6. Autumn Ridgen
u
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSE
STAFF REPORT
Q
U
In
i�
PC DATE: 2/1/95 LLD
CC DATE: 2/27/95
CASE #: 93 -5 PUD
By: BG, DH, DD
PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 from
Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and preliminary plat creating 1 Block
with 47 lots, and two outlots and associated right -of -way for a residential low density development
consisting of 46 dwelling units consisting of 13 twin homes and 5 fourplex buildings, and site plan
review for the 5 four unit townhouses. The development is called Autumn Ridge.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (Coun���
APPLICANT: Good Value Homes, Inc. —
9445 East River Road NW rod
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
(612) 755 -9793 bb Now to co mmission
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate, A2
ACREAGE: gross: 89.59 net: 11.4 (less wetlands, right -of -way and outlots)
' DENSITY: 0.54 units/acre (gross); 3.99 units/acres (net)
ADJACENT ZONING
' AND LAND USE: N - A2, Highway 5 and Miniature Golf and Driving Range
S - PUD, Trotters Ridge and a wetland complex
E - A2, Elementary School Site, single - family homes, and Galpin
Boulevard
Q W - A2, vacant, proposed Opus Industrial -Office Park
' WATER AND SEWER: The applicant has petitioned the city for the extension of services.
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex (43.8 acres) with an upland
agricultural area that was farmed most of the last decade. There is a tree line along the property
limits. The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site drops off toward the
wetlands to the south.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential north of collector road and Low Density
' Residential south of collector road
a !,
IL
e ll
Q o Q o 0
CITY OF
HANHASSEN
BASE MAP
B/
AN HASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT.
Or%/#Crn JAN IR44
i
(C.R. 18)
YMAN 81Y0.
JZ
po i
8 A
~ 8700 -
u I S z,
U
8800-
8900 J o
�QQ �
N
900-
9200 -
9300—
9
LA 91
ji
,o
I PARK
N
I t
i
L _
9p�
apri
,1
i
(C.R. 18)
YMAN 81Y0.
JZ
po i
8 A
~ 8700 -
u I S z,
U
8800-
8900 J o
�QQ �
N
900-
9200 -
9300—
9
LA 91
ji
,o
I PARK
N
I t
i
L _
9p�
apri
' Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
' Update 2/21/95
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
A completed application was received on 12/20/94. The applicant is seeking conceptual and
' preliminary PUD approval at this time. Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 46
townhouses on the project located on the southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin
Boulevard. There are a total of 18 buildings proposed consisting of thirteen 2 -unit buildings
' and five 4 -unit buildings on a net area of 11.4 acres of upland. This property is currently
zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, but it is guided for Medium Density (4 -8 units /acre)
' Development and Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units /acre) Development. The applicant is proposing
a net density of 3.99 units per acre south of the collector road by averaging the density over
the upland areas shown as Block 1 (9.21 acres) and Open Space dedication (2.19 acres)
' located in the southwest corner of the property. While this density is within the density range
specified by the comprehensive plan, the PUD ordinance requires medium density land use to
permit this project. Section 20 -508 (a). Standards and guidelines for single - family attached or
' cluster -home PUDs states "Generally. Single - family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and
similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density
residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan." In order to permit the
' proposed development south of the collector road, a minor comprehensive plan amendment
from residential low density to residential medium density will be necessary to permit
attached single - family homes.
The total parcel is 89.59 acres. There is a wetland which is 43.8 acres through the center of
the site. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the extension of the
collector road that will eventually connect Audubon Road with Highway 41. This road is part
of the City Comprehensive Plan and the alignment was refined in the Highway 5 Corridor
Plan. The extension of the collector road must cross a portion of DNR protected Wetland 10-
' 210W. The collector road has been moved to the south to accommodate the school site east
of the project. The final alignment on the west end must be determined in conjunction with
the development of the Opus site. Based on the size of the development, the parcel being
' split by the collector road and the large wetland complex, it would be difficult to develop
single - family at this location and clustering of units is a reasonable alternative.
The design of this project appears to reflect many of the Hwy. 5 development standards.
Careful measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. The building
design includes the pitched roof elements, variation in facade treatments with dormers and
' window placement, variated building components, and the use of colorful and functional plant
materials. The applicant has provided the city with building materials, textures, roofing
treatment, and color schemes. It is their intent to provide uniform building colors throughout
the project consisting of grey siding, white fascia, and grey -black asphalt shingles. Staff is
concerned that the use of a uniform building color throughout the project violates the
' Highway 5 design standards prohibition against monotony of design. Staff is recommending
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 3
that at a minimum the applicant provide perspective home buyers with a palette of potential
colors to chose from. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as
tree preservation calculations, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, and
building materials and colors.
Staff is recommending that this item be approved subject to the conditions outlined in this
report. Additionally, a minor comprehensive plan amendment for the property south of the
proposed collector road changing the land use designation from Residential - Low Density to
Residential - Medium density will be required to bring the development in compliance with
Section 20 -508, standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs.
This amendment is necessary in order for the developer to transfer the residential densities
from the west side of the wetland to the uplands on the east side of the wetland and to allow
the attached single - family residential dwellings as proposed. Staff can support this proposed
amendment based on the development proposal submitted for Autumn Ridge, contingent on
the applicant agreeing to the transfer of the development rights from the western portion of
the site to the eastern uplands, and believes that this type of development provides an
excellent transition from the school site and single - family homes to the east and the proposed
industrial- office park to the west.
Staff supports the rezoning of the property south of the south Highway 5 collector road
known as Block 1 and open space dedication from A2 to PUD only. Until such time as
Outlot A and the remainder of Outlot B come in for development approval, A2 is the
appropriate zoning.
Site Characteristics
The site is currently agricultural and has corn growing on the upland areas. An abandoned
farm home and out buildings are located in the far northeast corner of the site. Shelter belt
plantings of large spruce and pines are found around the farm home and along the highway
with box elders, aspen and eastern cottonwood, black willow and American elm growing
within delineated wetlands and on some uncultivated areas.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.6 acres from A2 to PUD, Planned
Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request.
The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
n
�
1
L
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 4
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation
of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a
greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the
expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more
sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning
districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views.
Finding . The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex.
The wooded area in the southwest corner of the site will be dedicated as open space
and will largely be left intact. A Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation
Plan needs to be developed.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. Because of the wetland on the site and the collector street that bisects the
site, the property is split into two developable parcels. Because it is against city
ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be
difficult to develop this property as a traditional single - family subdivision. The
transfer of development rights and the clustering of housing units are a more efficient
and environmentally sensitive means of developing the site.
' 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
'
Finding. The property to the west of the subject site is being developed as a
business /industrial park. The site to the east is an elementary school. Timberwood
Estates is to the southeast of the proposed townhouses. While this is not the optimal
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 5
location for single - family housing, townhomes with their ability to be clustered and
develop internal amenities are an appropriate transitional use.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding The Comprehensive plan guides the area to the north of the frontage road
for medium density 4 - 8 units an acre. The location of the collector streets has been
modified since the adoption of the 2000 Land Use plan. This road has been shifted to
the south to accommodate the proposed elementary school. It appears that the
maximum buildable area for the entire site is around 32 acres after elimination of
wetlands and road ROW. This project encompasses approximately 12 acres of the
developable area. Staff would support the buildable portion of the site to be
designated medium density. The net density of the developable area south of the
collector road is at the upper limit of the residential - low density permitted densities.
While the net density south of the collector road would meet the comprehensive plan
requirements, Section 20 -508 of the code permits this type of development and transfer
of density only on lands designed as medium or high density residential uses.
Therefore, a minor comprehensive plan amendment will be necessary.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. The development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained
and enhanced as part of this development. A 2.2 acre area, located in the southwest
corner of the site, is being dedicated as open space for the plat. A passive park of
over 100 acres will be located on this site and the Gateway property to the west.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined. Staff believes
that these properties will be sold for market rates.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding nding The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground
elevations. The grades have been designed around the location of the proposed
frontage road and the wetland complex. Staff has made the applicant re- evaluate the
proposed grading plans to minimize site grading.
' 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as
' appropriate.
Finding . The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard. A collector street will tie
' this site with the property to the west and east. This collector street will include a
trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single - family neighborhoods.
' Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique
features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
' Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake,
' trees, topographical features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 46 townhouses on the project on the southwest
corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 18 buildings proposed
consisting of thirteen 2 -unit and five 4 -unit buildings on a net area of 12 acres. The
' townhouses are located around an internal private roadway system that is accessed via a south
Highway 5 collector road.
' The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district
and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards.
The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. The applicant has
provided the following impervious surface calculations: twin homes - 48,568 square feet,
' quads - 33,710 square feet, drives - 17,790 square feet, and streets, 38,282 square feet for a
total impervious surface of 138,350 square feet or 3.18 acres. The total upland area included
for this portion of the property is 11.4 acres. The impervious surface coverage is 28 percent.
' Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two enclosed parking stalls per
unit are required. An additional 1 parking space per four units for visitor parking must be
' provided. The applicant has driveway area that could be counted for visitor parking.
Autumn Ridge
g
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 6
' 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as
' appropriate.
Finding . The site will have access from Galpin Boulevard. A collector street will tie
' this site with the property to the west and east. This collector street will include a
trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single - family neighborhoods.
' Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique
features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
' Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake,
' trees, topographical features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
Good Value Homes, Inc. is proposing to build 46 townhouses on the project on the southwest
corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 18 buildings proposed
consisting of thirteen 2 -unit and five 4 -unit buildings on a net area of 12 acres. The
' townhouses are located around an internal private roadway system that is accessed via a south
Highway 5 collector road.
' The project has two sets of development standards to comply with, one is the PUD district
and the other is the Highway 5 Corridor Development and Design Standards.
The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. The applicant has
provided the following impervious surface calculations: twin homes - 48,568 square feet,
' quads - 33,710 square feet, drives - 17,790 square feet, and streets, 38,282 square feet for a
total impervious surface of 138,350 square feet or 3.18 acres. The total upland area included
for this portion of the property is 11.4 acres. The impervious surface coverage is 28 percent.
' Parking, as shown on the plan, meets the city requirements. Two enclosed parking stalls per
unit are required. An additional 1 parking space per four units for visitor parking must be
' provided. The applicant has driveway area that could be counted for visitor parking.
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 7
Because the applicant has mixed housing types, which the city encourages, it would not be
feasible or desirable to provide segregated parking areas for visitors, since individuals
adjacent to these parking areas may take a proprietary interest in parking located adjacent t
their homes. City code prohibits parking on the private street.
The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated
into the applicant's development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet.
This proposal is for two story buildings. Buildings shall incorporate pitched roofs, variations
in the rhythms of the building components and details including dormers and colonial
windows, the use of colorful and functional plant materials, variation in the mass of buildings
with 2- and 4 -unit buildings, and the provision of open spaces and sight lines. The applicant
has provided the city with details on building materials, textures, and colors. It is their intent
to provide uniform building colors throughout the project consisting of grey siding, white
fascia, and grey -black asphalt shingles. Staff is concerned that the use of a uniform building
color throughout the project violates the Highway 5 design standards prohibition against
monotony of design. Staff is recommending that at a minimum the applicant provide
perspective home buyers with a pallet of potential colors to chose from. Even if the choices
are between different shades of a color, the potential variation would, staff believes, meet the
intent of the district. Staff has asked for additional information on specific issues such as tree
preservation calculations, perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, and building
materials and colors. For the interior collector, the setbacks are 50 feet minimum and 100
feet maximum. Parking should not be in these setback areas. This proposal meets these
standards. There will be no roof top equipment.
Signage is proposed for the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and the proposed public frontage
road. Detail specifications are not available at this time, but the signage must be compatible
with the project design and low profile.
Lighting is proposed for the exterior of the building as well as the standard street lighting.
Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with
photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of lf6 foot candle at the property
line.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the developments
compliance with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that
may be adopted;
C
I
1 1
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 8
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by
minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping
with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or
developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural
site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship
to the development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features,
with special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent
and neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the
public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
arrangement and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan
(i.e. is within the permitted net land use density for residential - low density), the
subdivision ordinance, the Highway 5 design standards, the city's proposed road
system, and guideline for tree and wetland protection. Through cooperation with city
staff, the applicant has minimized the grading of the site subject to the limitation of
the required roadway alignment and elevation, maintaining access to the property to
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 9
the north, providing acceptable building sites, and developing an adequate stormwater
drainage system. The proposed development design creates a harmonious site layout
and provides a functional as well as aesthetic sense of order and community for the
neighborhood. The proposed landscaping exceeds city landscaping requirements
providing a reforestation of a previously cultivated area. The development is sensitive
to the large wetland complex within the entire property.
The city has adopted the Highway 5 Overlay District. The standards of the overlay district
include:
1. Parking and building orientation:
The building and parking setback needs to be 50 feet from the frontage road.
The site meets this standard.
2. Architectural Design Standards:
The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been
incorporated into the applicant's development proposal. Building height is
limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This proposal is for two story buildings.
Buildings shall incorporate pitched roofs, variations in the rhythms of the
building components and details including dormers and colonial windows, the
use of colorful and functional plant materials, variation in the mass of buildings
with 2- and 4 -unit buildings, and the provision of open spaces and sight lines.
The applicant has provided the city with details on building materials, textures,
and colors. It is their intent to provide uniform building colors throughout the
project consisting of grey siding, white fascia, and grey -black asphalt shingles.
Staff is concerned that the use of a uniform building color throughout the
project violates the Highway 5 design standards prohibition against monotony
of design. Staff is recommending that at a minimum the applicant provide
perspective home buyers with a pallet of potential colors to chose from. Even
if the choices are between different shades of a color, the potential variation
would, staff believes, meet the intent of the district. Staff has asked for
additional information on specific issues such as tree preservation calculations,
perspectives from Highway 5 toward the development, and building materials
and colors.
3. Landscape Design and Site Furnishing:
The landscaping plan provides 165 trees which exceeds the estimated
forestation/replacement planting requirements of 55 trees. There are 14
' Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
' Update 2/21/95
Page 10
different tree species included in the plant schedule. Staff believes that the
applicant has provided an excellent landscaping plan which complies with the
PUD and Highway 5 district ordinance including boulevard plantings, buffer
plantings along McGlynn Drive, and foundation plantings. The applicant has
worked with staff to minimize the site grading to the maximum extent feasible.
The site design also preserves and protects the wetland feature which
dominates the interior of the property.
WETLANDS
Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as wetland according to the wetland
' delineation. The wetlands on site can be broken into three separate basins that are described
as follows:
Wetland A - Wetland A is approximately 43.8 acres in size. This wetland has an ag/urban
classification by the City's Surface Water Management Plan. DNR established an ordinary
high water mark (OHW) of 931.2 for the drainageway south of this wetland in the interest of
' the development and the proposed frontage road. The drainageway and the wetland south of
Wetland A is DNR protected water 10 -210w. The western portion of this site shown as
upland may have additional wetland, however, at this time development is not proposed for
the site and the City is exploring the options of obtaining this area for park.
Wetland B - Wetland B is located near the west property boundary and is characterized as an
' ag/urban wetland. This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre may be impacted by the
proposed frontage road. Mitigation for this wetland will be investigated by the City when the
road project is implemented.
Wetland C - Wetland C is located in the northeast portion of the site and is characterized as
an ag/urban wetland. This basin, which is approximately 0.3 acre will not be impacted as a
I result of the development.
Buffer Strip - The buffer strip width for Wetland A is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average
' width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge
of the buffer strip. Since a park trail is incorporated along the wetland buffer, an additional 8
' feet outside the buffer area will be necessary for the trail. Therefore, the range of widths for
wetland and trail easement requirements is 8 to 28 feet with an overall average of 18 feet.
' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP will serve as
' a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance the City's water resources. The plan identifies the
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 11
stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow
future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In
general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus
reduction in priority water bodies.
The City requires storm water quantity calculations for pre and post developed conditions and
water quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat. After review of the
calculations, the City will make recommendations for approval of the stormwater plan in
accordance with the SWMP.
Water Ouality
The SWMP has established an connection charge for water quality systems. The cash
dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use
zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen
plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the applicant constructs the
pond or $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond if the City constructs the pond.
The water quality charge has been calculated at $871 /acre for a duplex and $1,530 /acre for a
townhome with 3 to 8 units. This includes the land cost estimate of $24,000 per acre for
single family lots and excavation fees at $2.50 per cubic yard. Therefore, the proposed
development of 9.2 acres would have a water quality charge of $8,013. Should the City be
petitioned to construct the ponds the excavation fees will be $4.00 per cubic yard. Fees are
reduced based on the costs of the developer's contribution to the SWMP design parameters.
Water Ouantity
The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an average,
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed
SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. The connection charge is based on the type of land use for the
area. Fees will be based on the total developable land. Undevelopable area (wetlands),
public parks, and existing development is exempt from the fees. The fees are negotiable
based on the developer's contribution to the SWMP design parameters.
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 12
Low density developments (duplexes) have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable
acre. The proposed development of 9.2 acres low would then be responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $18,216.
DRAINAGE
The site drains naturally toward the large wetland and will continue to do so after
development. One stormwater retention pond is proposed on the site. A large sediment and
nutrient trap is shown in the west central portion of the site. The ponds' side slopes should
be designed as either 4:1 overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet at the normal water level and 3:1
thereafter for safety purposes. The City requires the normal and high water levels associated
with the ponds and wetlands on the final grading plans. Storm sewers are proposed to convey
runoff from the lawns and streets to the City's future storm sewer along the frontage road
which will discharge into a retention pond. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's Pondnet methodology shall be
submitted to staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration.
GRADING
The plans propose to mass grade the site in order to accommodate placement of the multi-
, family type units. The existing topography shows an elevation change of approximately 32
feet from Galpin Boulevard to the wetland located approximately in the middle of the site.
The proposed grading plan maintains an elevation change of approximately 28 feet in this
' same area after development. The developer's engineer has revised the grades to be more
compatible with the existing grades, thus resulting in maintaining the existing rolling terrain.
' In conjunction with reconstructing Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19), the existing roadway
grade will be lowered. Commencing at Trunk Highway 5, Galpin Boulevard will be lowered
by approximately 7 feet. At the intersection of the proposed frontage road and Galpin
' Boulevard, the grade will be approximately 4 feet lower than it exist today. These grade
changes are necessary in order to improve sight lines along both Trunk Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard. These modifications are proposed to be completed sometime in 1995 in
' conjunction with the school construction. The applicant's grading plan is designed to be
compatible with the future street grades along the frontage road.
' As previously mentioned, the entire site is proposed to be mass graded as a result of the
development. The site contains scattered trees throughout but the majority of the site has
' been employed in agricultural uses. There are significant wetlands along with a significant
stand of trees located in the southeast and northeast corner of the site. Some of the trees in
the southeast corner are proposed to be lost as a result of the grading for the streets and
building pads. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the applicant's grading plan and believes that
17
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 13
no further modifications could be done to minimize size grading and retain the slope
characteristics.
Berming is proposed along the frontage road. Typically along collector -type streets a
combination of berming and landscaping is incorporated into the site plan to minimize noise
or provide screening. All berming shall be located outside the City's right -of -way.
EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Erosion control fencing is shown around the
wetlands. Staff recommends type III erosion control fence adjacent to the wetlands. The
slopes may also require some form of terraced erosion control fencing. A final erosion
control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with
final plat and construction plans and specifications approval.
STREETS
The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan proposes an east/west collector -type street (Frontage
Road) from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41. This frontage road will also serve a
future industrial park lying west of this development (Opus). The frontage road is also
designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System (MSA). The applicant will need to
update a petition to the City to construct a portion of this frontage road, specifically from
Galpin Boulevard to the easterly edge of the wetlands. Both the applicant and staff has had
concerns with regards to extending and funding the frontage road through the wetlands to the
west property line of the site. Staff has been working with the applicant and Opus to align
the frontage road to minimize impacts to the wetlands. Other concerns such as outside
governmental agencies (DNR, Army Corp of Engineers, etc.) will also have to be consulted
and the appropriate permits obtained prior to extending the frontage road. Staff feels
comfortable, though, in obtaining the necessary permits to construct this frontage road due to
the fact it's been on the City's Comprehensive Guide along with being designated on the
State -Aid system. The DNR has mapped the wetlands to determine the ordinary high water
level which has given the City and applicant a better perspective of exactly where the road
may be extended. Based on this survey, it appears the frontage road alignment is the most
feasible from an engineering standpoint as well as minimizing impacts to the wetlands.
The applicant is concerned with future assessments for the extension of this road. Staff
understands that the road may not be assessed to those parcels of land which do not receive
benefit. There may have to be alternate funding mechanisms employed such as Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) or State -Aid funds to assist in the construction of this segment of
roadway across the wetlands. However, State Aid funds are currently encumbered up to the
' Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
' Update 2/21/95
Page 14
' next five years. The city's bonding capacities are also maxed out. The city will be
prioritizing the public improvement projects earmarked for 1995 shortly.
' Since the frontage road plays a significant role in accessing this development, a condition
should be placed in the approval process that the subdivision is contingent upon the City
receiving the necessary approvals for extending the frontage road across the wetlands. Should
' this not be the case, the applicant will have to go back and redesign the street system layout
to include possibly a right -in right -out only on to Trunk Highway 5 and/or extending the
' southerly cul -de -sac back out to Galpin Boulevard. The cul -de -sac could access Galpin
Boulevard directly south of the home on the west side of Galpin Boulevard at the cost of
removing some trees. The Carver County Highway Department will also have to be
' consulted regarding all access points along Galpin Boulevard. The City /applicant will also
need to apply for and obtain an access permit from the Carver County Highway Department
for the proposed frontage road access.
' As previously mentioned, this frontage road through the site is listed on the City's MSA route
and therefore must be constructed in accordance with MSA design standards. The interior
' streets are well laid out from a traffic circulation standpoint. The streets all connect back out
to the frontage road with the exception of the southerly cul -de -sac. All of the streets which
branch off the frontage road are proposed to be private streets and not maintained by the City.
The private street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway
ordinance. The minimum street width for multi- family zoning is 24 feet face -to -face with
concrete curb and gutter. Parking will be prohibited on all of the private streets.
' Since the frontage road will be directly benefitting this development, the applicant should
dedicate to the City with final platting the necessary street and utility easements for extending
' the frontage road and utilities through the site.
Since there will be public improvements constructed in conjunction with this development,
' the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide
the necessary financial security and administration fees.
' UTILITIES
The City has previously authorized extension of trunk sewer and water facilities to service
' this area. The trunk sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended by the City along the wetlands
next spring. The alignment may be modified to follow the trail alignment in an attempt to
minimize disruption to the wetlands and provide a better maintenance access route. Other
than construction of the trunk utility lines and the frontage road, the remaining portions of the
site are proposed to be private. Due to the magnitude of this development, it is recommended
the applicant use the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for construction of the
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 15
private utilities. Utility inspections for the installation of the private utilities will be done
through the City's Building Department.
There are three existing homes along the west side of Galpin Boulevard. Water service is
available to these residents from Galpin Boulevard but sanitary sewer service is being
provided from this development and/or the frontage road. The applicant should be entitled to
reimbursement of the cost of providing sanitary sewer service to these homes when the
parcels hook up. The exact reimbursement cost will be determined based on lateral
construction costs for extending sanitary sewer through the site.
This development will sustain assessments as a result of the extension of the frontage road
and trunk and lateral utilities to the site. The assessment methodology is proposed in the
feasibility study.
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
The western and southern portions of the site are heavily wooded consisting of central and
lowland type hardwood forest species. Significant tree stands are located within the wetland
complex. The significant tree inventory of the site verifies these tree types consisting of
maples, oaks, box elder, and elm. Conifers have been planted in the area of the farmstead.
The applicant has provided the city with a base line canopy coverage calculation of 0.8 acres.
Staff believes that the applicant has only included the significant tree canopy area located
within the southeast corner of the site in their calculation. Staff estimates the base line
canopy coverage as 4.89 acres (2.19 acres in the designated open space area and 2.7 acres in
the southeast corner of the site). This calculation needs to be verified by the applicant in
order to determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan.
Staff estimates that the base line canopy coverage is 36.5 percent (4.89 divided by 13.4
acres). The minimum canopy coverage requirement for a medium density residential
development based on the base line canopy coverage is 25 percent. This requires a post
development canopy coverage area of 3.35 acres. Based on this base line canopy coverage,
up to 1.54 of the existing canopy coverage could be removed without any forestation or
replacement requirements. Of the existing canopy coverage, 2.68 acres will be removed.
Code requires a replacement of trees that are removed that would meet the minimum canopy
coverage requirement at 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed, in this instance,
1.37 acres of replacement trees ((3.35 - (4.89 - 2.68)) x 1.2). The replacement tree planting
that will be required is 55 trees. The tree preservation plan must be revised to accurately
reflect existing tree canopy and proposed tree removal.
'
Autumn Ridge
g
'
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 16
' The landscaping plan provides 165 trees which exceeds the estimated forestation /replacement
planting requirements of 55 trees. There are 14 different tree species included in the plant
' schedule. Of the total trees provided, 33 trees are ornamentals (20 percent), 55 are conifers
(33 percent), 40 are primary species (24 percent), and 37 are secondary species (22 percent).
Staff believes that the applicant has provided an excellent landscaping plan which complies
' with the PUD ordinance including boulevard plantings, buffer plantings along McGlynn
Drive, and foundation plantings.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on November 15, 1994 to discuss this
' development. The Commission made the following recommendations to City Council:
1. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per City ordinance.
' 2. The applicant shall dedicated a 20 foot easement for trail purposes as identified on the
preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
' 3. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within
the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street
' construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and
approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
' The city is in the process of negotiating the acquisition and provision of approximately 100
plus acres of open space on the western portion of this property and the eastern portion of the
property to the west. This open space would be developed with a trail system and serve as a
t trail head for a branch of the bluff creek trail system. There is also the long term potential
for creating a interpretive center within the wetland/open space complex.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission met on February 1, 1995 to review the proposed development.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council the approval
of the PUD subject to the conditions of the staff report and the modification of one condition
and the addition of condition number 29.
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 17
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development to
rezone 11.4 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, for that
property located south of McGlynn Drive which is shown as Block 1 and open space
dedication, preliminary plat creating 1 block with 47 lots, and two outlots and associated
right -of -way for a residential low density development consisting of 46 dwelling units
consisting of 13 twin homes and 5 fourplex buildings, and site plan approval for the five
4 -unit structures subject to the plans dated December 20, 1994 and the following conditions:
1. Depending on scheduling of the frontage road, the applicant may incorporate
construction of the retention pond into the overall development plans and receive
credits towards their SWMP fees. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year
storm event along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET
methodology along with pre and post - runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff
for review and approval prior to final plat consideration.
2. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity and quality fees
based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the
proposed development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity and
quality fee of $18,216 and $8,013 assuming 9.2 acres of developable land. The
applicant may be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system or
water quality improvements they install as a part of the overall development in
accordance to the City's SWMP. Staff will review the final construction documents
and determine the applicable credits, if any.
3. The applicant shall petition the City to construct the frontage road within the
development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall
site improvements. The frontage road shall be constructed in accordance to State -Aid
standards. Plans and specifications will be subject to review and approval by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, State -Aid office. The applicant shall
dedicate to the City at no cost the frontage road right -of -way.
4. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and
approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for
extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel and awarding a bid.
' Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
t Update 2/21/95
Page 18
'
S.
The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD /development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee
'
compliance with the conditions of approval.
6.
The applicant shall design and construct the Pp g e and utility improvements in
'
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be
submitted to City staff for review and approval.
'
7.
The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the
City and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents.
8.
The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house
pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official.
'
9.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army
'
Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department.
10.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
'
during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as
far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile.
'
11.
The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control
fencing will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional
'
erosion control fence on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins.
12.
Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within
'
the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and
subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in
'
conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
13.
The final lat shall be contingent upon MnDOT's State -Aid office approving the street
P g P PP g
t
alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised
accordingly as a result of the State -Aid review process.
'
14.
Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated.
11
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 19
15. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland
alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed
project and the frontage road as one project.
16. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public
improvement project for construction of the frontage road including but not limited to
hearing requirements and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the
property.
17. The private streets /driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private
driveway ordinance for low and/or medium density zoning.
18. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer services to the existing three homes on the
west side of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall be reimbursed their fair share of
the cost to extend service to these homes when the parcels hook up to the sewer
system.
19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus
stops /shelters within the development.
20. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as
tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from
Highway 5 toward the development, and building materials, textures, roofing
treatment, and color schemes. The applicant shall provide perspective home buyers
with a pallet of potential colors to chose from.
21. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per City ordinance.
22. The applicant shall dedicated a 20 foot easement for trail purposes as identified on the
preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
23. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within
the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street
construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and
approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
24. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
and approval prior to final plat approval. I
1
Autumn Ridge
January 4, 1994
Update 2/21/95
Page 20
25. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm
that no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary
plat approval.
26. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable television transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Sec. 9.1. Fire hydrant placement shall be subject to review by the Fire
Marshal.
27. The canopy coverage calculation needs to be verified by the applicant in order to
determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan. The tree preservation plan
must be revised to accurately reflect existing tree canopy and proposed tree removal.
28. A legal document shall be recorded combining the proposed 2.19 acres of dedicated
open space to Block 1 of the development. This document shall also specify that all
development rights for the dedicated open space have been transferred to Block 1 and
that no future development of the dedicated open space area, with the exception of
public trails, shall be permitted.
' 29. A variety of neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City
Council along with the proposed building materials for the construction of this
complex."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Applicant and Reduced Plans
2. Public Hearing Notice Mailed 12/22/94
3. Notice of Cancellation and Rescheduling dated 12/1/94
4. Notice of Public Hearing Mailed 11/21/94
5. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/4/94
6. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 11/7/94
7. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 11/18/94
8. Letter from Richard Pilon to Robert Generous dated 11/8/94
9. Park and Recreation Staff Report dated 11/15/94
10. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 11/8/94
11. Letter from John R. Peterson to Robert Generous dated 2/2/95
12. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/1/95
13. Highway 5 /Galpin Blvd. Park Concept Plan
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE '
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612)937.1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION '
APPLICANT: GOOD VALUE HOMES OWNER: GOOD VALUE HOMES '
JOHN R. PETERSON
ADDRESS: 9445 EAST RIVER ROAD ADDRESS: 9445 EAST RIVER ROAD '
COON RAPIDS. MN 55433 COON RAPIDS MN 55411 '
TELEPHONE (Day time) 755 - 9793 TELEPHONE: 755 - 9793
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit
12. Variance
3. Interim Use Permit
13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Non - conforming Use Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
5. � Planned Unit Development _:-
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review
Notffication Signs —_
9. � Site Plan Review - ,,�5O r - E2 , -I -
_
�J J <-
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
ACNARAP
$100 CUP /SPRN /W
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. LI Subdivision - �I � �+ ; S - i ` ;�
TOTAL FEE $ - —
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
r 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 AUTUMN RIDGE
LOCATION OFF GALPIN BOULEVARD IN CHANHASSEN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED
0
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING P U h
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION M0 DES f)'Y
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION V
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
' This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
' authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
1 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.
Sigri , re of Applicant Date
V
' Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
i
MINE[, j j;��jf��p [�E ft,
j,F fa r {( � 1t f � .
��j�� I r t lF,�t(�� I�gi �� �� n \ TROTTERS RMGF ADOMON
Frtttl r �1 {(jj / tIj f w \.\
� a,
4a � I y t
! '(a Lj rf1� r �'• � ' \"yam♦ i�m.�.
�._._._._._.— ._._._. —. —• . • — — — —� -1 —.
'( �{ M -2531* •
ti'jr ( iF t �[ Fl I F � �� ■ 8"rw .i — 1
C� 'a
z p y j #
0, �� i w I �
t
Ji 6 `jt j� � � H
,a a
t t fi f j� P � r i t�l��( 1� j
1 � L9 i
��l� I •\ i
Et t• ��j � \ �.
t
t���trt1 �s� [�� I 1 • �� \�� I
I• r
0
8 °
m1we— '�.— .— . —. —.— — �' —urvK HIGHWAY No. 5
li0lAi' � MiP�f i
AUTUMN RIDGE PASSE ENGINEERING, INC
PRELIMINARY PLAT 9446 Wr RrM ROAD su 209
k&NZ"V19, JMMMON 5609
�e
>�Ic'
Zi
-� ccpgg 11 'sn o, ( r3 ms my ,
-- coa alm avou mIH Jsvg 9 PIP6 ,
r
•� �� / ��I pa•/NI /AI/I: Imo`- .
1
-mix, �'�,� 6
f I
_ I f���l��,iw •,
o i l I[.�
M�
i
II
i S
F
' - map
/����� // �,� tae �' �' � " � � ♦ �'""���� " , "Y " "� "�� "' °' -..
sa
;�.
.............
I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� !
§
It
� \ �
t it 3 k
I!
C.M
,
! �
!� |E
| |!|
|
|
|
NVia21 "Dscl�m
KMo anncOOD 2
2Dmfzl=v
� !
lift. �
�
• (
(
-
���� � 'S
It
� \ �
t it 3 k
I!
C.M
,
! �
!� |E
| |!|
|
|
|
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, JANUARY 4, 1995
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Autumn Ridge
Developer: Good Value Homes, Inc.
Location: Southwest Corner of Hwy. 5
and Galpin Boulevard
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is requesting a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to
rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD; preliminary plat one block
(46 units - 13 twin home buildings and 5 fourplex buildings) and 2 outlots located in the
southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good
Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property).
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 December 22,
1994. c 1
t awrence & Florence Raser
210 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy & Vicki Dempsey
18241 Galpin Blvd.
hanhassen, MN 55317
'Chaska Gateway Partners
3610 Hwy. 101 S.
'Wayzata, MN 55391
'Mark & Julie Taintor
7481 Saratoga Dr.
'Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Mark & Nancy Bielski
8140 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
& Elizabeth Vandeveire
, Larry
4890 Co. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
J. P. Links, Inc.
' c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
0
I I
Patrick & Karen Minger
8221 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James C. Avis
111515 Bender Court
Chaska, MN 55318
Mitchel & Mary Krause
2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curds & Jean Beuning
2381 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
HTD Assets of Oshkosh, Inc.
4275 Norex Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
Mid America Baptist Social
Services Corporation
2600 Arboretum Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Roger & Gayleen Schmidt
8301 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale & Marcia Wanninger
8170 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Linda Leirdahl
2350 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew & Susan Richardson
8210 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
2765 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Jay C. Dolejsi
6961 Chaparral Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
December 1, 1994
Dear Homeowner:
This letter is to notify you that the public heal
Value Homes, Inc. has been rescheduled for
The item was to appear before the Planning C
Should you have any questions, please feel fr
Sincerely,
Robert Generous, AICP
Planner II
BG:v
for Autumn Ridge development, Good
dnesday, January 4, 1995, at 7:30 p.m.
mission on December 7 (see other side).
me.
Developer: Good Value Homes, Inc.
Location: Southwest Comer of Hwy. 5
and Galpin Boulevard
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is requesting a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to
rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD; preliminary plat one block
(48 units - 14 twin home buildings and 5 fourplex buildings) and 2 outlots located in the
southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good
Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property).
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 November 24
1994. �'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, DECEMBER 7, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
'
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
'
Project: Autumn Ridge
Developer: Good Value Homes, Inc.
Location: Southwest Comer of Hwy. 5
and Galpin Boulevard
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is requesting a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to
rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD; preliminary plat one block
(48 units - 14 twin home buildings and 5 fourplex buildings) and 2 outlots located in the
southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good
Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property).
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 November 24
1994. �'
Lawrence & Florence Raser
8210 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy & Vicki Dempsey
8241 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chaska Gateway Partners
3610 Hwy. 101 S.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Mark & Julie Taintor
7481 Saratoga Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Nancy Bielski
8140 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
4890 Co. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
J. P. Links, Inc.
c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patrick & Karen Minger
8221 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James C. Avis
111515 Bender Court
Chaska, MN 55318
Mitchel & Mary Krause
2380 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curtis & Jean Beuning
2381 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
HTD Assets of Oshkosh, Inc.
4275 Norex Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
Mid America Baptist Social
Services Corporation
2600 Arboretum Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Roger & Gayleen Schmidt
8301 Galpin Blvd. ,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale & Marcia Wanninger
8170 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 '
James & Linda Leirdahl '
2350 Timberwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew & Susan Richardson ,
8210 Pinewood Cir.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
2765 Casco Point Road '
Wayzata, MN 55391
Jay C. Dolejsi '
6961 Chaparral Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317 '
1
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' Demolition Permits. Existing stru4u'es on the property which will be
demolished will require demo lit iod�;ermits. 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.
Structure Setbacks. The sides of a number of buildings appear to be on
the property lines. Table 5 -A of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
' prohibits openings in walls that are within three feet of a property
Bob Generous
November 4, 1994
Page 2
line. Projections (decks, overhangs, etc.) must comply with UBC 504 and
1710 which generally permit projections to extend a maximum of one third
the distance to the property line, but require these projections to be
of one-'hour fire - resistive construction. What this means is that property
lines should generally be four to five feet from the buildings.
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections
Division for review prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed
dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level
floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading
on the property.
4. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior
walls or confirm that no openings or projections are planned. This
must be done before preliminary plat approval.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
June 6, 1994 memorandum
9:\ safety \sak \memos \plan \autmrdge.bg2
F
1
D
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official oo
DATE: June 6, 1994
SUBJ: 93 -5 PUD (Autumn Ridge, Betty O'Shaughnessy property)
Background:
I have reviewed your request for comments on the b referenced planning case, and have some items
that should be added as conditions of approval.
Analysis:
In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street ames, publi d private, must be reviewed by the Public
Safety Department. Proposed street names, not included ith the submitted documents.
I Locations
of proposed dwelling padf the type of dwelli is necessary to enable the Inspections
Division and Engineering Departmen
rform a satisfacto
lan review of the structure at the time
of building permit issuance. Forth
ason, proposed Lowe
eveI floor elevations as well as garage
' The side of a number of buildings appear to be on , a roperty lines. Table 5 -A of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls that are � three feet of a property line. Projections (decks,
overhangs, etc.) must comply with UBC 504 and 1710 which generally permit projections to extend a
maximum of one third the distance to the property line, but require these projections to be of one -hour
fire- resistive construction. What this means is that property lines should generally be four to five feet from
the buildings.
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • FO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official _
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Proat 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 Rambkr. 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 Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its ,deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designatc*Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade, at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with,the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU
SE rR SEWO wo 4RLO�
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.
two PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
' S OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
' METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772 -7910 FILE NO.
November 7
No r , 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' RE: Autumn Ridge, DNR Wetland 10 -21OW, City of Chanhassen,
Carver County, (City Numbers 93 -5 PUD, 94 -18 SUB, and 94-
9 REZ)
Dear Mr Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received November 2, 1994) for the
above - referenced land development proposal (Sections 15 and 16,
T116N- R23W). In addition to our comments in our letter dated June
6, 1994 (copy enclosed), we would like to add the following
' comment:
The official ordinary high water elevation for Wetland 10 -21OW
is 931.2' (NGVD, 1929). It is not clear from the plans
whether the proposed road is below the OHW of Wetland 10 -210W.
Should any portion of the work for the proposed road be below
' the OHW, a DNR permit would be required.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
` Hydrologist
JGR /cds
Enclosure
c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen General File
' RECEIVED
NOV - 8 1994
' CITY OF CHANIyHSSt =14
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(612) 361 -1010
FAX (612) 361 -1025
COUNTY OF CAl2VER
November 18, 1994
TO: Robert Generous, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development
Autumn Ridge (94 -9 Rezoning and 94 -18 Subdivision)
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE ,
600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
Following are comments regarding the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development for
the Autumn Ridge subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated
November 1, 1994.
1. Previous comments concerning this subdivision were sent on September 24, 1993.
2. It is the County's intent to have CSAH 19 (Galpin Boulevard) reconstructed in this area
in 1995. Through traffic will in all likelihood be detoured off CSAH 19 with local access
provided by the contractor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
1
November 8, 1994
' Mr. Robert Generous
Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Minnegasco®
A Division of Arkla, Inc.
'
Re: 93 -5 PUD, 94 -18 SUB,
94 -9 REZ
Autumn Ridge
Good Value Homes
'
Dear Mr. Generous:
'
Enclosed are your prints for this project with the location of
Minnegasco's natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual
services are not shown.
Natural gas service is
available to this
property from the main
shown. Also enclosed
is a copy of a
relocation project that is currently scheduled.
No addition work
'
is anticipated at this
time unless requested
by a developer,
builder or owner.
The developer /builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco's
Residential Energy Services, 525 -7607, to make application for
natural gas service.
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal.
' Sincerely,
Richard J. P on P.E.
Senior Administration Engineer
' Engineering Services
612 342 - 5426
I cc: Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
' RECEIVM
' CITYQFCNAivn�.,���
' 700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165
CITY OF
��, CHANHAS9rN
PRC DATr.
PC DATE:
CC DATE:
HOFFMA N:k
1 -15 -94
1
Z
Q
U
J
0.
Q�
0
W
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Prelimin., . finned t Development to - :-- , zone .59 ae .
of property zone.. A2, Aericz -a1 E•. .° to PUD; Preliminary Ph. !ne F -k =
(48 units - 14 twin home bui:.:::gs and 5 fourplex buildings) and - .1t1c _
LOCATION: Southwest corner of the irtersectic7 of Highway 5 and Galpin Bc,ulevard.
Autumn Ridge 'Betty O'Shaugh",T :.- Property). '
APPLICANT: Good Value Homes, Inc.
9445 East River Road, Suite 201
Coon Rapids, MN 5543 '
PRESENT ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
A2, Agricultural Estate Distri% -,
N - State ftcOvvavc '
S - Tr ;'ia:.. A Development
E - G. aievard
W - A::, Agricultural Estate !Opus) '
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site lie. within the park service area. of the :iew i
recreation center park, the future St reek neighborhood park and the future nature pry °serve pa-:.
to be partially located on the same : ny as this development.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLA This deve -ni site contains or is adjacr -* to three
trail/sidewalk corridors.
1. Interior Corridor Abutting Wetland: The applicant has identified a 20 ft. walkway easement.
along the wetland as requested by the city. An 8 ft wide asphalt trail shall be constructed '
per city spy:. ;fications by the developer within this easement. This portion of the public
improvements shall be bid as a lump sum separate from other improvemt— with :- mi. um
Autumn Ridge Development
November 15, 1994
Page 2
of three bids being received. Upon completion of the trail and the acceptance of it by the
city, the developer shall be reimbursed for said construction from the park and trail dedication
fund.
2. Sidewalk Parallelling Proposed Parkway This sidewalk is a mandated public
improvement whose design and construction is administered by the planning and
engineering departments.
3. Trail Along Galvin Boulevard (CR 19) This future trail will be constructed within
the dedicated right -of -way of Galpin Boulevard.
OPEN SPACE DEDICATION: The applicant has identified an area of upland (2.81 acres)
' for dedication as open space to accomplish a density transfer to the portion of the property
being developed. However, the area proposed as open space is not currently owned by the
applicant. The city is currently negotiating a purchase agreement (for park purposes) with the
' underlying owner (O'Shaughnessy) of all these parcels and the granting of any density
transfers will be incorporated into this agreement. City ordinance prohibits this open space
area from receiving a double credit, i.e. it cannot be used for a desnity transfer and be
' counted as open space dedication.
RECOMMENDATION
' It is recommend that the Park and Recreation Commissi ecommend the city council
require the f owing conditions of approval in regard to parks d trails for the proposed
' Autumn ' ge planned unit development.
1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
' 2. Dedication of a 20 ft. easement for trail purposes as identified on a preliminary plat
for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
3. The developer shall construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail per r ci
P sP h'
s ' ications within
the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in Co nju ction with street
construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by th developer and
approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engin r. 1
subma -three bid - ar n o the
1 9 tion for this work, the
a licant shall spark and trai
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Generous, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: November 8, 1994
SUBJ: Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes, Inc.
Betty O'Shaughnessy
Planning Case 93 -5 PUD, 94 -18 $CAB and 94 - RE2
I have reviewed the rezoning request in order
Fire Prevention Division and have the follow:
1. Cul -de -sac shall be designed
2. Submit street names for annroval.
a 45
ly with the Chanhassen Fire Department,
vents and /or requirements.
3. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around' fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
�a
shrubs, bushes, NSP��". Bell, cable television` transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants.dan be quickly located and safely gperated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinattde Sec. 9.1.
9
Add 2 fire hydrants;
Relocate 3 other fire
changes.
each proposed parkway and ,private drive intersection.
ts. ° Cpntaq,the Cll inhassen Fire Marshal for specific
g.NsafetwnNutunwi. dge
1
I February 2, 1995
iwDVAUE HomEs
' Mr. Robert Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Autumn Ridge
1 Dear Mr. Generous,
I have enclosed a sample of the siding, facia and shingles
' which we would like to use for our townhomes in Autumn
Ridge. We believe that the value of the neighborhood will
be enhance by using one color for all units. This is not
' a cost cutting issue—, We pay the same for the siding
whether we use one color or several colors.
The best place to look at our proposed siding, facia, and
' roof colors is at our Pondview neighborhood in Eagan. The
neighborhood is located a few blocks south of the
intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 35E.
' Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincere
' John R Peterson
Pr' Sident
9445 East River Road N.W. • Minneapolis, MN 55433 • Phone 612 - 755 -9793 • Fax 612 - 755 -6207 • Minnesota Builder # 1583
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Diane Harberts and Jeff
Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE
89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD;
PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (46 UNITS - 13 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5
FOURPLEX BUILDINGS). AND 2 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN
RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES. INC. (BETTY &SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY).
Scott: Prior to the staff report the applicant would like to make a brief set of comments so he
can get to a previous commitment, so sir.
John Peterson: Thank you very much Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission.
John Peterson. I'm the President of Good Value Homes. Just for your, well I guess ... I have a
conflict, I have with me Derrick Passe, our engineer who works very closely with us on a
good share on this project and he knows the in's and out's of this better than I do so he will
be staying and representing our company's interest. Just a couple things. The reason I took
the liberty to ask for this early appearance is that we agree with the staff report in it's entirety.
No. We agree with the staff report with one exception, and I don't know that it really is to
directly. I don't think it does. The Park Board recommended that we pay a park fee, a trail
fee and build the trail with no reimbursement from the city, and it is my plan to contest that
at the City Council level, and I don't believe that's... beyond what would be normal.
Otherwise the staff report, this is the result of a lot of time. Over a long period of time
between us, our engineers and surveyors and your staff and we are prepared to move forward
with all the recommendations. Just one brief comment, the units, if you wanted to see a
similar type development. You can go to Eagan at the intersection of 35E and Pilot Knob
Road. South on Pilot Knob. It winds around a lake and then there's a lake on the left as
you're going south and there's a pond on your right and we have 29 units. Our model has
been constructed and we sold our first unit last night in that development and they are a
similar situation in that we have a substantial number of walkout townhomes, in that case to a
pond. In this case to a wetland. But it would be virtually the same type of units. Have an
' Meeting - February 1
Planning Commission eet g ry , 1995
opportunity to stop and visit our model and you will get a good idea of what we've proposed.
' The one unit we sold last night, the unit was sold for $169,000.00. There were some
additional optional features added on so that's going to be in the $170 range. We're
suggesting, we don't know all the costs involved in the construction of a collector street and
so on with this project, but we think we'll be offering a product between $120,000.00 to
$200,000.00. And the reason there's quite a wide range is some of these homes will have
basements in the walkouts to the wet lowland and some will be on grade and there's just a
natural difference there. And the values will also be quite different with a unit near the
collector street as opposed to looking out over the wetland area. So we're estimating at this
' time $120,000.00. The square footage on the units is between 1,270 square feet and almost
1,900 square feet. I think it's 1,896. Each of the units will have a master bedroom on the
main level... So with that little bit, Derrick Passe from Passe Engineering can answer other
' questions that you may have, unless you have one for me quickly. I mean not quickly but at
this point.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant?
Mancino: I do. On the recommendations, recommendation number 16. Do you have the
' report in front of you John? Where it talks about your waiving all due process for special
assessments.
John Peterson: Yes. That's a question at this point inasmuch as the city does not have the
bonding capacity to do this as a city project. If we're going to do this project, we will be, we
and Betty O'Shaughnessy will be responsible for 100% of the cost for a very expensive
' collector road that qualifies for MSA. Frankly it's going to weigh heavily on the feasibility of
this project but the bottom line is we, the city doesn't have the bonding capacity so there will
be no assessments for the construction of it.
' Mancino: Thank Y ou.
Scott: Anything else? Okay, thank you sir.
' John Peterson: Thank you very much.
Scott: Bob, staff report.
Bob Generous presented the staff iepoit at this point.
I Scott: Any other questions or any comments from staff? Questions from commissioners.
I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Harberts: I have one. Or two. I don't know who the appropriate person is to speak to. They
spoke in the staff report about the frontage road and it's going to be some kind of a ... road or
something for the Opus, future Opus development or collector or something. Given the
density, considering the frontage road and the proposed future development of Opus, what
considerations or were there considerations with regards to the traffic?
Hempel: This alignment for the frontage road is on the city's comprehensive plan. It's also
been documented in the city's traffic study that was done. The Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study. It has designated the type of road and the width of street to be built to
accommodate the land use proposed. We feel that it's adequate to serve this neighborhood
and also the industrial park to the west. Opus Corporation will also have a right -in /right -out
onto Trunk Highway 5 which will alleviate some of the traffic from cutting through.
Harberts: And that right -in \right -out was confirmed by MnDot then as allowable?
Aanenson: They wanted, if I could just comment. They wanted a full access with a signal
and we said at a minimum, we didn't want, at a minimum it should be a right -in /right -out to
allow for those turning movements. But just to go back to comment, since it is a collector
there's no direct access from the individual units, which is feeder streets going onto that, right.
And then this alignment has been tied down based on the fact that the city is working in
trying to assemble a large passive park right through here so we did do some work to try to
find the best alignment for this road based on the wetlands and the sensitivity. To try to get
it through the most, where there's the most upland and the less impact to the wetland but it's
designated, as Dave indicated, as a collector street and we believe that it will function to
carry the traffic for both uses.
Scott: You know Bob with that, you mentioned the comment about, because of the density
transfer that there's going to have to be a city ordinance change but I think I remember from
the, comprehensive plan change.
Aanenson: Right.
Scott: How do you think that process is going to affect the timing of this development?
Generous: The way the code's set up, you can go forward, as long as the city says that they'll
come back and make that amendment, there shouldn't be a problem.
Scott: Okay. Whenever I see amendment to the comprehensive plan I always go well.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Generous: They're actually under the low density residential density. It's just procedurally it
has to go through that way and I don't believe the Met Council will put up a fight over that.
Aanenson: We've done one or two of these minor amendments for the Met Council.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah, I guess that may have just cleared it up. We're amending the comprehensive
plan? Normally when we do a PUD the point is to take a look at the entire site and we're
really only looking at a portion of the site.
Aanenson: Originally this came in as one big piece and then it got to be too complex so Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy, the underlying owner, is going to be coming in forward shortly with the
development, plan to the north. What we did under this PUD, why we recommended the
PUD, as Bob indicated, we're trying to get some area that, what we consider choice passive
park area to be left undeveloped so we're taking that density and transferring, which is the
only mechanism we can make that happen under is the PUD. So what we're doing is
clustering some of those units that would be in another area where we want to preserve trees
and interesting topography and putting those units over here. As Bob indicated, we're still
way under the density requirements at less than 4 units an acre so we feel it fits with that.
With the comprehensive plan.
Mancino: Well not only transferring for that but you can't get to that other upland area
anyway. There's no way for the developer to have access to that area, is there?
Aanenson: Well that was an issue. As far as.
Generous: They'd probably need a wetland alteration permit but if we left it in there, the
contention could be that they do have developable land and they have to, the city would have
to provide, allow them some type of a reasonable access.
Mancino: Or they could sell that piece of land to another developer west of them and add it
onto their parcel.
Generous: Well that's possible but there's still wetland fingers over there and there's a
wetland alteration permit.
Scott: The soils are pretty bad too.
El
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Generous: Yeah, through some of the wetland area. But this is actually a nice upland
portion.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Conrad: So you're both very confident that Outlot A can develop, even though it's part of the
PUD, it can develop separately and what we do right now is not going to be impacted by?
Aanenson: We've seen a tentative layout in that area so we want to make sure that we're
consistent with the Highway 5 standards and we looked at that when this originally came in,
if you recall. The orientation of the buildings and again, the look from Highway 5 and Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy, who will be developing that, has been working with the staff. And actually,
as the applicant indicated, it kind of ties back together because they're going to have to do the
road together because as it appears now, the city won't be in a position to do this as an
improvement project. So actually what's going to happen is they're going to end up being
built together because of the timing of the road. So he can't go forward until the road is built
so, in effect it probably will be going together.
Mancino: But I have a feeling Ladd you're thinking conceptually, that you'd just like to see
the entire PUD and how it lays out.
Conrad: Typically that's what we like to see, yeah.
Mancino: Because it's very hard to see pieces and how it's all going to fit.
Aanenson: Well you have two things going on here. You have two different zones. Two
different land use densities for the comprehensive plan. So in that fact they could be
separate. And then the other thing is, we have been looking at it as a whole because we've
been working on the park issue and looking at the park issue, we've taken this as a larger
piece. Now it just so happens that you've got two separate owners that have different market
niches that they're going for. But we've looked at this in a comprehensive fashion. One, to
get the road through. And secondly, for the park issue. Trying to find what would be the
park design and what areas we would want to preserve. The tree preservation areas and
wetland enhancements. So that has been done in a comprehensive perspective for both
parcels and Mrs. O'Shaughnessy's aware of that. As well as Mr. Peterson. What areas we
want so some of those overriding things I feel like we have looked at. Yeah, you're going to
see two different products but they're both going for different market niches.
Generous: That's also why our recommendation is that the rezoning be only, to PUD be only
for this section. The remainder would remain A -2.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: I'd like to ask one last question on that, to make sure that I'm understanding it and
that is that what we're going to see next that comes in is Outlot A.
' Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: This is wetland. This is Outlot B, but is buildable too, correct?
Generous: Yeah, it's upland but there's some very severe soil problems on that.
' Mancino: So when we see the rest of this PUD coming in, it will be for this and for this
area, correct?
' Generous: Yes, the land use map amendment would be subject to their approval.
Aanenson: Originally the break of the zoning fell in where the road, and we had to move the
road so it makes sense to make this and not break the project by artificial lines. When the
road moved up, or moved around based on the fact that we had to for the wetland, we felt
that was a natural break in the product, or the market. So we felt comfortable. And again,
looking at the densities, we think it's consistent. We're under the 4, which is low density. 1
to 4 units an acre.
�
6
Generous:
Yes.
Mancino:
Okay, it's not just here.
'
Generous:
And at that time I believe we'll go in. We're trying to negotiate the purchase of
that middle portion right now.
'
Mancino:
Right here?
Generous:
Yes.
Mancino:
The city is?
'
Aanenson:
Right, for the ark. Right.
g p g
Mancino:
I'm making it very clear.
'
Harberts: Could you again explain regarding the ... index in the comprehensive plan. This is
PUD division is subject to that approval by the Met Council? Did I understand that?
' Generous: Yes, the land use map amendment would be subject to their approval.
Aanenson: Originally the break of the zoning fell in where the road, and we had to move the
road so it makes sense to make this and not break the project by artificial lines. When the
road moved up, or moved around based on the fact that we had to for the wetland, we felt
that was a natural break in the product, or the market. So we felt comfortable. And again,
looking at the densities, we think it's consistent. We're under the 4, which is low density. 1
to 4 units an acre.
�
6
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: Mr. Chair, is it okay? I'd like to ask Dave some questions but I can wait until we
have the presentation.
Scott: If you'd like to continue the applicant presentation sir. Go ahead.
Derrick Passe: The plan that I just put up on the board is the original plan that we brought to
you about 3 -4 months ago and it does show what was proposed for the other side of, we
prefer to call it a parkway rather than a frontage road.
Harberts: So do we.
Derrick Passe: We have been meeting with Betty O'Shaughnessy because she is interested in
developing the other part of her property and she agrees that she wants that to be a product
which is not the same as this but does blend in with this product of Good Value Homes ... and
we look at it as being a complimentary situation rather than a competitive situation because
they are looking for... As far as the parkway construction, we are putting together some costs
in here and we have a meeting scheduled with Mrs. O'Shaughnessy next week to go over the
costs for that parkway. One thing, the construction of the parkway will ... There's nothing that
we have done which makes it more difficult to develop the other side of her property there.
One roadway access which roughly corresponds to this access here. We are also working
with Betty in regards to construction of the ... for the overall project rather than one... I'm here
to answer any questions that you may have or questions that staff may...
Scott: Okay. Did you have some questions?
Mancino: May I see your drawing please of the. Can you tell us a little bit about them as
far as variations, what you can do architecturally and if you have samples of brick and siding,
etc.
Derrick Passe: Okay, the siding is all maintenance free siding. The colors are generally earth
tones. The three different units are, the end unit is, there are generally 3 different units. This
is the ... unit. It's a 2 story unit and it is one of the end units that is situated, it's approximately
60 feet deep, 2 car garage. It has a loft overlooking the, I take that back. It has a great room
at the rear. Optional 3 season porch and...
Mancino: And there are 13 of these townhomes, correct?
Derrick Passe: 13 buildings?
7
0
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: 13 of the twin home or the townhome and is there any difference in their, you said
that there were 3 versions people could buy.
Derrick Passe: There's 3 floor plans. There are, the only unit that has to be one of the units
is the middle unit has to be a, what's called a Prescott and that is a two story unit and it has a
basement. A basement walkout. The other units are the Sterling, which is an end unit. It's
a two story unit with a basement. The first, the one I showed you is a rambler unit and
what's shown here has a basement or a walkout—from the road, it has what we're proposing is
to use the rambler unit on the ends. The Prescott is just a two story in the middle. A
Sterling on the end. So there are three different types of units.
Mancino: Okay, but they're being sold as just two together, correct?
Derrick Passe: No. They're combinations of 4 and 2.
Mancino: But there's only 5 that are fourplexes, correct?
Derrick Passe: Right.
Mancino: And 13 that are twin units.
Generous: Twin units.
Derrick Passe: And that's because the middle unit is not generally the one that's sold. The
end units are the preferable. Everybody wants to have an end unit.
Mancino: Not a middle unit. Okay. And who are the demographics for this?
Derrick Passe: The demographics, usually it really varies. Most of the units will probably be
sold to empty nesters. People who have sold... The other type of...especially in this market
area would be young couples that are just beginning. Not a whole lot of families. There may
be some single parents. The rambler unit does...
Mancino: Can you kind of help me visualize, to the east here there are 3 or 4 homes that are
parallel to the development and then I see, it says retaining wall. What is that going to look
like? The back of these homes and then down in the development. How high is the retaining
wall? What's kind of happening in that area?
8
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Derrick Passe: What happens on the site is the site slopes away from Galpin Boulevard all
the way down to the wetland. The reason there's a retaining wall, it's a narrow area and to
put the road in ... and what happened is, this site, the retaining wall in that area...
Mancino: Bob, have we heard anything from those neighbors that are abutting this property?
Generous: No.
Mancino: I know I stopped by ... and they didn't seem too concerned but I just wondered.
Aanenson: This is an area that Dave spent a lot of time reworking the grading. This is why
it got tabled a couple times. This was a sensitive area that we felt we could get a little bit
better on.
Hempel: We've gone back and moved the road actually further away from the property line
to get some buffer between this driveway and the existing homes and try to flatten the topo
out so that the retaining walls weren't going to be as high then. Plus retaining walls are about
10 feet off the property line. Before they were right adjacent to the property line so we tried
to soften that area a little bit better.
Mancino: Another question. As you so well described the retaining wall to me, can you tell
me a little bit about the feel, the berming and the planting along the frontage road because I
know that you're probably very concerned with the people who are going to be living here.
Can you tell me a little bit about how you see the berming happening there and what kind of
year round buffering those residents will have.
Derrick Passe: The berming is curving along the frontage road, or parkway. The end of the
units are all set back from the parkway at least 50 feet ... 2 to 3 feet above the rear of the...
parkway will be going down all the way from Galpin Boulevard to the north, to the west side
of this plat to the wetlands. The idea is to put in a berm there... what's needed between to
shield most of the tire noise from the cars going by. As far as a year round screening, there
is a fairly substantial planting of both of balsam fir along that berm which will keep the
green ... year round. And if you're looking at the landscape plan ... visual barrier through there 2
to 3 trees deep...
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Good, thank you very much. This is a public
hearing and can I have a motion please to open the public hearing?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Let the record show that there are no members of the general public who wish to
speak at this public hearing. So may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Diane, do you have any additional comments?
Harberts: No.
Scott: Okay, Ladd?
Conrad: I'm okay with it. Just one, for the engineer. One quick question I should have
asked when he was standing up but the exterior colors. What are the choices? You had three
designs to choose from but how many colors do they have to choose from? It was a siding,
was it a metal siding? Is that what you said?
Derrick Passe: I believe it's vinyl siding.
Conrad: Vinyl siding. And the colors offered are?
' Derrick Passe: ...one building will be one color. The buildings will vary...
Conrad: Based on the buyer's preference? I guess the only question I have would make sure,
and I don't dictate colors at all. I just want to make sure that colors are available. More than
one.
Aanenson: Well I think you should make that a condition. That there's a variety of colors.
That you want to leave it neutral but there's a mix of colors. We should probably add that as
a condition.
Conrad: That's all.
' Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Dave, I have some questions for you on the frontage road and that is, I'm looking
at this from a taxpayer point of view. And I look at the frontage road and I say that the
1 10
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
developer is paying for or is funding the frontage road up to the wetland. Once it gets to the
wetland, the city, it's the city's because there was no benefit to the developer. Once it gets to
the wetland ... state funding or different mechanisms which we pay for anyway. At that point,
and if we also buy parkland, it is for the city to fund, correct?
Hempel: There's other funding mechanisms out there I believe. With the industrial park to
the west, there may be capabilities including this area into a TIF district. By the time the
road is extended, there may be MSA funds available for it's construction. Those types of
funding.
Mancino: Well I guess my thought is, or my concept is, is that I would like to be darn sure,
if I were on City Council that, to know how much it would cost and how much it's going to
cost the city to go from where the wetland starts to where the developer on the west starts
paying again. You know how much that is and maybe it would be better to stop the road at
the wetland. Have that part of the whole park area and not continue it through the wetland
where it will be more expensive because of the unstable soils, etc, etc. So this just opens up
my questions of continuing the frontage road through, I would think a fairly expensive way to
do it. And I just throw that out to, I think it's something that needs to be thought through and
how much and.
Hempel: I can respond to that a little bit. The roadway alignment chosen there is the least
impact. The soil borings actually did show better soils in this area. Instead of 20 feet of
excavation, or soil corrections, I believe there's 10 feet so half the amount. I believe it's
pretty critical that the continuity of this frontage road be maintained to connect these two
areas for traffic patterns in the area.
Mancino: You don't think there could be, once you get to the western part, the right -in, right -
out will do the trick? For that area over there and this area on the east side. Just use this
roadway.
Aanenson: Can I comment on that too? I think it goes back to the same discussion we had
on the north and that's the continuity of those local trips. We don't know when Highway 5 is
going to be upgraded. They say post 2000, and depending on what the Opus Gateway piece
does. We see this having the same connections. For those people that don't want to get on
TH 5, that just want to make a local trip, to go to the school, the residential area, or people
working in there, that they don't have to go back out onto TH 5 to make that connection.
Part of this, when we looked at it for park too, the Park and Recreation Director looked at
this road coming through as also an area where we see some of the marginal soils as an area
to put a parking lot area too. This would give us access into some of that area. Open it up
as a trailhead area too. I understand the sensitivity of the question that you raise but we feel
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
the continuity, just like on the north side for the local trips for people can take that traffic off
Highway 5 is very important when you look at this scale of development. And that would be
for mass transit, you know school buses, everything else to avoid that Highway 5 route so.
Mancino: And how does the Park and Rec feel about having a frontage road through a
passive park?
Aanenson: Well that's what I'm saying. They want the trailhead that they've designed a
parking lot off of this road. So as Dave indicated, we had someone look at soil borings to try
to pick the best window to come through with that road and we feel like we've got that.
Mancino: Okay. Well I still would raise the question financially.
Aanenson: That's a legitimate question, sure.
Mancino: I just had a couple other questions. Bob, in recommendation number 2. You had
given how much the water quantity and quality fees would be. Of $21,997.00, $10,517.00.
When I look on page 8 under water quality, and water quantity on page 9, there are different
figures there. So I'm not sure which ones are correct or if I am reading them incorrectly but
on page 8 it says that the water quality charge is approximately $14,119.00 and on page 9,
the water quantity charge, connection charge is approximately $29,430.00. And those are not
' the same that are in number 2.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, maybe I can address that. You're correct, there is an error
there. I believe the condition number 2 is the accurate figure but we can certainly verify that
to the text of the report and make sure there's a conflict.
Mancino: And there's also a conflict about developable acres. It says 9.2 whereas the, on the
other preceding pages it's 12.2. It's based on 12.2. The 6.9 is the duplex acres and the 5.3 is
the townhome acres. So that should be corrected. And I just had a procedure question on 18.
Recommendation 18. Is it true, I mean I hadn't realized this. That the applicant, the
developer provide sanitary sewer services for those three homes. It's not the city?
Hempel: That's correct. The developer will be installing the improvements in the site and
with each site we require the developer to extend the utilities to the next property line so the
' property owner needs to extend that service to their property.
Aanenson: It's to the property line.
1 12
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Mancino: Okay, got it. Thank you. Because it says to the existing three homes and I
thought, wow. Okay, so it's actually to the existing three property lines. Thank you. Part of
the Highway 5 architectural guidelines that I think we passed into an ordinance was that we
do request for those developers on Highway 5 to bring with them actual samples of
construction materials and we'd like to see them and feel them and touch them and do all
those kind of things. I just kind of wondered where they were.
Generous: I can tell you what John told me when he came in. He forgot them in his office
in his rush to come here tonight.
Mancino: Okay. I would ask that they certainly be brought to the City Council so the City
Council can look at them and also with Ladd's comment, showing the actual different color
feeling that you were going to be offering would be very helpful to the City Council. I have
one more question from staff and that is, the other suggestion or the, I don't know if it was
part of the ordinance on the Highway 5 corridor was asking for sight lines. Views from
Highway 5 and we were going to ask for that for each development that comes on Highway 5
and we don't have that here again.
Aanenson: Well I guess we felt that, because the other one's probably going to block most
of this, but we certainly will with the next project. When this originally came in, we did
have all those perspectives.
Generous: We do have that under condition 20 that they provide that.
Mancino: Thank you. That's all.
Scott: Good, Jeff.
Farmakes: My apology. I came at the old time. I've got a couple of comments. There's an
awful lot of outlot space here compared to what the development is. I see we're being asked
two things. One is to look at this as it is rezoned to PUD. And this is a conceptual issue.
Not only are we looking at the spaces being planned for PUD ... in all practicality looking at
the entire issue as being PUD by the time it comes in here. I'm guessing. I don't have
anything to back that up but I'm assuming that's what's going to happen.
Aanenson: You mean the piece to the north being a PUD?
Farmakes: Yes.
Aanenson: There's a possibility, sure.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: Yeah. Anyway, I'm looking at this. Didn't we see this, we saw this once before.
Aanenson: Correct.
Farmakes: In various guises. I believe at one time it was a PUD in it's entirety, was it not?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: I believe we got hung up on the issue of what the development was like next to
the highway and we had some conceptual drawings... If I was looking at this as a PUD, for
it's entirety issue so we're talking about the highway and then we have several other issues on
how it fits into the criteria of what the city gets in return for the PUD. It's much harder to
see what that is now when they're taking a slice of that. What you're looking at is a piece of
it now. It's much harder conceptually for me to look at that and see what we're really looking
at here on that entire piece of property because only a slice of it is being applied for now. So
if we're looking where it says the use of a PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of
uses. Internal transfer of density, construction phasing and the potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectations
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and for more sensitive
proposal than would have been the case with another more standard zoning district. It's hard
to see that in relationship to the big picture with this small piece. So it's hard to see how that
relates to whatever else is going to be going around it. I don't particularly see within that
small piece exactly what the necessity of the PUD is from a design standpoint. Or what more
we're getting versus a traditional development there. Although is someone spell it out, I don't
see that there but it bothers me that we're looking at an overall large development that borders
the highway and then we have problems with that. I think actually when we set this corridor,
did we not, and the city put a hold on it.
Aanenson: No.
Generous: The developer did.
Farmakes: Okay. But anyway, if I was to bring this back, and we were having trouble with
that, well we'll just take a piece of that. We'll take a piece away from the highway and get
that going.
Aanenson: I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here Jeff, I think because you
came in late. There's two separate market niches that are happening here. That's why they've
broken it out. Now the city's not in the position to do the road so both developments are
going to end up going together because of the cost of putting the road in. One project really
1 14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
can't bear the burden without the other project going so in effect what it's doing, both projects
are going to end up going in together. But they're both addressing different markets so you
have two different developers. Two different markets that they're going for so they both are
coming in with different proposals so you're reviewing them separately.
Farmakes: But if it's the conceptual review, why would one go forward without having the
other one?
Aanenson: They just learned this in the last week or two. And he was supposed to be in a
couple of months ago. We tried to rework, tried to resolve some of the grading issues. That
was one reason. Then the last time he was one, actually over a month ago, he didn't show
up. Then last time the agenda was full so we bumped him off so now things has happened
and the city has gotten projects lined up, we realize that they're probably going to have to put
the road in themselves. So that time came together by forces outside of their own. So there
wasn't a hidden agenda to try to separate these.
Farmakes: No, I wasn't saying there was a hidden agenda. What I'm saying is for a practical
standpoint, without knowing what else is going to go around it, it's difficult to assess what the
city is looking at here for a PUD development. In other words, what are we getting in return.
This is maybe.
Generous: Well 10% of the entire chunk.
Farmakes: 10 %, so it's difficult to see the big picture is what I'm saying. It would be helpful
if both, if there's another proposal out there for the rest of some of this property, it would be
helpful.
Aanenson: But that would have to go on it's merits itself. I mean you would have to review
that one separately on it's own merits, just like you would if we had two separate
subdivisions. You weigh them on their own merits.
Farmakes: I understand that, but this is probably the smallest PUD we've seen in here in the
last 4 years.
Aanenson: I don't think it's any different than you've seen on Lake Susan, Prairie Creek.
Farmakes: The Lake Susan issue was an older PUD and again that was a section, was it not,
but additional development section of some development that took place earlier. Or a second
phase ... but again, what I'm saying is, in looking at that just as a development by itself, it's
difficult to see what the city is gaining from a PUD. Going to line 6. I'm trying to
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
understand that provision. I understand the provision in there but when I read it, it doesn't
say much.
Mancino: What page are you on?
Farmakes: Page 5. The provision of housing affordable to all income groups is appropriate
with the PUD. Finding. The price of the for sale units that has not yet been determined.
Staff believes that these properties will be sold at market rate. How does that relate to 6?
Generous: This isn't affordable housing.
Aanenson: Exactly. It's one of the things under the PUD that may be affordable housing.
We're saying this one isn't affordable housing. We believe it's going to be sold at market
rate.
Generous: It's market rate and the developer presented that he's looking at $120,000.00 to
$200,000.00 a unit.
Farmakes: Is line 6 saying that we, every time we have a PUD we are looking at.
Aanenson: There's a laundry list of things and some of those are going to apply and some
aren't. And so what we do is we go through all of them and tell you which ones. I don't
think on every project you're going to get all of these issues. I mean some are and some
aren't.
Farmakes: But the revision that we did on the PUD requirement is not required there,
correct? That's what you're saying, a laundry list.
Aanenson: Not every project is going to have energy conservation on the units. Not every
project's going to be affordable housing, no. Not every project's going to meet all of these 8
items. So what we've done is the ones, we've gone through and put findings on the ones that
you meet that. Again, one we felt on this one was the parks and open space. The transfer of
density. We think that this is going to enhance this project.
Farmakes: The ro osal is looking at coming in down the line would be how much
p p g g
remainder of this property? What percentage?
Generous: I think it's like 13 to 15 acres of upland on the north side of the road and then the
outlot which the city is in the process of negotiating the purchase for. The wetland area. The
uplands west of the wetland.
1 16
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: So if you just took a rough guess on the percentage, if this is 10 %, what would
the remaining building...
Generous: 15% to 20% of the total land area.
Scott: You know if you look at this we're about, you say there's 90 acres we're talking about.
About half of that is non - buildable anyway because it's wetland so we're down to 45. Then
we've got 12, roughly 12 acres here. And we've got roughly another 12 over there so it's kind
of like, yeah the whole project is not a lot. I think of what's buildable it's 25% maybe.
Something like that maybe. Because I was looking at that too and I thought, well that's pretty
significant and then I think how much of it's actually buildable and then you're talking about
the city negotiating the purchase of some of the other area for a passive park. It starts to
whittle it down to really not a whole lot of property. But I share your point because
whenever I see PUD I always think of the same thing. What are we getting out of here?
We're giving someone the ability to transfer density. What's the flip side?
Generous: We're getting that permanent open space of that 2 acres and the parks department
is requiring them to build the trail without credit. Or that's their recommendation.
Farmakes: How many acres are yet to be developable on the remainder of that property?
Generous: Let's see, I have that. Well it's all of the rest of the outlots would be technically
looked at for development but it's only the portion in the northeast corner of the site that will
be developed, and that's between 13 and 15 acres. I don't remember the exact number.
Scott: So basically 50% of the non - wetland property. You start with 90. Cut it in half
because of wetland and then figure that we've got a 12 acre parcel and a 14 acre parcel, that's
basically all that's left to develop. So really we're only talking about between a third to a half
of what's actually going to be developed. It's going to be a PUD. Then shouldn't there be a
stipulation in there that somehow limits the amount of area that should be considered for
development?
Farmakes: No, I'm not saying that. First of all, I'm not against having this be a PUD. I'm
not against what the display is here or the applicant's proposal. All I'm suggesting is that
under the way that this is being brought forward, and the fact that the adjacent development
next to it and how it first came forward.
Mancino: They're splitting it in half.
17
t
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: Correct. It would be preferable if we were looking at this from a planning
standpoint, to see all of it together. I realize there's a technical application. Having two
different applicants here but from a reality standpoint, if it's all under PUD, and we don't
r know if that's going to happen but that's my guess.
Aanenson: It doesn't have to be a PUD. They can come in and do a straight subdivision to
the north. We can't force them. I mean I guess you can say, it has to be rezoned, or the
guide has to be rezoned. It's at A -2 right now. I guess you could deny it and say we feel it
needs to be a PUD but they could come under our straight subdivision up to the north.
Generous: R -8.
Conrad: Yeah we're not giving, Mr. Chairman, we're not giving up anything here. I think
we're splitting hairs. I'm not sure we're talking about anything that's real relevant. If we're
worried that the other land that's going to be developed has some missed opportunities
because it's not tied together, then there's some valid points. I think we raised these issues
earlier, or at least I did. Concerned with coming in with a small parcel when there's more
land but the Planning staff has said they're pretty comfortable with that. That's their job.
They've been looking at all of the parcels. The road alignment is pretty well set. So when
you take a look at the elements that we try to control under a PUD, it's looking pretty good.
We still have the control on the Highway 5. Yeah, this is a little bit different but from my
standpoint, this doesn't bother me because again, if we're looking for what are we getting.
Well what are we giving. We haven't given anything, a great deal here in my mind. It's
zoned 4 to 8 units. We're not giving up anything. Staff feels it's administratively the smart
thing to do to put it under a PUD. I'm real comfortable with it.
Mancino: It's guided low density.
Farmakes: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about this particular
development. I'm talking about if we, in the future, get applications for conceptual review
and we deny them for whatever reason and those applications come back where 10% now of
that property conceptually has been redeveloped away from the problem area. Are we
creating?
Conrad: I don't think we're setting a precedent. I think we have, you have total control right
now.
Farmakes: ...something we haven't seen yet.
Aanenson: This project's never been denied by the Planning Commission though.
1 18
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Farmakes: It wasn't part of the packet and to be honest with you I can't remember. I
remember that it came forward and there were some problems on TH 5 with this particular
piece of property.
Scott: Well there was also a problem because the first applicant that we saw here was
planning, for them to make the project work financially, they had to put some buildings on
that high land that we're now leaving open for density transfer. I think they were talking
about putting more units on and then there was a question of how do we build the road from
this section through the wetlands to access the other piece and I think there were some other
issues that the developer actually...
Farmakes: Well I don't think the issue that we were talking about at that point in time was
even an issue... talking at that time about how the issue was related to Highway 5. But
again... I just want to make sure when we run into these type of things that we don't get into
that because it seems to me ... the overall picture in relationship to those developments were
because often an applicant may have several developers within an area ... It's hard to see the
overall picture. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. In the motion, just as long as we agree
upon how many acres we're actually dealing with, I really don't have any comments.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, I just have one last one and this is one I just want to put on public
record I guess. And that is that I have no problems with this development but I do think that
it is one of these wonderful little areas that would be great for an area for the city to have
considered for affordable single detached housing. That it is across from the school that we
have. There are several demographics show there are a lot of people out there that would,
and need, affordable single family housing and I think this would have been a perfect spot for
it. So that is not what's being presented tonight. I'm just saying that.
Harberts: I could comment on that one.
Conrad: I might too. Go ahead.
Harberts: I think we have to keep in mind that when you think about affordable housing, it's
not just a matter of putting in a cluster or collection of x number of buildings, detached,
attached, whatever and zero them in or identify them as affordable housing. I mean we don't
even know what that means. But I think there's opportunities within any subdivision to come
up with strategies to make housing affordable, even if it's a $200,000.00 average pricing.
You can buy down. You can finance or whatever. If there's different financing opportunities
that the city or someone. I don't know maybe the developer. I don't know. May be able to
19
February Planning Commission Meeting - F ng eb ry 1 , 1995
look at. It's not just, I just want to make certain that you have to have a cluster of homes. It
could be 1% of the entire subdivision is targeted at whatever is termed affordable housing so
I think we need to keep our minds open. I don't know what the answer is, or what the
mechanism and how to achieve it but it's not just a matter of putting a collection of houses or
apartments or whatever and saying this is our affordable housing area. It deals with more
financing than it is the type of building.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with most of what Diane said. We don't know what affordable housing is.
Affordable housing is a $70,000.00 house and we ain't going to do it here until we figure out
how to do it here and that's why we asked staff last week, or a couple weeks ago to take us
through an exercise so we can know what it is. And I think some of Diane's points are real
valid. We really do have to figure out if we mix them in or if it's a zone. If it's going back
to houses with allies on 8,000 foot lots. Those are the options to bring. You've got to bring
the land costs down first and then the housing costs will follow. But you know the real
questions are, do we mix them? Do we separate them? What do we do?
Harberts: Excuse me Ladd. It might even be a matter of, and again I have no idea exactly
what the answers are. That perhaps the city's involvement may be the forgiveness or lesser
consideration of fees or whatever. Again I don't know what the mechanism is. I think the
opportunities are there but it's going to take, well it's going to take leadership from the
Council as well as some innovative staff ideas in terms of how we do it. So again it's not
just clusters. It's not areas. It's something, it's goals to be achieved not through areas but
more I think through the financing techniques.
Scott: Well before I ask for a motion on this particular item, what I'd like to suggest is, I
think we can make the assumption that there will be a mandate, an unfunded mandate of
some sort from the Met Council to do this so I think we can assume that. Number two, we
have the PUD process which allows us to get and give relationship with the developer so
perhaps this creative means of introducing affordable housing as part of a PUD could be that
what we do is we allow the developer density, increased density in exchange for affordable
housing. That allows the developer to help, obviously more density equals more money.
And then perhaps we could negotiate some other units and I also subscribe to the belief that
Diane has, that you don't cluster them together. It's something that needs to be spread out.
But anyway, could I have a motion please.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion with Bob's help. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development to rezone 11.4 acres
20
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
from Agricultural Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Bob, you've got a
sentence that you wanted to put in after PUD I believe.
Generous: For that property south of McGlynn Drive which is shown as Block 1 and open
space.
Conrad: And the balance of the staff motion stands with all the staff reported motions, 1 thru
17 with an addition to 18 where it reads the applicant shall provide sanitary services to the
existing property lines of the three homes and the balance of the point of the staff report.
From 19 thru 28, those items are the same in the staff report. Point number 29, a variety of
neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City Council along with the
proposed building materials for the construction of this complex.
Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment and that is that staff review recommendation
number 2 to make sure that the costs are correct.
Scott: Would you accept that amendment?
Conrad: Yeah I would and I guess I'm just, not only cost but numbers in there. There were
some disparities in numbers. Costs and numbers but I don't want to make a motion. Well I
don't know. They'll fix it.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a second to the motion as amended.
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Harberts: I do. I'd like the, and I don't know what the proper way to forward this to the
Council. If it's another motion or if it's just comments. That before any PUD comes before
us, I'd like staff to be able to look at the PUD and be able to maybe identify some
opportunity for whatever affordable housing means. In terms of a trade -off. In terms of
maybe some forgiveness or lesser fees collected, I don't know but I'd like to send that
message to the City Council. I think our opportunities are becoming slimmer folks and I'm
not, I don't have the magic answer but I'd like to see the next PUD with some type of options
or something, a demonstration in terms of what's going on.
Mancino: And that would include a definition of affordable housing.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Harberts: Yeah, I think we can certainly come up. I mean you've got the, you've got poverty
guidelines. You have the working poor guidelines. We know what the average wage in
Chanhassen, a majority of the industries can be. I think we can pull some type of general
understanding here. You know and I guess the real challenge is going to be to insure that
there's a mechanism in which that type of population that's being targeted really has the
opportunity to participate so. You know I don't think you can just finance. I think it's just
insuring that the opportunities exist for a good share of the people.
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Is this an add on to the amendment or is this.
I Scott: Well this is a discussion.
Conrad: I think that was a discussion item and I think that carried it's, made it's point.
■ Harberts: Yeah, I don't know how it should be carried forward to the Council, but I see Mr.
Mayor's out there.
Farmakes: It's certainly a form of entitlement. Without knowing what that entitlement is or
how it's brought across, without defining that, how could anyone address the issue. It has yet
I to be defined from the State level. Not from any want of anyone asking.
Harberts: Well but here's an opportunity that we can maybe suggest parameters in terms of
what affordable housing is just within our community because of what's here. In terms of the
environment. In terms of the wage scale. In terms of the land costs. Things like that. It's a
complicated issue I know but at least let's start looking. I know there's things happening in
Eden Prairie as part of a housing subcommittee so I'm just looking for I guess some way to
get the ball rolling because the opportunities are going to become a lot slimmer as these
developments move forward.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 11.4 acres from Agricultural
Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, for that property south of McGlynn Drive
which is shown as Block 1 and open space, and preliminary plat creating one Block with 47
' lots, and two oudots and associated right -of -way for a residential low density development
consisting of 46 dwelling units consisting of 13 twin homes and 5 fourplex buildings subject
to the plans dated December 20, 1994, and the following conditions:
1 22
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
Depending on scheduling of the frontage road, the applicant may incorporate
construction of the retention pond into the overall development plans and receive credits
towards their SWMP fees. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event
along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with
pre and post runoff conditions shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval
prior to final plat consideration.
2. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity and quality fees
based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed
development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity and quality fee of
$21,997.00 and $10,517.00 assuming 9.2 acres of developable land. The applicant may
be credited against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system or water quality
improvements they install as a part of the overall development in accordance to the
City's SWMP. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine the
applicable credits, if any.
3. The applicant shall petition the city to construction the frontage road within the
development from Galpin Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site
improvements. The frontage road shall be constructed in accordance to State Aid
standards. Plans and specifications will be submit to review and approval by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid office. The applicant shall dedicate
to the city at no cost the frontage road right -of -way.
4. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the city receiving the necessary permits and
approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for
extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel and awarding a bid
5. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval.
6. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be
submitted to city staff for review and approval.
7. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City '
and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents.
23
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
8. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house
pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official.
9. The applicant shall apply for an obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps
of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver County Highway Department.
10. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far
' as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile.
11. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing
will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion
control fence on the slopes and /or temporary sediment basins.
12. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within
the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and
subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in
conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
13. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street
alignment for the east /west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised
accordingly as a result of the State Aid review process.
14. Wetland delineation alon g the western portion of Basin A should be re- evaluated.
15. The applicant must meet City, State, and Federal permitted requirements for wetland
alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed
project and the frontage road as one project.
16. The developers and /or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessment resulting from the City's public improvement project
for construction of the frontage road including but not limited to hearing requirements
and claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
17. The private streets /driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private
driveway ordinance for low and /or medium density zoning.
' 24
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
18. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer services to the existing property lines of the
three homes on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall be reimbursed
their fair share of the cost to extend service to these homes when the parcels hook up to
the sewer system.
19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus stops/
shelters within the development.
20. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from Highway
5 towards the development and building materials, textures, roofing treatment, and color
schemes.
21. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
22. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot easement for tail purposes as identified on the
preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
23. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within
the trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street
construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved
by the Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
24. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
and approval prior to final plat approval.
25. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that
no openings or projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat
approval.
26. A ten foot clear space shall 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. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9.1. Fire hydrant placement shall be submit to review by the Fire
Marshal.
27. The canopy coverage calculation needs to be verified by the applicant in order to
determine the adequacy of the proposed Landscaping Plan. The tree preservation plan
must be revised to accurately reflect existing tree canopy and proposed tree removal.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 1, 1995
28. A legal document shall be recorded combining the proposed 2.19 acres of dedicated
open space to Block 1 of the development. This document shall also specify that all
development rights for the dedicated open space have been transferred to Block 1 and
that no future development of the dedicated open space area, with the exception of
public trails, shall be permitted.
29. A variety of neutral colors for siding be made available and presented to the City
Council along with the proposed building materials for the construction of this complex.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mancino: Before Bob goes, I have a question.
Scott: Is this new business?
Mancino: Yes. Is now the time to speak?
Scott: Yes, this is the new business portion of the agenda.
Mancino: One of the questions I had tonight, and Bob you worked so much on the tree
preservation ordinance, is how long ago did we pass that? Has that been a year?
Generous: May.
Mancino: Just May of '94?
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Okay. At some point I would like to see the results of it. You know we pass
ordinances and we want to see what's the result of them. I haven't seen a woodland
management plan at all. I haven't seen, I mean it doesn't have to be where I go out to a
subdivision but I'd like to see what we are getting. What kind of woodland management
plans we are getting as a result of this ordinance.
Generous: I can show it. The Minger Addition does have one and you missed it. When we
did that presentation on transitions. The next set of slides was on tree protection.
26
V ? 5':E•° ,
-1
w 1J bo
------------------- ------------- 0"
..................... tattvau_w. -- A
................................
wL
fir`•— - ::Z.
I, \
on
Floisingt Koegler Group Inc. HIGHWAY 5/ GALPIN BLVD. PARK
'M Wm, 13
COKUPf PLAN
Chanhassen, Minnesota