clubhouse currently housing the rental of-
fice. The building is fully occupied. Units
come with carpeting, window treatments,
ceiling fans, and microwave ovens. The
management estimates that 30 to 40 chiI-
dren live in the complex, of which 20 % are
school age, 3% are high school age, and the
remainder are elementary school age. The
developer of Waterford Place previously
has constructed identical developments
that are commanding market rents in other
Iocations in Lake County. The complex ap-
pears to be well maintained.
According to the MAP iVILS, the aver-
age listing price in the Zion and Beach Park
market area for the first 9 months of 1994
was $99,876, and the average sale price was
595,328. All lots in Westside Hills, the sin-
gle- family development immediateIv north
of Waterford Place, are priced at 527,900
and are being sold both to individuals and
to developers. New houses in Westside
Hills are listed at $132,000 to $136,900. In
Butterfield Place, since marketing began in
January 1994, 22 houses have sold and 10
have closed. Listing prices range from
S114,990 to 5122,990. In Harbor Ridge, list-
ing prices range from $111,990 to $146,900.
Waterford Place appears to have no ad-
verse impact on market demand in the
area, as evidenced by continued sales and
d evelopment of single - family Iots immedi-
ately north of this housing development.
Br°okhaven Apartments, Gumee, Illinois
The final development analvzed was the
Oldest one (see Table 4). Brookhaven Apart-
lents is located in Gurnee, Illinois, 45
miles north of downtown Chicago in Lake
C O 'ntSr• Rapidly growing, the 1994 popula-
tion was 13,701, the value of the average
house was $176,897, and the average in-
come was $64,259. Living in Greater Chicago
reported 1993 total building permits of 394
and 1994 building permits of 578 through
September 30,1994.
The Brookhaven site contains 15.8
acres, resulting in a density as built of
about 11.5 units per acre. A library, a deten-
tion area, and open space are between the
low- income housing and the street on
which the project is Iocated. West of the site
is county -owned land designated as a for-
est preserve. North and west of Brook-
haven is a public Iibrary, and north of
Brookhaven is a high school. A small group
of single - family houses are north of
Brookhaven, and a newer townhouse de-
velopment is across the street.
Constructed in 1981, the development
is entirely Section 8. The 181 units are con-
figured in seven dusters of four buildings.
Of the 70 garden -level one - bedroom units,
12 are handicapped accessible, and of the
smaller one - bedroom units, 6 are handi-
capped accessible. There are 82 two -
bedroom units with three slightly varying
sizes and configurations and 16 three -
bedroom units. The main buildings contain
a total gross building area of about 191,000
square feet and a total rentable area of
about 165,600 square feet. The complex in-
cludes a clubhouse, a maintenance build-
ing, parking, two children's play lots, a ten-
nis court, and a swimming pool. There is
ample unassigned parking. The complex -
appears to be in good condition. Manage-
ment reports that there are 142 children liv-
ing in the development, of whom 62 are
preschool age, 59 are in elementary school,
and 21 are in high school.
According to the Northern Illinois
MLS, the average sale price of single -
family homes in Gurnee for 1994 was
1
MaRous: Low - Income Housing in Our Bcckyards 31
azttage of qualified project costs, which is generally that portio
than 30 %, of 50% or 60% of the area median income. n of the project that serves tow- income tenants. Rents an be no
4 in Greater
,. Chicago, 218.
Low- and very
'low- income
housing do not
'automatically
Iower the value of
surrounding
residential
' development
or
prevent successful
market
development
around it.
$179,941. Data available for sales in the
single- family area immediately adjoining
the Brookhaven low - income units were an-
alyzed from 1988 to the present. The North-
ern Illinois MLS reports that sales for the
first 9 months of 1993 for attached single -
family houses had an average listing price
of 5107,490 and an average sale price of
$102,756, or 96% of the asking price. Sales
for the first 9 months of 1994 for attached
single - family houses had an average listing
price of 5109,675 and an average sale
amount of 5105,402. This is an increase of
2.6% in sale price. Data available since 1988
for sales of townhouses in the area immedi-
ately adjoining the subsidized low- income
units and similar units not immediately ad-
joining were analyzed. The single - family
houses bordering the low- income complex
have not turned over, at least since 1988.
The sales of the townhouse units close
to Brookhaven were compared with sales
of similar units away from the low- income
housing, all in Phase I of the townhouse
development. There are four different unit
models with different layouts and sizes.
Units with the A layout away from
Brookhaven ranged from a loss in value of
0.89% to an increase in value of 2.93% on
an annual basis in contrast to a 1.67% in-
crease for an A unit adjacent to the
Brookhaven units. Increases for B units
away from Brookhaven ranged from 1.84%
to 9.767o annually. Increases for C units
ranged from 0.89% to 3.07% away from
Brookhaven; a C unit facing Brookhaven
showed an increase of 1.38% per year. The
only D unit sale away from Brookhaven
showed a 2% annual increase in contrast to
a 2.3% increase in a D unit facing the low -
income units. These figures show that re-
sales of townhouses directly facing the
Brookhaven low- income apartments reflect
increases in value consistent with those re-
ported by the Northern Illinois MLS and
with comparable sales of similar units in
Phase I of the adjacent market townhouse
development that are not directly adjacent
to the low- income housing.
CONCLUSION
A dampening effect of 3% to 5% on the
market values of residential property val-
ues adjacent to low- income and very low -
income family housing was expected.
However, there was no evidence of this. In-
stead the evidence showed market values
consistent with property not adjacent to the
low- income units, and values rising at rates
consistent with the community as a whole.
A dampening effect on investment in new
development in the immediate area was
also expected. There was no evidence of
this either. Instead developers are con-
structing and are selling good - quality,
single - family housing right next door to
very low- income buildings.
This study was designed as a market
analysis, not as a statistical regression anal-
ysis. However, a statistical regression anal-
ysis, "Relationships between Affordable
Housing Developments and Neighboring
Property Values," conducted by Paul Cum-
mings and John Landis, of the Institute for
Urban and Regional Development of the
University of California at Berkeley,
reached similar conclusions for a variety of
low- income housing types. Although they
did not specifically address the issue of
density, the authors concluded:
Poorly designed, poorly maintained, and
poorly managed projects can affect neigh-
borhood property values — regardless of
whether they are affordable or market -rate.
Conversely, well- designed, well - managed,
and well- maintained projects should not af-
fect neighborhood property values, regard-
less of whether thev are affordable or mar-
ket- rate.'
From an appraiser's viewpoint, the
conclusion must be that low - income and
very low- income housing does not auto-
matically lower the values of surrounding
residential development or prevent suc-
cessful market development around it.
Apparently a development must fulfill
certain specific conditions before this con-
clusion can be reached. First, there must be
good planning on the part of both the com-
munity and the developer. The projects re-
viewed were well coordinated with sur-
rounding densities and uses, and natural
and manmade buffers were used to good
effect at all four sites. Second, there must be
good construction quality and design. The
developments reviewed fit in with the
surrounding community; there were no
" ors in sight• The
public- housing red" do
7. Paul Cummings and John Landis, "Relationships between Affordable Housing Developments and Neighboring Property Val-
' ues," working Paper 399, University of California at Berkeley, Institute for Urban and Regional Development, September 1993,
17.
one project that was not as attractively de-
signed was well buffered. Third, there must
be good management. All four complexes
were well maintained with competent on-
site management. This factor cannot be
overlooked, especially when considering
the importance of the integration of these
complexes into their larger communities.
There is nothing new about these con-
clusions, and the same criteria apply to the
successful development of market -rent
housing as well. What is new is that these
standards are now being achieved for low -
income and very low- income housing and
that the result serves well to dispel the low -
income housing stereotype.
The shift in the national political tem-
perament brings high irony to this discus-
sion. Section 8 housing programs are being
phased out; HUD is being dismantled.
State programs will feel the pinch of these
national activities and likely will be tar-
geted themselves. The negative image im-
mediately conjured up by low- income
housing has no doubt contributed to these
decisions. Yet the need for "decent, safe,
and sanitary housing for every American"
has not diminished since that goal was ar-
ticulated in the Housing Act of 1948. The
irony is that now that low- income housing
is being well executed, the question has be-
come whether or not it will continue to be
built at all. Perhaps the greater question is
whether or not the truth about low- income
housing can make a difference in either the
reactions of its potential neighbors or in the
decisions made about its future.
MaRous: Low - Income Housing in Our Backyards
33