9. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential Low Density; Southern Oaks1
CITY OF 9
�BANSASSEN
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
Ac9m by City Admin'isttatot
End" - D"' A-
lrlodified
ReOctpd
D* Submitted to Cc
pate submitted to Council
RC'- / q -9 S''
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 staffs 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.
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.
1
1
L
n
I
L
C'
0
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 CHANH SSEN
STAFF REPORT �
.1
PROPOSAL:
'
PC DATE: July 19 1995
CC DATE: August 14, 1995
'
CASE #: 95 -1 LUP, 95 -2 REZ
Family Residential; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.116 acres of wetland
95 -4 SUB
'
STAFF REPORT �
.1
PROPOSAL:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office /industrial to
ACREAGE: 46.27 acres
residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single
'
DENSITY: Gross - 1.27, Net -1.82
Family Residential; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 0.116 acres of wetland
and provide wetland mitigation on site; and preliminary plat approval for 59
Z
single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right -of -way. Project is known
'
Q as
Southern Oaks.
V
' . J
LOCATION:
8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.)
0.
APPLICANT:
a '
Scherber Partnership Properties John Fisher
Q
Box 181 8470 Galpin Boulevard
Rogers, MIST 55374 Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 428 -8400 (612) 470 -5098
,
PRESEIV 1 GUISLSI s: NG, Agriculturai testate
'
ACREAGE: 46.27 acres
'
DENSITY: Gross - 1.27, Net -1.82
ADJACENT ZONING '
AND LAND USE: N - PUD, Trotters Ridge
S - A2, vacant, and industrial
E - RSF, Stone Creek '
� Q W - Industrial Park in Chaska
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site '
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property has farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of
W 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
V) 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
�fiTCF�S1�
Il E2N0 STREET `�
L.��`
1
II
0 0 0
0
0 A A
1
RASE MAP
4� ENGINEERING DEPT.
REVISED JAN, 1995
1
LOCATION
8900 t o
I N
O
O
p 9003 -
9100
9200
930^
9400
9500
960'0
9700
9800
9900
0000
10, c ,
0200
10300
10400
,0500
L 4KE
ANN
F
/ I
0 j rye
I �'
< I QP r .
1
r
1 -
'0.0 1\\
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
r 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:
1. The hours of operation shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and work on Sundays or holidays is not permitted.
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 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 -IA 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
I
'
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 5
1 Mr. Volk applying for a rezoning request from R -IA to I -1. Mr. Volk made an application
for the rezoning and a comprehensive land use plan amendment. On June 25, 1982, the
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. However, the Planning
' Commission recommended that the applicant have the option of returning to the Planning
Commission with a CUP request. The City Council considered the request on October 4,
1982. The Council tabled the item until staff completed a survey of all contractors' yards as
' well as other non - conforming uses in the city. The City Council amended the Zoning
Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as CUPS in the R -IA zone on August 20, 1984.
' On November 12, 1980, a rezoning request from R -lA to I -1 on the parcel was considered by
the Planning Commission. At that meeting, the request was revised to an ordinance
' amendment to permit contractors' businesses and storage yards as conditional uses in the R-
lA district. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council
subsequently denied the request on January 5, 1981.
' 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
1
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 6
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 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 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 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 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 7
' 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 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 8
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.
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 2V2 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.
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
t Updated August 14, 1995
Page 9
' 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 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 10
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. 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 Pondsiz, 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
' Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 11
' 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 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.
L
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 12
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
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.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 13
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.
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
ft.)
(ft.)
Setback/Buffer
(ft.)
1
(1
1 18,360
1 119
1 150
none
1
12
1 18,018
1 108
1 155
I none
1
13
1 55,162
157*
304
I none
1
14
1 35,764
157*
1 276
I none
1
15
1 28,339
156*
( 172
I none
1
16
1 15,097
193
1 149
I none
1
17
1 17,483
1 107
1 151
I none
1
18
1 17,242
187*
1 209
none
1
19
1 22,543
179*
1 200
I none
1
110
1 21,611
183*
1 208
I none
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 14
1 111
1
19,686
190
1
219
I none
1 112
1
18,750
1
106
1
228
I
none
1 113
19,027
1
100
1 224
I none
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
84*
1 212
I none
1 117
1
18,743
184*
1
189
I
none
1 118
16,904
190
187
I
none
1 119
1
16,973
190
1
188
I
none
1 120
1
21,475
181*
1
199
I none
1 (
21
1 29,586
179*
1
253
1 40/10
1 122
1 54,950
174*
1309
140/10
1
123
1 34,391
182*
1290
140/10
1
124
1 25,848
82*
1 253
1 40/10
1
125
1 22,540
1 106
1 249
40/10
1
126
1 19,949
1 104
1 238
40/10
1
127
1 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#
1 153
I none
2
11
128,039#
1 159#
1 182
140/10
2
12
1 16,281
198
1 184
1 40/10
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 15
2
13
1 16,883
189*
1 184
1 40/10
2
14
1 16,929
186*
1 179
1 40/10
2
15
15,867
190
1 176
I none
2
16
1 15,000
1 140
1 170
none
2
17
1 15,000
190
1 160
I none
2
18
15,590
186*
1 160
I none
2
19
1 19,314
85*
1 182
I none
2
110
1 18,322
90
1 196
I none
2
111
1 19,635
190
1 177
I none
2
112
1 21,976
90
1 244
1 40/10
2
113
1 24,787
1 257
225
1 40/10
2
114
1 19,628
1 122
1 197
( 40/10
2
115
1 19,037
188*
1 167
140/10
2
116
1 16,853
189*
1 179
40/10
2
117
1 18,500
193
1 183
1 40/10
2
118
1 17,060
160*
1 150
I none
2
119
1 19,336
156*
1 167
I none
2
120
120,670
158*
1 164
140/10
2
121
15,954
198
1 148
1 40/10
2
122
1 16,217
1 106
168
1 40/10
2
123
1 23,395
1 138
1 183
I none
12
124
1 17,5 57
1 130
1 192
40/10
2
125
1 15,729
185 @
185
40/10
2
126
1 16,813
190
1 187
40/10
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 16
2 1 27 123,960# 1 122#
174 1 40/10
Outlot 1 A 1 233,891 1
Outlot 1 B 1 92,288# I
ROW 1 1438,786# 1
Average 1 Lot 1 21,197 1
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 (fl
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Findine: The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the current zoning of
the 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;
Findina: The proposed subdivision of the property is inconsistent with the
existing land use designation of the property which is office /industrial. Subject
LJ
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 17
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;
Findine: 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.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 18
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Wetland Alteration Permit (Section 20 -407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands.
2. 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.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water
quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement
and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city is implementing its
stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding
will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 19
I 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 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.
r Traffic and noise impacts.
I 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).
Residential
Value:
$200,000
$300,000
One Percent of first $72,000
720
720
Two percent of balance
2,560
4,560
Subtotal
$3,280
$5,280
Tax Capacity 137 percent
$4,493.60
$7,233.60
Multiply by 59 units
$265,128.40
$426,782.40
City's share of taxes 20 percent
$53,024.48
$85,356.48
Industrial
Building Square Footage 140,000 338,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot $4,900,000 $11,830,000
Three percent of first $100,000 3,000 3,000
4.6 percent of balance 220,800 544,180
Subtotal $223,800 $547,180
Tax Capacity 137 percent $306,606 $749,636.60
City's share of taxes 20 percent $61,321.20 $149,927.32
City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent $153,303 $374,818
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
t 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 ro osed use conforms with all performance standards contained in
P p
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.
Community 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
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.
2. 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.
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.
7. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
'
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 25
8. The applicant needs to provide additional details as to how tree removal calculations
were done.
n,
1
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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 26
with 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
t
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 27
to the City 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
t 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.
I 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
Southern Oaks
July 19, 1995
Updated August 14, 1995
Page 28
8. Phase I Environmental Property Assessment, Pinnacle Engineering, Inc., Conclusions
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
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Scherber Partnership Properties
ADDRESS: Box 181
Rogers, MN 55374
TELEPHONE (Day time) 612/428 -8400 TELEPHONE:
8. Sign Plan Review
OWNER: John Fischer
ADDRESS: _8470 Galpin
Chanhassen, MN 55317
612/470 -5098
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
12. Variance
13. _Z Wetland Alteration Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ZNotification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10. V ' Subdivision i - TOTAL FEE $
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
1. ✓
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2.
Conditional Use Permit
3.
Interim Use Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
'
Planned Unit Development
5.
6.
Rezoning l ="
7.
Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review
OWNER: John Fischer
ADDRESS: _8470 Galpin
Chanhassen, MN 55317
612/470 -5098
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
12. Variance
13. _Z Wetland Alteration Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ZNotification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10. V ' Subdivision i - TOTAL FEE $
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
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
office /industrial
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 1 am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any ,
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
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.
c
/ 2- ` `l ,
SiYa f Applica Date '
Si t f a Owner Date A Received on 3 / h S Fee Paid 47 -q&5 Receipt No. Z l �
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
1
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
I To provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified
community development goal.
1
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.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
�HaNHassEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
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.\safety\mPgenerous
CITY OF
A4 1 8AN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Bob Generous, Planner H
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 . k -
April 17, 1995
95 -6 LUP, 95 -2 REZ & 95 -4 SUB (Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership
Properties) I
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.
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 \nemos\plan\sthoaks.bgl
CITY OF
�8AN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ')�-c
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.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the 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 Fury. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level. approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
SE R SEWO WO or I LO
-, -�
�- - -- r -
-- ^`
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.
If
f uo PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772 -7910
April 17, 1995
FILE NO.
'
W. Robert Generous, Planner II
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, 95 -4 SUB)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site lans (received March 28, 1995) for the above - referenced project (El /2,
P
SE1/4, Section 16 and SWIM, 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.
t 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
6. 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. 1
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
1
JR/cds
c: Hazeltine- Bavaria WMO, Bill Monk 1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
1
1
1
1 �
CARVER
COUNTY
1
n
April 11, 1995
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
600 East Fourth Street, Box 6
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Phone (612) 361 -1010
Fax (612) 361 -1025 f
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer -
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
surveying & Mapping
Following are comments regarding the Southern Oaks Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County
by your memorandum dated March 27, 1995:
' 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
C
C
0
Urban Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Urban Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 120'
Rural Undivided
2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
120' 150'
Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
140' 170'
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 (Galpin Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor
Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The
minimum right of way needs for this corridor include a 100 foot width. The corridor as shown
would not meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane undivided roadway.
' The other platted properties along this corridor have included a preserved right of way width
of 50 feet from centerline or a total 100 foot wide corridor. It is expected by Carver County
that this plat will not be approved until that dimension is reflected in the plat.
The reconstruction of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. We would ask that Carver County has
an opportunity to review any proposed lot configurations on this property abutting CSAH 19
(Galpin Blvd) prior to approval of the plat. There may be a need to make minor roadway
alignment changes at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. to facilitate the reconstructed
intersection.
' The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may
also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
' Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 107% 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.
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
Residential
City or town Population
(single - family)
Comm'l
Ind'I
Public
Inst'l
Aiken, S.C.
20,000 -
65%(60
9%
1%
25%
9%
Ambler, Pa.
6,600
63
11
10
16
3
' Asheville,
N.C.
Bellevue, Wash.
62,000
88,000
69 (62)
65 (57)
12
10
5
4
14
18
9
7
Carlsbad, Calif.
51,000
57 (40)
5
9
29
3
Tex.
33,000
39 (34)
30
17
15
5
' Carrollton,
Columbia, Md.
78,000
43 (32)
20 (combined)
37
NA
Costa Mesa, Calif.
88,000
51 (30)
12
15
22
13
'
Elgin, Ill.
72,000
37
5
4
54
10
El Monte, Calif.
79,000
57
15
15
13
5
Ill.
72,000
45 (30)
7
4
44
10
' Evanston,
Fishkill, N.Y.
15,000
24 (20)
4
1
70
25
Frisco, Colo.
1,600
38
13
3
45
NA
' Galveston,
Tex.
62,000
25 (21)
5
25
44
19
Highland Park, Ill.
31,000
53
6
0
41
4
Hoffman Estates, Ill.
45,000
46 (37)
10
2
41
3
'
La Verne, Calif.
27,000
67 (58)
11
3
19
19
Lynnwood, Wash.
29,000
56 (46)
22
3
19
13
Va.
22,000
52 (41)
8
12
28
26
' Manassas,
Midway, Ky.
1,400
54
7
1
38
24
Montpelier, Vt.
8,400
51 (45)
6
6
37
7
Mount Prospect, Ill.
58,000
65 (57)
6
16
13
4
Northbrook, Ill.
32,000
46
7
8
39
7
Oak Creek, Wis.
20,000
37 (27)
8
12
43
6
'
Olathe, Kan.
49,000
52 (43)
7
6
35
14
Prescott, Ariz.
26,000
74 (50)
8
4
14
NA
Beach, Fla.
67,000
44 (25)
10
17
39
4
' Pompano
Redding, Calif.
53,000
64
11
12
13
8
St. Peters, Mo.
38,000
72
12
4
12
NA
Sedona, Ariz.
7,300
74 (71)
15
0
12
11
Skokie, Ill.
60,000
34
6
13
47
12
Versailles, Ky.
7,200
50
9
19
23
9
'
Wakefield, Mass.
24,000
54 (52)
5
3
38
8
West Hollywood, Calif.
36,000
42 (8)
22
3
33
3
Ratio Averages
52% (41 %)
10%
7%
31%
NA
�S
rj7��J
�,`���
�j �p
�3;
79 0
'
How Land -Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years
Residential
Year of survey
(single - family)
Comm'l
Ind'1
Public
Inst'l
' 1992
52%(41
10%
7%
31%
NA
1983
48
7
8
37
13
1955
42(36)
2
8
48
11
1
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
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
r99
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
JOHN FISHER PROPERTY
NW CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD.
AND LYMAN BLVD.
PREPARED FOR:
MR. GARY SCHERBER
ROGERS, MN 55374
CITY Of G HA SSEN
NE�P�l P,li� m
J uU' j 011395
E GI E-ERm DEPT.
acle
fr y
c
T
coo
I
-' 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
T 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.
I PINNACLE ENGINEERING, INC.
9
1 0:I��
r,
,
5 .
.,
,♦
.%
♦� 4
`6: E E
♦
u
,
' 3'
rn
D
........ .......
♦ ♦.♦ U
% i % v
b
I
C B A
'a.
A
Lyman Blvd. (County 18)
Pinnacle
-' Engineering, Inc.
Unit B
11760 Justen Circle T
' Maple Grove, MN 55369 1 V
(612) 428 -4842
Building
Area
Figure 2. Area and Biulding Location
John Fisher Property
Norwest Corner of Galpin Blvd. and
Lyman Blvd. Intersection
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
Date:
5/31/95
Scalg:
Prepared By:
S. Thelen
Reviewed By:
K. Francis
.. ............
rn
In
fi
40 --
,:s
1p o
Tj
I iT
Pa
pa I
y ---
....5.....' .........
M. 09
•
on
in n
10 F.
(
CA i
In
fi
40 --
,:s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, July 19, 1995
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
J
I Project: Southern Oaks
I Developer: Scherber Partnership
Properties
�1
22000 1T11L tT _ � ��
E:, ; U )
Location: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the LOCATION
northwest corner of Galpin
Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.) — , ` " " "" etVD
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.
9s
I
Gerald & Lois Gustafson Roger & Gayleen Schmidt Earl Holasek
8341 Galpin Blvd. 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8610 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rene & Lisa Schroeder John & K. Sumners Joel H. Lehrke
2337 Boulder Road 2333 Boulder Road 2329 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kelly Morlock Chad J. Gniffke Douglas & S. Hipskind
2325 Boulder Road 2321 Boulder Road 2317 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hans Hagen Homes &
Merle & Jane Volk Gregory K. Ziton Don & Ann Esping
Suite 300 2334 Boulder Road 2330 Boulder Road
941 Hillwind Rd. NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fridley, MN 55432
Thomas & Lisa McKenzie Jeffrey & Karla Althoff James & J. Larranaga
2322 Boulder Road 2326 Boulder Road 2318 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & Cathy Borgman Scott & A. Weldon Lisa Kilpatrick
2308 Boulder Road 2292 Boulder Road 2360 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & L. Sullivan Peter & M. Cunningham Stephen & N. Dragos
2346 Stone Creek Drive 2332 Stone Creek Drive 2318 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & M. Nason John Moran Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
2361 Stone Creek Drive 2150 Boulder Road 2765 Casco Point Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391
Mark & C. Fisher Rodney & Janice Melton New Creations Ind. Inc.
2407 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
2441 Bridle Creek Trail 2451 Bridle Creek Trail 2461 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
V & Nina Wallestad
France Ave. S., #1001
Edina, MN 55435
1
Edwin Susi
L Bridle Creek Trail
assen, MN 55317
1 frey Palm
01 Boulder Road
anhassen, MN 55317
U s Engineering Co.
4201 Norex Dr.
I aska, MN 55318
e Nordick Group, Inc.
1 12th Ave. N.
West Fargo, ND 58078
en Pauls & Teri Pauls
mily Limited Partnership
41 Zumbra Circle
celsior, MN 55331
11
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
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 (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.
All interested parties are encouraged to attend this meeting.
Craig and Gary Scherber
Scherber Brothers Partnership
CITY OF
h
I
I 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 rise, 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 blatarptly contrary to Chanhassen's wise
' environmentai irack record.
• 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 surrorninding neighborhoods of executive -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 away 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,
Craig V. Wallestad
Nina F. .Wall stad
Planning Commission
' City Hall Council Chambers
694 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN
Re: Southern Oaks Project located at 8470 Galpin Blvd.
Attn.: 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
1 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 th W July 19 council
meeting.
u
L
& %z - -��o
NOTICE!!! NOTICE M 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!!!!!!!M
THANK YOU
I .:
' 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
C
J
12 MO STRIFT
Location: 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the LOC
northwest corner of Galpin
Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.) � i
ATION
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.
1
C
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1�
1�
1
1
1
I
Nip I
ms
co
: ,O l: I :or
E;Mmm
m
MW . p
m
'Am=
C' ,
I
M
CA
5
m
z
r
m
m
m
CD
m
0
z
�o
m
.00 i.
Ii r
O
1 . I A. m
m o
gill 41
oi
m u CO)
OM z
r IF m
N5 mm
:1u r4
co I
CO
2
ri
a
Cl)
--I
m
r
0
0
m
ic
0
m
(1)
m
;A
0
z
m
m
01
1 . I A. m
m o
gill 41
oi
m u CO)
OM z
r IF m
N5 mm
:1u r4
co I
CO
2
ri
a
Cl)
--I
m
r
0
0
m
ic
0
m
(1)
m
;A
0
z
m
m
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
4. The applicant shall designate the remainder of Lot 3, Block 1, Sunridge Addition as
' Outlot A.
5. The applicant shall designate this subdivision Sun Ridge 3rd Addition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING FROM A2�
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 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 WETLANDS ON -SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8470 GALPIN,
BLVD. (THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND LYMAN BLVD.),
SOUTHERN OAKS, SCHERBER PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.,
I Public Present:
1 18
Name
Address
MN
Craig Scherber
11415 Valley Drive, Rogers,
Dennis & Carol Medo
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
'
Craig & Nina Wallestad
2475 Bridle Creek Trail (Own Lot)
Residing at:
6566 France Ave. So, 91001, Edina
Arvey & Marlene Eeg
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
'
Greg Bradbury
2207 Boulder Road
Gary Feldick
2231 Boulder Road
Bob Finn
2108 Boulder Road
'
Bill & Angela Lawrence
2122 Boulder Road
Jeff & Cynthia Olson
2520 Bridle Creek Trail
John P. Fisher
Lee
8470 Galpin Blvd.
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
Dona
Scott & Michele Welsh
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
Al Beaty
2193 Stone Creek Trail
'
Bob & Jo /Ann Schwartz
2507 Bridle Creek Trail
Steven & Nancy Cavanaugh
2441 Bridle Creek Trail
Tom Loueks
8735 Goldenrod Lane, No, Maple Grove
'
Peter Coyle
7900 Xerxes Avenue So, Mpls.
1 18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Gary Scherber
John Bereett
Mary & Mike Minear
Jim & Kathryn Liddell
Rene Schroeder
Kelly Morloyl
Ron Lindberg
Rodney & Janice Melton
Kris Barnes
Susan Marshak
Harry Marshall
Andy Kindler
Jeff J.
Chris Hartwiegson
Kent & Melinda Hollrah
Box 181, Rogers, MN
256 Washburn Avenue No, Mpls
2421 Bridle Creek Trail
2550 Bridle Creek Trail
2337 Boulder Road
2325 Boulder Road
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
2338 Boulder Road
2527 Bridle Creek Trail
2427 Bridle Creek Trail
2198 Boulder Road
2151 Bridle Creek Trail
2140 Stone Creek Drive
2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Bob Generous presented the staff wpoit on this item.
Mancino: Thank you Bob. Any questions for staff at this time? Bob, I have one. Or
probably two. Just west of this property is Chaska's city line.
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: And that's industrial right now?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: Industrial /commercial. Just west of Trotters Ridge. The old Carlson property.
That is also Chaska.
Generous: And industrial.
Mancino: And industrial. The entire length of that border?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. And Galpin is going south of TH 5 from Lyman to, Highway 5 is now
going to be 4 lane?
Generous: Eventually.
19
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: Is that correct?
Hempel: A portion of it this summer. The remaining will be done either late this year or in
'96, depending on the County.
Mancino: Okay. But there are no, right now Lyman is 2 lane and are there any future to go
4 lane in that, Lyman?
Hempel: I'm not aware of any current plans within the next two years of upgrading that
portion but I'm sure it's on the County's comprehensive plan to upgrade that in the near future
as well.
' Mancino: At some point. And the comprehensive plan is for industrial or commercial. What
can go in there? Industrial /commercial.
Generous: A corporate center. Light industries. Manufacturing. Warehousing. The
preference in the community has been for a corporate center. We actually were trying to push
a nursery business that wanted to relocate out into Chanhassen to this site.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to approach the
Planning Commission please.
I
J
Peter Coyle: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Peter
Coyle. I'm an attorney with the Larkin - Hoffman law firm in Bloomington. I'm here tonight
on behalf of your applicant, the Scherber Brothers Partnership and the two individual brothers,
Gary and Craig Scherber are here with me this evening. I'm also accompanied by the planner
and engineer for the project, Loueks and Associates, Mr. Tom Loueks and John Berg,
principles of that firm are here as well to answer questions. John Fisher who is the property
owner as well this evening. We'll try to be pretty concise in our presentation. I think staff
has accurately and fairly described the project to you this evening. I think it's fair to say the
issue is about the land use designation. If we get the land use designation issue resolved, the
balance of the staff report is actually quite favorable to the project. There are some minor
issues that they have raised but it's fair to say that we feel confident that we can work those
out with the staff between the Planning Commission and City Council meeting, presuming we
can satisfy any concerns you might have about the development of the property for
residential. Low density residential. Just quickly to reiterate a couple of background issues
for you. The property, as you know, is seeking to be re- guided. Rezoned. There's an
application for a wetland alteration permit, and also a subdivision application before you. The
property in description has 37 acres of developable property out of a larger portion of about
49 acres of land. The proposal is for 59 low density, single family detached housing units,
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
and it will include, as required by your City Code, a 25% minimum canopy coverage pursuant
to your tree preservation and enhancement ordinance. The project takes careful account of
the existing wetlands on the property and to a very minor extent I would say, proposes some
filling of wetlands but there is substantial mitigation provided in the plan according to the
Wetland Conservation Act and the project is in compliance with the Wetland Conservation
Act in that respect. Staff has indicated that the property is directly adjacent to Trotter's Ridge
to the north and Stone Creek, which is to the east and the Chaska Industrial Park. At this
time what I'd like to do is ask Tom Loueks to forward and just briefly walk you through the
site plan. Depending if there are any technical questions you have regarding the layout and
then I'll address a couple of other broader issues that we'd like to ... thank you.
Tom Loueks: I'm glad Mr. Coyle forewarned me I was going to say something. I'm Tom
Loueks. I'm the principal planner with Loueks and Associates and as Mr. Coyle has
described the property. What we're proposing here is an alternative land use for this
particular residential neighborhood. It's 59 single family residential lots. The net density is
approximately 1.27 units per acre. The net, that's the gross density. The net density is about
1.82. A rather low density development. Our basic approach for this residential use is to
minimize the impact and the effects on the natural environment on this site. We are
proposing for example a minimal amount of grading for this residential site because of the
existence of the large, mature trees on the property. Typically on a single family subdivision,
as you may have witnessed in Chanhassen, and other communities around you, the developer
comes in. We do a mass grading plan on the property. Set the building house pads and put
in an inch and a half FHA tree and up springs a nice single family residential development.
We are going to minimize all of those grading problems. We are not going to do any mass
grading on this site. The type of grading we will do will be just sufficient enough to create
some additional drainage patterns on the site. Put the roadways in. We are not going to pre -
grade the building pads on these sites, and each individual home will be somewhat custom
fitted to each site so that we do not have to remove a lot of material in terms of soils as well
as vegetation. The issue has come up in regards to, in the staff report in regards to the
wetland issues. There is less than 10,000 square feet of wetland that is going to be filled on
this approximately 40 acre site. And maybe you should point out where that is. If I can't
John, you will, won't you? This is a major area where we're suggesting some wetland filling.
Our mitigation plan however is we're going to replace that 10,000 square feet with 30,000
square feet of mitigated wetland or additional wetland is going to be added to the property...
Some of the previous staff reports we were able to evaluate... required by ponding and creating
ponding areas and wildlife habitat areas... Our intention here is to create a community, a
single family residential community... existing development... in the city of Chanhassen... We do
recognizing it now there is an industrial park to the west in the city of Chaska. We think, or
I believe that that not ought to dictate development here in the city of Chanhassen. And
particularly when you have a relatively fragile piece such as this. A 40 feet difference in
21
1
n Meeting - Jul 19
Planning Commissio g y , 1995
elevation on this property from east to west. There's heavily wooded tract of land. We're
going to replace, or we're going to provide 258 more trees beyond what's in the report, or
exists on the site. As part of our planning process, I probably should mention. I've been in
the planning business for 25 years... about 2 nights a week I sit on your side of the table and
advise a Planning Commission and City Council what to do. When we initially looked at this
site, and it's fair to say that our clients had thought it might be a good industrial site. But
when they saw what was available there as a residential development, their objective was not
to destroy the site. So we went through, we did go through a process where upon we created
an industrial park and you don't want to see the results because it's very difficult to put office
' industrial park buildings on a site like this without flattening it. Without removing a great
deal of vegetation. We think this is a reasonable alternative for the property and we think
that, we also believe that in the spirit of the city of Chanhassen we're building in some
' protection to the existing neighborhoods in the area. If you should have some technical
questions or just general questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Coyle, I'm
sure will be happy to answer any questions, and our client as well...
Mancino: Thank you very much.
' Peter Coyle: Madam Chair and Commission members. I've got a few other points that I'll
make relative to the comprehensive plan issues that staff has raised with you and I will,
where possible, I'll try to provide you with quotations on the comp plan that supports the
' application of the Scherber Brothers Partnership. First of all it's worth noting that from a
zoning history standpoint, the City Council in the last 12 years has twice denied application
to rezone this property for industrial use. And so at least we have that little bit of track
' record to indicate that the City Council has, on previous occasions not been inclined to pursue
industrial development and a zoning change. The comprehensive plan in it's policy statement
recognizes that planned growth can and should be designed to minimize, and I'm quoting
' here, environmental neighborhood and traffic impacts. We think that this neighborhood
property will clearly satisfy that policy and an industrial development will not satisfy our
policy. The plan further states, and I'm quoting again, the more incompatible the neighboring
uses, the more important that transition zone. What staff is recommending, as I understand
their argument, is that the city will be better off by bringing in other industrial development
smack up against two existing residential districts as opposed to developing a new residential
' district to buffer the existing industrial district that's in place in Chaska. And again we don't
think that that is consistent with your comprehensive plan policies. The comprehensive plan
goes on to state that the city should avoid running high traffic volumes and /or non - residential
' traffic through residential neighborhoods, and I'm again quoting from the plan. The plan
provides that the city should provide adequate land for protective housing growth. The plan
' states that some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features are the areas of extensive
tree coverage. Again, a direct quote from... Trees are important ... of the city's image and
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
should be preserved where feasible. Clearly this plan is designed from the get go with an
objective not only of preserving the tree stand that's there, but by virtue of your very best tree
ordinance, Scherber Brothers will be required to add several hundred trees to the site in order
to bring it up to the 25% minimum tree coverage required by code. The plan states that
single family detached housing will continue to be the dominant planning use and housing
type... proposal. The comp plan favors preservation. I'm quoting, that development be
consistent with the preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic
amenities. I'm quoting again. If Chanhassen's present residential growth rate continues, the
supply of vacant land within the MUSA will be exhausted by the end of 1993. In the
industrial policy statement, the comprehensive plan does recognize the property as a potential
source of industrial development and the fundamental basis for the conclusion that this is
good property for that, is that it's not being currently used for residential or agricultural
purposes. It doesn't go forward and demonstrate how this property provides an essential link-
up with the city's industrial corridor that's developing along Highway 5, which makes good
sense given the high traffic volumes on that property further to the north and further to the
east. And more importantly, in staffs report, there really isn't a discussion at all of the impact
of bringing an industrial development project up against the existing residential projects that
are in place. It's far simpler, as you all know, to convince a neighborhood, a residential
neighborhood that more residential neighbors on a well designed project is in their best
interest as opposed to trying to bring in an industrial project up against residential. That's a
little tough to sell. Staff has talked about permitted industrial uses on the property. I would
note that warehouses are permitted. Body shops are permitted and light manufacturing is
permitted as a permitted use. A conditional use on the property would be motor trade
terminals, contractors yards, outdoor storage and mineral excavation. Staff has cited, and is
relying on an article that was published by PAS, and I want to make note of a couple of
comments that are reflected in that article where the authors themselves acknowledge the
deficiencies of the study that lays out the land use ratios. The article notes that all of the
cities surveyed provide different land use categories and that it is very difficult for the authors
to try to reconcile their various land uses in a coherent formula. The article notes that they
had a very difficult time manipulating the data, their word, and that that weakens the results.
The authors of the article went on to note that they had a difficult time interpreting the data
because of the different land use standards. And the authors concluded that the survey
basically ignored land uses that are either vacant, agricultural or not improved at the present
time. So we don't know what chunks of land may have been left out of those studies and
what those affects would have been on the land use ratios. But the most compelling point I
think about the article itself is even the authors don't try to lay out any precise formula or
even a recommended formula where the mix of land between residential, commercial and
industrial. They'd rather just cite a survey of roughly 25 communities and state what their
formulas are, as best they can be determined. I'd like to talk for just a minute about the tree
preservation ordinance that the city has in it's codes, which is as I say, quite aggressive and
23
I
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
one which we intend to comply with. The policy states, or the code states, it's the policy of
the city to preserve natural woodland areas, is what this development proposes. If this project
develops as low density residential, the developer must satisfy a 25% canopy coverage plan.
On the other hand, it says the property, if as staff recommends the property is developed for
industrial purposes, the canopy coverage is only 10 %. So it really is somewhat difficult to
understand how industrial development in this property would be more protective of this site
than the project proposed by the Scherber Brothers Partnership. Having said that, it is
sincerely our intent to work with staff. If there are deficiencies in the site design that we've
submitted to you this evening, we are prepared to sit down with them to work out those
deficiencies. They've probably got some good ideas and we maybe haven't listened too
carefully enough, but we certainly will work with them to correct those deficiencies. We
think that it's quite clear from the site plan to your ordinances to your comprehensive plan,
that a residential development on this property is a preferred use of this land. Staff has
identified a potential economic impact to the property but it's fair to say that the variables that
are essential to determining return on investment are market demand, the type of development
you actually get on the property and what kind of investments the city may be required to
make in order to allow that industrial development to occur. What we know for sure is that
there's a developer who's prepared to pay fair market value to develop this property for a
market that that developer believes to be present right now. What we don't have any idea of
is whether industrial development of this property will occur in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, or
maybe 20 years. That's why we ask you to consider that as well. At this point we would ask
for the support of the Planning Commission and ask you to adopt a resolution in support of
the, both the comprehensive plan, rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit
applications that have been submitted and forward this to the City Council with a favorable
recommendation of approval. We'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Coyle? No questions at this time. Thank you. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak, Mr. Coyle, from your team?
Peter Coyle: Not from our team at this time.
Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing please?
Comnd moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor- and the
motion clnied. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this
issue? Please come up, one at a time. State your name and your address and we're here to
listen. Thank you.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Greg Bradbury: Madam Chairman, Council. Greg Bradbury. I reside at 2207 Boulder Road,
which is in the single family subdivision just east of the proposed project. I think the issue
here, from when I sit and listen, becomes more of an issue of economics than it is an issue of
what is right for the community and what is right for the residents of the community. I think
a couple of things that are being overlooked here, and some things that I should really
compliment the Planning Commission on is the wonderful work that they have done with
changing the city and upholding such high standards for all the retailers and for the home
developers in the area. But I think we owe it to the people in Chanhassen and also the
retailers that have come into this area to help them survive and do well. And I think by
bringing in residential residents who will support our existing retail and keep it strong and
healthy, is something that wasn't brought up and I think it could be an issue. The other thing
I think if you were to walk from my neighborhood and talk to people, they would be greatly
opposed to an industrial site. I think another issue is also we are building a school on TH 5
and Galpin Lake Road there too and I think the increase in traffic, as the attorney had
mentioned, would certainly not be something, with my wife, myself and our new daughter
would recommend or condone. With that being said, I sincerely hope that the committee
rules in favor of the developer to put in 59 new beautiful homes rather than 6 or 5 ugly big
buildings. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Please come up.
Mike Minear: My name is Mike Minear. I live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail. I'd like to point
out my back yard adjoins this property. I would like to strongly disagree with one thing that
the staff brought up that there's nothing unique about this property. I think what is clearly
unique is the closeness of the new school that we're investing a lot of money in, and the deep
concern we have that the traffic on Galpin Road would be increased dramatically with the
potential commercial business. That we don't know what that would be. I feel as a very new
resident to Chanhassen, we moved here about 4 months ago from Cincinnati and we chose
Chanhassen for the beauty and the nice things we find here and I think we'll feel very
betrayed if you put a commercial property literally at the back ... to my home. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Al Beaty: Madam Chairman and members. My name is Al Beaty. I live at 2193 Stone
Creek and that is the single family residential development directly east of this proposed
development. I'm proud to say and happy to say that I'm almost a 3 month resident of
Chanhassen. Happy to be here and I have an 8 year daughter and 5 year old son that live
with me and we are concerned about the industrial or office nature of development on that
site that's in question. We would be concerned about the nature and the amount of
commercial traffic that may be generated. We would be concerned about the nature and the
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
amount of the industrial uses that we would make to that property. Some of the uses that
' have been mentioned here tonight, relatively benign. A nursery doesn't seem like an
obnoxious industrial use, but there are other uses that seem to be incompatible with being
adjacent to the single family developments to the north and the east. I would also be
' concerned about the safety of my children and the other children that will be attending the
new school at the corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. And I thought the improvements of the
Galpin Boulevard to 4 lanes was due to the school to handle the increase bus traffic. I wasn't
aware that it had been designated a collector and would be subject to commercial traffic. I
think that the development pattern that seems to have merged in the past couple years may be
somewhat different than it was originally envisioned under the plan that was put into effect in
' 1991. I would request that you consider that when you make your decision tonight. I think
the marketplace is changing here. I think Chanhassen is a very desirable place for people to
live and I think single family dwellings are going to become very important for Chanhassen,
' as I'm sure you know. I would strongly prefer not to have an office industrial development
located in this area. And I hope that you would approve two of the items that are requested
' tonight. The comprehensive plan, land use map amendment from office industrial to
residential low density and the rezoning to single family resident. I would strongly support
those two. The other issues that are here, I'm not that well educated on and I think that is
between the staff and the developer to work those two out. Or work those other issues out.
Thank you very much for listening and appreciate the opportunity.
I Mancino: Thank you.
Jim Liddell: Good evening. I'm Jim Liddell at, I live in the Trotters Ridge development on
Bridle Creek Trail and my concerns are the same. My house does not back up or is adjacent
to the proposed property. I actually face Galpin Avenue or Galpin Boulevard, and the traffic
is a major concern of mine. The industrial traffic that is going back and forth from the
' school construction zone and from that nursery. I don't know the name of it but it would be
south of this one, and their harvest season the delivery trucks are going through there actually
about 70 mph and I think my concern, besides the speeding vehicles, with service and light
industrial, is we are building a school, as you've heard and the traffic in that area is especially
heavy at the same hours that our school is functioning. There's a number of companies there
in that Chaska development region that are working three shifts a day so the change out is at
' 7:00 and at 3:00 so the heavy traffic patterns there is 7:00 to 8:00 and then from 3:00 to 4:00.
That would be like Flouroware and FSI and some of the bigger companies in that northern
Chaska region. So I would encourage you to consider the current traffic patterns as being too
' heavy as they are and by putting in more industrial traffic in that area, to burden that area
would not be right for the community. Would not be right for the investment that
Chanhassen's making for the school and would not be right for us homeowners that are
' already in there. Thank you.
C
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Trotters Ridge Resident: My name's... Bridle Creek Trail. I live just, I have the wetland just
on the back side of the ... are here also. I'm a mother of three. I'm home all day and in
Trotters Ridge there's probably at least 10 mothers at home all day. There's a lot of children
in that area. I'm concerned just about the industrial already. It's all night there's great big
clanging all during the whole night. I've got a lot of wildlife in my back yard. I've got wild
turkeys that are there all day ... there's geese and ducks and the cattle are wonderful. We'll lose
those but, we lived 6 years in Bloomington and we moved from Bloomington to Chanhassen
because of the quietness. Because of the country kind of thing there and we'd just really like
to have that stay there.
Mancino: And where are you hearing the noise at night, all night from?
Trotters Ridge Resident: Which building I'm not sure but it's one of those big ones back
there. Clanging all night...
Mancino: Oh existing in Chaska, okay.
Trotters Ridge Resident: Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you very much.
Rodney Melton: Hi. I'm Rodney Melton. I also live in Trotters Ridge and you've met most
of my neighbors. ...talked about. Jan, Stefan and I, as you most have probably heard Stefan,
have been living here since November of last year. We moved here from Houston, Texas.
And I must say, we really love this area. We looked up in Plymouth. Spent a lot of time in
that area. Decided on Chanhassen. Basically because of the subdivisions. As you know
there's a lot of industrial activity in the Plymouth area. We were out the 4th of July. Very
proud of the fireworks. You know a lot of great things going on in Chanhassen area. We do
not want to have an industrial complex in our back yard. I invite all of you to come over and
spend some time on our deck and look out. Have you seen this property that we're talking
about? It's really beautiful property. There's a lot of property just south of Lyman that's, I
understand it's already zoned for industrial development. There's also an additional 95 acres
just to the east of Galpin that's designated for industrial development. We need to have a
residential community behind us. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Scott Welsh: My name is Scott Welsh and I live at 2461 Bridle Creek and I'd just like to
' say, I agree with all my neighbors that are speaking tonight. But I want to add another twist.
I work for a commercial developer, Welsh Companies and I can't imagine that a developer
' would take this parcel serious in the near future when there's a lot of other land in
Chanhassen off of Highway 5 and Chaska. This land has a lot of tree replacement and water
replacement. Water shedding. Leveling and taking away a lot of the characteristics of the
' land that's already there. I'd just like to give my commercial real estate opinion and I think if
the city is planning on this as a tax basis, you're not going to see a commercial developer take
this site serious in the near future. There's a lot of other property that they'll probably take
' more serious and consider first before viewing this property as something that is developable.
Thanks.
I Mancino: Thank you.
Steven Cavanaugh: My name is Steven Cavanaugh and again, you've met all my neighbors.
' I live 2441 Bridle Creek Trail. Again, I'm one of these, yeah over here. Lot 6. My
perspective is, I own a business in Golden Valley and it probably fits into two categories
what the gentleman is talking about. When he talks about light industrial warehouse and
manufacturing. I own a packaging company, 40,000 square feet. So my understanding is the
company that I own in Golden Valley would be actively welcome in Chanhassen. I can tell
you about the traffic that comes to my building. I probably get 20 semi's a day and
' enumerable smaller trucks. I don't think with a school half a mile down Galpin Boulevard
that the children, all these people have children. I don't have children but all these people
here have children. Most of them do. There are children are all over. There are children at
' Stone Creek. I can't imagine these children walking down their streets with the amount of
traffic I, in 40,000 square feet, generate. I just can't imagine that in all these beautiful
subdivisions, that a development of light industrial manufacturing warehousing would even be
' considered. And again I want to reiterate what everyone else said here. That we are looking
at a gorgeous park right outside of our back. This is pasture land that I thought I had to go
to Ireland to see, but I'm seeing it outside my back window. And then I understand, I hear
' this remark about adequate buffering and I don't know what that means. I don't know what
that means. Are we going to put mountains or, I don't know what buffering means. Maybe
somebody can explain what buffering means in a plain language sometime but I have no idea
' what it means but I cannot believe that it would be buffered so well that the traffic would be
altered away from the neighborhood or that no one would be impacted... back yard. That's
' really all I have to say. I hope you vote this down. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you.
I I
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Jeff Olson: Good evening. My name is Jeff Olson. I'm here with my wife Cynthia. We're
also on the Trotters Ridge team and recently moved out there to a new house. One point that
I'd like to make, I've got a couple. One is, there are a few head shakes and a few chuckles
when someone mentioned something about the expansion of the Galpin Boulevard. Before
we bought our lot we contacted the city staff and were told at that time, probably 6 -7 months
ago, that there were no plans to expand that other than some turning lanes and the signal at
TH 5. So this has been quite a revelation to me in the last week to find out what's going on.
And there's a learning curve and I'm quickly getting up to speed here. Quite frankly it's kind
of upsetting to me. I just made a big investment out there and it probably shows. I
personally fail to see the bevy of benefits that have been eluded to here by putting some
industrial development in there. We've already got development, industrial behind us to the
west. We'll gladly share some of those benefits with some other neighborhoods in the
community. They can have those benefits. We'll share them. We've already got our's. The
other, I wrote down several things. A lot of them were covered by Mr. Coyle in his
presentation. What I'd like to see is you recommend residential development here and what
I'd like to see is that to go forward. There might be some things that I would like to see done
differently here but I think the developers are willing to work with the staff and what I'd like
to see is that go forward and have them work together if both sides realize it's a two way
street and there's no ego problems or battles that develop just because someone didn't get their
way and have industrial development there. I think this thing can work out beautifully if the
people work and see it as a two way street and develop this and save all these trees, which
you know, we had our problems with the tree ordinance when we started building our's.
That's one of the things we came out here for, was the treed areas. The residential. The
feeling of community and I think we lose that if we go the other way on this. Thank you.
Dennis Medo: Hi. My name is Dennis Medo and I'm also part of Trotters Ridge. I'm 2420,
which looks across a couple people ... into the field. A couple things. I've, because of my job,
been transferred several times. This is my third time here in Minnesota. First time lived in
Bloomington. Second time Burnsville. This time Chanhassen. The reason I picked
Chanhassen is, (a) it was a tough job convincing my wife to go out this far. Keep in mind
far. It's not far but to get the feel that you're out away from everything as opposed to being
in industrial. I was born and raised in Chicago. Last move was out of Chicago suburbs. I
would hope to god that this planning commission does a whole lot better job of what many of
the suburbs in Chicago have done. Light industrial, whatever you want to call it, does not fit
well in residential. And if you think it does, then you should move here. Live here in that
approved area. It's not going to work. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
WE
Planning ommission Meeting - Jul 19, 1995
g g Y
Mark Christian: My name is Mark Christian. These are all neighbors of mine too. We back
way up to the proposed development. One of the reasons we did move out to Chanhassen
was because of the trees. We saw our lot in September and there are gorgeous oak trees out
there. Like 20 inches around ... that are just beautiful during the fall time. That was one of
the main reasons why I moved to Chanhassen. I was out here all year and ... as well as the
neighbors, is the traffic flow. There already is quite a bit of traffic on Galpin and with an
' industrial park, it would be even more. Those are our concerns. But it is just gorgeous out
there and we would hate to have those trees destroyed. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you.
Nina Wallestad: Good evening. I'm Nina Wallestad. My husband and I own a lot on 2475
Bridle Creek Trail and I would guess that the only comment that is left to be made is our
concern over the effects of an industrial office complex on the values of our homes and we
know that this would have a very great impact on the value and future resale of our homes,
which indeed would affect the city's revenue, tax wise and otherwise. The city has approved
neighborhoods and executive homes on two of the three borders of this property and I would
just remind you that you only have control over three of them. The fourth is definitely a
Chaska border and it seems inconsistent now to approve industrial zoning on the remaining
border over which you have control. So again we'd just ask that you truly consider this
matter very closely and consider the impacts upon residents in your community. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission?
Jeff Finch: Hi. My name is Jeff Finch and I live at 2304 Stone Creek Drive. I'd just like to
say that I agree with most of what the people have said here in Trotters Ridge and Stone
Creek neighborhood about increased traffic problems... especially from people with children.
I'm also concerned about the noise. Increased noise issue with the approval of light
industrial. So I would like to reiterate what someone else said here that I would like you to
approve the rezoning at least and then work out the rest of the issues with the current
developer... Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Comnd moved, Fa►makes seconded to close the public heming. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Did we volunteer to do this? Appreciate everyone speaking tonight. Comments.
Ladd.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Conrad: I heard real valid comments from the neighbors. I think if I were there, if I lived in
that area, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I've been trying to say what kind of a speech
I'm going to make tonight because it might be more of a speech than reaction to what's in
front of me but, it will be a speech. I moved here 25 years ago. I did because it was natural.
And that's why most people come out here. It's getting full. It will be full in another 10
years so, regardless of what we think it should be, those fields are drying up and the cows are
going and it's a problem for those of us who have been around for a while. Probably the
reason I got on the Planning Commission. If it's going to go that way, which it does, then
you try to plan. And when you plan, you do what's called a comprehensive plan, which we
did. We probably spent, what year was it done Kate?
Aanenson: It was finished in '91. You spent a couple years.
Mancino: Two years.
Conrad: We spent years figuring it out. And it's going to be wrong no matter what. You
just can't figure some of the stuff out but I don't think anybody else up here has to take credit
for it or discredit for it but I was there when we did it and we made some pretty, every time
you have transitions, you make some compromises in here. You make some decisions. One
of the things you try to do is make sure there's enough space for what you've got planned for,
and I think when I moved out, I was happy to keep this all residential. Didn't need a
commercial building, retail. We'll go into the city so. That's kind of changed and I think
we're now a fairly substantial retail center, but you know we don't have any more retail land.
We're full. So what you see is what you're going to get. There's no more retail land right
now. Well, we can probably make that analogy in industrial commercial. Neighbors, I've
been on the commission for a while so probably have a little bit of background when people
come in and I try to, you know ... some volunteers up here trying to really be sensitive to the
community. Really sensitive, and we're probably overly so. People move out here. They
just don't want change and the problem is, they also don't want a tax increase. And when
we're here, we hear two things. Don't change my neighborhood and don't raise my taxes, and
everything else sort of comes later. So we kind of balance this. There was a reason for the
commercial industrial zoning here. It was that way. That doesn't mean we can't change it.
Staff has done a good job of analysis. You could pick holes at it and maybe have a different
point of view but really they did a, in my mind, a real nice job of analyzing this. It doesn't
mean it can't be residential but there's a lot of logic for keeping it where it is. Couple other
points and there's a lot of insecurity and again I'd probably be saying the same things you
said. If you look at our industrial commercial in Chanhassen, it's excellent. If you find a bad
industrial park, let me know. This is good stuff out here so whatever you hear from another
area, doesn't apply to Chan. If you're worried about buffering, we spent so much time. We
spend hours of our life, days of our life trying to figure out how to buffer things so whether it
31
0
J
IJ�
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
be, whatever. Buffering solves a whole lot of problems. We even have, we have a draft of a
buffer ordinance that may or may not pass so there's predictable solutions. Again, I don't
think I'm persuading you that you want to live next to industrial commercial but I think, I
want to just make sure you feel that the commission and City Council cares about those
things. Things do make transitions and we're concerned about that. We tend to be very
liberal here. If we see something that's sort of God, Motherhood and the Flag, we'll do it.
Residential is God, Motherhood and the Flag and you know, how can you be so, how can you
go against that? What starts to happen though, somebody has to really raise the tax issue.
Has to raise the revenue issue and if I don't see, if we eat this land up, you know I'm not a
genius on land like this but we really do have to know if we're going to put more industrial
commercial into. We're going to have to take it out of some other residential area if we kind
of want to balance the taxes. Now somebody can make a pretty good point that this doesn't
matter. That this is 50 -60 acres and geez, it's not going to develop for 10 years into
commercial but still. My point will be tonight, I have to know if we are losing that kind of
revenue tax wise. Second thing, I have to be persuaded that this is a benefit to Chanhassen
too. I zoned, I guided it for this. I felt kind of convinced, even though it's a fringe area, kind
of convinced that this was the right thing for that property. But for me to change it, I would
have to see something that Chanhassen is looking for that we need that, and it's not just
residential. It's something special in the residential area. I don't know that I see it here. I
think if the developer came in and presented me something and I said, wow. That's what
we've been looking for. We don't have concentrated houses or we don't have open spaces in
Chanhassen where we've sort of clustered some things and you know, staff did a nice job of
giving us those options. I don't see that here and there's nothing wrong with this. You know
this is, with some tweaks here and there, this is just fine but at this point in time, I'm sure to
everybody's chagrin, you know I'm not really ready to rezone it.
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: First of all, I'm happy to see everybody here tonight. I'll remind everybody that
there's an election year next year and for you newcomers to Chanhassen, this is probably your
first, I don't know if it's your first but if it's your first situation in a very fluid, growing
community, be involved and I encourage you not just to come in for this and things that are
built next to your house but become involved in commissions and volunteers in the
community relies on that heavily. Often we see a lot of people show up here in relationship
to development of a farm field next to their home and we never see them again and the city's
heavily dependent upon people coming in and volunteering for these situations. That's what
you see up here on the commission. We're people such as yourself. We're living in a suburb
here and neighborhoods, maybe adjacent next to you and we're dealing with issues of
planning that deal with a lot of different interests. As Ladd went over, we have taxation.
Many people that have lived here for years have seen their taxes go up 40 % -50% over a short
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
period of time. The city has grown 300% in a short period of time. Several people who
came up here tonight said that they just moved to the community. I'm reminded of a meeting
that we had a couple of meetings ago where the developer comes in and he sits down and he
says, the reason we want to build here is because they have all these beautiful trees and then
someone point out. Well, to move there, you're going to have to cut down all those beautiful
trees. He said, well that's a given in development and I was trying to resolve that in my
mind. There really isn't a resolution there. You simply have to work at saving what you can
and realize that the land's going to be developed. This land is going to be developed. What
concerns me is how it was developed prior to getting here. As you can see on a map where
Timberwood was a large lot development that took place to the north of that property, or to
the northeast. That development sort of got ahead of planning and I think it was, it has been
I guess you'd say, you can plant a flower somewhere. Pretty soon you've got a bunch of
other flowers around it. And I've always been concerned when the other developments that
you're living in now adjacent to Timberwood, I believe they came in and said, gee these
houses are too small. These lots are too small. This isn't what we thought would be here.
These subdivisions. We think everybody should be on 2 1/2 acres. That didn't happen. If all
your houses were on 2 1/2 acres, your houses would be maybe twice as expensive when you
bought them. Again, you're dealing with different interests. Different investments. You're
talking about an investment. That's a county road. It's not even in the city's jurisdiction to
widen it. The reason that they're widening these roads is because people are moving out here,
and they've got to. In case of some of the roads where I'm at, when a car's parked on the
side of the road, two opposing cars have to go into the other lane to get around. Things,
when they were developed and designed many years ago weren't always to an optimum.
They're constantly changing the rules here and that's part of city government. We change
them in relationship to the economy. People are moving out here. The tax base. Money that
comes in from the State and Federal government. We constantly have to be changing things,
and change is an issue. If you live in Chanhassen, it's like a daily thing. I've always been
concerned about the development surrounding Timberwood and it's a continuing problem. I
brought it up with Stone Creek and some of the other developments and the issues of any
development that goes around there. It shouldn't have been there. If you were looking at it
from strictly a planning issue. It should have never gotten there in the first place, but it's
there and the other developments alike are growing around it. What concerns me is that once,
if this becomes single family residence, it will continue. The lot next to it will want to be the
same thing. Let me finish. Let me finish.
Audience: ...have you even been there?
Farmakes: I've lived here for 15 years.
Mancino: Excuse me. No speaking while the commission is speaking.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Farmakes: Let me finish. What I'm trying to do is talk to you about the issues that we deal
' with here, not only your lot but we're setting precedence for other issues. Ladd was referring
to, if you give and take within a base. Tax base. You're setting precedence here. Every
' commission meeting that we have here, we're dealing with this. This is not just this
development. There's several developments on the other side of TH 5. It's the same issue.
So what I'm trying to deal with in one way here is to talk to you about the generalities of
' development, and I know that's not what you want to hear but there's a practicality that's
involved in this that we have to, one is legal. The other is that, in general politically a city
wants to service it's residents. And in general you get a room full of people in here that are
' concerned. They made investments into the city and they come forward and say, this is what
we would like to have adjacent to us. We'd rather have single family homes than industrial.
That's sounds fine and like Ladd, I'd say that in general, that's how I perceive Chanhassen.
' It's a bedroom community. On the other hand, we also deal with people who come in and
say, you just raised my taxes 30 %. Why? I can't live here anymore. I've got to move out.
I'm not sure that I'm not amenable to changing this, and I'll say why. I have never thought
that residential should have been there in the first place, and have voted against it in the past.
On the other developments. I think that the city has created it's own problem here in this
property, and the adjacent properties next to it. And I'm talking about over a period of
history that the city has dealt with this. We're compounding the problem I think by cornering
that area. I think that's what's left over. And I would refer back to the staffs issue of
compromise. I'm looking at some of the issues that they've listed in their report, and I would
consider that be looked at seriously. And I would support the argument that this use is
becoming, the planned use, is becoming less consistent based on the decisions the city has
made already in regards to the adjacent residential development. It's expanded and I think the
city has to come to terms with that. It's long term plan. And should consider looking at
some of the solutions and compromises that the staff has talked about.
' Mancino: As in clustering? As in?
Farmakes: Looking at alternate uses to the industrial and further going into what could go
adjacent to existing residential.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: As for this particular development, I'm not going to make a comment on that right
now. But I don't think that that's where it's at, what has come before us.
Mancino: So would you support at this time the rezoning? Into single family. Or would you
rather wait and see something.
1 34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Farmakes: I would rather wait until I saw what that compromise situation is going to be.
Mancino: Thank you. Craig.
Peterson: I see a certain amount of irony, having been recently sitting in your side of table
and I was on the part of a corporation, fighting for a rezoning in Eden Prairie that was going
from commercial to residential on both sides of our corporate building. And the residents
ironically were against residential going up against them. They preferred having commercial
next to them. I think corporate offices for a lot of reasons. Number one, being that the times
that they were at home, the offices were generally vacant and so there was cross trafficking.
They were addressing the tax base in Eden Prairie being high. So I empathize. I have been
where you're at today recently and I'm struggling with balancing that right now in Chanhassen
as we deal with this development. I also concur with Ladd that the tax base is a serious
issue. That I personally heard of people having to move out of Chanhassen because of the
high taxes and going up and up and that has to be addressed and it has to be addressed by us
and by yourselves. I think that I personally would like to see something more unique. That
was the key thing that Ladd said earlier is that what we have here is somewhat of a normal
subdivision that doesn't create anything that is atypical to the rest of the developments in
Chanhassen. So I think right now, until I would see something that is more creative, I
wouldn't support rezoning either.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Somebody made a comment regarding the, that the city planners, council has done a
pretty good job of developing retail areas. I think that we have to, I think the Council and
the Planning Commission here, staff and yourselves, as Jeff pointed to, all can make the most
of this property or satisfy the needs of the adjacent residents and the needs of the industrial
community to satisfy the tax base and provide employment and so forth. I just think that, and
I think staff offered some good alternatives that meet some of these needs. I think something
can be worked out here. I wouldn't favor rezoning at this point.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
Meyer: I have three conflicts of interest that I can count on this so I'm not going to make
any comments at this time. I won't be voting.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Well, I think I concur with the rest of the Planning Commission
We would like to see something, have the developer come back and not support rezoning.
Whether that be a mix of single family, larger lots to the north that abuts Trotters Ridge and
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
some industrial in the southern part, or a clustering development, etc. So that's what I would
' like to see come back before us. Any other comments or questions?
Conrad: Yeah. I think issues like this are interesting. I think as this goes up to City
' Council, I'd sure like to have staff be prepared to talk about replacement of industrial land. If
there is any. Where it would come from. I'd like to have staff give the City Council a
recommendation in terms of our need for industrial commercial. You know it sat, we've
' really sat for a while without a whole lot of development and, I'd just like to take a look at
that. As I talk about having enough space, I think it's real important that, you know this is
' not philosophy as much as it is in practice. We really haven't built much recently and so
what does that mean? Does that mean we're priced too high for, I guess I'd just like the
staffs analysis to be presented to the City Council along with whatever recommendation we
' make tonight.
Mancino: And I'd also like to add to Ladd's, and that would be, and I think the thing that we
' heard the most from the residents is, number one, traffic on Galpin and is there a way to limit
that more to Lyman and not Galpin. So that may be residential off Galpin. It may be
industrial off Lyman. And secondly, and boy can I identify with this lately, and that is noise.
' I mean you, how do we buffer noise? How do we buffer that third shift? And when you
hear those back -up, I can hear a quarter mile away the back -up on any truck or anything that
just pierces through the sky. I mean it's unbelievable so traffic and noise, I think is what I
' kept hearing tonight. Now the public hearing is closed. Do you wish to ask a question?
Tom Loueks: I would like to ask a question. I made a presentation.
' Mancino: Okay.
Y
' Tom Loueks: The sense of the Planning Commission is this should be developed for
industrial park purposes?
' Mancino: Well we have not voted so we.
' Tom Loueks: The sense of it.
Mancino: Yes.
Tom Loueks: And so what you would prefer to see us come back with then is an industrial
park plan for this property and I'm not certain, if I understand what the alternative proposals
have been brought forward in the staff report. One is half industrial and half residential. The
other recommendation or suggestion by staff was to do something unique and different. For
9M
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
example, create low and moderate income housing. Zero lot lines. Townhouse type
development mix. Is that what you're suggesting? That's my sense of it is that this, as an
alternative to industrial, your preference would be to meet the metropolitan or the regional
planning agency's goal of 10% low cost housing... under a PUD. And we can accomplish that.
Conrad: Madam Chair?
Mancino: Yes, Ladd will take that over.
Conrad: Yeah, we're not talking about building slums.
Tom Loueks: No, no. Absolutely not.
Conrad: I think what we're saying, or at least what I'm saying. I can't speak for, we haven't
voted yet so, I mean normally we don't enter into these conversations but basically you
haven't persuaded us yet. The residents would like to have single family. You haven't
persuaded us this is it. You're their chance to make this single family. You haven't sold us
on it.
Tom Loueks: I'm just speaking direction because we will have to make the determination of
to move forward with a negative recommendation to the City Council or to come back with
an option and I want to know what those options are.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do I have a motion?
Conrad: I'll make the motion. I'll give the neighbors my phone number. Do we have a
page?
Mancino: Page 18.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Okay, I'll make a recommendation the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the land use map amendment #95 -1, Rezoning #95 -2, and Preliminary
Plat #95 -4 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #95 -2 with, and I'm going to re -state what I
said earlier to staff. That's my motion but I also would like staff to present to the City
Council the issues on replacement land in Chanhassen for industrial commercial. The real
financial impact of taking this out of the industrial commercial zone, which is tough to do.
But again, just needing somebody more expert than myself to analyze this. And I'm going to
paraphrase, I'm going to put the rationale for my request right now is that the developer really
hasn't presented us with the type of plan that would allow us to seriously consider moving
this from the proposed zone, the proposed commercial industrial zone to residential.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: A second?
' Skubic: Second.
' Mancino: Any discussion on the motion?
Com -ad moved, Slcubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Land
' Use Map Amendment 995 -1, Rezoning 995 -2, Preliminary Plat 995 -4, and Wetland Altei2tion
Permit 995 -2. All voted in favor; except Meyei• who did not vote, and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 0.66 ACRE OF WETLAND BASINS NEAR
THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD (T116N, RWE2�
' SECTION 16. NE 1/4 NE 1/4). TWO SMALL WETLANDS AND A VERY SMALL PART
OF ONE LARGE WETLAND WILL BE FILLED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SOUTHERN HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE ROAD AND A MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THESE WETLAND IMPACTS WILL BE REPLACED AT A RATIO OF
2:1 WITH A WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT JUST SOUTHWEST OF LAKE
SUSAN (T116N, R23W, SECTION 23. NE 1/4 W 1/2). CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
L
Mancino: Thank you Kate. Any questions for staff? I do. Could you show the previous
map?
Aanenson: Sure.
Mancino: Now, the frontage road that goes from Galpin to TH 41 is.
Aanenson: This road right here. This is the property line. This is the area that we're
securing for the park. The Park Commission is working with Mrs. O'Shaughnessy in securing
this portion. And then we believe that when the Gateway West property develops, we'll also
get the additional property here. It will be approximately a 100 acre passive park so this road
will ultimately serve as access to that and there will be parking.
Mancino: A question for you. Is that's the only place along that entire roadway, all the way
from Galpin to TH 41 that we need to fill the wetland?
9
t
C �aAM
a V ` 'j
• f,�aYl G� c "7 y OF
vil
and L '"`a "' vr,Qw an i sl di4 sfpi`a
Dw✓ ►�,a� -SL 6ar,� -S �� �t f � r c�, r a rid �� i �- r,� na�n1 c-�- is Q
Wad
-c - hru -�-.�, L cm I�l vc.. Wt td h� V '
d P v �, vwu �f 1A. vt aF -1 . -hrus a �,vZs
ol
dAw 9 V-Z R4J
MA Vnt
A p rb pw �'
hn � l -�I.� 'f1`'(' �V✓ `'`'P Sl,�c�(i fIS�G�n�'i`Q( r �
�u� Sib L%tctn5 V L1, b ll fW • U'C �[ rw �.tr� 1
1
I
7
r_
Dave and Kim Sumners
233 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
�8AN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Re: Southern Oaks Development at Galpin and Lyman Boulevards
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sumners:
Thank you for your letter to the City Council of August 2, 1995. I will include this letter as part of
' the attachments for the project report.
The property currently is and has been guided for office /industrial use. The proposed developer of the
site, Scherber Brothers, is requesting a change to the existing land use. This property was never
planned for residential development. This land use guide was in place at the time that the Stone Creek
subdivision was brought forward to the City Council for approval.
L
r_
r
It has always been anticipated that Galpin and Lyman Boulevards, 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.
No matter what type of development that takes place on the site, some of the existing trees on the site
would need to be removed. The city does strive, through the development review process, to preserve
as much of the natural environment as possible. We believe that whether industrial or residential
development, we would be able to preserve significant areas of trees. Unless purchased by the city or
others who would hold the land for open space, trees will be removed as part of the development of
the site.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. If you have additional questions, please contact me at 937-
1900 extension 141.
Sincerely,
Robert Generous, AICP
Planner II
Wn
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,
� t 9L Pz'c-'
Jerry and Jan Crawfor
2079 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317