4. Southern Oaks, LUP 95-11
i
CITY OF q
�BRNHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: November 8, 1995
SUBJ: Southern Oaks, LUP 95 -1, Rez 95 -2, and Sub 95 -4
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 1995, City Council tabled this item and "directed staff to work with the applicant
to create a better plan, to make a commitment on the city's part to look at other parcels of
residential land as a trade off so there is no net loss to industrial /commercial tax base..."
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant continues to propose a 59 unit single - family subdivision on the proposed property.
Rather than work with staff on creating a better plan, the applicant has concentrated on
identifying other property within the City of Chanhassen that is guided for residential that may be
switched for the industrial office land. The applicant is proposing that the Mills Fleet Farm
property, located at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Highway 41, be designated for
commercial use.
The applicant has stated to staff that only the single - family subdivision is developable by them.
Any other type of development does not work for them on the Fisher property.
ANALYSIS
Staff does not believe that the introduction of commercial development at the northeast corner of
1 Highway 5 and Highway 41 is consistent with the type of development envisioned for this area.
The area between Galpin Boulevard and Highway 41 is predominately residential in character
with a minimal amount of neighborhood commercial use. The Highway 5 Study document
' currently proposes the land south of the north Highway 5 access boulevard on the Mills property
for office /institutional /medium density residential use and the land north of the access boulevard
MEMORANDUM
Don Ashworth
November 8, 1995
Page 2
for low density residential uses. The Planning Commission and City Council have adopted the
land use recommendations of the Highway 5 document. The document is at the Metropolitan
Council for their consideration. The city gains very little from the applicant's proposal for the
land use exchange and introduces commercial uses into areas that are planned for and developing
residentially.
The applicant has shown little or no interest in redesigning the proposal for Southern Oaks as
anything other than a single - family residential, detached, standard subdivision. Rather than
continue with this process, staff believes closure should be brought to this development. Staff is
of the opinion that the applicant's only desire for development of the property is a standard
subdivision. The proposed property change is inconsistent with the Highway 5 plan. If the
Council does want to consider the land use change, a public hearing before the Planning
Commission is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed development as outlined in the
original staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Peter J. Coyle to Kate Aanenson dated October 31, 1995
2. City Council Minutes of August 14, 1995
3. Letter from Jeff and Cynthia Olson to City Council dated September 5, 1995
4. Memo from Tom Loucks to Craig and Gary Scherber dated August 11, 1995
5. Letter from Tim and Kathleen Battis to Mr. Don Chmiel dated August 11, 1995
6. Petition of Community Members Opposed to Industrial Development, Preferring Single
Family Residential
7. Memo from Bob Generous to Don Ashworth dated August 8, 1995
8. Staff Report
�I
r
L
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Peter J. Coyle
DIR. DIAL (612) 896 -3214
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194
TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800
FAX (612) 896 -3333
October 31, 1995
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Scherber Brothers Partnership
Proposal for Residential Development
Dear Kate:
k -� V.
z `, i � �; ff.'s
►IU! 1995
I am writing to request that you place the application of Scherber Brothers Partnership (Scherbers) on
the agenda for the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Scherbers propose to develop 59
detached single family home sites on a 46 acre parcel (37 acres are developable), in the northwest
quadrant of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. Scherbers are requesting City Council approval
for the following: amend comprehensive plan from Office/Industrial to Residential Low Density; amend
zoning from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Single Family Residential (RSF); Preliminary Plat; and Wetland
Alteration Permit.
During the meeting on August 14, 1995, members of the City Council expressed an openness to support
the Scherber's application for a residential use of their property, provided the tax consequences to the
City resulting from the land use change (industrial to residential) were minimized. In particular, it was
suggested that other parcels be identified in the City which currently are guided for residential
development, but may be more suitable for commercial or industrial development. The goal is to swap
the land use potential of the Scherber's parcel for the development potential of another comparable -sized
parcel so that the City's tax base potential is left intact.
' Scherbers have had extensive discussions with representatives of Mills Fleet Farm regarding their
approximately 50 acre parcel, situated in the northeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 5 and Trunk
Highway 41. The Mills parcel is guided for mixed residential development under the Highway 5
' Corridor Study. Mills believes commercial guiding for their parcel is more appropriate than residential
mixed use. Commercial development on the Mills parcel will generate a property tax return to the City
well in excess of the guided residential use for that property -- and in excess of the industrial tax base
' potential of the Scherber property.
' Scherbers respectfully request that the City Council informally consider a land use change involving the
Scherber and Mills parcels, the result of which would be that the Scherbers could proceed with their
proposed residential development. If a land use change is feasible, we request that the City Council
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Kate Aanenson
October 31, 1995
Page 2
provide direction on the procedure to be followed to obtain formal review of the Scherber's proposal.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� Z� (Z -
Peter J. Coyle, fo
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Craig Scherber
Gary Scherber
Tom Loucks
0158295.01
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
5� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY: REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, SINGLE
�J J FAMILY RESIDENT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 59 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO,
OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON 46.27 ACRES AND WETLAND ALTERATION,
PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE; 8470 GALVIN BOULEVARD, SOUTHERN OAKS, SCHERBER,
' PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. The proposal before you tonight is in four parts.
' The primary issue that the city has to resolve is a policy decision regarding the land use amendment of this
property. The property is currently guided for office /industrial uses. This is designated for office /industrial as
part of the 1991 comprehensive plan. The designation was partially a result of the encroaching industrial
development coming from Chaska on the west and south, and the use, excellent access to the facility provided
' by two minor arterial roadways, Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. And the ability to buffer this
development from the adjacent residential developments through the large wetland complexes on the east and
the north. And finally as a result of this property not being used for, being used for non - residential and non-
agricultural uses. The adjacent uses to the north are Trotters Ridge, a single family subdivision. To the east
' Galpin Boulevard and Stone Creek. An additional single family subdivision. To the south Lyman Boulevard
and Holasak Nursery, an industrial use. And to the west an industrial development in Chaska. In the policy
decision and the issue that Council needs to decide, falls around the land use map amendment. The
' comprehensive plan designates industrial land to try to provide a balance of land uses within the community.
The policy states that the city will attempt to establish a reasonable amount of industrial land. Currently the
industrial land use is approximately 8.8% of the land area in the city. Secondly, the land use map tries to
' preserve the tax base through diversity in land uses. The comprehensive plan also tries to provide employment
opportunities for commercial and industrial development in the city and finally there's an issue that there are
large areas of vacant residential land uses that could be developed at this time. The applicant is proposing a
typical subdivision. We advised them when the)' began this process that they would have to make a compelling
argument to demonstrate the need for the land use amendment. They could have proposed other types of
development, including planned unit developments that would be able to either cluster units into the open areas
and preserve the natural features to a greater extent, or strict single family multi - family where they'd average the
' lot size and again put the larger lots within the wooded areas of the site. They could have come in for a multi-
family development or a mix of land uses. However, they did not propose any of these. They brought forward
this standard subdivision. I do have to make a correction in the staff analysis. On page 20 of the tax revenues
' for industrial and the 338,000 square feet, we inadvertently doubled taxed the first $100,000.00 so the ultimate
tax would be a slightly less. The city share would be $148,667.00 at 20% and $371,668.00 with the TIF district
at 50 %. Staff did perform a cursory review of the proposed subdivision. There are, as part of the wetland
filling, the wetland conservation act requires that the developer show alternatives for development that avoid
' impacts to the wetland. We believe there are some changes in the design of the project that would reduce these
impacts. Some of the lot lines don't meet city standards and would need to be revised. And we'd need to
provide a tree preservation plan and revise the landscaping plan to incorporate the buffer requirements and the
' screening requirements along the north and the east side of the project. Staff is recommending denial of the
land use map amendment and consequently denial of the rest of the requested approvals based on the findings
contained in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions of staff at this time? Steve.
' Councilman 11erqulS1: No, not at this time.
1 37
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would ask the applicant to come forward and please state your name and your address
and if and who you are representing. And I would like to, because of the time that there is and I can see there's
a lot of people here. I'd like to limit your opening remarks to about 20 minutes. Good, thank you.
Peter Coyle: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council... my name is Peter Coyle. I'm an attorney at
the Larkin- Hoffinan law firm in Bloomington, Minnesota. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicants, Craig
and Gary Scherber, who propose to develop a low density, single family housing project at the northwest
quadrant of Galpin and Lyman in the city of Chanhassen. Craig and Gary Scherber are with me this evening
and would be pleased to answer any questions, if there are any, during any point of this deliberation. I'm also
going to be assisted this evening by Tom Loukes from Loukes and Associates and Scott Moen ... try to address
some of the key issues that were raised during the Planning Commission review a couple weeks ago. I think
staff has ably and adequately described the project for you and... perhaps second, I want to say thank you to the
staff. I know they're put in a tough position sometimes and I think that they're doing their job and so while we
disagree fundamentally with their conclusions and we'll get into those in a minute, I still want you to know that
we respect them as professionals and we know they're trying to do their job. What I'd like to do is very
briefly...some of the policies in your comprehensive plan which we think support the application that's been
submitted to you this evening. Staff is properly pointing out those aspects of the comprehensive plan to support
their interpretation of what should be done with this property. But we think there are equally compelling, if not
more compelling reasons why this property should be developed as single family. Built as a single family
development so I'd like to walk you through some of those. Then sequentially what we'll do, in response to the
Planning Commission questions that came up, is we'll take you through the economic impact study that we
completed with the project and we'll contrast that with the industrial development plans that have been sort of
formally and conceptually reviewed with staff so you have a comparison of those two impacts. And then
thirdly, Scott Moen from United Properties will give you his perspective as a commercial /industrial property
specialist about what the marketplace is saying this property should be developed as. It's important to have
plans. Important to have guidelines and policies but ultimately we all know that the marketplace is the best
indicator of what certain types of properties should be used for and we want you to have, at least the
perspective that we bring to the table on that point as well. First of all we should be aware of the fact that on
two previous occasions in the 1980's this City Council was presented by an application to rezone the property to
industrial and on both occasions those applications were rejected by the Council. The comprehensive plan
policies that were approved by the city in 1991 provide thusly, and I'm going to provide a series of quotations
directly out of your plan. First of all the plan provides that the community should strive for planned growth
which can and should be designed to minimize environmental, neighborhood and traffic impacts. The plan
provides that the more incompatible the neighboring uses, the more important the transition zone. Bear in mind
that what is being advocated by staff this evening is that you preserve the opportunity to bring more industrial
up against existing residential as opposed to what the Scherber's are proposing, which is to bring residential up
against residential. The plan further provides that you should avoid running high traffic volumes and /or non-
residential traffic through residential neighborhoods. The plan provides that you should provide adequate land
to protect the housing code. The plan provides that some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features are
38
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
the areas of extensive tree cover. This plan is specifically designed to try to maximize the tree cover potential
and the city has a very good tree ordinance as you know, so the developer is going to have to add trees to a
piece of property that is already well endowed with trees. And they're happy to do so. They recognize that it is
ordinance. The plan further provides that trees are an important... city's image and should be preserved were
feasible. What staff is advocating is the development of property as industrial use and under the city's
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, what is allowed is a 10% tree cover and in fact what the developer is
proposing would require 25% tree cover. So it's a little bit congruous to be advocating at the same time the
virtues of preservation of trees and environmental protection and the like and at the same time be advocating a
policy that would authorize a developer to remove substantial quantities of the existing tree coverage on the
property, and not be obligated to replace them. The plan further provides that single family attached housing
will continue to be the dominant land use housing type in the city, and that the plan advocates that development
be consistent with the preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic amenities and
our site plan we think does that. There's an industrial policy statement which advocates the use of non-
residential property and non - agricultural property but it's interesting to note that in the staff discussion of that
issue, there really is very little discussion about the practical implications of bringing an industrial development
plan up against industrial property. We've heard some discussion about the use of berming and we've heard
some discussion about the ... noise ordinance and the traffic ordinance and the lighting ordinance, but we've all
been in situations where when those projects actually come to fruition, the berming doesn't work like people say
it's going to work and there's always lighting and there's always noise and there's always traffic impacts that
even the best plans can't always account for and we think that there's a very high likelihood that that would be
the case here if industrial was allowed to move forward. Permitted uses of property are going to be warehouse,
body shops, or light manufacturing if the property stays industrial. Conditional uses are motor... terminals,
contractor yards, and outdoor storage. Not exactly high tax generating uses on the property. The tree
preservation ordinance that I've eluded to, it's the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas and as
I've indicated, you have a very...tree ordinance which you have to comply with. At this point what I would like
to do is ask Tom Loukes from Loukes and Associates to take you through the economic impact analysis that
we've completed in response to the Planning Commission's request because we understand that's an important
issue for you and we want you to have... perspective on what those impacts will be.
Tom Loukes: Thank you Peter. Tom Loukes. I'm the President and principle planner of Loukes and
Associates. We're located at 7200 Hemlock Lane North in Maple Grove, Minnesota. My sense of it was at the
Planning Commission meeting that a large issue for the commission was the economic impact or tax generation
potential of the various uses that were being proposed for this site. We did have an opportunity to meet with
staff after the Planning Commission meeting to talk about alternatives and tax generation issues and in ... it has
been included in your staff report what the staff objections are for the various types of either the residential or
industrial uses for this property. So my intention here is not to ... or whatever the staff report has to say other
than the fact that I've prepared for the Scherber Brothers Partnership an analysis of taxes that would be
generated based upon several scenarios. And at the outset I'd like to say that there is some difficulty in
quantifying what you can actually put on the site for industrial purposes and the reason is that there's a wide
range or a variety of uses that could be applied. For example, if you're going to apply entirely office square
footage to this site, it has a certain amount of parking requirements and spacial relationships versus say a
warehouse facility. So I'm saying it's difficult to quantify so the analysis that we've done is that 50% of the
square footage will be allocated to office use ... laid out with the parking requirements there and 50% to a
warehouse use. We don't have a user. We don't have a clue as to what really might happen on this site but in
order to try to quantify this, that is the scenario that I bring forward to the City Council this evening. We
prepared a concept, and I'll emphasis it is a concept development plan that you see on the lower, to my right
here. A design that indicated approximately 140,000 square foot of industrial use. We agree with the staffs
39
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
projection that industrial uses would ... $35.00 a square foot and if you just follow the numbers through, you'll
see that the city would generate approximately $61,000.00 annually in property tax revenue. There has been,
and I suggested this and I think the staff has suggested this that this might be on the low side in terms of the
amount of penetration rate you could get for an industrial site on this piece of property. So we're marketing
200,000 square foot scenario, which is quite frankly, is almost precisely the amount of square footage of a
building that is contained within the Chaska Industrial Park that is located to the west of this site. That guess, if
there's 6 buildings, the Chaska Industrial Park are located on 30 acres of land. This site has approximately 37
acres net buildable. We ran our numbers and we feel confident that you could put 200,000 square feet of...
office /industrial use on this site. For comparison purposes, what we look at is 200,000 square foot scenario
which would generate a tax base of approximately $7 million, which would generate approximately $86,000.00
or $87,000.00 per year annually with tax revenues to the city of Chanhassen. It's interesting to note that we did
take a look at the Chaska Industrial Park property located just to the west. The valuation on those properties is
approximately $6 million. About a million dollars per property. I think the low is about $600 and some
thousand to a high of $1.4 million. So what we're projecting here is approximately the same square footage on
40 acres but a million dollars more valuation just to be on the safe and conservative side. We also looked at a
layout of 240,000 square feet on this 37 acres and quite frankly, we'd really be pushing it. Everybod}' can have
a different opinion as to how we should lay the site out but it is basically our finding that you couldn't put
240,000 square feet on this site, even though ... might be able to do 240,000 square feet ... simply doesn't work and
this was trying to comply with all the requirements in the ordinance in regards to setbacks, non - disturbance of
wetlands and buffer areas that are required... north and east of this site. That particular scenario we felt was
rather generous. That site would generate approximately $102,000.00 a year annually. The 338,000 square foot
scenario simply did not work. You cannot, we are absolutely unable to place that much ... on that particular site.
Now, I don't want to dismiss it because I do know that staff worked very hard to come up with the FAR's and
indicated that just on a gross basis, yes you should be able to come up with 338,000 square foot layout. It just
doesn't .vork. We couldn't make it work. We tried diligently to make it work so we're kind of throwing that
particular end out. As tar as residential property values were concerned, we ran the same numbers that staff
utilized on the $200,000.00, value of the $200,000.00 single family residential site, a $300,000.00 and a
$370,000.00 average value. The $200,000.00 per unit is on the low side. Essentially we do not feel, based
upon our specific knowledge of what the land cost is going to be, what the development costs are going to be
for this property, then the Scherbers would be unable to market any $200,000.00 house. They couldn't make
any money doing it. We don't think that's a possibility. We know it's not a possibility. On the far end of the
range, the $370,000.00 per unit scenario, based upon recent experience of the Scherber Bros Partnership's
developments located in other communities in the northwest suburbs. We have factual information that we can
show you of what the sales were on these properties and the latest one creates the average sale at this
$370,000.00 unit. But we said again, let's work on the conservative side. Throw that $370,000.00 unit value
out so what it really gets down to is the $300,000.00 unit, which is a practical number for us to deal with, and I
don't know if Craig and Gary would really like me to admit this. They don't know how to do the low end
properties. They've never done low end developments and $300,000.00 is easily achievable given the economics
of this site, and what their track record has been in the past, under their development. So comparing the
200,000 square foot industrial facility which the average unit value is $300,000.00, what you're looking at from
a tax generation standpoint is nearly a push. In one case it's $85,000.00 plus some change and in the industrial
development side of it, it's about $87,000.00 so give or take a few dollars annually that seem to be realistically
achievable types of development. The one thing that is not addressed in this report that I've prepared for the
Scherber Brothers, and have provided the City Council and staff, is the issue of whether or not, if it were
industrial property, if it would be put into a TIF district, xvhat kind of return the city of Chanhassen might
secure. I looked at the staff report. I've been involved in tax increment financing projects in my other life
NN - lien I represent cities and I sit on that side of the table and advise them and the thing to keep in mind is if this
40
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
property were to go into an economic development TIF, the city would not be securing the amount of dollars
that were projected in the staff report. As a matter of fact, probably for the first 10 years the city will be
securing zero dollars in terms of tax revenue which would be used for city ... and I think there was a projection of
a return of $160,000.00 a year for a 338,000 square foot scenario so if you multiple that by 10, that's a $1.5
million that the city would not be receiving in taxes simply because TIF funds are being used to retire debt for
either land acquisition, write down and /or putting in infrastructure to encourage economic development in the
city. And would amortize that out. I think the first time you might see a return on your investment is
somewhere 20 years down the road ... $300,000.00 average price of development, the city would be losing about
$850,000.00 in tax revenues and if we did an industrial park development using TIF funds, your return would be
somewhat, a small amount. You wouldn't lose the entire amount of money through TIF because there is an
existing value but I'm sure the Council members are aware of that ... but I think just to quickly summarize. A
realistic and kind of a pragmatic approach if you will, is to make a comparative analysis between the...unit of
$300,000.00 development and a 200,000 square foot industrial development. That's very similar in nature to the
existing industrial development located within Chaska just directly to the west. Thank you.
Mayor Chmicl: Thank you.
Peter Coyle: At this point I'd like Mr. Moen to come up and offer just a couple of comments and that really
will conclude our presentation as to the subject project. The land use issue is the issue. The specifics as to the
site plan design... we can deal with as a second stage if you need to but we'll wrap up with land use questions
first. Scott.
Scott Moen: I'm Scott Moen. I'm a commercial real estate broker with a firm called United Properties. United
Properties is a 80 plus year old property. We're one of the larger commercial real estate organizations in
Minnesota and I come here ... through United Properties but my thoughts are from a corporate environmental
issues so to speak. United Properties is a developer, property manager and I'm in a sales and leasing division. I
specialize in representing companies who take a look at land sites and buildings and what have you and so I
have been asked to speak a little bit on what the marketplace, how they would view a site like this and how
they evaluate property. Prior to ... I used to work for ... a major industrial developer and for that company called
Hoyt. I helped them with some land acquisition, marketing of properties of vacant land and buildings as well.
I've been in commercial real estate industry for about 9 years now. Most of the research that I did is just from
being in the business. Specifically what I did for tonight's assignment was to talk to a lot of the brokers that do
business out here. Some of the names would be familiar to you. Probably have been in my place before. I
talked to some city people in Chaska to get a, take their temperature on their land issues over there. Talk to
Mr. Gerhardt on your staff and ... do an inventory of the land that's available in industrial in the marketplace.
The first thing I'd like to talk about, and I'm just going to take a couple of minutes on each category and then
I'll wrap it up, is a core user's perspective on a site, like that's in question tonight. And I'll go through a list of
criteria and just briefly give you my perspective on how it matches up in the marketplace. Before I get started,
I'd like to explain that real estate isn't, it isn't science and it isn't match. There is no divine answer. I'm only
offering my perspective on the marketplace but what we're trying to do here tonight in some capacity is clear up
what the odds are. What are the percentages and help the Council and staff and owners and sellers and what
have you, kind of hedge their bet in how to achieve the ultimate goal so when I speak about that, I'm speaking
from what I think the odds are and the percentages might be. Corporate users, one of the things they look for is
visibility in some cases. However, industrial users don't put a lot of weight and generally visibility is something
they can, they like it if they don't have to pay for it. But they put most of their emphasis or a lot of their's on
accessibility. Now the second question is ... accessible, however when you compare it to a significant land
inventory on Highway 5, it's accessibility is not as ... to most corporate users as ... quite a bit of other options that
41
City Council Meeting v August 14, 1995
they have available. You have over 200,000 acres of industrial property on the proximity on Highway 5 or
close to it, so there's a pretty good supply of land inventory right on Highway 5. In fact if you look at your
own color coded map, you notice most of your property is located on Highway 5 because it only makes sense.
To distribution companies and industrial users, they put a premium on access. One other thing that corporate
users like to look at is a controlled business park. They tend to prioritize those because it's kind of a herd
mentality among corporate users. They like to be where other like industries are, versus the property in
question. There isn't a lot of corporate neighbors out there. The park itself, if you're going to try to create that
climate, isn't big enough to generally attract most developers to come and create their corporate park. To start
the...of a developer that tackles a corporate... usually talking about 100+ acres. Now you can do them smaller.
There's exceptions to every rule. There's exceptions that somebody knows a 30 acre corporate park but again,
we're talking about percentages. Next issue we look at is neighborhood compatibility. If I'm representing a
major corporation and I'm working with the real estate person, the first thing that they're going to notice is that
they're going to have a room full of neighbors when they come to Council to talk about their project because
you have some very nice homes abutting on two sides and so it's not going to be a reason not to explore but
when they compare it to other sites, they'll abut up against other industrial, it won't be a deterrent because I
represent a lot of companies and a room filled with all the neighbors and the first thing they talk about is the
traffic and ... I'm not looking down on top of that 2 acres of roof because it will go from 40,000 feet to 2 acres
when they're at the podium. And I don't want to look down on the rooftop units and all those kinds of issues
and so that's one of the things that they're going to look at when they analyze this site. Municipal compatibility
is what it is. Municipal incentives. Right now it's not in a TIF district but I've been told it might be considered
for TIF, but that takes time and when you compare it to another site that already has it, it's just a strike against
it. It's not ... on that site but it's criteria. Site feasibility and that brings in a lot of the issues here. You've got
some wetland issues have been changed. The topography, which will be a deterrent in some cases. Pricing.
The pricing on the site would be good. That would be the thing in favor of the site compared with other
options. Environmental restrictions would be a consideration. Governmental issues. You've got tree ordinances
and things like that. And then the big issue is time schedule. So when you analyze it all up, corporate
users ... it'd be very much a needle in the haystack scenario. I'd say at any given time in the 7 county area,
maybe a half a dozen companies looking for corporate campus type sites. Well maybe out of those 6, one of
them wants to be in the southwest. And then you take the ones in the southwest and then you take all the
options they have just in Chanhassen, then you had Chaska and Eden Prairie and so on and so on, you really are
really looking for the needle in the haystack to get somebody to come in as a corporate campus type user. A
needle as I say. It could happen tomorrow but the probabilities would be many years away. Developers, and I
don't have to duplicate this. They're looking at a lot of the same things but I'll separate a couple of things that
will be different about a developer's criteria. I used to work for a developer and I currently work for a
developer so I can give some perspective on that. First, there's carrying costs. The developer is not likely to
buy this site at this time because it's going to be a lot of...but there's also a market that probably gets attracted
to that site in comparison to some of the competition that they have. So there'd be some fairly significant
carrying costs. And then the other issue is, and the big issue is how do you maximize the site. A residential
developer... aesthetics and an industrial user is trying to put 10 pounds into a 5 pound sack. Now we know that
staff and there are issues written to try to deter from that but the reality is that you're going to put a lot of
pressure on the site and reduce things like trees and trying to maximize the square footage your building's on
the site. So if they can do it, they're going to. If you won't let them do it, it will be a deterrent to them
wanting to go on the site to begin with. Again, making it a difficult opportunity to market the industrial
developer type... One of the other issues would ... time scheduling issues as you go through tree ordinances and
zoning issues and wetland issues and then the neighborhood conflict is I think obviously going to happen... very
challenging site for an industrial developer. In summary, you've got a great community out here and an area to
be proud of and I think your time is coming...and it's a good time for industrial development but you're not,
42
I City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
from an ordinance standpoint, you're not Edina and Eden Prairie. The market isn't that strong that you
take... first site like that and try to market it to either the corporate users or to the development community, it's
' going to be a tough sale. So it could probably be, and the percentage would probably be many years before you
can develop an industrial tax base there I think on the marketplace. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess not. Thank you.
Peter Coyle: That completes our presentation.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. A little longer than 20 minutes but. By 30 but yet it isn't an hour. Any specific
questions that you may have of any of the people that were up? Okay.
' Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I do have one question that I'd like to touch on. You were talking about tax
revenues. Has anybody got the wherewithal to speak to the costs involved with the differing types of
developments such as water, schools, those types of things. And there's ... put on a community. No? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll entertain a few of the people that are here this evening I'm sure to discuss some of
their proposals and I'd like to limit that too to just a couple of minutes, if you could. We have received a lot of
the correspondence by mail. We've also received quite a few phone calls but I'd like you to come forward and
' state your name and your address and your position. Anyone like to come forward to the podium?
Vernelle Clayton: My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I also work in Chanhassen.
' I'm a realtor with Brad Johnson at Lotus Realty, who would have very much liked to have been here tonight but
he had to be before the Chaska Council. Because of his passionate concern for this topic that %ve prepared a, he
actually prepared a land use analysis and I believe it was to be distributed or ... talk about it a little bit. I'm not
here to address just item number 9. In fact we were, have been real involved with this project and... However,
rather the proposal, it should be taken, we think in a context of a growing concern that several of us have.
That concern stems from what we and others and see as a tendency toward and perhaps a precedent setting
tendency towards down zoning in Chanhassen. Some folks recognized the potential for a problem long before
we did and brought it to our attention. For a while we did nothing, but certainly it's still timely and there still is
time to ward oft' the problem. Though perhaps not a lot of time. We recently learned for example of a pending
sale of a part of the southwest corner of TH 5 and TH 41, what we all call the Opus site. That area has been
' planned for commercial /industrial development since Henry McKnight first conceived the Jonathan concept in
the late 60's and now to our dismay, we understand the proposed purchaser intends to use the property for
residential development. Businessmen, school administrators, city managers, and ordinary taxpayers throughout
the metropolitan area recognize the value and in fact the need for commercial /industrial tax base for a city to
succeed. What has been less easy to recognize is the precise impact that commercial /industrial has on a
community. What is hardly ever defined is the impact on property values, particularly single family properties.
To that end we undertook to do an analysis which compares the tax dollars generated by various users in one
' acre increments. The study is Chanhassen oriented and the values arrived at took into consideration
Chanhassen's parking requirements, setback requirements and so forth. All buildings were assumed to be newly
constructed. The homestead credit was assumed to be recaptured through HACA, the number of pupils per type
' of residential was based on national averages and /or our experience and the net cost to the taxpayers per pupil
of $1725. was based on information supplied to us of $5000 plus cost per pupil and a state aid contribution of
$3325. The net results is that one acre of office provides 7.8 times as many tax dollars as does 1 acre of
residential with two homes each valued at $250,000. One acre of retail or office warehouse or market rate
' apartments, all within the 32 to 39 thousand dollar rate of taxes paid per year provide between 5 and 5 1/2 times
1 43
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
as many tax dollars as do those two homes. Project that scenario to 50 acres over 5 years and the offices
contribute 11.5 million more while the other three would each contribute 7.3 million more. The assumed
answer to the question of how commercial /industrial affects homeowners usually is that they simply have lower
taxes with greater commercial /industrial, but it does go a bit farther. Perhaps the greatest impact is on resale
value. Without a strong commercial /industrial tax base there is less money to support schools and a greater
percentage is passed onto homeowners. The tendency is toward poorer schools. Now, good schools and a
reasonable tax structure are two of the most important things homebuyers seek. When these are lacking, buyers
are willing to pay less and property values suffer. Two examples are Prior Lake and Edina. Both beautiful
communities but Prior Lake has very little commercial /industrial development and they have poor schools, high
taxes, and lower resale values. Edina has a wonderful commercial /industrial tax base. It has great schools, low
taxes and one of the best resale values in the metropolitan area. Edina planned. Prior Lake just let it happen.
Eden Prairie and Bloomington planned as well. Thus, the issue of down zoning and the need to preserve a
sound commercial /industrial tax base, can't be taken lightly. It affects us all in more ways than is often
assumed. What is done now, while few decisions come easily, will be a lot easier than rectifying the problem
later. The Council needs to send a clear signal that it intends to make the tough decisions and provide the
leadership that we who work and live in Chanhassen expect. Lest you think I mean by that that you will be
prevailed upon from time to time to case a vote that may go against the wishes of certain segments of our
community, I really mean, closely evaluating the plans we have in place; rigidly enforcing those that prove to be
sound and modifying those that are not. Establish a 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020 vision and guide plan of a 50-
50 division of tax sources. For every stud) that is done, whether visionary or real, when it relates to land use,
attach an economic impact analysis. Learn why an owner of commercial /industrial land would even consider
selling at residential rates (about 3 times less). What obstacles have been placed in his path. How can they be
removed and replaced by incentives. What can be done to encourage commercial /industrial before the
residential neighbors here to object, before the business go to neighboring cities, and most importantly to ensure
low taxes, good schools and high resale values. Thank you.
Mayor Chmicl: Thank you. Anyone else?
Denise Stills: Hi. My name is Denise Stills and I live at 8426 Stone Creek Court. We just moved here
recently from Illinois and we had to live somewhere surrounding Bloomington where my husband was going to
work. We looked in Lakeville. We looked at Eagan. We looked at Apple Valley. We looked everywhere and
every city had a strip mall on every corner... industrial development and we didn't want that. And then we
looked here and I fell in love with Chanhassen. I had to live in this city. So we came to town and... we talked
a little bit before about the signs. You know outside of the subdivisions and stuff and right outside my
subdivision was what, an auto body repair place. A warehouse. That's where my gates are where it says Stone
Creek. I'm going to look at what? A warehouse. All the flowers in the world can't help that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Tim Larranaga: ,Tim Larranga at 2813 Boulder Road. You made a comment about sewer going in and then
power and water, won't that add to the open area... You can't forget you're putting in a school just down the
street. I think you've made an emotional commitment to families and children too. I think it's a money pit if
you go ahead and put less than a mile away, an office park. Any kid that's beyond the lot has to be bussed.
There's 59 families that have to put their kids on a bus to go off to school so it's sort of an eclectic pattern
going on of the neighborhood here. Okay. Office park. Well, if you look at that whole corner, that's perfect
for you know, more families so I think we have to live up to the commitment you've made off of TH 5 there.
TH 5 and Galpin Road... corridor all the way down and wh)' drop in a whole other office park. It doesn't fit the
44
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
r
0
r
pattern. So I think you've already made the commitment to the school ... in Bloomington and people here in
Eden Prairie, they're surrounded by neighborhoods. They're not surrounded by, none of them have office parks
built by that school. It's a waste of space. So I think you've made the commitment. I think you should stick to
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Gene ?: My name is Gene ... I live at 2030 Boulder Road and I should speak after this gentleman because I agree
that the beauty of the school that you put in at Bluff Creek is only as beautiful as the neighborhood that's
surrounding it. I teach at a school in another suburb that is flanked by a road that is not nearly a busy as
Highway 5 so you might as well build a wall across there as far as the neighborhoods that will be north of
Highway 5 to Bluff Creek Elementary School. So if you were to take any sections of land in which children
and families can move up and move towards Bluff Creek to be part of a true neighborhood community, which is
one of the reasons we moved to Chanhassen, and put in industrial park area, I believe you're taking away from
, what is your, what is in the best interest of Bluff Creek and the neighborhoods of Chanhassen. I think it's a
beautiful school and the}' should stay a beautiful neighborhood. Thank you.
Nina Wallestad: I'm Nina Wallestad. My husband, Craig and I own a lot at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. We hope
to break ground before the snow flies. I think keeping this, or zoning this part of land as office industrial is
creating a sore thumb and if you'll allow me to mix metaphors, it's almost like the farmer who after the... the
barn, not only closes the door, but punishes the horses that stayed within the corral and I feel like you've gone
in one direction in the surrounding neighborhood and we just ask you not to punish our neighborhoods because
of a lack of foresight upon the city's part but that the land be zoned residential in keeping with the... surrounding.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Rene Schroeder: I'm Rene Schroeder. I live at 2337 Boulder Road. I'm a structural engineer. I moved here
from the south and I too just built a new home. I also work in Bloomington. I work with Harmon Contract
who deals in commercial construction. High rise office towers and the application that I see this ... is just
absolutely absurd because of the surrounding community that has already been allowed to be developed there
and I don't see how you're going to put an industrial park on that piece of property. There's only 30 foot
change in elevation. How are you going to maintain the wetlands that are there? The planning, engineering
have questioned what is being proposed in terms of wetland areas and things such as that, and an industrial site
will not even do that. It will take out all the trees. It will take out a lot of beauty and where that site sits, all
the homes are going to look right down on top of all the asphalt roofs and HVAC systems. No berm is going
to keep that out.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Jennifer: My name is Jennifer... Boulder Road. I'm speaking as a homeowner and also a mother. As the
gentleman here talked about ... coming to this site off Lyman and Galpin Road and as it is currently... I'm a
mother of two small children who will be going to school. This school ... and the fact that I'm going to have
trucks coming and they already speed off of Lyman Boulevard... I'm very concerned that my child, you know at
an elementary school children don't have the ability to always do things... that there are going to be many, many
children that mill be walking that road and...
45
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Curt Jensen: My name is Curt .Jensen. I live at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail on Trotters Ridge. We just moved in
from Eden Prairie. We left Eden Prairie, a fairly nice neighborhood in Eden Prairie to get away from ... area.
Chanhassen was very appealing with the trees and wildlife. We have wild turkeys coming into our patio.
There's deer and all sorts of extra wildlife that you don't see in Eden Prairie or in some of these other areas.
We have the new school just up the road. We have two small children, an 8 and a 6 year old. They're going to
be in 3rd grade and 1st grade. Why would we want to live there and have all these big trucks coming in,
warehousing and whatever else, and have them out playing and having to worry about all this other traffic
coming down this road. So this is very upsetting to us because we didn't know about this to begin with and
now we sit here and see this, all these trees that could possibly go out with the industrial and maybe maintain
trees or add more trees with the residential. And when we built our house, the forest report, how stringent you
were about how many trees we had to keep on our lot. Well it doesn't make sense to pull up all the trees that
are out there now. So that's my piece.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Jeff Olson: Hi. My name is Jeff Olson and I'm in Trotters Ridge and I've talked to some of the Council
members and ... some of the others. I see three issues regarding rezoning and then the Scherber Brothers
development plan. What I've asked is that you reguide or rezone the property and if Scherber Brothers isn't
willing to do the development in a manner that's appropriate, and isn't willing to cooperate with the city, then
they can, then they're probably not the right developers. By day I'm an attorney and I deal with cities. City
staff, Council members fairly often. It's a little bit easier to deal with them because it's not quite as emotional
an issue. There's not the direct impact and so I'm sure you're probably seeing some of the emotions come out in
the phone calls, in the letters and please realize that it is a very frustrating and emotional issue for a lot of the
homeowners out there and keep that in mind when you read some of those letters and hear some of the
comments. One of the things, well there's a couple things that I don't think we want to do tonight. We don't
%vant to ignore the changes that have occurred in that area since 1991. We don't want to ignore the new
residential developments. We don't want to ignore the school going in there. I don't think we want to oppose
each other for the sake of opposition. I think we should look for alternatives that work for everyone and try to
keep the communication channels open. And also, I don't think we want to ignore two of the primary concerns
that you're faced with when you do a zoning, or make zoning decisions. It's laid out fairly vaguely in some of
the case law. It talks about health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. The way I read the case law, it
looks at health and safety as two paramount concerns and I've heard a lot of talk about the welfare and taxes,
etc, etc, but don't forget about those two main paramount concerns, the health and the safety of the citizens as
well. Someday I hope to have some kids and I'd like to see them walk to school or ride their bike to school and
anything we put in there with more and more traffic, I'm certainly opposed to. And I would encourage, from
my discussions with the Council people I've talked to, I got the impression that people still have open minds
and are willing to consider some options and I was encouraged by that and hope that continues.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Mike Minear: Good evening. My name is Mike Minear. I and my family live at 2421 Bridle Creek and my
back yard literally adjoins the Southern Oaks Addition. It is my understanding, and I don't know if this is a
fact, that the 1991 comprehensive industrial plan did not include the school. Is that a true statement?
Kate Aanenson: No. It eras always ... for a school.
.-
1 City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Mike Minear: All the residents got this map from the Count} in the last few days and the County I think has
done a very good job in keeping us up to date on the Galpin construction and on this map, everything on this
' map is either residential or a school except for this addition Nve're talking about tonight. And if you call this the
Galpin corridor between Highway 5 and Lyman, it seems like everything on here is residential so let's keep it
that way. I respect the issue of having to meet budgets. I'm a business executive. I respect the woman who
' spoke first of all in trying to make sure we have an adequate tax base. We're all taxpayers and we are
concerned about that too but I guess -,ve'd ask you, as our representatives on the City Council to realize that we
have an economic impact here. My house abuts this property. What will happen to my economic impact when
my value of my house goes way down? We've only been there a few months. We've put a lot of money into
' it, as all these other people. Some of these houses, the paint is hardly dry on, and if we put an industrial park
in there, who's going to reimburse us for the decrease in property? Secondly, when our houses go down in
value, won't that hurt the tax base too? I would ask that you factor that into your decision. The City Council,
as we've heard tonight, has twice denied an application for this land to be industrial and I ask you and my
family asks you to do it for a third time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmicl: Anyone else?
Bonnie Mulkowsky: My name is Bonnie Mulkowski and I'm at 2051 Renaissance Court in the Timberwood
Estates and I would just like Council to know that whatever happens to this, I'd like the natural wetlands
' preserved and as many trees as possible preserved. That's what I wanted to say. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
' Cynthia Olson: My name is Cynthia Olson. I live at 2520 Bridle Creek Trail and like most of the people in
this room, I'm opposed to industrial development at the northwest corner of Galpin and Lyman. It's my hope
that the City Council will vote to change the designation from industrial to single family residential. I attended
' the planning committee meeting a couple of weeks ago and one of the things that I came away with was, well
one of the members talked about change and how our community needs to accept change and that the
designation of industrial is a part of that change. I think that the committee member misunderstood. I don't see
that any one resident expects the pasture area to remain. Change is eminent. However, those of us who live
with your decision, would like our input seriously considered before those changes are made. Our neighborhood
has undergone, I can't believe how nervous I am...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's because it affects you personally, that's why.
Cynthia Olson: My head's bobbing. I don't know if you can see that. I think that.
Mayor Chmiel: We're sitting at a kitchen table.
' Cynthia Olson: And nobody has any clothes on.
Mayor Chmiel: That wasn't the intent.
' Cynthia Olson: ...in recent years with the new subdivision and elementary school and the community center.
You should not ignore these changes. I'm a financial analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank. We plan budgets
and project 5, 10, 15 years into the future. I can tell you that those original plans are nearly unrecognizable by
the time they're executed. Plans are developed merely as a foundation to build upon and improve. A lot of
1 47
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
you, or some of you may be unhappy with the economy. I can't imagine how you'd feel if the Federal Reserve
rigidly followed those plans without change. Likewise, I ask you to review your plans with a flexible attitude
and make changes that we've recommended. The second issue that I've noticed is a concern to everyone is the
tax base. I guess my major question is, why does an industrial area have to be in my back yard. I would think
that we could work together as a community and find other alternatives that are mutually acceptable to
everyone. I know that I would be willing to work on a task force to reach some kind of alternative. I have a
background in financial analysis, as I said, and also marketing research. I don't believe that you guys are the
enemy. I think that because you're elected officials, I have confidence in you that you will make everybody
happy and I think that we can do that. I also have a petition. I made a copy for every one. There were a lot of
people that weren't home when we did that. Out of all the houses that we stopped at, there were probably only
I think 4 or 5 people that declined to sign this.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Rodney Melton: I guess I get to bring up the rear here. I'm Rodney Melton, 2413 Bridle Creek and moved up
I guess about a year ago. Came from an area that obviously couldn't spell zoning. I came from Houston.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And couldn't pronounce it either.
Rodney Melton: And so that was obviously a concern for us and we happen to live just north of the property as
well. So certainly one of the first questions that we had was, what was going to be located behind us. At the
time we were informed that it was indeed going to be residential, a residential development. Certainly... coming
from Texas, we trust people. I didn't go to City Hall to look up records or anything and we proceeded to
purchase and it's really rough even being in this position. We have a 6 year son who's taking a nap right now,
who will be attending Bluff Creek and with construction that's taking place now, we've obviously been taking
alternate routes. Going down Audubon and Pillsbury I think is the name of the company there ... if that's what
we have to look forward to, I'm really concerned. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if everyone has had the opportunity, I would like to bring it back to Council.
Peter Coyle: Yeah, I just have 30 seconds.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'll take your 30 seconds. And you're on.
Peter Coyle: We've heard a lot of discussion about the availability of industrial land for development and
there's two references in the staff report about one of the reasons that you need to hang onto this property for
industrial is because there's a parks commission that's out there trying to find land right now that could be
developed for industrial but the desire is to hang onto that for open space. No tax bases. We also heard in the
staff report, that the Arboretum is buying some additional land which is now guided for industrial development
and that's going to be taken in the Arboretum, no tax base. So we're proposing a development that generates tax
base and we think it will be a better tax base than the industrial...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks, Okay. Now comes the bewitching hour. Or we're getting there. Steve.
Councilman Berquist. I've got lots of thoughts on this and there's a number of things that I'm curious about, not
the least of Much is the question that people have said that when they've purchased, they've gone to purchase
their property, that the people that they have spoken with have all said, well that's going to be residential single
48
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
family. I mean that's obviously misinformation. Since 1991 that land has been comprehensively planned as
being commercial /industrial. It has not been residential single family since that time. So any information that
' was given to you by realtors or builders or developers was in error, or an outright lie. That's item number one.
Item number two is, I'm very taken by the almost hysteria that's presented itself. The number of letters and
phone calls that I have gotten have been extraordinary, and they've all, the majority of them have all been of a
' tone that NSP is coming in and going to start grading tomorrow and the coal train will be by Christmas. That
they're going to build a Black Dog plant and that's certainly not the kind of commercial /industrial development
that would go there. The gentleman that works for United Properties specifically stated, if 1 can find it in my
' notes somewhere here. That that land will, if it doesn't go residential, that land will probably remain as it is for
many years. I'm paraphrasing but that was his point. Given that I'm going to read, I'm just going to read some
comments that I had typed out earlier today. Do I have 20 minutes?
' Mayor Chmiel: Take all the time you want.
Councilman Berquist: This isn't going to, in my opinion this is not going to be done tonight. This too
complex an issue to be solved in one little Council meeting. The letters and phone, like I said, the letters and
' phone calls I've received have all been of a nature that decries an industrial development next to residential
areas. There are a number of issues before us in determining what occurs with this land. The statement by one
homeowner on my answering machine that her realtor told her it would be housing, it doesn't carry any weight.
Lewis Engineering, duplication factoring, D & D Concrete bakery and Purer Humidifiers are four companies that
were there long before any work at all was done on Trotters Ridge or Stone Creek. There are two thoroughfares
that intersect at that property that would serve either use very well. Generally major intersections are considered
' preferably for commercial usage. The land to the south of Stone Creek is comp planned as commercial/
industrial as well. Will this parcel be challenged when and if, or if and when, it comes up for platting on a
commercial /industrial level? The land that Holasek Nurser} sits on is also comp planned as commercial/
' industrial. What about this parcel'? Currently the comprehensive plan ... a lot of this stuff. The point of this
whole thing is, I think leadership often times requires decisions that are not necessarily popular. Proper
stewardship of the community must be the determining factor in a decision. I am not in favor of amending the
comp plan to allow residential development on the site. If that means that the site remains undeveloped for 10
years, so be it. If that means that the site goes through 4 or 5 different planning procedures, so be it. On the
other hand. If there is a parcel of land within the city that is currently zoned residential and we are able to look
at changing the comp planning to commercial /industrial. In effect making a trade, I would certainly be
1 amendable to looking at that. There's residential property that has been preliminary platted that is on the market
for developers that hasn't been sold. Why this particular piece is of such paramount importance is unclear to
me. I can surmise a few things about the piece of land. I don't think I should do it in public however. In the
future I advocate that any comprehensive plan change that would result in a lowering of tax revenues and
' increase of tax expenditures be explored if, only if there would be a trade -off. I think for the benefit of
Chanhassen as a whole, this type of a policy needs to be implemented. My notes as the gentlemen were talking,
if you looked at that piece of land as a buffer from one industrial park to the neighborhoods, and you didn't
' want to do it with another IOP, industrial office park, we could look at doing it with a higher density residential.
I don't know what the average lot size is on that particular plat, but normally from, for single family, we'll zone
it, we'll try and put a higher density usage on the adjoining piece of land. Let's see. No one has yet spoken to
' the costs involved with residential versus commercial /industrial. Everybody's always talked about the taxes.
The revenues but no one has spoken to the costs. I think the developers have orchestrated a purchase agreement
contingent on approval of the comprehensive plan change and quite frankly I wonder if some of the hysteria
doesn't come from that avenue. The owner knows full, here's some of my other notes. The owner knows full
well that commercial on this plot \\ not be developable for 10 years or so given the rest of the land available.
' 49
1
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Someone said something about contractors yards. Body shops. Possibly. Both of those particular uses are
conditional use permits and would have to be granted on an individual basis by the Council. Probably not
likely to happen, given the location. More than likely businesses, if businesses were to go in here, when
businesses do go in there, it'd be similar to businesses that we recently approved for use in the industrial park
just outside of town. Clean, non - polluting, industrial commercial users. I can't really speak to the market
pricing but the number of units that are shown on that plat seems to be an inordinate number for the land.
There's a lot of wetlands on that. I don't know if they're looking at filling a tremendous amount of that wetland.
When I crawled up on that hill behind Lewis Engineering on Saturday, and there's a lot of grading that would
have to take place. A lot of deforestation. It seems like an expensive site to develop. And the last thing that
some, that one of the gentlemen said was that keep it residential because the children will use that school. Well
one thing you need to keep in mind is that office parks, industrial users, commercial, retail, businesses in
general, they support the schools. They may not use them but they support them and that's an important angle
to remember, I think. With that I'll pass on.
Mayor Chmicl: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it was Mr. Olson that pointed out we really have 3 issues here. The land
use change, which is kind of, in laymen's terms, looking at what generally should this area look like. The
rezoning issue, which is more specific, and then the plat in front of us. And I think to make sense, we have to
deal with the land use change first. Being on Council we really have the responsibility to look at three
segments of the population when we look at any piece of land and that's Chanhassen as a whole. The neighbors
surrounding an }' given piece, and the future people, occupiers of that land, whether that be business people or
residential. So I guess I need to speak to, a lot's been said about balance in the city in terms of what we're
trying to achieve between residential and commercial and industrial, etc. Tax base is a very, very important
concern. However, it's hard to pin numbers on because we're not comparing two pieces. We're not saying this
proposal versus this one so what potentially could develop there in an IOP, we don't know what tax revenue that
could create. And I think Steve brings up a good point about the burden to the city that residential imposes.
Those type of costs impose to an industrial office park. So anyway, I'll leave the tax base issue alone. But a
more important issue that I think people overlook is balance in the city, just for the sake of a viable community.
I certainly envision Chanhassen being a bedroom community. I don't see it that way. I see a very viable
downtown. I see a very good business and industrial development and I see residents. And I think it's that
balance that's important, just as equal or even more so, than the tax base considerations. Moving on from that
larger issue of Chanhassen as a whole to the surrounding area, what I'm going to say next I'm not going to make
an} friends, I know that. But I say it because I know there's a lot of frustration on the residents' part but there's
an equal amount of frustration on the Council's part when we hear people come in and say, completely aghast
that we would consider this in your backyard, and yet you made a huge financial decision when you purchased
your property and I would have thought it would have behooved you what's planned for the surrounding areas.
Now I know that you've got a lot of other considerations going on when you purchase a home but we find it
frustrating that we hear this argument all the time. It's the old NIMBY. Not in my back yard. How can you
do this'? Nobody told me. People specifically told me it would be residential single family. I think it's fairly
short sighted to think that it would be a cow pasture forever, and I'm not saying this to be condescending or
shake my finger. I'm just simply saying it's frustrating for Council. To deal with some of the other issues that
were brought up in terms of traffic. I know traffic on Galpin. I drive it a couple times a day and it is heavy
and hopefully the widening will certainly improve things. However, I question whether 59 lots times 2 cars
times 3 trips a day is worse than what an 8:00 to 5:00 industrial park might produce. I don't know, that might
be a push. I have no idea how that would turn out but I'd just encourage you to look at the other side of the
coin. And as I said before, it's frustrating because we don't know what an office park. I mean you really have
50
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
n
to take this proposed office park with a grain of salt. You know given our stipulations for tree preservation and
grading ordinance and the whole thing, it wouldn't look like that. But we don't know what it may look like. So
that's part of the hard part here is we're not comparing two ideas. We're comparing a proposal against a vision
of what it could be. Anyway, to get to the real crux of what I look at in a piece of land. If it were a cornfield,
this would be a completely different discussion but this is a unique piece of land so my primary concern is tree
preservation and wetland preservation. And to talk about, to jump from land use change to the specific
proposal, this doesn't do it at all. Honestly I find your arguments to keep it residential because you're going to
save the trees and preserve the topography and the wetlands, I'm trying to find the right adjective, really
surprising. Let me use that innocuous word. Because this plan has a lot of mass grading and a lot of tree
removal and a lot of mitigation of the wetland. I guess I'm going to harp so hard on this issue because I've seen
what's developed and what this Council, and even when I sat on this Council, has developed. Excuse me, has
approved in terms of our tree preservation. I think to bring it to examples that everyone's familiar with, when
we look at Stone Creek. If you could have seen it before. There were beautiful trees on the northern piece of
the property and agricultural on the southwestern part of it. And we plowed through them and left some 200
foot, 3 inch caliper trees, which are ugly. And we took down some beautiful 30 inch caliper trees to push a
road through, or we paved driveways 5 feet from them, and one of two things are going to happen. The
driveway's going to get ruined from the root system but more likely the driveway is going to ruin the root
system and kill the tree. So we blew it there. Really, we did. We did a better job with Trotters Ridge. But to
get to my point about this parcel. This isn't what I see for it. And the bottom isn't what I see for it. I think the
current topography really serves a compromise and not a compromise for the sake of compromise but if we do a
mixed use on the land, we achieve several objectives. One of them, and I wish I could point out what the
current trees and wetlands is. All the have are these drawings, which are hard to read, but in looking at it, do
you have something?
Kate Aanenson: I was just saying we may have an overhead.
Bob Generous: Not an existing one. I mean it's too small.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not a good one. Yeah, it is hard to see. You've got a natural break, which I think
would serve a good function for PUD to have residential abutting Trotters Ridge. And whether that be clustered
development to preserve more of the wetlands and the trees, or a simple subdivision with larger lots, either one.
And then Noll have a break in the trees to the south, which I understand Mr. Fisher is looking to put something
there currently, and I talked to Kate this afternoon. To have some type of industrial, the southern portion
abutting Lyman. And as I said, it achieves, or could achieve what I'm seeing in my mind, a couple of
objectives of keeping the topography as much as possible as it is now, and at the same time one of our concerns
is that the domino effect, if this goes $370,000.00 residential, what are we going to hear from those residents
when we want to develop commercial or industrial to the south of that on Holasek's property? So I'm very open
to a land use amendment change and I think it's warranted here but I don't know what that land use change
should be until we can get in a proposal that would achieve what I just described. A mixed use on this
property with residential to the north and industrial to the south, taking advantage of some of those natural
barriers. So let's see what else I wrote down. Not much so, I guess that's where I'm coming from right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Let's see. I don't want to be repetitive to man}' of the things that Steve and Colleen have
said because there's a lot of them I agree with so I'll try to just talk about different things. One thing I would
like to do though before I get started, and I heard a lot of , one thing I heard a lot about too was the action of
51
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
the Planning Commission and you know personally, and I think all of Council would probably echo this
sentiment but I think from our perspective we applaud their action. Not because it's not what you want but it's
because what they're supposed to do. They're charged with taking the guide plan and looking at the proposal in
relationship to the guide plan and evaluating it. And that's what they did and I think they did their job and I
think they did a good job on it. And ultimately the decision gets passed to Council and Council has to make it
and you know, that's where we're at and that's where we can also consider a lot of other elements. I think we
all have separate visions and I think that's good. I think that creates diversity and I also think it creates a lot of
varying degrees of lots of things but to me varying degrees of thought. I, you know with all the calls and
letters we've been getting on this for a couple weeks now, at least as far as I can remember, it's probably my
most often visited site for quite a while. But the more and more time that I spend down there looking at this
site I guess, that's kind of led me to a vision and the vision I see is, you know I first look at the general area
and I see the general area as being what I'm going to say is predominantly residential. I look at the corridor I
think as the gentlemen earlier described it, and I see the corridor as predominantly being the school and
residential. I look at the site more specifically, and I see the mature trees and I see the dramatic landforms and
changes in elevation. I see the extensive wetlands and I ask myself how could these best be preserved and I
think the answer to that is through residential development. Now I'm not going to say that's necessarily through
the plan that's on the table. I get to the south and I also kind of look at the elements that are outside of
Chanhassen, which we have no control over but at the same time I look at Lyman Road and at least in my mind
Lyman Road becomes a great natural barrier to a lot of things. And at least in my mind that's where the barrier
is and that's where the barrier should be. At the same time I see the tax differential, you know kind of stepping
away from the area or the site, and I don't want to give up the tax base and at the same time I also want a
community that we can all have a look at as one that we live, work and play in which includes all the elements.
Where that all leads me I guess it leads to where my thoughts are right now is I'd like to see, or would support
a residential reguiding and rezoning. Due to the other things that have happened in the last 5 years so at the
same time I feel there's other better, more viable industrial commercial sites that are now guided residential. I'd
like to see staff go back and work with the developer to create a better plan as it would relate to residential
utilization here. I'd also like to see us as a city look at other parcels, given changes and proposed changes that
would be better guided I think for commercial /industrial property with no net loss effectively. One other thing I
would like to see though is if this does go ahead as a residential project, I would like to see some language put
in every deed in this new project which is going to attest to the fact that the guiding next step over is industrial
in zoning so we can please get away from this hopscotch affect that we're facing in this city of everybody told
me it was going to be this or told me it was going to be that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Nobody reads their deed either.
Councilman Senn: But that was basically my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Rather than be repetitious of what everyone is saying, or what they've said,
and I agree with Steve and Colleen. This also is going to take a 4/5 majority vote because of the rezoning. So
my suggestion would be at this particular time to table this and have it be brought back when we have a full
Council here. And that would be my motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well the only problem I have with that is that nothing will have changed and I
mean I don't know which way you're leaning Mr. Mayor but will we have a 4/5 at that time? It doesn't sound
like it.
Mayor Cluniel: Okay. I would be open then to a motion from Council.
52
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Unless the applicant wants to withdraw.
Tom Loukes: I approach Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: We're at discussion right now.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I'll be happy to do that. I mean I would like to see it residentially reguided
and rezoned with the caveats that I mentioned in terms of going back and really working more on a better plan.
And a commitment on the city's part to look at other parcels so there's no net loss. And also the indicator as it
would relate to any development guarantees.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you leaving open the possibility Mark, are you talking about a land use
change or specific rezoning to RSF? What I'm getting at is opening up the possibility of a mixed use or PUD
on this parcel.
Councilman Senn: Well my understanding from, I operate under a handicap here. Everybody puts things up
and I can never see through the stand. Is that the most recent?
Kate Aanenson: The one on the top? That's the original submittal.
Councilman Senn: That's the original submittal on the residential?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Wasn't in the original submittal, wasn't the south section there outlot?
Bob Generous: Well it is. It's bermed.
Councilman Senn: Okay, just for berming purposes.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Storm water ponds, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That's put it in a perspective better with this scale. Okay. You know Colleen, as far
as something happening right along Lyman, you know I'd say yes, I'm open to that. And I agree with you in
terms of landforms that there's a way probably to do that but I don't, my real problem there is I'm not sure it's
industrial as much as it may be.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Neighborhood.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, neighborhood commercial or office. If there were some office neighborhood
commercial. And stuff but something that's much more directly orientated towards the neighborhood and also
I'm going to say to the size or scope of that southern area that you're talking about.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's fine. I'm looking for a buffer from residential to what we hope to be
industrial south of Lynam.
53
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I support that concept totally. I just think Lyman itself, with proper treatments on
both sides, can be that buffer. But at the same time there's two ways to accomplish that and we can probably
solve our tax base differential by dealing with it that way so I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, you wanted to say something.
Roger Knutson: One possibility you may want to consider. If you like the idea of residential here but you
don't like, and I don't like to put words in your mouths, but I'm trying to paraphrase...
Councilman Senn: Why not? You're an attorney, right.
Roger Knutson: You like the idea of residential. You don't like this plat. If that's a fair statement, the way to
keep your options open would be to table the matter and give them that kind of direction. Don't approve the
comp plan amendment. Don't approve the rezoning until they bring back the plan you want.
Kate Aanenson: That's what I thought the motion was. To look at mixed use also. The possibility.
Roger Knutson: But you wouldn't actually approve the rezoning or the comp plan.
Councilman Senn: No, I didn't think we were because again, I was asking staff to go back and work to do that
because I'm assuming we can't do both otherwise we lose the leverage to go back and do that.
Roger Knutson: And if you wanted to do that, I'd also recommend you get the applicant's approval of that
process so we don't run afoul of any time line.
Kate Aanenson: We believe that we've got until October 4th.
Roger Knutson: Okay...
Mayor Chmiel: With the motion to table.
Councilwoman Doekendorf: I will second that.
Councilman Berquist: Can we discuss?
Mayor Cluniel: Moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: Discussion. I still, I think we're going to end up shooting, I'm worried that we're going
to end up shooting ourselves in the foot. When they get out of control, we're going to approve something
without having kept our comp plan tax base. I still would like to explore a trade off.
Kate Aanenson: That was one of his. The three things that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I said I want a commitment from the city that we're going to examine that and look
at it, I mcan very diligently. I mean we have other actions «ve've taken now in the last 5 years, or even more
recently to create some changes, so ��e ought to look at those.
54
I City Council Meeting - August 14, 1995
Councilman Berquist: I was sleeping.
Councilman Senn: Sorry to wake you up.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion is to table with the language that was put in. And we have enough time lines as such
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the comprehensive plan land
use amendment and the rezoning from A2 to RSF and direct staff to work with the applicant to create a better
' plan, to make a contuuhnent on the city's part to look at other parcels of residential land as a trade off so there's
no net loss to the industrial /conunercial tax base, and also the indicator as it would relate to any development
guarantees. All voted in favor and the motion caned.
' Peter Coyle: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Could we take another 2 minutes to just ask for a little bit of specific
guidance from Council as to the kinds of uses you're comfortable with so we don't waste your time or staffs
time looking at site designs that are really not of interest to you? ...that our frustration at this point is not really
' knowing where that line was and wasn't.
Mayor Chmicl: Well my suggestion would be to contact staff. Have discussion with them and we'll get our
' input back to them. Okay.
SELECT NAME FOR SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT.
' Kate Aanenson: The Senior Commission directed staff to solicit names and an advertisement was put in the
paper to come up with some names and the Senior Commission had recommended some names. Staff also put
some additional ones as noted on the staff report. I guess one of their favorite choices is something with
Centennial and tying in with the city's centennial celebration. They put Centennial Hill but some other choices
would be Centennial Heights, Centennial Place, Centennial Residence, Centennial Oaks, you know. The oaks
on the hill. So I think what we'd like to do is the Senior Commission would like to have a name. We
understand from the Carver County, having a name and kind of giving it a sense, a place for marketing, helps in
' that whole process so they'd like to have you select a name. If you're uncomfortable with any of the selections,
the Senior Commission is meeting again on Friday if you want to remand something back. But as indicated,
their first choice would be like.
' Mayor Chmiel: I have one quick change. I like Centennial Hill but I don't want it to give the hill being they're
over the hill. Or we are over the hill.
' Kate Aanenson: No, they like Centennial. No, they also didn't want.
Mayor Chmicl: I like Centennial Heights or Centennial Ridge.
' Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or oaks or something like that, sure. There are members of the Senior Commission here.
' Councilman Senn: I think there are two of them have sat here this long, I think they ought to...
Mayor Chmiel: Tell us which one you like.
' Councilman Senn: Centennial Hill, is that what you both \\
55
e
September 5, 1995
RE: Property at Lyman and Galpin ( "Fisher Property ")
Proposed Southern Oaks Subdivision
Dear Council Person:
Just a quick note to let you know that interest to re -guide
and re -zone the Fisher Property is still high at Trotters Ridge.
Many neighbors agree that if Scherber Brothers is not willing to
cooperate, they may not be the right developer.
Although our thanks is overdue, my wife and I wanted to thank
each of you for keeping an open mind and considering alternatives
to the planned industrial zoning. In this regard, I would be
interested in learning if progress has been made in locating
another property to "swap" for the Fisher industrial property.
Finally, my wife and I are still willing to assist the council
and /or city staff if such assistance would be helpful. Please let
us know if there is anything that we can do.
Yours truly,
< �# -f & a A I L
t
pig Jeff and Cynthia Olson
U - �e 4
PLANNERS
P10� ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
DESIGNERS
Q SCK7tT1�S, �/��' ARCHEOLOGISTS
I MEMORANDUM
' TO: Craig and Gary Scherber
FROM: Tom Loucks
' DATE: August 11 1995
' SUBJECT: Southern Oaks Development - Chanhassen, Minnesota
' As you are aware, on July 19, 1995, the Planning Commission unanimously rejected
your request to reguide and rezone the subject property from industrial to low density
' single family residential development.
It is my observation that the Planning Commission's denial was based upon the
necessity to uphold their 1991 Comprehensive Plan and a concern that single family
residential development does not adequately fulfill the economic development
potential of the community.
' Because the economic issue is of reat importance to the Cit I have p repared concept
g P tY P p P
office/ industrial plans containing 140,000, 200,000 and 240,000 square feet of floor area
in order to provide a property tax generation analysis between office/ industrial and
your proposed 59 unit single family residential development. In addition, I have
' integrated the City staff's 338,000 square foot concept for purpose of comparison.
It is important to state at this point that it is very difficult to quantify the square
footages because we do not have a user and we are only guessing as to the type and mix
of uses. I am of the opinion however, that 140,000 square feet is too low, 240,000 square
feet is really pressing the issue, and 338,000 square feet is not achievable. Two hundred
' thousand square feet of office /warehouse is the middle ground that could be achieved
given site and ordinance constraints.
' The housing use is more easily quantified because we know precisely how many units
will be erected and recent history with Swan Lake West, The Meadows of Bass Lake
' and the Holly Creek developments. We have projected the tax generation for $200,000,
$300,000 and $370,000 units. Two hundred thousand dollar units will not happen given
land and development costs of this property. Three hundred seventy thousand dollar
' units are solely predicated on your recent experience in Holly Creek but is probably not
applicable to this site given the market in Chanhassen. Three hundred thousand dollar
units are the achievable middle ground.
�J
1 7200 H ENILOCK LANE, SUITE 300, M APLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 -5592
TEL: (612) 424 -5505 FAX: (612) 424 -5822
PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS
Residential
Value:
One percent of first $72,000
Two percent of balance
Subtotal
Tax capacity 137 percent
Multiply by 59 units
City's share of taxes 20 percent
Building square footage 140,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot $4,900,000.00
$200,000.00 $300,000.00
$720.00
$720.00
$2,560.00
$4,560.00
$3,280.00
$5,280.00
$4,493.60
$7,233.60
$265,128.40
$426,782.40
$53,024.48
$85,356.48
Three percent of first $100,000 $3,000.00
4.6 percent of balance $220,800.00
Subtotal $223,800.00
Tax capacity 137 percent $306,606.00
City's share of taxes 20 percent $61,321.20
Industrial
200,000
$7,000,000.00
$3,000.00
$317,400.00
$320,400.00
$434,838.00
$86,967.60
$370,000.00
$720.00
$5,960.00
$6,680.00
$9,151.60
$539,944.40
$107,988.88
240,000
$8,400,000.00
$3,000.00
$372,600.00
$375,600.00
$514,572.00
$102,914.40
338,000
$11,830,000.00
$3,000.00
$539,580.00
$542,580.00
$743,334.60
$148,666.92
August 11, 1995
n
Mr. Don Chmiel
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Chmiel,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed industrial
development on the John Fisher property (NW quadrant of Galpin and Lyman
Boulevards.). As residents of Gtone Creek we are very concerned about how tiiis
decision will impact our community. We choose this area based on the quiet and
scenic atmosphere and also the perceived safety for our young children. By
allowing industry so close to our neighborhood you are increasing traffic and
decreasing safety. The safety issue is especially important being so close to an
elementary school, where there will be children coming and going not only during
school hours but after hours when they ride there bikes to the ball fields, etc.
The other reasons we are opposed to the industrial use of this land is we
feel it would deG oui" propeiiy values and I ici - ease the i ioise level.
Lastly, by making this development into a residential area it would allow
preservation of the wetlands and the advantage of saving more trees. I strongly
' urge you to oppose the proposal for industry and think about the long tenor effccts
on our eiivii oni ien't. Growtli is enviable, but F edhaps tiler "e ar wciys tiv gf witi - i
less destruction to the current environment and people that already reside in the
' area.
' Sincerely,
Tim and ICatl
' 2066 Boulder Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 5531
' 470 -5993
F
3j
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NAME
4- A. wl
ci
C
a 1�
ADDRESS
sie C"-t4p O
� 5" C r --U.X- ck 1
r�i� -
C ;Z�s r . 1
1
Z3
1
J o 9
3 3o5
1
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
n
fl
NAME
1� I
^Grr�� S S KSRh G`fSG�q��
`P
i
ADDRESS
r-S 17
a- t 3 c, GRILL L CASIA Qil.A Q.
� S? S �s c.
Z.ciy Z. JqZADLJE C4e�i TP-A —
9Yo &i Z &�S% ?9![.
x1913 &ku� C, " TrA►'
2 �( 2 -(Q��l�
o2�dl , gadl e d a k QV I
0 1
oy
6 ' _ Z>je
S /OiAr Cr e�P � I)T
2 3o`/S� one 6 , , e k Q,.
2- 2-
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NAME
rz /0, «.�,. v ,
I / /
--
ADDRESS
�s �
7L
Mo
U
�J
r
e
0
i
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NAME
ff ). AL� �c�
/-�2m
(3�i
ADDRESS
,22 , 7
, ),� u b�- cem� ►ar. uwt.,
0, 134tgj /.25
i
20(
-
z
0).l&d TWjAa,0
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NAME
ADDRESS
L o'v(d Q, �oec(
2 Cr_ LA-
-a2Z2 &dk- &J( Tr
"s o oGf- C2 4 re ,
L
1
1
THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT THOSE COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN,
PREFERRING INSTEAD A DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NAME
�S�a�j Y- /l:x�a th�✓.s��d
ADDRESS
CITY OF 9 ,
�BANHASSEN ;
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 '
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: August 8,1995
SUBJ: Southern Oaks
Action by City Administmtot
✓ l�wA
fvlodifiP�
Relectari
Dat-
Oe submitted to Ccmmission
— bete Submitted to Council
k- /L/ -C7 5
Staff would like to take the opportunity to comment on a few of the statements made by the
applicant's engineer and attorney at the Planning Commission public hearing. We believe that
the statements made were not entirely accurate and may be misleading. Following are
statements made by the applicant's representatives and staff s comments.
Statement: The development will "... minimize the impacts and the effects on the natural
environment of the site." "... minimal amount of grading..."
Comment: The site will be mass graded as part of the development of the site for
infrastructure improvements. While some areas will not be impacted, at the time of
initial development, the site will be distinctively altered. The attempt to develop
walkout type units, some with ten foot elevation changes, does alter a significant area
of each building pad.
Statement: The applicant stated that they attempted to design an industrial development, but
that the city did not want to see it because of the impacts to the site.
Comment: Staff has reviewed the applicant's "industrial plan" showing approximately
140,000 of building square footage. Staff believes that there are the following
deficiencies:
• The plan does not provide the required buffer to the north (100 feet in width
with berming and landscaping) and east (50 feet in width with berming and
landscaping).
Excessive parking /paving provided. The plan had 196 more spaces than would
have been required if developed entirely as office. These spaces would be
MEMORANDUM
Don Ashworth, City Manager
August 8, 1995
Re: Southern Oaks
Page 2
even more excessive for warehousing and manufacturing, which require even
fewer spaces.
• Building orientations could be revised to reduced impacts to the site.
• The plan does not take advantage, to the maximum extent possible, of the
existing open and farmed areas on the site.
• Staff believes the square footage of the site should be closer to 300,000 square
feet.
Statement: "In the last 12 years, City Council twice denied application to rezone the property
to industrial."
Comment: This was prior to the comprehensive plan designation of the property as
office /industrial. Since 1991, there has been no attempt to develop or rezone this site.
G
k
1
Statement: "Comp plan recognizes that planned growth should be designed to minimize
environmental, neighborhood and traffic impacts.
Comment: The reason for designating the property to office /industrial was 1) concern
for the encroachment of industrial development from the south and west, 2) access to
the site was provided via two collector roadways, 3) city's desires to have a balance of
land uses within the community, and 4) the site was specifically required by the
comprehensive plan to provide buffering from the residential development anticipated
to the north and east.
Statement: "... avoid running high traffic volumes and /or non - residential traffic through
residential neighborhoods..."
Comment: Galpin and Lyman Boulevards are not local neighborhood streets. It was
anticipated that Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard, designated collector
roadways in the Chanhassen comprehensive plan and minor arterial - class II in the
Eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation Planning Study (October 1990),
would carry large volumes of traffic. A minor arterial roadway is defined as one that
provides a trip focus that is intracounty and intercity; has urban speeds of between 35
and 45 miles per hour; has trip lengths of greater than 4 miles; provides access to
collector and arterial roads and land access to commercial, industrial, farms, and high
density residential; and is spaced every one to two miles.
Don Ashworth, City Manager
August 8, 1995
Re: Southern Oaks
Page 3
Statement: "... provide adequate land for housing growth ... supply of vacant land within
MUSA will be exhausted by end of 1993..."
Comment: This was a statement of conditions justifying the MUSA expansion as part
of the 1991 comprehensive plan which added 1,017 acres of residential land within the
MUSA line.
Statement: "... single- family detached housing will continue to be the dominant planning use
and housing type..."
Comment: This is true for low density residential land uses, not for office /industrial
lands. The premise of the comprehensive plan does not state that there will be no
other types of land uses or development. The next premise of the plan states: "That
the community contain a well- rounded mix of development which provides
employment opportunities as well as consumer goods and services." (page 1, Land
Use)
Statement: There are deficiencies in PAS memo regarding land use distributions.
Comment: Staff does not plan on basing land use decisions on the study. Rather, we
use the PAS study to illustrate the need for diversity in land uses. Each community
must determine its local needs as well as decide on its vision for the community in the
future. The average industrial land area for communities under 100,000 was seven
percent with a range of 0 - 25 percent. The city has designated approximately 8.2
percent for industrial land uses.
Statement: The applicant claims to be providing lots of tree preservation and is planting 268
trees.
Comment: The reason they have to plant 268 trees is because their development is
removing a lot of the existing tree canopy. It is true that residential development
requires 25 percent canopy coverage and industrial only 10 percent. But through site
design and buffering requires, the city could realize significant tree preservation as
well as tree plantings for an industrial development.
Staff believes this commentary was necessary so that the City Council would be provided
with more balanced information in making a decision regarding the proposed development.
CITY OF
y CHANHASSEN
1
1
lQ
J
a
1¢
1
1
e
�
p
' W
F-
PC DATE: July 19, 1995
CC DATE: August 14, 1995
CASE #: 95 -1 LUP, 95 -2 REZ
95 -4 SUB
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office /industrial to
residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single
Family Residential; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.116 acres of wetland
and provide wetland mitigation on site; and preliminary plat approval for 59
single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right -of -way. Project is known
as Southern Oaks.
LOCATION: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.)
APPLICANT: Scherber Partnership Properties
Box 181
Rogers, MN 55374
(612) 428 -8400
Y1CL� ,�1V 1 �t11V llV ts:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
A.)-, Agricuiturai Lstate
46.27 acres
Gross - 1.27, Net -1.82
N - PUD, Trotters Ridge
S - A2, vacant, and industrial
E - RSF, Stone Creek
W - Industrial Park in Chaska
Available to the site
John Fisher
8470 Galpin Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 470 -5098
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. Additional industrial
operations are also located in 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.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office /Industrial
010
". " ='
C •2ND STREET
L
LOC
CITY OF
4NHASSEN
BASE MAP
1
4SSEN ENGINEERING DEPT.
REVISED JAN, 1995
1
S
AT ION
N
'MAN BLVD
O O
0 A
N 8700 — f
O f V
O
N 8800 —I
6900 t 0
O
0
N 9000-
9100
920C
9300
9400
9500
9600
9700
9800
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400—
10500
I
1
i
Q
O
1
0
p
O
O
O
p
O
O
M
II
b
A
Yf
n
R.
^
MI
N
CITY OF
4NHASSEN
BASE MAP
1
4SSEN ENGINEERING DEPT.
REVISED JAN, 1995
1
S
AT ION
N
'MAN BLVD
O O
0 A
N 8700 — f
O f V
O
N 8800 —I
6900 t 0
O
0
N 9000-
9100
920C
9300
9400
9500
9600
9700
9800
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400—
10500
O
a
1
I -
+r.. '<
f '
oo.0
�y
I
1
i
1
0
O
a
1
I -
+r.. '<
f '
oo.0
�y
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant, Scherber Partnership Properties, is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map amendment from office /industrial to residential low density; rezoning from A2, Agricultural
Estate, to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and
2 outlots and associated right -of -way on 46.27 acres; and wetland alteration permit to fill 0.116
' acres of wetlands on -site on property located at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman
Boulevard.
The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 square feet to 54,950 square feet with an average lot
area of 21,197 square feet. Outlot A consists of a wetland and proposed landscape berm. Outlot
B consists of a wetland and proposed wetland mitigation area. Wetlands on site consist of
approximately 3.7 acres.
Due to the existing uses located on the property, staff required the applicant complete a phase I
environmental assessment of the property, which was conducted by Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
The conclusion of this report, attached, is that additional environmental investigation be
performed on -site to determine the magnitude of possible sources of contamination identified
within the report. Additionally, tires and used batteries were discovered stored on -site. These
items need to be disposed of or recycled in accordance with recommended procedures of the
Pinnacle report or acceptable measures.
Staff believes that the additional environmental investigation as well as the removal of the tires
and batteries be required before this property receive any final development approvals. The
results of this investigation may impact the design and layout of the final development.
Staff is currently working with the property owner to apply for an Interim Use Permit to permit
the continuation of a mining operation (black dirt) that is in operation on the site. As part of the
interim use permit, the property owner (John Fisher) is requesting continuation of the mining
operation for at least five years. Staff is also working with Mr. Fisher to have the industrial uses
on site brought into conformance with city code. The uses on site that are not approved as
previous conditional uses are in violation of city ordinance. Staff has advised the property owner
that in order to continue these uses on site, he will need to rezone the property to Industrial
Office Park, IOP, and request a site plan approval for a new building that would meet current
codes. The property owner has expressed an interest in proceeding with this alternative,
potentially subdividing the property into two parts, but he has not submitted this alternate
application. Until the land use issue is resolved, staff has deferred enforcement action on this
violation.
Staff is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the
community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 3
appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the
applicant has not proposed a development that is unique to the community or fills a niche in the
housing needs for either current or future residents of the city. A "traditional" subdivision is
proposed for the site. This traditional subdivision does not maintain the natural features of the
site, and, in staffs opinion, is just as environmentally intrusive on the site as an industrial /office
park would be. The applicant could have requested other types of development including a
Planned Unit Development locating larger lots in more environmentally sensitive areas and
smaller lots in the open areas of the site. The applicant could have requested a multi - family
project that might have met some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant could
have proposed a small lot development, maintaining large areas of the site for open space or a
cluster development. The applicant could have proposed a development that included both
industrial and residential properties within the site, placing industrial lots on the southern portion
of the site and residential lots on the northern portion of the site. However, the applicant did not
propose any of these alternatives and is, instead, proposing a single - family subdivision on land
designated as office /industrial while large areas of appropriately designated low density
residential lands are vacant.
This site was guided for office /industrial in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan partially because it
was being used for non - residential and non - agricultural purposes and it 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. An
industrial development on this site could be easily buffered from existing residential
neighborhoods.
Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are
consequently recommending denial of the rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF due to
inconsistency with the comprehensive plan as well as denial of the wetland alteration permit
because a final development proposal is not included.
BACKGROUND
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:
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.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 4
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-1 A, Agricultural Residence
District.
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 g P 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 5
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 -lA
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 -1 A district. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council subsequently
denied the request on January 5, 1981.
REZONING /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment for this property from
Office /Industrial to Residential - Low 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
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 46.27 acres of office /industrial land
from the city. This represents approximately four percent of the office /industrial land in the city.
Staff indicated to the applicant that there was a reason for giving this property a future land use
of office /industrial. At first blush, staff relied on the comprehensive plan which states this "area
for industrial expansion is a collection of relatively small sites located at the intersection of
Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. This area is currently being used for non - residential
and non - agricultural purposes and is adjacent to the industrial expansion coming from the south
in Chaska." Staff indicated that a compelling argument would have to be made to demonstrate
why the land use designation for this area should be changed. The applicant's argument for
amending the comprehensive plan are: "The subject property's unique natural features (pristine
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 6
oak forest, wetlands, and 40 feet of topographic relief) strongly suggests a down guiding from
office /industrial to residential in order to preserve natural amenities... In summary, down
guiding the subject property to low density residential use is consistent with adjacent residential
' land use patterns, will be less environmentally destructive than office /industrial use, and
consistent with the Natural Resource and Housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan."
' 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
1 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
commercial and industrial land uses represent 20 percent of the land area. It is assumed that the
t 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 is concerned that a reduction in the city's industrial land use is not in the best interest of the
community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses, preserving an
appropriate tax base mix, or providing a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the
' applicant has not proposed a development that is unique to the community or fills a niche in the
housing needs for either current or future residents of the city. A "traditional" subdivision is
proposed for the site. This traditional subdivision does not maintain the natural features of the
' site, and, in staff s opinion, is just as environmentally intrusive on the site as an industrial /office
park would be. The applicant could have requested other types of development including a
Planned Unit Development locating larger lots in more environmentally sensitive areas and
smaller lots in the open areas of the site. The applicant could have requested a multi- family
project that might have met some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant could
have proposed a small lot development, maintaining large areas of the site for open space or a
' cluster development. The applicant could have proposed a development that included 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 7
industrial property to the south and Lyman Boulevard and which is being used as part of this
proposal for berming and buffering, and residential lots on the northern portion of the site
adjacent to Trotters Ridge. However, the applicant is, instead, proposing a single- family
subdivision on land designated as office /industrial while large areas of appropriately designated
lands are vacant.
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. An industrial development on
this site could be easily buffered from existing residential neighborhoods.
Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be denied. We are
consequently recommending denial of the rezoning of the property from A2 to RSF due to
inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Staff has performed the exercise of reviewing the
applicant's proposed subdivision for compliance with city ordinance and whether the design is
the best use of the land.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION,
The applicant has estimated the canopy coverage of 342,888 square feet (7.87 acres). The total
site is 46.27 acres. From this area, 3.7 acres of wetland is subtracted for a net acreage of 42.57
acres. The base line canopy coverage area is 18.5 percent. City code requires a minimum
canopy coverage area of 25 percent for low density residential developments. The applicant
would therefore be required to provide an additional 6.5 percent, 2.77 acres, for a forestation
plan. This represents the planting of 111 trees. Since the existing canopy coverage is all
required to meet the minimum requirements, no canopy area can be removed without
replacement.
The applicant has estimated a total canopy removal of 142,278 square feet, 3.27 acres. The
required replacement area is 1.2 times the area being removed or 170,734 square feet, 3.91 acres.
This requires the planting of 157 trees. Staff does question whether the estimated tree removal
for home construction accurately reflects the actual tree removal for the site since the applicant
has not shown complete grading on Lots 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 28, Block 1 and Lots 10,
14, 15, 16, 17, 22, and 23, Block 2. The applicant needs to provide additional details as to how
tree removal calculations were done.
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 8
The applicant is required, based on their proposal and canopy coverage calculations, to provide a
total of 268 trees for this development. The applicant's landscaping plan proposes planting a
total of 112 trees. This plan must be revised to provide an additional 156 trees. In addition, the
applicant needs to revise the plan to incorporate 20 percent of required trees as evergreens which
must average seven feet with a minimum tree height of six feet and use a minimum of 2%Z inch
caliper for the deciduous trees. The city could also require that landscape buffers be provided
along collector and arterial roads: Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. The applicant shall revise the
plan to provide additional plantings along these roads. The applicant should also provide
additional screening along the western property line of the project, adjacent to the industrial
development to the west. The applicant shall develop a woodland management plan for this
project pursuant to section 18 -61 of the Chanhassen City Code.
' WETLANDS
There appears to be six 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.
Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of the wetlands as they appear on the grading plan.
' Basin 1 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.
Basins 2, 3, and 4 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 would make an ideal wetland restoration project. It appears that
these basins were connected at one time. Basin 4 and part of Basin 2 will be filled as a result of
' the proposed project. Mitigation is proposed between Basin 2 and Basin 3. A combination of
wetland creation and wetland restoration should be evaluated here. 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.
' Basin 5 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.
' Basin 6 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 9
average buffer width of 20 feet around the basin is required. A portion of the western edge of the
wetland is proposed to be filled to meet building setbacks. Staff would like to see alternatives to
this presumed avoidable impact.
The City of Chanhassen is the local governing unit (LGU) for the State Wetland Conservation
Act and will be administering the permit process in conjunction with the City's Wetland
Alteration Permit. A wetland replacement plan and all of the necessary attachments is required
before a permit application process can begin. A wetland permit application can be obtained at
City Hall.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm
water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and
minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. The SWMP is available for reference at City
Hall and the Chanhassen Library or can be purchased for $150. In general, the water quantity
portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm
interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s
Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate
conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to
determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be
required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of
the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Single - family residential developments have a water
quality charge of $800 per developable acre. Credits will be given if the applicant provides water
quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards.
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 10
The connection charges will be calculated after review of the final construction plans and will be
due at the time of final plat recording.
' GRADING & DRAINAGE
Most of the site drains to the southwest and eventually discharges into Lake Hazeltine which lies
' in the City of Chaska. The south and east portions of the site bordered by Galpin and Lyman
have been heavily impacted by farming practices where the northwest corner of the site is
wooded with interspersed wetlands and has received less human impacts. The northeasterly
corner of the site drains north via a storm sewer into Trotters Ridge.
The area that drains to wetland basins 2, 3 and 4 should be maintained to the extent possible to
provide hydrology to these basins and the proposed mitigation. It appears that the stormwater
will be pretreated and discharged into the wetland. The stormwater pond should conform to the
wetland and integrated into the system by seeding with native grasses, sedges and emergents.
' The area that drains to Basin 6 must also be maintained. Backyard drainage does not have to be
pretreated, but staff is concerned that the loss of drainage area taken up by impervious surface
area will further degrade the functional quality of this wetland.
There are four proposed stormwater ponds on -site in addition to the existing wetland basins. One
small pond discharges into Basin 2 and one very large 3 -cell pond discharges into Basin 5 in the
southwest corner. Staff believes the storm pond on Lots 5 through 8, Block 2 should be
eliminated. There is sufficient room in the ponding areas proposed along Lyman Boulevard to
pretreat and store runoff. A 2 -cell pond may be applicable here since there is a large drainage
area and two cell ponds can provide for more efficient treatment with less area. Two inlets may
' be necessary at the first cell of the pond due to the storm sewer configuration, however, they
should enter at the east end of the pond for efficient water treatment. If the applicant can meet
the state wetland conservation act requirements for a 2 -cell pond, the second cell may be used as
' wetland mitigation. PLEASE NOTE: When you are applying the water quality program, Pondnet
or Pondsize, the runoff curve number is the C coefficient for the rational method adjusted for a
2.5 year storm. Typically, this factor is 0.27 to 0.45 for single family residential developments
' depending on the density. Since the wetlands are ag /urban, a retention of 35 -50% will be
sufficient. Additional storm sewer and catch basins will be required to consolidate the system.
These types of changes will be addressed during the construction plan review process.
' Stormwater quantity is an issue for this area since the site is discharging into Chaska from Basin
5. The applicant will need to provide for a 100 -year 24 -hour storm retention at the stormwater
' pond(s) along Lyman Boulevard to maintain predeveloped runoff rates. Therefore, more ponding
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 11
area will be required unless the applicant is able to work with the City of Chaska to meet their
requirements at the discharge point of Basin 5.
The majority of the site is proposed to be graded to develop the house pads, streets, and ponding
areas. Staff believes the site grading could be reduced to preserve the topographic features on the
site. Most of the lots are proposed as walkouts which involves more grading than rambler or
lookout -type dwellings.
Typically, berms are required/desired along the perimeter of the site (Galpin Boulevard, Lyman
Boulevard, and the industrial park to the west). A berm is proposed along Lyman Boulevard.
Staff believes that additional berms should be created along the portion of Galpin Boulevard
lying south of the south loop street as well as the westerly side of the development to provide a
buffer from Chaska industrial park.
The site also contains existing buildings which need to be removed and septic and well systems
abandoned according to City and State health codes. Currently, there is an illegal
earthwork/mining operation occurring over the southwest corner of the site that should be
brought into conformance prior to preliminary plat approval.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion
control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for added protection.
A final grading plan should be developed in accordance with the City's BMPH and submitted to
the City for review and approval in conjunction with final plat consideration.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water services are available to the site. Water is proposed to be
extended from the intersection of Stone Creek Drive and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19).
Sewer and water have been extended from this intersection to the property line. Upon review of
the preliminary utility layout, it appears the fire hydrant placement may need to be revised. The
fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City's fire marshal's recommendations.
Typically, fire hydrants are spaced approximately 300 feet apart. These types of revisions occur
during the construction plan review process.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be
required for review by City staff and formal approval by City Council. Street and utility
improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 12
' Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the
installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval.
' As with other typical city developments, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the
City has required the use of a draintile system behind the curbs for improving both the street sub-
, base as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. A draintile system will
be needed on those lots which are unable to discharge into either the storm sewer system or
ponding area/wetland. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the
final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside of the street right -of -way. The drainage
and utility easement width shall be a minimum of 20 -feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access to maintain the ponding areas.
' Since the site has previous structures, most likely there are existing wells and septic systems
which will have to be properly abandoned according to City and State health codes.
STREETS
The site is currently accessed via a gravel driveway from Galpin Boulevard. Plans propose on
developing the site in two phases with a looped street. At the end of Phase I, a temporary
turnaround will be required. In addition, a sign should be posted on the barricades indicating that
' this street will be extended in the future. Access to the development is pending approval from
the Carver County Highway Department. Staff believes that access will be permitted.
' Plans are being finalized for the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Galpin
Boulevard will be expanded to a four -lane, urban street section. According to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, Galpin Boulevard is classified as a collector. Collector streets are typically
100 -foot wide right -of -ways. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 10 feet
of right -of -way for a total of 50 feet or one -half of the necessary right -of -way of Galpin
Boulevard. Previously, the Hans Hagen Stone Creek Development dedicated the other 50 feet in
conjunction with the final plat of Stone Creek. Additional trail easements outside of the right -of-
way may also be necessary. Depending on timing of the County project, interim or permanent
' turn lanes along Galpin Boulevard may or may not be required by the County.
The applicant is proposing the necessary street right -of -way (60 feet) throughout the subdivision.
' Preliminary street grades range from 0.5% to 7% which meets the city ordinances. Detailed
construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance with the City latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by City staff
' and formal approval by the City Council.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 13
PARKS /OPEN SPACE
This project was reviewed before the Park & Recreation Commission on April 25, 1995. Full
park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: Front - 30 Feet, Rear - 30 feet, Side - 10 feet; Galpin Blvd. -
50 feet, Lyman Blvd. - 50 feet, Wetlands - 40 feet from buffer edge with 10 feet average buffer
width.
MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: Area - 15,000 square feet, Frontage - 90 feet, and Depth
- 125 feet.
BLK
LOT
Area (sq.
Frontage
Depth (ft.)
WETLAND
Setback/Buffer
(ft.)
1
11
1 18,360
1 119
1 150
I none
1
12
1 18,018
1 108
1 155
I none
1
13
1 55,162
157*
1 304
I none
1
14
1 35,764
157*
1 276
I none
1
15
1 28,339
156*
1 172
I none
1
16
1 15,097
193
1 149
I none
1
( 7
1 17,483
1 107
1 151
I none
1
18
1 17,242
187*
1 209
I none
1
19
1 22,543
179*
1 200
I none
1
110
1 21,611
183*
1 208
I none
1
111
1 19,686
190
1 219
I none
1
112
1 18,750
1 106
1 228
I none
1
113
1 19,027
1 100
224
none
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 14
1
114
1 20,199
187*
1 206
I none
1
115
1 26,501
170*
1 214
I none
1
116
1 30,258
184*
1 212
I none
1
117
1 18,743
184*
1 189
I none
1
118
( 16,904
190
1 187
I none
1
119
1 16,973
190
1 188
I none
1 120
1 21,475
81*
1 199
I none
1 121
129,586
179*
1253
140/10
1 122
154,950
174*
1309
140/10
1 123
1 34,391
182*
1 290
( 40/10
1 124
125,848
182*
1253
140/10
1 125
1 22,540
1 106
1 249
40/10
1 126
19,949
1
104
238
40/10
1 127
18,815
190
1 209
40/10
1 128
1 17,281
185*
1 177
140/10
1 129
1 16,136
192
1 156
I
none
1 130
1 15,000
198
1 152
I
none
1 131
1 15,000
198
1 152
I
none
1 132
1 18,665#
1
122#
( 153
none
2
11
128,039#
1 159#
1 182
140/10
2 12
1 16,281
198
1 184
1 40/10
2 I3
1 16,883
189*
1 184
140/10
2 I4
1 16,929
186*
1 179
140/10
2
15
1 15,867
190
1 176
( none
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 15
12
16
I none
1 15,000
12
17
186*
1 15,000
12
85*
18
I none
1 15,590
12
19
90
1 19,314
12
90
110
1 40/10
1 18,322
2
1 40/10
111
1 197
1 19,635
2
1167
112
1 21,976
2
I40 /10
113
1 24,787
2
160*
114
i none
1 19,628
2
Inone
115
164
1 19,037
2
1 148
116
106
1 16,853
2
138
117
I none
1 18,500
2
1 40/10
118
1
17,060
2
119
1 40/10
1
19,336
2
120
1 20,670
2
121
1
15,954
2
122
i
16,217
2
i 23
1 23,395
2
124
1
17,557
2
125
1
15,729
2
126
1
16,813
2
127
1 23,960#
Outlot
I A
1 233,891
Outlot
I
B
1
92,288#
140
1 170
I none
190
1 160
I none
186*
1 160
I none
85*
1 182
I none
90
1 196
I none
90
1 177
I none
90
1 244
1 40/10
257
1 225
1 40/10
122
1 197
1 40/10
I88*
1167
I40 /10
I89*
1179
I40 /10
93
1 183
i 40/10
160*
1 150
i none
156*
167
Inone
I58*
164
I40 /10
98
1 148
1 40/10
106
1 168
1 40/10
138
1 183
I none
130
1 192
1 40/10
85 @
1 185
1 40/10
90
1 187
1 40/10
122#
174
40/10
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 16
' I ROW I 1 438,786#
Average I Lot 1 21,197
' I TOTAL I 1 2,015,593
' *Meets minimum width at building setback line
#Area and width will be reduced with the platting of additional 10 feet of ROW for Galpin Blvd.
@ Does not meet minimum requirements
FINDINGS
' Subdivision. Section 18 -39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
' Finding: The ro osed subdivision is not consistent with the current zoning of the
p p
property, A2. With the rezoning of the property, the subdivision would be
' consistent with the zoning ordinance. With the exception of Lot 25, Block 2,
which does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, the proposed
' subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the RSF district regulations.
While technically meeting the code requirements, the applicant should adjust lot
lines to give each lot 90 feet of frontage, except on large curves. Staff believes
' that the applicant does not meet the intent of the wetland protection ordinance,
Article VI of the zoning ordinance, of avoiding the alteration and destruction of
wetlands. Some of the proposed wetland fill is being done to meet wetland
setback requirements for proposed lots, rather than altering the site design and lot
layout to meet code requirements.
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 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 -
' low density, the proposal would 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;
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 17
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 negatively impacts the environment through
excessive tree removal and wetland alterations. While some tree removal and
wetland alterations are oftentimes necessary to develop sites, through alternate site
design, including clustering or larger lots, the applicant could minimize
environmental damage.
W
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.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 18
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20 -407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
1.
2
3.
Q
Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands.
Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
implementation.
Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands.
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality
ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
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.
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 is isolated
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 19
and 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 a public hearing on July 19, 1995. By a vote of 5 for 0 against
and 1 abstention, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Land Use Map
Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetland Alteration permit. Specifically, the
Commission felt that the proposed development did not provide a significant community benefit
that would justify the replacement of Office/Industrial lands with residential lands.
In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to address the following issues for City
Council:
Replacement lands in Chanhassen for industrial commercial.
Financial impact of taking this property out of industrial /commercial zone.
Traffic and noise impacts.
Replacement
Staff has performed a cursory review of potential industrial replacement lands. Due to existing
development patterns, the need for balance in land uses, and severe environmental constraints,
additional industrial land uses north of Lyman Boulevard would be impractical. As part of the
Highway 5 study, an additional 28 acres of land east of the new elementary school site has been
redesignated as office /industrial. Conversely, the Arboretum has purchased 30 acres of land on
Highway 41 and 82nd Street that is designated for office /industrial use for expansion of the
public /semi - public use of the Arboretum.
There is a potential for industrial land uses within the southern 1995 study area. Properties along
Audubon Road and south of Lyman Boulevard could be designated for office /industrial uses for
the same reasons that this property was guided for office /industrial (access, encroaching
industrial development from Chaska, and ability to buffer from residential developments).
However, there are limitations in the amount of land that could be developed industrially because
of topographic and hydrologic features. In addition, some of these lands are being looked at as
part of the city's Park Task Force for acquisition as open space.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 20
Financial Impact
Staff has performed the tax revenue analysis of a residential development versus an industrial
office development of the site. Since valuation of the property can only be estimated at this time,
staff has provided a range for residential and industrial uses. Residential property values in this
analysis are estimated at $200,000 and $300,000 (for 62 active building permits within Stone
Creek and Trotters Ridge, the average valuation was $171,900; assuming a lot value is 20 percent
of the building valuation, the total average valuation would be $206,280). Industrial building
square footages are estimated at 140,000 square feet, based on a sketch plan prepared by the
applicant, and 338,000 square feet, based on building coverage of 30 percent of the permitted 70
percent site coverage on 37 developable acres. 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. As a comparison, the estimated floor area ratio for
Chanhassen Business Center is 0.149 (13.85 acres of building divided by 93.02 acres of land).
Value:
r
u
r_
n
One Percent of first $72,000
Two percent of balance
Subtotal
Residential
$200,000
720
2,560
$3,280
$300,000
720
4,560
$5,280
Tax Capacity 137 percent
Multiply by 59 units
City's share of taxes 20 percent
Building Square Footage
Valuation: $35 per square foot
Three percent of first $100,000
4.6 percent of balance
Subtotal
Tax Capacity 137 percent
City's share of taxes 20 percent
' City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent
$4,493.60
$265,128.40
$53,024.48
Industrial
140,000
$4,900,000
3,000
220,800
$223,800
$306,606
$61,321.20
$153,303
$7,233.60
$426,782.40
$85,356.48
338,000
$11,830,000
3,000
539,580
$542,580
$743,335
$148,667
$371,668
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 21
(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 present, we are unable to determine the expenditure side of the fiscal impact equation.
However, we assume that a residential development as opposed to an office /industrial use would
require increased spending on education, parks and recreation, and public safety; would be
expenditure neutral on administration; and would reduce expenditures for roads and
infrastructure. In addition, were the school district to bond for future expansion, residential
properties would bear a heavier burden without the additional office /industrial properties.
Traffic
Industrial development does, generally, create additional traffic demands on public roadways.
However, it was anticipated that Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard, designated collector
roadways in the Chanhassen comprehensive plan and minor arterial - class II in the Eastern
Carver County Comprehensive Transportation Planning Study (October 1990), would carry large
volumes of traffic. A minor arterial roadway is defined as one that provides a trip focus that is
intracounty and intercity; has urban speeds of between 35 and 45 miles per hour; has trip lengths
of greater than 4 miles; provides access to collector and arterial roads and land access to
commercial, industrial, farms, and high density residential; and is spaced every one to two miles.
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 22
' Noise
The city's Zoning Ordinance has established requirements regarding noise and other industrial
' type impacts. Article XXIII General Supplemental Regulations, Division 2 Performance
standards addresses noise, smoke and particulate matter, toxic and noxious matter, odors and air
pollution, nuisances, radiation and electrical emissions, vibrations, glare and heat, explosives,
' and surface water management. Additionally, the comprehensive plan requires buffering through
the use of berms and landscaping materials as well as additional building setback to reduce
potential negative impacts to surrounding properties.
' RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends that the City Council deny Land Use Map Amendment #95 -1, Rezoning #95-
2, Preliminary Plat #95 -4, and Wetland Alteration Permit #95 -2.
' FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate, A2.
' 2. The legal description of the property is:
' That part of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23
West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 1065.41 feet thereof,
lying west of the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No.
117), and lying north of the south 100.00 feet thereof.
Together with that part of the SW %4 of the SW Y4 of Section 15, Township 116
North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the south 100.00
feet thereof, and lying west and southwest of the following described line:
' Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said SW %4 of the SW %4
and the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117);
' thence southeasterly along said center line to the center of C.S.A.H. No.
18; thence southeasterly along the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 18 to the
north line of the said south 100.00 feet and there terminating.
3. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6)
possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our
findings regarding them are:
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 23
a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land
uses of the area.
C) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in
the Zoning Ordinance.
d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed.
e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and
will not overburden the city's service capacity.
f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets
serving the property.
FINDING: The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed action has been considered in relation
to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
2000 Land Use Plan
The property is guided for office /industrial land use. The proposed development is inconsistent
with this designation.
Communitv Development Goal
It is the city's overall goal that its amenities and qualities be maximized and preserved while
allowing growth to occur in a comprehensively planned and reasonable manner.
Land Use Goal
Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax
base.
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
' Updated August 14, 1995
Page 24
I Land Use Policv
Planned industrial development will be encouraged as a means of encouraging tax base growth
and creating new employment opportunities. It is believed that planned growth can and should
be designed to minimize environmental, neighborhood and traffic impact.
The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between uses of different types; the more
incompatible the neighboring uses, the more important the transition zone. For example, natural
' features may provide good transitions between incompatible uses or uses of moderate intensity
can provide transitions between high intensity and low intensity uses. The Land Use Plan also
seeks the establishment of buffer yards where appropriate. These buffer yards represent areas of
increased setbacks where a developer will be required to install landscaping and berming to offer
improved separation of incompatible uses.
' Should the City Council decide to approve the Land Use Map Amendment, then staff requests
that the subdivision be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review and to allow the
' applicant to address the following conditions:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
' shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable Television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance # 9 -1.
art. Submit new
shown ranges from 400 to 600 feet a
2. The spacing of fire hydrants as g p
utility showing spacing at 300' foot maximum. Contact Fire Marshal for exact locations.
3. Full park and trail fees shall be paid as specified in city ordinance.
' 4. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat
approval.
5. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This
' should be done prior to final plat approval.
6. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of
' any building permits.
CSI
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 25
7. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
The applicant needs to provide additional details as to how tree removal calculations were
done.
9. The applicant is required, based on their proposal and canopy coverage calculations, to
provide a total of 268 trees for this development. The applicant's proposed landscaping
plan proposing planting a total of 112 trees. This plans must be revised to provide an
additional 156 trees. In addition, the applicant needs to revise the plans to incorporate 20
percent of required trees as evergreens which must average seven feet with a minimum
tree height of six feet and use a minimum of 2 1/2 inch caliper for the deciduous trees.
City could also requires that landscape buffers be provided along collector and arterial
roads: Galpin and Lyman Boulevards. The applicant shall revise the plans to provide
additional plantings along these roads. The applicant should also provide additional
screening along the western property line of the project, adjacent to the industrial
development to the west. The applicant shall develop a woodland management plan for
this project pursuant to section 18 -61 of the Chanhassen City Code.
10. Prior to receiving any final development approvals, the developer shall perform
additional environmental investigation, as specified in the Pinnacle Engineering, Inc.
report, as well as the removal of the tires and batteries.
11. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval. 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. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
12. 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.
13. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year '
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 26
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post developed stormwater
calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations 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.
15. 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.
' 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
' Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of
3 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
20. Water quality ponds provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the
wetlands must have 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. A landscape plan
providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is
recommended. The predeveloped runoff rate to Chaska shall be maintained.
21. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations.
22. The proposed single - family residential development will be responsible for water quality
and quantity connection charges. These charges are payable to the City prior to the City
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 27
filing the final plat. The charges will be calculated in conjunction with construction plan
reviews.
23. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on
those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
24. The applicant shall provide a wetlands report. All wetlands shall have buffer strips in
accordance to city ordinance. All wetland buffer strips shall be shown on the final
grading plans. The wetland in the southwest corner of the site shall be restored in
conjunction with site grading. The grading around wetland basin 6 shall be revised to
avoid impacts to the wetland. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a wetland
alteration permit. The storm pond proposed on Outlot B shall conform to the wetland and
be integrated into the system by seeding with native grasses, sedges, and emergents. The
storm pond on Lots 5 through 8, Block 2 shall be eliminated and storm sewers added to
convey runoff to the ponds in Block 1.
25. The applicant shall bring the illegal earthwork/mining operation occurring on the property
into conformance to City Code Section 7 -30 prior to preliminary plat approval.
26. If the project is done in phases. Temporary cul -de -sacs shall be constructed at the end of
the streets. Signs shall be placed on the barricades indicating that the street will be
extended in the future.
27. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a 50 -foot wide right -of -way along Galpin
Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Review Application
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 4/12/95
4. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 4/17/95
5. Letter from Joseph G. Richter to Robert Generous dated 4/17/95
6. Memo from Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, to Sharmin Al -Jaff dated 4/11/95
7. "Land -Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000, American Planning
Association, PAS Memo, August 1992
8. Phase I Environmental Property Assessment, Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., Conclusions
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 28
9. Wetland Identification for Staff Report, Figure 1
10. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
11. Notice of Informational Meeting Dated 7/6/95
12. Letter from Craig and Nin Wallestad to Robert Generous dated July 17, 1995
13. Letter from Tim & Kathleen Battis to the Planning Commission
14. Notice to the Residents of Trotter Ridge & Stone Creek
15. Schematic of Preserved Areas, Residential
16. Schematic on Preserved Areas, Industrial/Office
17. Planning Commission Minutes of July 17, 1995
18. Letter Dave and Kim Sumners to Chanhassen City Council dated August 2, 1995
19. Letter from Robert Generous to Dave and Kim Sumners dated August 7, 1995
20. Letter from Jerry and Jan Crawford dated August 8, 1995
21. Preliminary plat dated June 7, 1995
r
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Scherber Partnership Properties OWNER: John Fischer
ADDRESS: Box 181
Rogers, MN 55374
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612/428 -8400
i. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Interim Use Permit
4. Non - conforming Use Permit
5. Planned Unit Development
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review
ADDRESS: -8470 Galpin
Chanhassen, MN 55317
TELEPHONE: 612/470-5098
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
12. Variance
13. _Z Wetland Alteration Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
�- $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. � Subdivision. TOTAL FEE
�q(rS
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Southern Oaks
LOCATION NW quadrant of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION reference attached
' PRESENT ZONING A -2 agricultural estate
REQUESTED ZONING RSF - residential single family
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION office /industrial
' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION residential - low density
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Down Guide and Zone for single family residential use -
' reference attached
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
' with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
' authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 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.
' I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
/Cl nn
Signature f Applica Date
' Si at re of a Owner Date
Z�IoS
Ap cation Received on 3�2G7 S Fee Paid R eceipt No. 5N
' The ap 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.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
The subject property is presently guided office/ industrial. Adjacent land use and
guiding consists of law density residential north, residential - large lot northeast, low
density residential east, office/ industrial south and office/ industrial west.
The subject property's unique natural features (pristine oak forest, wetlands, and 40 feet
of topographic relief) strongly suggests a down guiding from office/ industrial to
residential in order to preserve natural amenities.
Applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies for natural resources are as follows:
Goal
To promote rational planning which correlates growth and the preservation of a high
quality environment.
Policies
All site plans and other development proposals should be reviewed to determine
impacts upon natural systems. These shall include but not be limited to bluffliness,
soils, vegetation, wetlands, drainageways and topography.
Applicable comprehensive plan goals and policies are as follows:
Goal
To provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified
community development goal.
Policies
The City of Chanhassen will attempt to provide adequate land for projected housing
growth and to provide housing opportunities for persons of a range of incomes.
New residential development should be discouraged from encroaching upon vital
natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in
their natural state.
In summary, down guiding the subject property to low density residential use is
consistent with adjacent residential land use patterns, will be less environmentally
destructive that office/ industrial use, and consistent with the Natural Resource and
Housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
' That part of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West,
Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 1065.41 feet thereof, lying west of
' the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117), and lying north of
the south 100.00 feet thereof.
' Together with that part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 North,
Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 100.00 feet thereof,
and lying west and southwest of the following described line:
Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4
and the center line of C.S.A.H. No. 19 (also known as C.S.A.H. No. 117);
thence southeasterly along said center line to the center line of C.S.A.H.
No. 18; thence southeasterly along the center line of said C.S.A.H. No. 18
' to the north line of said south 100.00 feet and there terminating.
n
C
n
CITY OF
"JIBANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Generous, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: April 12, 1995
SUBJ: Southern Oak, Scherber Partnership Properties;
Galpin Blvd and Lyman Blvd
Planning Case 95 -1 LUP, 95 -2 REZ and 95 -4 SUB
I have reviewed the site plan in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Division and have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy requirements:
1) Street names are acceptable.
2) A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, ie. street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable Television, transformer
boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely
operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance # 9 -1.
3) The spacing of fire hydrants as shown ranges from 400 to 600 feet apart.
Submit new utility showing spacing at 300' foot maximum. Contact Fire
Marshal for exact locations.
g.\safety4nNenerous
u
1
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
�HANHASSSN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H n
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: April 17, 1995
SUBJECT: 95 -6 LUP, 95 -2 REZ & 95 -4 SUB (Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership
Properties)
I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped " CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
RECEIVED, DEC 28 1994 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT " for the above referenced
project.
' Analysis:
Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor
elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and
Engineering Departments. Although elevations are included, there is no legend or explanation
of there meaning.
Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory
plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO
or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard
designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the
1993 memo which lists and explains these designations.
Soils Report. More than 50% of the proposed lots contain soils classified in building site group
9 or above. Building sites in these groups are considered to be severely limited as to their
suitability for building foundations. Consequently, a soils report showing details and locations
of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for building permit plan
review purposes. The soils report should include a 79g lot by lot tabulation.
1
Bob Generous
April 17, 1995
Page 2
Demolition Permits. 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.
Recommendations:
1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat
approval.
2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This
should be done prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of
any building permits.
4. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g: �safety\sak \4nemos \p lan\sthoaks.bgI
CITY OF
�SANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
� ao
1
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -)�- cr k.
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.
FjL0 or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with tite basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
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 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Fatty. 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.
N 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.
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.
SE / R \ sE o / F�
of ALO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
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.
�i�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
�n�SnTATE OF
U �J Ll V 0 uQ
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772 -7910 FILE NO.
April 17, 1995
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner R
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties, City of Chanhassen, Carver County
(City #95 -1 LUP, 95 -2 REZ, 954 SUB)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received March 28, 1995) for the above - referenced project (El /2,
SEl/4, Section 16 and SWl/4, SWIM, Section 15, T116N -R23W) and have the following comments
to offer:
1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no
DNR permit is required.
However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters
Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local
wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project
through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs.
2. The project site does not appear to be within a shoreland district.
3. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We
would object to having the stormwater routed directly to a wetland. In two of the settling
ponds, the pond outlets appear to be very close to stormsewer outfalls. We recommend that
an engineer examine the design of the settling ponds to ensure that the stormwater treatment
by the ponds is maximized.
4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties
adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the city and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the areas and that the
wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits.
5. The project site is not within a FEMA floodplain. However, each of the wetlands and
stormwater ponds will have a 100 -year flood elevation. All the structures that are built for
this project should be built above the 100 -year flood elevations of the wetlands and ponds on
this site.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert Generous
April 17, 1995
' Page 2
1 s
J
it
The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period.
The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook
(Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water
Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You
are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must
apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan
Sullivan at 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
Hazeltine- Bavaria WMO, Bill Monk
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
CARVER
COUNTY
April 11, 1995
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
600 East Fourth Street, Box 6
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone (612) 361 -1010
Fax (612) 361 -1025
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat 0
Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
surveying R Mapping
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'
Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
120' 150'
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided ^'
4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 120' 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.
i
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10% Post - Consumer Recycled Paper
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.
u
f "
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.
Land -Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000
C(O 1'�, 300 57 �q ► ,`t �� 6 �0
How Land -Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years
Public
25%
16-
14
18
29
15
37
22
54
13
44
70
45
44
41
41
19
19
28
38
37
13
39
43
35
14
39
13
12
12
47
23
38
33
31
Inst'l
9%
3
9
7
3
5
NA
13
10
5
10
25
NA
19
4
3
19
13
26
24
7
4
7
6
14
NA
4
8
NA
11
12
9
8
3
% NA
3 2
Residential
Residential
City or town
Population
(single - family)
Comm'l
Ind'I
Aiken, S.C.
20,000
65%(60
9%
1%
Ambler, Pa.
6
63
11
10
Asheville, N.C.
62,000
69 (62)
12
5
Bellevue, Wash.
88,000
65 (57)
10
4
Carlsbad, Calif.
51,000
57 (40)
5
9
Carrollton, Tex.
33,000
39 (34)
30
17
Columbia, Md.
78,000
43 (32)
20 (combined)
Costa Mesa, Calif.
88,000
51 (30)
12
15
Elgin, Ill.
72,000
37
5
4
El Monte, Calif.
79,000
57
15
15
Evanston, Ill.
72,000
45 (30)
7
4
Fishkill, N.Y.
15,000
24 (20)
4
1
Frisco, Colo.
1,600
38
13
3
Galveston, Tex.
62,000
25 (21)
5
25
Highland Park, Ill.
31,000
53
6
0
Hoffman Estates, Ill.
45,000
46 (37)
10
2
La Verne, Calif.
27,000
67 (58)
11
3
Lynnwood, Wash.
29,000
56 (46)
22
3
Manassas, Va.
22,000
52 (41)
8
12
Midway, Ky.
1,400
54
7
1
Montpelier, Vt.
8,400
51 (45)
6
6
Mount Prospect, Ill.
58,000
65 (57)
6
16
Northbrook, Ill.
32,000
46
7
8
Oak Creek, Wis.
20,000
37 (27)
8
12
- Olathe, Kan.
49,000
52 (43)
7
6
Prescott, Ariz.
26,000
74 (50)
8
4
Pompano Beach, Fla.
67,000
44 (25)
10
17
Redding, Calif.
53,000
64
11
12
St. Peters, Mo.
38,000
72
12
4
Sedona, Ariz.
7,300
74 (71)
15
0
Skokie, Ill.
60,000
34
6
13
Versailles, Ky.
7,200
50
9
19
Wakefield, Mass.
24,000
54 (52)
5
3
West Hollywood, Calif.
36,000
42 (8)
22
3
Ratio Averages
52%(41
10%
7%
C(O 1'�, 300 57 �q ► ,`t �� 6 �0
How Land -Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years
Public
25%
16-
14
18
29
15
37
22
54
13
44
70
45
44
41
41
19
19
28
38
37
13
39
43
35
14
39
13
12
12
47
23
38
33
31
Inst'l
9%
3
9
7
3
5
NA
13
10
5
10
25
NA
19
4
3
19
13
26
24
7
4
7
6
14
NA
4
8
NA
11
12
9
8
3
% NA
3 2
Inst'i
NA
13
11
Parks
16%
4
5
11
17
10
NA
9
12
1
8
33
NA
25
18
15
NA
6
2
NA
15
9
13
23
9
NA
17
5
NA
1
3
NA
6
1
NA
23 %
Parks
NA
5
4
Right
of way
NA
9
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
32
7
26
12
NA
NA
19
23
NA
NA
NA
14
15
NA
19
14
12
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
32
14
24
29
NA
Residential
Year of survey
(single- family)
Comm'1
Ind'1
Public
1992
52%(41
10%
7%
31 %
1983
48
7
8
37
1955
42(36)
2
8
48
Inst'i
NA
13
11
Parks
16%
4
5
11
17
10
NA
9
12
1
8
33
NA
25
18
15
NA
6
2
NA
15
9
13
23
9
NA
17
5
NA
1
3
NA
6
1
NA
23 %
Parks
NA
5
4
Right
of way
NA
9
NA
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
32
7
26
12
NA
NA
19
23
NA
NA
NA
14
15
NA
19
14
12
NA
8
NA
NA
NA
32
14
24
29
NA
1 . 1
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
JOHN FISHER PROPERTY
NW CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD.
AND LYMAN BLVD.
PREPARED FOR:
MR. GARY SCHERBER
ROGERS, MN 55374
J u j 011935
ENGIEEN DEPT.
iacle
e
4 4.9 Regional Geologic and Hydrologic Setting
Surficial geology of the area consists of post glacial terrace deposits of sand and
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.al.,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 above mean sea level (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
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. Incorrectly discarded 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 ground 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.
• 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 waste
procedures.
• Area 6: 2 5000 - gallon unregistered Underground Storage Tanks (UST), 2
1000 - gallon USTs, 1 500 - gallon UST are located 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
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.
• Pinnacle recommends additional investigation to resolve the magnitude
of the possible sources of contamination identified in the preceding
paragraphs.
PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC. PHASE I
9
F1
5 .
.. >,
%
G D , , , , , , , , , , , , "
, % ` 1,`: , ,,, o % 2,
..
%,% BG
`'` '
7:. B
C �
,,,'g,`,,,
A �
Lyman Blvd. (County 18)
Building
Area .M,.
Figure 2. Area and Bi
Pinnacle uldulg Location
John Fisher Property
Engineering Inc Norwest Corner of Galpin Blvd. and
Lyman Blvd. Intersection
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
Unit B Date: Prepared By:
11760 Justen Circle 5/31/95 S. Thelen
Maple Grove, MN 55369 —_
(612) 428 - 4842 Scale: Reviewed By:
K. Francis
1
wl
N O
Tlf
Ol
r
co
Co
CA : UZ/
AYA wo 0 a a .x q KNIHino's
- ---------
1 -
O Q
40
J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Southern Oaks
Developer: Scherber Partnership
Properties
Location: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the
northwest corner of Galpin
Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.)
12 "0 STREET C
LOCATION
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from
office /industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single
Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and
associated right -of -way on 46.27 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located at
8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks,
Scherber Partnership Properties.
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 July 6, 1995.
Gerald & Lois Gustafson
Roger & Gayleen Schmidt
Earl Holasek
§ 341 Galpin Blvd.
8301 Galpin Blvd.
8610 Galpin Blvd.
hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
k ene & 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
T elly Morlock
Chad J. Gniffke
Douglas & S. Hipskind
2325 Boulder Road
2321 Boulder Road
2317 Boulder Road
r hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hans Hagen Homes &
merle & Jane Volk
Gregory K. Ziton
Don & Ann Esping
uite 300
2334 Boulder Road
2330 Boulder Road
941 Hillwind Rd. NE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
U dley, MN 55432
Thomas & Lisa McKenzie
Jeffrey & Karla Althoff
James & J. Larranaga
t 322 Boulder Road
2326 Boulder Road
2318 Boulder Road
hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
k onald
& Cathy Borgman
Scott & A. Weldon
Lisa Kilpatrick
Oj2308 Boulder Road
2292 Boulder Road
2360 Stone Creek Drive
hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
L hn & L. Sullivan
Peter & M. Cunningham
Stephen & N. Dragos
2346 Stone Creek Drive
2332 Stone Creek Drive
2318 Stone Creek Drive
i chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
illiam & M. Nason
John Moran
Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
361 Stone Creek Drive
2150 Boulder Road
2765 Casco Point Road
hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayzata, MN 55391
& C. Fisher
Rodney & Janice Melton
New Creations Ind. Inc.
jr ark
407 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
708 Main Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Elk River, MN 55330
Steven & N. Cavanaugh
Daniel & Dona Lee
Scott M. Welsh
Bridle Creek Trail
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
1 441
hanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Craig & Nina Wallestad
6566 France Ave. S., #1001
Edina, MN 55435
Edwin Susi
2430 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey Palm
2301 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lewis Engineering Co.
4201 Norex Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
The Nordick Group, Inc.
701 12th Ave. N.
West Fargo, ND 58078
Glen Pauls & Teri Pauls
Family Limited Partnership
5441 Zumbra Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
Arvey & Marlene Eeg
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ken & M. Hollrah
2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd & L. Noteboom
2279 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
HTD Assets of Oshkosh, Inc.
4275 Norex Drive
Chaska, MN 55318
Willard Morton
4035 Norex Drive
Chaska, MN 55318
Dennis & Carol Medo
2420 Bridle Creek Trail '
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephen & M. Pittorf
2305 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,
Christopher & Susan Barnes ,
2338 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 ,
Conopco, Inc. '
c/o VanDenBergh Foods Co.
2200 Cabot Drive
Lisle, IL 60532
Chaska Watertower Mini Storage
149 Jonathan Blvd. N. '
Chaska, MN 55318
f-
July 6, 1995
1
NOTICE OF INFORMATIONAL MEETING
SOUTHERN OAKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
' (INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
You are cordially invited to attend a meeting on Thursday, July 13, 1995, at the City of
Chanhassen Council_ Chambers at 6:30 p.m..
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed single family residential
development for the NW quadrant of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard (in lieu
' of the City's proposed industrial development plan).
Information will be presented as to the proposed single family residential development
and its relationship to the neighboring community.
I All interested parties are encouraged to attend this meeting.
' Craig and Gary Scherber
Scherber Brothers Partnership
ii �QGt
CITY OF
CRAIG V. AND NINA F. WALLESTAD
6566 France Avenue South, Number 1001
Edina, Minnesota 55435
612/926 -1644 phone ■ 612!926 -2433 fax
July 17, 1995
Robert Generous
Chanhassen City Planner
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Generous,
We are the owners of the lot at 2475 Bridle Creek Trail in Chanhassen, where we anticipate breaking
ground before the end of the year. Because our lot is situated along the southern border of Trotter's
Ridge, we are very concerned about the future development of 8470 Galpin Boulevard, the parcel of
land to our south on the northwest corner of Galpin and Lyman boulevards.
We are writing to express our support of the rezoning, of the land for a proposed single family residential
development by Scherber Partnership Properties. We support rezoning for this use, rather than for
office /industrial use, for the following reasons:
• Office /industrial zoning will most likely require the loss of an impressive stand of large trees,
something that flies in the face of Chanhassen's reputation as an environmentally concerned and
progressive community. A single family residential development offers more planning flexibility to
save many more of these valuable trees.
• Office /industrial zoning will require significant leveling of the land, placing at risk the existing
wetland area in the parcel. Again, this would be blatantly contrary to Chanhassen's wise,
environmentai track recorc:.
• Office /industrial zoning will attract heavy industrial traffic to the area, threatening the safety of
children living in the growing residential communities on either side of Galpin Boulevard. Increased
traffic in this area poses a hazard to children walking to and from the new school on the southeast
corner of Galpin and Highway 5.
• The land is bordered on two sides by residential developments. An office /industrial development in
our very backyards is inconsistent in the context of the surroijnding neighborhoods of C - xecutive -level
homes, built with the full knowledge and approval of the city.
• Office /industrial zoning will place Trotter's Ridge residents, especially those with lots on the southern
border, under the risk of increased noise at all hours. Unsightly views of office /industrial facilities will
decrease the value of our homes, with a negative effect on future resale.
' July 17, 1995
Robert Generous
Page 2
In short, we believe there are other more suitable locations for office /industrial zoning in the city of
Chanhassen awav from residential backyards, perhaps to the west of Highway 41. In fact. the city itself
has twice denied prior requests for office /industrial zoning of the 'land in question, for good reason. We
request that you approve the proposed development by Scherber Partnership Properties as the most
appropriate use of the property at 8470 Galpin Boulevard.
Sincerely,
y
lyl ya
Craig V. Wallestad
Nina F. Wall stad
Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN
Re: Southern Oaks Project located at 8470 Galpin Blvd.
AM.: Bob:
We are writing to express our support of the proposed single family residential
development project at 8470 Galpin Blvd.
We are vehemently against any industrial development. We feel this will decrease
the value of the Stone Creek Development and interfere with the serene
environment that Chanhassen has worked so hard to promote.
Please accept this letter in lieu of our presence at the Wednesday, July 19 council
meeting.
& /-Z - y7 - �993
1
NOTICE!!! NOTICE!!! NOTICE!!! NOTICE
TO THE RESIDENTS OF TROTTERS RIDGE & STONE CREEK
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING TO IMPLEMENT AN
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NW CORNER OF GALPIN AND
LYMAN BLVD. THIS IS CONTRARY TO EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS
DESCRIBING A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD!!
PLEASE MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
THIS DEVELOPMENT WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, AT 7PM. THE MEETING
WILL BE HELD AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 690 COULTER
DRIVE IN CHANHASSEN.
YOUR PARTICIPATION AND INPUT IS CRITICAL!!!!H H H
6
THANK YOU
J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Southern Oaks
Developer: Scherber Partnership
Properties
s o V
12M -STRECT L
Location: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the
LOCATION
northwest corner of Galpin
''''
xs
I�
Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.)
BtVp
I I I o
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from
office /industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single
Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and
associated right -of -way on 46.27 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located at
8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks,
Scherber Partnership Properties.
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 July 6, 1995.
July 6, 1995
NOTICE OF INFORMATIONAL MEETING
SOUTHERN OAKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
You are cordially invited to attend a meeting on Thursday, July 13, 1995, at the City of
Chanhassen Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed single family residential
development for the NW quadrant of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard ( lieu
of the City's proposed industrial development plan).
Information will be presented as to the proposed single family residential development
and its relationship to the neighboring community. _
All interested parties are encouraged to attend this meeting.
Craig and Gary Scherber
Scherber Brothers Partnership
M co
o :
of
m m
M ME
ZI m CO M
Co
P
1 _ t:
i
_ A
,\ I
1 :•
rx
Gss�� i i
V
1 � m SL o
IOgg A
�daC� � A
1 a�1 m _
� g s
z = q P
Vi
4 �
pills w
1 Bi
i o =. �p D fA
9 .
� -• O
yp x INO�() z OC
g �[•�� �s. 5 6g 2 z y
1 z s1 sa�gc a� ; m M m w —
K �({ ! j • g 77 a 4 A�UW °
r --
— .... ....... ........ .... .... ............ — — ._._..__._....... _. _...... .. ............ ................... —
� a
1
r
N
0
m
0
M a
m
m
ch
m
m
a
O
z
�o
m
ch
11/�
August 8, 1995
Mayor Don Chmiel
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
We are quite concerned about the City Planning Commission's plan to develop the Fisher
property (NW quadrant of Galpin and Lyman Boulevards) as a high density industrial
development. We understand a proposal has been submitted for low density single family
housing which would preserve the environment as well as maintain our property values. We
were attracted to Stone Creek because the beauty and quietness - mature trees, wetlands, etc.
We are extremely concerned about the prospect of increased traffic (semis, delivery trucks,
etc.), increased noise, decreased safety, decreased property values and decreased physical
beauty of the area.
Please do not allow an industrial development in our neighborhood!
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
V
Jerry and Jan Crawfor
2079 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317