4. Conceptual PUD to rezone 89.59 acres of property 1 � C 1 TY O F PC D ATE: Oct. 6 1993 i - L-
1 � �� CHANI��SS
CC DATE: 2 5,1993
\� ► Oct.
�``
CASE #: PUD #93 -5
1
STAFF REPORT
1 -
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned
1 A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for a 232 unit residential development comprised
of 21 buildings of either 8, 10 or 12 units in each.
Z
1 Q LOCATION: Southwest corner on Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Boulevard
U
1
0. �
APPLICANT: Centex Real Estate Corporation Westwood Engineering
• Baker Technology Plaza 14180 West Trunk Hwy 5
Q 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Minnetonka, MN 55345 '
1
Action by Cfty Admin
1 PRESENT ZONING: A2 Agricultural Estates F,ttorsert P
Modified
1 ACREAGE: 89.59 gross 29.11 net Rejected /C 93
Dates
note submitted to Conwnft
DENSITY: 2.59 units /acre (gross) 8 units /acres (net)
I ADJACENT ZONING Date Submitted
/0 s-?
AND LAND USE: N - A2 Agricultural Swings Golf
1 atti. S - PUD, Trotters Ridge Subdivision
E - A2 proposed Elementary School, RR Timberwood Subdivision
Q W - A2, proposed Gateway Business Park
1 WATER AND SEWER: Not et available to the site. Applicant must petition for services.
Y PP P
Iw I.... PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex with upland agricultural
area that is farmed. There is a tree line along the property limits.
I The buildable area along Hwy. 5 is generally flat but then the site
drops off toward the wetlands to the south.
II 2000 LAND USE PLAN: North of collector street, Medium Density
. a • 1 - • 1 .. it 'ix
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
111 Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing to build 232 townhouses on the project on the
southwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. There are a total of 21 buildings
proposed four 8 unit, two 10 unit, and fifteen 12 unit buildings. This property is currently zoned
A2, Agricultural Estate but is guided for Medium Density (4 -8 units /acre) Development and Low
Density (1.2 -4.0 units /acre) Development. The parcel is 89.59 acres all of which except for
29.11 acres is wetland. The property that is suitable for development will be split by the
' extension of the collector road that will 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. Although the guide plan shows this area as a mix of low and medium density, staff has
supported this area as medium density. The collector road has been moved to the south to
accommodate the school site. Based on the size of the development, parcels split by the road
' and the wetland it would be difficult to develop single family at this location and clustering of
units is the only reasonable option.
' The applicants are seeking only conceptual approval at this time. The applicant still needs to
provide additional information including compliance with the Hwy. 5 development standards,
PUD standards, wetland alteration permit, petition for sewer service, and a tree inventory. Staff
' also needs to come to some conclusions about the location of any active portion for a park on
this site as well as the location of the collector road as it adjoins the Gateway parcel. There are
two possible locations for the active component of the park, on the Opus or Centex parcels.
' Recently, staff believed the Centex option was more appropriate but a problem has surfaced. The
site has a large wetland complex and staff is concerned about the suitability of some of the soils
especially in the western portion of the site. Upon investigation of soils on the eastern portion
' of the Centex site, 31/2 feet of peat and ground water one foot below grade was found. STS,
the consulting engineers, who did the soil study stated in their opinion the site in unsuitable for
park improvements unless the City undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and
site drainage. Staff has concerns whether or not this area is suitable for building would •
recommend the applicant submit a soils report to verify buildings can be located on this western
portion of the site.
' While the design of this PP
ro'ect appears to reflect many of the Hwy.5 development standards, this
P J
is the first development to proceed after the drafting of the Hwy. 5 document. Careful
measurement of this project against these standards needs to be made. Staff has asked for
additional information on specific issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5
' towards the development, impervious surface, etc. The applicant is prepared to provide more
details as the project evolves.
' Staff believes the concept is consistent with city plans and ordinances and good planning
practices but there are a number of issues and concerns that must be resolved before plans are
1
1
Centex PUD 1
October 6, 1993
Page 3 1
submitted for preliminary reviews. The proposed concept plan is serving its purpose in helping
to define these issues. We are recommending that it be approved.
I
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 grow within delineated
wetlands and on some uncultivated.
REZONING 1
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
1
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 89.59 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate
to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD
I
request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent
1
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the
I 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 I
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. It will be the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated I
against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
I
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
I
portion of the site that is being developed adjacent to Hwy. 5 is relatively flat. The
property along the western edge has trees including elm, box elder and some aspen. The
wooded area, with the exception of the frontage road crossing, will largely be left intact.
I
1
•
1
1
Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
Page 4
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
property it is split into 4 development parcels. Block 1 is 12.93 acres, Block 2 is 8.47
' acres, Block 3 is 5.46 acres and Block 4 is 2.25 acres. Because it is against city
ordinance to have a subdivision lot to have direct access onto a collector, it would be
difficult if not impossible to develop this property as a traditional single family
1 subdivision.
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
1 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 proposed as an Elementary School.
Timberwood is just to the southeast of any proposed townhouses. While this is not
' the optimal 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 site is around 29 acres. Staff would support the buildable portion
of the site to be designated medium density. Any proposed single family development
south of the collector street would be very small with an 8.5 acre area and a 5.5 acre area.
' 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 Park and Recreation Commission is proposing a community park,
1 approximately 100 acres in this area including the Trotters Ridge and Gateway property.
A park (15 acres) will be located on this site or the Gateway property to the west or a
portion of both.
' 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
g �' P
1 Finding. The price of the "for sale" units has not yet been determined.
1
1
Centex PUD 1
October 6, 1993
Page 5 1
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
1
Finding. 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.
1
Berms were developed along the collector road and Hwy. 5.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
1
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. The site will have access from Hwy. 5 and from Galpin Boulevard. A collector
1
Street will tie this site with the property to the west and east of the site. This collector
street will include a trail. Access to this site will not be through any existing single
family neighborhoods.
1
Finding. The applicants have stated that the trips generated from Low -Rise Residential 1Townhouse/ Condominiums units equals approximately 6 trips per units. The data was
based on criteria obtained from the institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual.
Based on the 23 units, the total trips generated would equal 1,392.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to 1
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allow 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 (trees and wetlands)
Improved architectural standards
Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts
1
Improved pretreatment of storm water
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
1
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. There are a total of
21 buildings being proposed, including four - 8, two - 10, and fifteen - 12 unit buildings.
The final project architecture is still being developed. The applicants have shown a similar 1
product that they have built in Eden Prairie. All units are two story with living/dining/kitchen
on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. Some units have an additional loft area
1
1
Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
1 Page 6
on the second floor. All units have direct access to their own individual garage as well as an
individual front entrance to the outside. The units also include a semi - private outdoor patio space
' adjacent to the living area. The floor plans range in size from approximately 1,170 square feet
to 1,400 square feet.
The units along Hwy. 5 have the garage door facing the highway. A landscape berm is proposed
along the highway to act as a buffer, but staff would like to see any perspective to determine how
' much of he building will be seen from the highway. Staff would expect these dwelling units to
have a similar design to the ones in Eden Prairie. The homes with brick on the bottom and
maintenance free siding of the rest of the exterior. The roof line is pitched and the exterior walls
' have detailing that break up the long facade.
The PUD district allows a maximum of 30 percent impervious surface. No information is given
' about the required amount of impervious surface at this time. Parking, as shown on the plan,
meets the city requirements. Two parking stalls per unit are required, one of which must be
enclosed, plus an additional 'A space per unit. A total of 522 spaces are provided. The
1 applicants have stated that they have provided 740 of which 316 are driveways.
The development and design standards for the Highway 5 Corridor have been incorporated into
' the applicants development proposal. Building height is limited to 3 stories or 40 feet. This
proposal is for two story buildings. If the materials used is similar to those used on the Eden
Prairie project, they would be acceptable with the Hwy. 5 standards.
' The setback for buildings along Hwy. 5 are 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum. 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.
1 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 well as standard lighting.
g p p b dmg as a the stand d street ghring.
' Exterior lighting will be on garages and entrances. Exterior lighting will be controlled with
photocells. Lighting shall be consistent with city standards of 1/2 foot candle at the property line.
' A landscaping plan has been provided. The applicants have stated that the plan is intended to
reflect the addition of common and hardy plant material with the project area. The plants in this
category are varieties of maple, ash, linden, Oak, pines and spruce. The proposed quantities and
1 complete tree survey will be provided with preliminary review.
1
1
1
Centex PUD 1
October 6, 1993
Page 7 1
WETLANDS
Almost fifty percent of this site is characterized as agricultural/urban wetland according to the 1
City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory and a site specific 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 and it separates the eastern portion of upland from the
western portion of upland on site. The wetland is characterized as a seasonally flooded palustrine
wetland with emergent, forested, and scrub shrub classifications (Cowardin PEMC, PFO1C,
PSS1C; Circular 39 - Type 3 shallow marsh). This wetland is also a DNR protected wetland,
10 -210W. An ordinary high water mark has not been established for this basin.
Approximately 0.60 acre of wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development for
the construction of a frontage road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the site.
In addition, 0.26 acres of fill is proposed for the southern portion of the eastern part of the site.
It appears that this fill is necessary to efficiently use the upland that is available.
Wetland B '
Wetland B is a 0.3 acre basin located near the west property boundary. The basin is
characterized as palustrine emergent saturated wetland (Cowardin - PEMB; Circular 39 - Type
1
2 wet meadow). This basin will be filled as a result of the proposed development.
Wetland C 1
Wetland C is a 0.3 acre basin located in the northeast portion of the site. The basin is
characterized as palustrine emergent saturated/seasonally flooded wetland (Cowardin - PEMB /Cd; .
Circular 39 - Type 2/3 wet meadow /shallow marsh). This basin will be filled as a result of the
proposed development.
Additional Wetland
The western portion of upland was investigated by the Park Department for construction of ball 1
fields and tennis courts. The area was found to be saturated with hydrophytic vegetation. The
majority of the soils in this section are classified as peat in the Carver County Soil Atlas. This
section seems to be characterized as wetland, and therefore, it is recommended that the wetland
delineation be re- evaluated before a final mitigation plan is developed.
The following table summarizes the delineated wetland areas that will be altered as a result of
the proposed development:
Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
Page 8
1
Wetland Wetland Wetland Size Wetland Area
Identification Type (acres) to be Altered
(acres)
' A Ag/Urban 43.8 0.86
B
Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3
' C Ag/Urban 0.3 0.3
TOTAL 44.4 1.46
1 It appears that there are additional wetland acres that would be filled as a result of the proposed
development. If the area in question is wetland, the wetland alteration area could well exceed
' three acres. This would require an individual permit from the Army Corps of Engineers as well
as additional mitigation area that is severely limited.
1 Mitigation
A minimum of 1.46 acres of wetland would need to be replaced as a result of the proposed
' - development. Mitigation areas are proposed around the edges of Wetland A. All of the
mitigation will occur around the western upland portion of the site, which is planned to be fully
developed. It is recommended that the mitigation be designed with areas of deeper pockets to
trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development. The
mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment of different
vegetative zones.
' Wetland A will eventually be receiving treated water from the proposed development and from
portions of State Highway 5. One stormwater pond has been designed to collect all of the runoff
' from the proposed development. The stormwater pond must meet National Urban Runoff .
Pollution (NURP) control standards.
A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by the
City with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
Recommendations
' The western portion of the site does not appear to be developable land due to the peat and muck.
If this area is developed, wetland mitigation may be necessary above the 1.46 acres calculated.
Mitigation areas for the site are limited since nearly half of the site is currently wetland.
1
1
1
1
Centex PUD 1
October 6, 1993
Page 9
1
The conceptual stormwater pond on the eastern portion of the site does not appear to be large
enough to collect all of the stormwater runoff and treat it to NURP standards before it is
discharged into the wetland.
Wetland A is capable of maintaining a high functional value in an urban setting and should be
maintained as open space for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and recreational enjoyment. This
wetland also provides water quality improvement and flood retention for the Bluff Creek
Watershed District.
1
STREETS
The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19)
to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with
the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has
proposed an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 -foot wide face -to -face street section which is
also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a
frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway
1
41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State -Aid route and should be built in accordance
with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the
townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west.
1
Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is
shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint
and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the
applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff
is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a
segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5.
As indicated in the September 24, 1993 staff report from Carver County Public Works 1
Department, an additional trail easement (20 -feet wide) should be considered outside the right -of-
way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way.
In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard.
UTILITIES
1
According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper
Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk
Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk
service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north
of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper
1
Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future
development to the northwest which includes this Centex development.
•
1
1
1 Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
Page 10
Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for
the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get
this next phase into the planning process for next year.
Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that
1 the plans are fairly well laid out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved
by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with
the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek,
J tY ' P P J ( PP
Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically
has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the
installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary
' sewer and water lines in excess of 8 -inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant
would be credited the cost difference between normal 8 -inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer
and water improvements proposed outside the City's right -of -way or drainage /utility easements
would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible
for maintenance and ownership.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well
as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion
towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it
appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or
' not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes
to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether
or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk
1 Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to
make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin
Boulevard.
The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to
P
match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the
1 Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity.
' The grading plan proposes a storm water /sediment pond located north of the frontage road which
will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the
sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet
NURP standards. Staff's initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing
acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm event
and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards.
1
1
1
Centex PUD 1
October 6, 1993
Page 11
1
MIS CELLANEOUS _
Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter
P P P � PP �
into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary fmancial security to
1 guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract.
PARKS AND RECREATION
In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Diane Desotelle, Water
Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on Thursday, September 23, 1993. I
The area of most concern being the land which is being considered as one of the park location
options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for construction would be found were
confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey further confirmed our findings, I
defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as containing deep peat and muck soils.
A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type which poses severe limitations for the
development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and muck soils pose very severe
limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils Survey, Table No.6, Degree
and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this information known, the only
action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would be discussionary. It is fair
I
to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions; however, limitations are
inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling this item until further
investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park alternatives are explored. 1
Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93):
I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex I
site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its
southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present
1
on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this
regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on
October 26, 1993. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
I
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their October 20 meeting. It was originally
scheduled for the previous meeting but was not heard due to the late hour. Due to this situation, I
the Planning Commission placed the item first on the agenda and agreed to have it heard at the
October 25, 1993, City Council meeting. It is for this reason that minutes are not yet available.
Several neighbors spoke and raised questions regarding traffic safety on Galpin Boulevard and 1
at the Hwy. 5 intersection. Staff indicated that the road in the vicinity of the site and the
intersection are likely to be improved concurrently with the opening of the new elementary 1
1
Centex PUD
October 6, 1993
Page 12
school in the fall of 1995. Staff is also seeking to gain MnDOT's support of signalization of this
intersection in the same time frame.
' The Planning Commission raised questions of buffering from Hwy. 5, utility of the western island
of high ground in view of poor soils, and several related factors. Condition #2 which outlined
issues for response when formal plans are submitted was modified to account for the concerns.
The Planning Commission recommended that the concept PUD plan be approved.
1 RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the conceptual PUD with the following conditions:
1 1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
PP P
1 preliminary plat submittal.
2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as a tree
1 inventory, perspectives from Hwy. 5 towards the development, impervious surface ratio.
Compliance with Hwy. 5 goals, traffic construction for Hwy. 5 /Galpin and Galpin
Boulevard itself, access to school site, soil correction issues, more creative berming and
1 landscaping for the Hwy. 5 exposure and more fully explore the design implications of
the ultimate Hwy. 5 expansion. Staff should also explore the potential of minor guide
plan changes that may result from this proposal.
1 3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap
additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development.
1 The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment
of different vegetative zones. The stormwater pond must meet NURP standards. A
buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard
as well as space for berming and landscaping.
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer.
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards.
1
1
1
Centex PUD
October 6, 1993 1
Page 13
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard I
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 -year
storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water
quality standards (NURP).
I
8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the fmancial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in I
the development contract.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 1
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993.
11. Compliance with the PUD and Hwy. 5 Design Standards and respond to other issued I
raised in the staff report.
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Summary from Centex dated September 7, 1993 I
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1993
3. Fire Marshal's memo dated September 23, 1993 1
4. Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993
5. Park and Recreation Director memo dated September 24, 1993
6. STS Soils report dated September 28, 1993 1
7. Hearing Notice dated September 23, 1993
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
09•25:93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA X001
1 Past brand fax transmittal memo 767 of Paw ► 4
T4. , � / From +
p
OeP` . PhQ"b - i • Qa September 28, 1993
1 Fax# ` 7 - 5 31 w
Mr. Todd Hoffman
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 STS Project 95897
' Re: Site Reconnaissance of Centex Carriage Homes Property in the
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
' Dear Mr. Hoffman:
1 This letter confirms the discussion we had during our walk- through of the Centex Carriage Homes
(Centex) property located south of T.H. 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard. The services thai you
' requested were limited to the following:
1. Observe the general surface features during a walk- through of the parcel with City personnel.
' 2. Drill shallow hand auger borings to explore the local subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions at selected locations on the parcel.
3. Provide in a written report judgments or recommendations regarding the suitability of the
1 encountered soils for structural support of park improvements.
Background Information
' The City is interested in developing a park on this side of Chanhassen and is reviewing various
P g
sites. Figure One (attached) is a copy of the conceptual development sketch STS received from
the City. it indicates the locations of proposed park improvements for the Centex property, such
as baseball fields, tennis courts, a multi -use building and access roads /parking areas.
Site Surface Features
As observed with you, the portion of the site where park improvements are proposed is
predominantly a low, flat area with a four (4) to six (6) foot rise along the southwest side. The rise
is wooded, while the low area is covered with grass and high weeds. A shallow, man -made ditch
extends along the east boundary of the parcel.
1
' *TS Cenealtan a Ltd.
coneulting Engineers
3650 Annapolis Lane
Sults 120
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
1112.559.1900/ Fax 612559.4507
09.28.93 15:45 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA [2002 I
. City of Chanhassen
STS Project 95897
September 28, 1993 r
Page 2
Soil and Water Conditions
Three hand auger probes (HAP) were performed at the general locations noted on Figure One.
Hand auger probe HAP -1 encountered 3 -1/2 feet of very soft, black to brown peat with
groundwater at 1 foot. Hand auger probe HAP -2 encountered 3-1/2 feet of firm to soft, black
organic clay with groundwater at 2 feet. Hand auger probe HAP -3 was taken on the rise. Six
inches of topsoil above 1 -1/2 feet of mottled gray with brown clay were sampled in HAP -3. The
mottled soil color is an indication of a high groundwater table, but no water was observed directly
in HAP -3. Review of the soils napped for the site in the Carver County Soil Survey you had on
hand confirmed the soil conditions we encountered.
Opinions and Recommendations 1
We have developed the following opinions and recommendations based upon our site observations
and the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the hand auger probes.
Baseball Fields: As planned, the baseball fields would be located in a swamp that has deep
organic soils. The peat and organic clay soils are too weak to support a playing field and drainage
would be a problem. Soil stabilization and drainage improvements would be very expensive as
compared to a site without organic soils.
Tennis and Basketball Courts: The tennis courts and basketball courts (and multi -use building) are
even more dependent on stable soils and good drainage than the baseball fields. Pavements for
these courts would be very expensive to construct properly.
Automobile Drives/ParkinE: Pavements and pavement embankments would require expensive
1
"soft- ground" geotechnical engineering techniques for proper construction. Otherwise, continuous
maintenance of aggregate- surfaced pavements would be necessary.
Summary: In our opinion the site is unsuitable for the planned park improvements, unless the City
undertakes a very expensive program of soil stabilization and site drainage. In addition, any soil
stabilization or drainage may require wetland permitting and mitigation, since most of this site
may be a wetland. Wetland mitigation was. however, not part of this site reconnaissance.
Closure
The opinions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with
common geotechnical engineering practice for this locale and time, Other than this, no warranty
of our work is implied or intended.
1
09:28.93 15:46 FAX 612 559 4507 STS MINNESOTA Z003
1 City of Chanhassen
STS Project 95897
1 September 28, 1993
Page 3
if you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further assistance in your park
1 development work, please contact us at 559 - 1900.
Very truly yours,
' STS CONSULTANTS, LTD.
Ronald A. Shaffer, P. .
' Senior Consultant _
James H. Overtoom, P.E.
Principal Engineer
RAS /dn
' Enc.
1
•
-F I
- -....... 0 1
.11 ■ I
• PANI UldP0
• 7..-...........,--.
) .."."--'-• -\.,..'..„, j'' " ‹.. s . .±...... ft... II 1 za • 1
! 1 to 7(17.7..‘*\.\•7:■■,) )
I ! : .'
i ... : i 7 :\ I) .
.t, 0 l.„ % , . ,•/ .41... / . ..,
1 et
el 01
1 i --\ ,I.,•,•)z - - N \.. ---. l ' - ...-- r — i ' • I I /
.- A- , r. •
C•I a ,
t g ch 5 g ;
t 1 • \ \ -- '''''' - ' 1 7-:-.., z ___ wit' - ./ ',/"../;--- -----
; i 1 1 )1 ') )) \ _•-: - ... -- .1''... 1--7-•
1 3
; ?.‘
vi....----- / ...-• a
. ! 1 ...---•./ / / g ;,;' , ;.:S - - - ----...
, i , , • ../ ///,.-,, ----.....* 1..k, / I
1 • ' " ../ •'•","• •'... •.," 4z;•-• --- . .
c• ,,,,," _-•■•"" .. -fs,:"4.1"!.../. 4
i • i .; - -• .i..!
\ __.--;•,/
.-47-..,"?.,-,‹.......,•• CC gl
' , --/----/-- -- -- - /' ,.(...s...,4
. -.. — / (...:-Irt,<I„„1,.....•.t
..a.;....if..
I I i if Te ...... .. 4,4';
3 ''''. -- VI Vli • _
s 4.• >- 12 •
12:1 at
W ..
1 1 '
1 1 /1/111. 1 , .
, ..r.1....?... , ■"•; , -. • •••,,,ts ••;.41••:•:• l'a
t U CC I li.
1 ! -
. 1 ' -
..,-. .- .. q■ 6 Vgig ..... #,V .. - , i . • . .,•
‘ V.V43."'t4'fq CC O. A
0 CI 4 Q
• . ,. 4.," ' Yk ' ' •41t1441% 4 . - - ‘'', se: —.........":\ ••• . - ,........,_ \ .04 •••1 ,?•:::
• ,p, i(< Ti ' .. f: Th -*/' /
. i IS f -■ \ ie:` •
I
- . -,o. '.,.:.2.-....
:.:: ,.,,, \\4., g. ,
..;',./. .,
-,, i. - - '..._ N:r , g4I"'N
; ,, ,I..4Plis,efit*V;•.'..TW ,..s. 4*
..
4 i Will .' .** ■''' 0 I
A i :" . 4 * , , .. ' " t - ' >" >
. g`f; .: 'a '0* ' .' •' :.li I __ - . ,
.c I:-
fiFF:P:1'-1,0 ...t
., ,..... ,...: '''-* ,,,,.. . E... i Y . ;/ •14'$ at
...!...,:::2' 4. ,.. 1.
.-., G,IrriP2 ......,....• .A...„1474
.
pr,,,,, ,r.„,.„..,,,....,,,,,,,„•„...9 ..„.. fic,
- t i '::1 1i:?:" ' F- ``;',.-•"- "k tl '' '''''' 11E ! : ' • • VT; s;,, A ,..1:-:. .,. -:,
,,,-aw.
i I V- -4
,4,,,,q,,,.„ oy•1:1,,.q1
1 . ,....„.1 '',t i:., , T'. 1 .1 ' • . gtj Itt O ,-, co 1 g
i 1. 1 y
.,,, i- - ' tz'..4 tt: : iti- wr „ , j - ,...,, 1
..1 •-.•
. e.”.xttet, 4 - ,.. .4a, , - . waii
t . '' , ...„„. 1. ; 4 " c„ '' 4 ,..'/'.:.:, ?Iva ' 4 ,_, - ''•-:...-,•,:iii?,,:ki14
111
- 1 ' . 7:41 t
q,4 - Ziniri . ..r . ' ..,..; lia k ".- IF ___,, 02: 1 :: t. • • ••• 3.'S
/ ' • ,, .:154.%.F. r... w 1 $ 4. to0 ,..' 4,
,_-. • - '; in _
-, ..tz.. ) i , 2 .- • ,,,---. .;=; - 4.tcp. , 4 ,- :?, - ,-ItS.!-,,s; t1
'‘...;• - -A - .rt. ,...),;.i.,,?!,,,k.-• il U Zi
:::„,...... ,...-....:1+,,-••• - -....r, . z. vf , :-. V. : '-, t _.,.... - - .La-0 k ' •
. ‘..----------,./•-•......-. 1 . °4 'd lit.1-i: t•-,z. - • 0,741 f- Ili ,;1
•..z.z*.-- k,.
. . / , e_ "-- ...-.: -- •• , \ ,di...,:,.: . A • - .A1 :%.•., ir 1 \ • , . ti ;7, . ' • :;:,;,,i, .,,,,..tx: A t 1 I 1
- •• • ; , , i V-,_ x . \- \\\ : \ C„Z 43 ;, : % -- ; 4 .tpr,3474 . :" . :3 , ..:' .. 4 a 1:;:t k - 4 15 ,"‘ ""■S",.if ir " .. / 4 ;i . .': 4 ' s -14. -
k :„:.\....'"`f4:6:a4.. \\. q i r ''" . 4... - ''' - . ; .4 .:. '' - `
---- \,.,, ki,
t . ' '- ‘'.:.'\\ -- --
. ...
I
•
..,,
, l, ,i\l( / I ; Ao■- -!... ----- '
) • I \ 1
‹ 1 tz I
,,...•
--, •,bY ., „II!. I 0
it
4 i 1 • :- . •7* , 1 il. ..
I : Pic( 1)4 I • ., .
- •
• . :\:\<.. I • ?!.
I
. ! 07 I ---- _—_-./ l'i ;L .. \ .1/4 0 , .:•-
i 1 2 , 1 i „......._ ..„, • ..,, , \,...
i 1%, . - iiii4 s f44-41•00- Y
1
--_-_-■ Ilk v ..
J ,..
NIIP PI:A40
1 'II 'I ''.....-.. • : ..r.::-""'\- .# :1,14* I
l i ( • ' ' --'''' ..-: r
rr. I i
L ....„.......
Jr & 1"i
• 1 , ....._._, ........_.„ „,,, ..........., 17 ,,t ,, N. -
(tr 81
1 i i. t
TZ )0 1 . 4 1 1,.. 1 " i rel. b._ .-... mimen j Ingi a \ %gS
) ( 4 ,
. ` ' . NN. i (
• • 1 I '.. .1. Z..
Z
.:...:::--_,-........ .• A ) ) ) " -- ", : i . :.,..:•. .,
1 Errs pnojrcT NO.
951197
I
i „7.---.*:;,-, \,. 1 , • , . ,
I .• A i i (2-,_ ,. ,
STE PROJECT PILE
1 . , i 1.- • ._p / i l I / ---- /)//) ',/. ••///// ' 0 (i, V
• 1 ! I ) i • . / I //. • • •
1 I . i 7 : • . /7 /
11
NT$
- ...- / / •
SAIEET No.
1 OF 1 .
OltrAsi 'oNiNnAtil
■
r 00 En VIOSaliNIN SIS LOS t 6 22 ZT9 IVA 9t:ST C6/9Z/60
CITYOF
CHIINHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner
' FROM: ///11 Hempel, Assistant City Engineer i ;
1 DATE: September 28, 1993
SUBJ: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Located in the Southwest Corner of Trunk
1 Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) - Centex Homes
LUR File No. 93 -21
Upon review of the conceptual planned unit development plans dated September 7, 1993,
' prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following comments:
ACCESS
The site is bordered by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19)
to the east. The concept proposes extension of an east/west frontage road which coincides with
' the City's land use guide for a frontage road south of Trunk Highway 5. The applicant has
proposed an 80 -foot wide right-of-way with a 36 -foot wide face -to -face street section which is
also in accordance with the City's guidelines. This road segment will be a continuation of a
frontage road system which will originate from Audubon Road and terminate at Trunk Highway
41. This roadway corridor is designated as a State -Aid route and should be built in accordance
with State Aid standards. The proposed frontage road will serve as a collector street for the
1 townhouse development as well as a future industrial park (OPUS) which lies to the west.
Staff has visited the site and found that the wetland areas are substantially larger than what is
' shown on the plan. The wetlands will pose difficulty from both a road construction standpoint
and a permitting standpoint from the regulatory agencies. As stipulated in the narrative, the
applicant is requesting that the City be the lead agency in acquiring the necessary permits. Staff
' is comfortable with working this scenario out with the applicant since the frontage road is a
g PP g
segment of the overall frontage road to be constructed south of Trunk Highway 5.
As indicated 24, staff from Carver County Public Works
s and cated m the September 2 , 1993 staf report ty
Department, an additional trail easement (20 -feet wide) should be considered outside the right -of-
1
Kate Aanenson 1
September 28, 1993
Page 2
1
way since turn lanes and medians will utilize a majority of the Galpin Boulevard right -of -way.
In addition, to provide adequate space for berming adjacent to Galpin Boulevard.
UTILITIES
1
According to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive guide, this parcel lies within the Upper
Bluff Creek District. The City currently has authorized Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk
1
Sewer and Water Improvement which consists of extending sanitary sewer and water trunk
service from the Hans Hagen development (Stone Creek) north to the cemetery which lies north
of Bluff Creek and south of Timberwood Drive. According to the feasibility study for Upper
1
Bluff Creek, Phase II, the proposed lift station will be constructed this winter to service future
development to the northwest which includes this Centex development.
Due to the City's current bonding capabilities, the applicant should formally petition the City for
the extension of sewer and water trunk service to service this development now in order to get 1
this next phase into the planning process for next year.
Staff has reviewed the preliminary utility layout plan from a conceptual standpoint and feel that
the plans are fairly well layed out. Placement of fire hydrants should be reviewed and approved
by the City's fire marshal. All utility improvements should be construction in accordance with
the City's latest Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
In conjunction with the City's trunk sewer and water improvement project (Upper Bluff Creek,
Phase III), this parcel will sustain sewer and water assessments. In the past the City typically
has credited a portion of the trunk assessments back to the applicant for reimbursement of the
installation of the applicable trunk sewer and water improvements. The City considers sanitary
sewer and water lines in excess of 8 -inch in diameter to be trunk facilities and the applicant
would be credited the cost difference between normal 8 -inch diameter mainline utility. All sewer
and water improvements proposed outside the City's right -of -way or drainage /utility easements
would be constructed as private utility improvements. Whereas the City would not be responsible
1
for maintenance and ownership.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
1
The entire site is proposed to be mass graded to achieve the street and drainage systems as well
as building pads. The majority of the site appears to drain in a northeast to southwest fashion
1
towards the wetlands and the Bluff Creek tributary. Again, based on staffs' visit to the site, it
appears the wetlands are much larger than is shown and therefore raises the question whether or
not Lots 17, 18 and 20 are even buildable. The applicant is proposing to "bench" the townhomes
to maintain the rolling or diversified grades as the site appears today. Staff is unclear whether
or not the slopes south of Trunk Highway 5 will be compatible with future upgrade of Trunk
.1
1
Kate Aanenson
September 28, 1993
1 Page 3
Highway 5. It is strongly recommended that the applicant contact and work with MnDOT to
make the grades compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 west of Galpin
Boulevard.
1 The applicant has employed the use of retaining walls along the easterly portion of the site to
match the existing properties adjacent Galpin Boulevard. Due to the height of the walls, the
1 Building Department will require engineered drawings to verify the structural integrity.
The grading plan proposes a storm water /sediment pond located north of the frontage road which
will collect storm runoff from the entire development. Storm water will be treated in the
sediment pond and then be discharged into the wetlands. The storm water pond should meet
NURP standards. Staffs' initial review suspects the pond may be undersized for the contributing
acreage. All storm sewer systems should be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm event
and ponding areas should be designed in accordance to the City's water quality standards.
MISCELLANEOUS
1 Since the development will include public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter
into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
' preliminary plat submittal.
2. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin Boulevard
as well as space for berming and landscaping.
3. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
1 trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer.
4. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State -Aid standards.
' 5. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 -year
1 storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's water
quality standards (NURP).
1
1
1
Kate Aanenson - 1
September 28, 1993
Page 4 1
6. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
I
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in
the development contract.
I
ems
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
' DATE: September 23, 1993
SUBJ: 232 Unit Residential Development
' Hwy 5 & Galpin, Centex Real Estate
Planning Case # 93 -5 PUD
I have reviewed the concept plan for the Galpin Boulevard Carriage Home and have made the
following requirements:
' 1. In g eneral, fire hydrant locations are good. However, because of the high
density of residential units with wood frame construction, additional fire
' hydrants will be required. These will be indicated on the final submitted utility
plan.
1 2. Fire apparatus access roads: The width of fire apparatus access roads shall not
be less than 20 feet. All 20 foot access roads /driveways must be posted with
"No Parking Fire Lane" signs per Chanhassen Policy # 06 -1991.
3. Please advise me if the buildings will be fire sprinklered and to what NFPA
' requirements.
4. An approved turnaround is required on the south/east corner of building #14,
' the north/east corner of building #1, and the south/east corner of building #19.
Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(h).
' 5. Building numbers, street numbers, both public and private, must meet the
requirements of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Policy # 29 -1992.
1
CITYOF
i r.,,, : CHANHASSEN I
0
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
4
MEMORANDUM
II
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -P.
DATE: September 27, 1993 1
SUBJ: 93 -5 PUD, Galpin Blvd. Carriage Homes (Centex) 1
Background:
I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced II planning case, and have some comments and proposed additions to the
conditions of approval.
Analysis: 1
The applicant should be made aware that the City has adopted UBC
Appendix Chapter 38 as revised by the State. The proposed 1
buildings will be classified as R -1 occupancies. Appendix Chapter
38 requires fire sprinklering of R -1 occupancies with 8500 or more
gross square feet of floor area. The Project Summary indicates the II
smallest unit is 1170 square feet and the smallest building
comprises 8 units. Based on these figures, the smallest building
will be 9360 square feet and will require fire sprinklering.
In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and II
private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department.
Proposed street names are not included with the submitted
II
documents.
Recommendations: 1
Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions
of approval:
1. Submit street names, public and private, to the Public Safety 1
Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval. 1
1
II
1
.!
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
' TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
' DATE: September 24, 1993
SUBJ: Carriage Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation
Attached please find a copy of the Planning Department's request for comments in regard to the
' above named application. Also attached is a narrative document supplied by the applicant and
a preliminary plat. In preparation for next Tuesday's report, Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner;
Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and I walked the majority of the site on
' Thursday, September 23, 1993. The area of most concern being the land which is being
considered as one of the park location options. Our suspicions that marginal soil conditions for
construction would be found were confirmed. Examination of the Carver County Soil Survey
' further confirmed our findings, defining nearly the entire area being proposed for park as
containing deep peat and muck soils. A portion of this site contains Hayden loam, a soil type
which poses severe limitations for the development of play areas for intensive use. The peat and
1 muck soils pose very severe limitations to any type of development (see excerpts from the Soils
Survey, Table No.6, Degree and Kind of Limitations for Specified Recreational Uses). With this
information known, the only action which can occur at this time in regard to this proposal would
be discussionary. It is fair to say that many parks have been developed in similar conditions;
however, limitations are inevitable and drainage problems are constant. Staff recommends tabling
this item until further investigation of the soils in the area is completed, and other park
' alternatives are explored. [Note: City -staff will be conducting a second site visit with a soils
specialist this afternoon. A report in this regard will be presented to the commission next
Tuesday evening.]
Park and Recreation Director's Update (9/30/93):
I am currently 90% certain that the Park and Recreation Commission will abandon the Centex
site as a potential location for an active park site. The property does contain a knoll in its
' southwest corner which will be preserved as park, in addition to the large wetland area present
on the site. Forthcoming soil analysis will allow the commission to reach final consensus in this
regard. I anticipate the Park and Recreation Commission will review this application again on
October 26, 1993.
1
•
1.
1.
1
1
� ATHCART H SHTA 1
r AC o 0
f -111111 8 § 8
A B HARK f
a 1 �. a a a ea• a
N R . = o — ■ • I j
4200 —. .r- ����n i7 4 7w� :. =Ale' �� -- ` 1�ur A� of .1) �w / .• 6 . • 7 E•_ � i ,` t � • ----- ,/I 4 4 C.. 411 - • rov.,4,,,, f 11in a v � �' •ago F /ELD MA-
� 4500 •STER.J/�/ J -\.�l �l �/ PARK ; � . � ,��
, %Anti "14 i' Ali
� / mr � i QLI� ra N. my 1 E J L. 17' 1 Af Wl�= MI{l �/ l , \ LAKE ''
f � : P / ., r
u00 1 r alai i� " LAK _ „ W
t M/ N N E W A S H T A ',
{90D a . -
1 r{ REGIONAL
7000 � II \ , _ _ ' - PARK - - ,_ `mo • c 111
` \� \ • ` IMPRISON
_
1 P b �:
S ,. fit �% / I
T00 i
„ a C.IKE 7 , 6. � . , Q
row S7JOE � , .� � \ � ^ `.7/ 't ^ ■ g
W
7200 c c , i .�A: O Q \ 'L \a�- ' •/ �°'
1- _ T
7300 u r,s • A i l
E� am t l , � Na J
`7400 O / (] V (7��� I , ' ® Z
IV
� /.i F I p
: ��� . Q. ti; , . '1 \ � \ a
arawaz 7500
MOO \� 1•� __- in 1 ft
P , . 7700
!� \CND I I 1
ON•
7800 - - - 742 MG A'/ _ -
BBD UN
MO 1
{000
refl
`I T E•M W�
Izzo.
MO aw t 02 N0 STREET _ .+ ' , r . .' a {200 \ - __ POND `�!
.300
r.........________I raili .
. v my e'
s�oo - -� z d
S
I CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS CITY OF CHANHASSEN
D ASSETS OF OSHKOSH, INC. 3610 HWY. 101 SO. C/O TREASURER
275 NOREX DR. WAYZATA, MN 55391 690 COULTER DR.
HASKA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 147
I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARK & J. TAINTOR
CURTIS E. & J. BEUNING ANDREW & S. RICHARDSON
1 381 TIMBERWOOD DR. 8120 PINEWOOD CIR.
HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
L ITCHEL & MARY KRAUSE JAMES L. & LINDA J. HOWARD L. & L. JOHNSON
2380 TIMBERWOOD DR. LEIRDAHL 8250 GALPIN BLVD.
'CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2350 TIMBERWOOD DR. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
141 OLTERS RIDGE LMT. HI -WAY 5 PARTNERSHIP THOMAS & M. SCHMITZ
9 POWERS BLVD. C/O DENNIS DIRLAM 8190 GALPIN BLVD.
"CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 15241 CREEKSIDE CT. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
ED ALE & M. WANNINGER LAWRENCE & F. RASER PATRICK & K. MINGER
II8170 GALPIN BLVD. 8210 GALPIN BLVD. 8221 GALPIN BLVD.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
1
JP'S LINKS INC. ROGER & G. SCHMIDT TIMOTHY & V. DEMPSEY
750 GALPIN BLVD. 8301 GALPIN BLVD. 8241 GALPIN BLVD.
XCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
/ LARRY & E. VANDEVEIER MILLS PROPERTIES INC. JAY C. DOLEJSI
I 890 CO. RD. 10 E. 512 LAUREL ST. 6961 CHAPARRAL LN.
HASICA, MN 55318 P.O. BOX 505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRAINERD, MN 56401
I IID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL
SERVICES CORPORATION
600 ARBORETUM BLVD.
lEXCELSIOR,M N 55331
1
1
1
•
1
1
E. Jerome & Linda Carlson Dennis & Beverly Jacobson Paul & Roxanne Youngquist
6950 Galpin Lake Road 6841 Hazeltine Blvd. 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
1
Duane & M. Johnson Jay C. Dolejsi Robert & Penelope Arneson
Box 102 6961 Chaparral Lane 6921 Galpin Blvd.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
Neal & Deborah Wunderlich Michael & C. Klingelhutz Brett A. Davidson
7011 Galpin Blvd. 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 7291 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 1
David & Anga Stockdale Prince R. Nelson Martin & Beth Kuder 1
7210 Galpin Blvd. c/o BJRS 6831 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331 10345 Olympic Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Earl Gilbert III Valentine & C. Wirtz Mr. Terry Forbord
6901 Galpin Blvd. 19380 Highway 7 Lundgren Brothers
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 935 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
1 OCTOBER 20, 1993
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina and Diane
' Harberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
1 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
' CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10
OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE
CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN
BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
(BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY).
1 Public Present:
1 Name Address
1 Marian Schmitz 8190 Galpin Blvd.
Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd.
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Dan Blake Centex Real Estate Corporation
1 Paul Krauss, Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order.
Dan Blake: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dan Blake.
I represent Centex Real Estate Corporation. As Paul said, we're really here for some
direction. There's been a lot of discussion on this site as we worked with staff earlier this
' year on the road alignment of the frontage road and the park issue and we finally decided we
needed to just get a plan in so that we could start formalizing the process and where the city
1 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
wanted the park and where they want that road. And I think we've gotten awful close to
accomplishing that. I'd like to, a little bit of site information. Again, this is Highway 5 and
Galpin. Some of the natural features. A big wetland area...down here. Develop a piece of
high ground down at the bottom of our site which the park department has indicated it is their
desire for park acquisition of the part of the park system here... There are some areas of trees.
Generally lower quality wetland...type trees. Further down the wetland there are some trees
on this side of the knoll...If you go out there today, one of the most significant features is a
very high natural berm left when Highway 5 was cut with trees, evergreens on it now, 1
roughly in this location. It's the requested Highway 5 widening of right -of -way which
includes that tree line. I'm not exactly sure what impacts those trees are if you widen
Highway 5...I would guess that a portion of it may be lost...The buildings, this is an artist
1
rendition of the buildings. They are 12 unit townhouse buildings. 6 units on either side.
There's also 8 and 10 unit buildings which is the same building as some of the middle units.
Currently we're building this exact product in Eden Prairie and Apple Valley. We just last
1
year completed a project of a very similar building with the city of Mendota Heights so the
building design is pretty much established...our intent to build. Again the attached garages.
...and I think what that does for some of the concerns of the Highway 5 issue is provide some
varied exposures. I have a drawing back here and I can pull it up. It kind of cuts through
the site but it's awfully small. Given the scale of the site, it was hard to depict but we're 111 trying to show you, this being Galpin on this end. The western boundary of the site with the
varied impact of the trees and the building. This is the 3 buildings that you see here. Down
here and here and here. And then the big open existing wet meadow wetland and then some
of the existing forested wetland which is through here. That kind of shows you the general
look from Highway 5. I think that is one of, Paul referred to as a concern. I think it's just
kind of an unknown yet what that Highway 5 impacts. What exactly this is looking for and
what exactly this would look like. Another cuts through the site the other way. Shows
Highway 5 here. The existing tree room. The proposed right -of -way. Landscaping berm, the
parking drive and then the buildings so this kind of gives you a sense of the scale in relation
to Highway 5. I believe it's 265 feet from the edge of the building to the center line of
Highway 5. This would be the dimension from here to over there.
Mancino: Excuse me, is that a 2 lane Highway 5 or is that a 4 lane Highway 5?
Dan Blake: This is drawn as existing. 1
Mancino: As existing? Okay.
Ledvina: Where do the other 2 lanes o then on Highway 5? Do they go to the south?
g g Y Yg
Okay.
2 1
1
1
J Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
Harberts: What are your homes selling for in Apple Valley and Eden Prairie and Mendota
1 Heights?
Dan Blake: Eden Prairie the price ranges from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Apple Valley's
1 a little less than that.
Scott: Can you plus or minus $10,000.00 estimate, given that development, can you estimate
1 what the sale prices would be for this particular project? Same range roughly?
Dan Blake: Same. Similar. Maybe a little further up than Eden Prairie. Maybe a little bit
I less but a lot of the same site characteristics. It has a very prime view units. A lot of I'll
say secluded, privacy units. Not too many highway units... Beyond that I guess it'd be easier
for me to answer questions either now or as you see fit.
I Scott: Okay. Any questions?
1 Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, the report discusses, the staff report discusses the buildability of the
area in the vicinity of units 17 to 20. Have you done?
I Dan Blake: We've done, we have brought engineering out to do soil borings on the site. We
did deep regular soil borings on this site but because of access, because you can't cross this
wetland, not very well. They just from the other side walked in and did some relatively deep
I hand auger borings, in the 6 to 8 feet down range. The unsuitable soils range from 2 to 6
feet over in this area...half a foot of topsoil and sandy clays below that. We're not exactly
sure what our opinion is. Is it for sure buildable. It's buildable at some cost but that's
I exactly...too costly. I think as big of an issue this is going to be, the construction of this road
which the city I believe is important no matter what goes in here and they have agreed to
I participate in the, at least the permitting process of getting that road across that wetland.
Harberts: A question for staff. What's the opportunity to try and focus some priorities for
I affordable housing with this project? I just came from a governance committee and my
understanding is the Governor's putting together a blue ribbon task force to address housing.
I Krauss: Well, I think as most of you are aware, the city has had a concern with affordability
of housing. We have broached the idea to a couple of developers. I guess we really don't
know what kind of flexibility we have at this point and we're having our bond counsels and
I some other folks who work with us on financing issues put together what our financing
options are so we can go back intelligently and talk to developers. We're also having, we've
commissioned a study. Fred Hoisington is working with major employers in the community
1 and he's surveying their...to ascertain what the needs are for housing. What can they afford.
1 3
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
What do they look for. What sort of incentive program is most useful to them. I think it's
fair to say that certainly as soon as we have our ducks in order, we'd sit down with this
developer. We've already talked about sitting down with another developer who's on later
tonight and trying to at least tinker with some of these units to make them a little more
affordable. I'm hoping that we move forward on that a little bit in the next month or so. I 1
believe there's an item on that for the HRA agenda tomorrow night.
Harberts: I think it's going to come to a point where if the cities do not take a lead in it, that
the government's going to force the issue in a way that's not going to be very positive for the
community and that's the message I basically got tonight at my meeting.
' that for quite a while. The problem is they
Well they've kind of been hinting at q p Y
took away all the tools we had to do anything about it. You know we have to stretch the
envelope a little bit to do much of anything. We used to be able to sell mortgage revenue
bonds. Used to be able to do TIF districts for housing and they took that away and then they
complain that you're not building affordable housing in the suburbs. Well the fact is, we the
city don't build anything. We depend on the private sector to do it and they can't deliver it.
I think what you've got here tonight is a fairly reasonably affordable product.
Farmakes: The other thing that disturbs me is that the government has shown an abysmal 1
record over the past 30 years of doing a very good job of project housing. And I don't
believe that once you get outside the realm of market, and start dictating a large scale project
housing, that if the city approaches this, that it does so on an individual housing type basis.
Because otherwise I think that we're approaching a serious can of worms and I'm sure many
developers will tell you that. And what bothers me about this is government is never very
good at producing something that the private sector can for less at probably far more
efficiently targeted to the customer. That doesn't take away from staff but.
Krauss: Well we don't know what the options are but none of these options have been -
explored, and frankly...govemment subsidized housing. The approach that we've been
looking at is to try to tinker with that offer for example of first time home buyer assistance.
People can often...but they may be stretched to meet the down payment and there are ways to
develop a small pot of money that over time allows people to get into those homes and it's
blind. I mean these are owner occupied homes. We won't know who's in them.
1
Farmakes: And I think that's more innovative. But as I said before, the tendency when you
ask how much are these houses going to cost, for information that' fine but to get into '
dictating what that's going to be, that's a little worrisome to me anyway and the other thing
that bothers me, I don't believe that that's really going to solve the problem because what's
happening here, when we look at medium density profit housing, and...housing quite often the
4 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
assumption is well, that's affordable housing when in fact I think that the last year that
you've spent here you've seen that that's not the case. That in many cases this higher density
housing is up, in some cases up to the $200,000.00 range. So some of the other issues that
Paul had just talked about are not necessarily large scale development type situations but
' issues of financing and so on, which I think are fine. And I support that
Harberts: And Jeff, you're certainly correct with what you've shared but I think there's
some, and Paul's quite aware of some of the political perspectives. From inner city versus
suburban areas and basically when you get into housing, you get into that because they don't
care what market demand is out here.
Farmakes: And that's fine but what I would submit is that they're two separate divergent
interests there. And one was born out of the other and there is, we don't need to go over
' metropolitan politics for the past 20 years but it is, Minneapolis and St. Paul have tried to not
only curtail the school system but also housing and it's to their advantage. And then they've
used their political clout to do that. And certainly from the southwest suburbs, we're new to
our political clout and we are I think doing a pretty good job anyway, finally of responding
but I don't want to use this forum for that. But I do have concerns about this and I've seen
this on occasion where we get to the higher density issues of trying to accomplish this.
1 There's nothing wrong I believe with single family housing and incorporating some of the
issues that you're talking about. There are some innovative programs that are being done
with that and curiously enough they're being done outside of the realm of government.
' They're being done through religious non -profit organizations and they're being done with
philanthropic direction from architectural firms. And I think that that's far more efficient to
deal with it that way I think in the end. The homeowner is probably far more inclined to
' take care of rather than rely on someone else to take care of their home and so on. And I do
think that again smaller is always better with that sort of thing. Than getting very large scale
' developments and that's the sole purpose of it.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments. This is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the
' general public that would like to speak. Please go up to the microphone and give us your
name and your address and we're interested in your comments on this particular project.
' Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin Boulevard
and I have some questions that are not being addressed as far as I can see tonight. And
there's basically three so I won't take too much time. The one was what was brought up
' earlier and that is, as I understood the zoning or the guidance with the Highway 5 corridor
was that this be low to medium density housing on this side. I don't understand why you
want to plan this higher density in an area that's kind of far away from the corp of city
services that should be offered for that kind of community development. ...people I think
5
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
would like to be closer to bus lines, shopping, and other things like that so my first question
when I saw this was, why not the northwest corner across from Target. That'd be a lot closer
in. Be a lot handier. That also brings me to my real concern and that is that that intersection
has been upgraded to support that kind of added traffic. On Galpin Blvd we are a corridor
and that's true for the industrial complex in back of us. There is a 48 unit housing
development on one side that's going in with another large development on the other side
that's going in. Right now if you try to gain access to Highway 5, either in the morning or
come at it in evening hours, it's quite tricky and those houses haven't even been built yet. I
don't know if I can show it on this but that intersection of Highway 5 is not quite blind but
it's not a very visible intersection and when there's a grain truck behind you and you're
turning left, there's traffic coming at you, that intersection of Hundertmark Road looks pretty
minor. So it's a very scary place. What my concern is is I have not heard anything about
either the widening of Galpin, putting turn lanes in so that people aren't lined up for half a
mile down the road. The development as shown, on almost all of the units and there may not
even be development on the other units closer to TH 41 but almost all the units are on the
Galpin side, which would indicate they'd probably use that as an egress to Highway 5. I
think as a safety issue, I don't see how you can advise planning of this type without some
kind of improvement to that intersection. Not only for me as a resident but for these other
people, these people who buy these houses, if they choose to. So for that reason as a local
resident...what are you going to do about the traffic problem. It's already bad. It's going to
be worst with the existing projects already in place and this one would really add to it. Thank
you.
Scott: Paul, do you want to take the density question and then we can probably talk about
the roads Dave.
Krauss: Well I think I touched on the comprehensive plan issue before. The comprehensive
P P A
plan was done based upon how this community would ultimately look when it was
completely developed. It was done with a community wide perspective. It was done with an
eye towards getting a variety of uses in the community so that there was balance in the
community. You're talking about a site and maybe...and I guess some of the Planning
Commission...with Highway 5. Just to the west of this is 170 acre industrial park. Industrial
office park. And to the south of that is all the industrial uses that Chaska developed along
Highway 41. So this is an area that's surrounded by intensive development. The north side
of Highway 5 is also ultimately going to be brought into the MUSA line and will be
developed. We've already received a petition to bring it in. We appreciate the fact that this
sort of housing often times has somewhat different access needs although I don't think it's
particular true in this case because it's an owner occupied. The need for immediate proximity
to downtown is not as great. However, that's why we're building these streets. To get
people to downtown. To schools. To recreation without having to go onto Highway 5 all the
111
6
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
I time. Relative to, I g uess I can leave the bus aspect to you but we've talked to Southwest
Metro about ultimately providing bus service on these parallel access boulevards because that
I seems to be where the people can be and it's a much safer way of working it than running
down Highway 5. We also do have a...amount of medium and high density housing around
I the central business district. Some of it's being filled right now up on a hill, just north, a
block north of Target there's 220 unit of townhouse there. The site which was mentioned,
there's a lot of people who would love to see medium density housing out there. In fact that's
I what it's guided but it's also the site that's owned by Eckankar and it's being operated as a
church and it's not being developed. But it was developed, that's what it's being guided. We
share Mr. Dempsey's concern with the Galpin intersection. It is not a safe intersection.
I There was a school bus accident there, I think it was last year or the year before. We're well
aware of that and I guess I'll pass it over to Dave to talk about what we have in the works
with that.
1 Harberts: Just one question Paul. What was the, I think the gentleman brought up about the
northwest corner on Kerber. Was it?
I Krauss: That's the Eckankar site.
I Tim Dempsey: I didn't realize all that was owned by them.
Harberts: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
I Krauss: I'll be happy to get you a copy of the comp plan.
1 Harberts: Alright, thank you.
Mancino: Dave, could you talk about a stop light there on Galpin and Highway 5.
I Hempel: As Paul mentioned it is a very hazardous intersection. We've had a few accidents
there. Trunk Highway 5 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation,
I MnDot. Galpin Blvd is a county road. County Road 117. The City has been working with
the County on a joint cooperative program for the future upgrade of Galpin Blvd south of TH
5. With the recent residential subdivisions going in down there, it will warrant an upgrade.
I The comprehensive plan that was prepared some time ago, the Eastern Carver County one
which has been used as a guide lately, or up until now I guess, dictates that it be a 4 lane
' road at some point here. The other driving force behind this obviously the school site. That
will include turn lanes onto TH 5. A full intersection with a traffic signal on Galpin. It's my
understanding that the city and Carver County is petitioning MnDot to do a signal
1 justification report, which is the first step in order to get a traffic signal installed at the
1 7
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
intersection. So it is in the works for upgrading the intersection...as well as plans for
upgrading Galpin Blvd. Widening the turn lanes. - I
Mancino: Do you have any sense of timing on this?
Krauss: Well possibly. I mean we've been working with the school district, architects and, 1
as Dave pointed out, the County and MnDot and I was in a meeting with them last week
where it was pretty clear that concurrent with the development of the school, which is I
opening in the fall of '95, that Galpin would be improved to a 4 lane status. I'm not, I mean
ultimately I don't think, the jury's still out about whether Galpin needs to be improved to 4
lanes. I mean I really shudder to think about that, south of that area. But it certainly needs
I
to be, have some of the kinks taken out of it and worked. But north of that area from the
intersection of the east/west collector up to Highway 5 now looks like it will be improved
concurrent with the opening of the school, and as Dave points out, we have begun talking to
I
MnDot about temporary signalization. One of the problems we're dealing with is the
Highway 5 upgrading was supposed to take place, I think in '95 not too long ago. But then
when the 5 cent gas tax was vetoed, everything started getting dominoed on back and now,
the last I heard, they're looking at 1998 maybe. But MnDot is also realizing that they have
very significant safety problems that they have to address well before that at TH 41, Galpin
and Audubon. So there will be something. We have every expectation that there will be 1
something in place concurrent with the opening of the school, which isn't too far out of
whack with when this development might come on line. And we should have a lot more
information on that certainly by next time this comes back on your agenda.
1
Scott: Okay. Mr. Dempsey, did those comments help your understanding?
I
Tim Dempsey: Yeah, but I'll stay tuned.
Scott: Okay. That's good. Yes ma'am. 1
Mary Schmitz: My name is Mary Schmitz and I live at 8190 Galpin and my concern is the I
safety issue also. A high density area like you're talking, 232 units. You can anticipate at
least half of those have children and you're talking at least 100, maybe 200 children living in
this area. How are they going to get to the school across the street? Are they going to be I
running back and forth? This began an issue with the Chaska school over at Highway 41.
They had that huge development, children are constantly running across Highway 41 where
there's no other way other than walking way down to the light, which they won't do, and
they're running across Highway 41. Again, I've lived there about 15 years and the traffic just
keeps increasing and increasing and increasing on that road. It's even a hazard for me to
walk across to get my mail and come back. I really have to be very alert and really watch
1
8 1
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Now you're talldng about 6 year olds and 7 year olds running I walk across. ow y g y y g across
I Highway 41. Or Galpin Boulevard and I just have a concern that you're creating a hazard by
having that many children so close to a school district without some kind of control of how
those children are going to get back and forth. The buses are not going to go across to pick
I them up. They're too close so what is this development going to do to solve that issue?
Scott: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public
1 hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
I the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: One quick question before I give my comments. You're talking about information
I yet to come. If we approve this concept, preliminary. They're basically looking for a
critique correct. We're not committing to anything here and I will refer to your
recommendation number 2. It's kind of saying they should have some additional forth
I coming information such as so and so and it goes on. Should we be limiting the information
that we should have forth coming to that or should we leave that more open ended? It seems
to me that perhaps there's some additional traffic information here in coordination with the
1 school. There are other egg and chicken type information situations here that really kind of
need to look at the same time we're looking at development for that property and surrounding
properties. How they fit in together. At least that would be my, and I don't know if that
1 would be my consideration. I don't know. If the developer certainly is in a position to
provide us with that. They're talking. The County, we're talking School Board. We're
talking, do you feel that you have a handle forth coming on that information? How it will fit
1 up with this type of development?
Krauss: I think on the roadway issue specifically, that's out of the developer's hands. That's
I really our responsibility to push and I think conveniently there's a lot in the works now to
make that happen and we should be able to get out information on that. In fact I think you're
going to see the preliminary plans for the upgrade of when...I think November 17th, you'll
I see what it will look like at that point.
I Farmakes: So we have some time lines converging here then?
Krauss: Right. And I think the developer made a good point that a lot of things aren't
I resolved until somebody sticks their head up and people can take shots at it and come up with
some concerns. As far as in condition 2. Whether that's open ended or restricted, I'd
encourage you to be as forth coming with other things as you want to have information on so
I that we have direction and the developer has direction. So if there are other areas, certainly
1 9
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
roadway issues and traffic are things that we totally to expect to have information on.
Y g Y P
Farmakes: Okay. I would also, when you do get that information, is to have Public Safety
1
response to cross over situations. Children. How that would be affected to access
playgrounds and so on. At the school across the street. On the Highway 5 issue, or how this
fits into the Highway 5. I would like to see an assessment of that as well. How units 18, 1,
5 and 8 fit into what we're doing there. We spent really a considerable amount of time to the
north. What was happening to the north and not quite as much here to the south and it seems
a little ironic to me that the first development we get is of course to the south and not to the
north. But I guess that's to be expected. I like in general, I guess I should say, Centex. I
think that Centex, just to throw out a comment. I don't know whether it's appropriate or not
but I like your corporation. I like your developments. I think you did a nice job of Curry
Farms. This is a different division of your company but I think that they also provide quite
good value for the money in development. So I like seeing your corporation developing in
Chanhassen. Since this is a PUD, I for the life of me can't figure out how you do much else
with that piece of property. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. And I guess I would
like to see further information across the way on the developability of that property that they
sort of did hand auguring on. I'd like to get a response whether or not that is sufficient
information or that's sufficient engineering information for them to proceed or if they'll have
further information by the time we see this again. Getting back to the Highway 5 issue and
how the 1, 5 and 8 fit into buffering and how that fits into the goals that we set for that. I
wanted to define that a little bit more for you with buffering. I hope that we do not wind up
with a wall, a 2 mile wall on the south and north with nothing but higher density situations
where if we just see walls of that type of development. Similar to like what you see on 169
going north. There are occasions where you drive by and you see, you drive by for a mile
and you see nothing but that type of development. I'd like to see a little bit, if not different
1
kind of zone, at least more creative uses of berming and trees. Plantings. Otherwise I think
we're defeating. We certainly would be defeating it just to do it on the north and not do it
on the south at the same time. I would go back and support that we modify the
1
recommendations on 2 to expand. I would encourage anyone to bring in, that we add onto
that. Certainly the issue of the intersection and public safety and how this fits into the
Highway 5 goals. That's the end of my comments. 1
Mancino: Okay. Actually looking at that Jeff I can see where if you're going west, well
actually east or west on Highway 5, that at least you have that big open space of wetland so
that there will be some good viewing from Highway 5 to the south. The wetland will break
that up. Paul, has anybody talked to the three homeowners on that south side of the frontage
road that are to the east of this development? I mean as far as they're concerned. If I were a
landowner on Galpin, on that west side of Galpin and I saw the comprehensive plan and saw
that it was guided single family and then all of a sudden it's going, it may be changed to
1
10
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
medium density, they , have the been notified of this?
1 Krauss: Well they've certainly been notified.
1 Mancino: Have they been notified that there is a change that may be, the process may be
starting. That someone has come in and asked to put medium density.
' Krauss: We're not actually, Commissioner Mancino it's not actually clear to us exactly
what's being changed. The guide plan has a presumption of road alignment for that east/west
road. The current alignment has shifted and you know to the point where it's kind of hard to
' define exactly where that line will be. And now knowing what we know about the wetlands
here, there is no real, I mean we had anticipated and I remember when this came up in the
comprehensive plan. We knew there was extensive wetlands there but had some
' understanding that there were areas of high ground where cul- de- sac...to the south were able
to be pulled in. We now know that area is entirely wetland and is forever protected from
development. So I think that the single family area, the low density area that we spoke about
' in the plan, in all likelihood doesn't exist. But we can provide you with some additional
comparisons between.
' Mancino: Well and I also think that the existing homeowners there should know that this,
because if I look here, the road went way up north and it would have had the medium density
area in a much smaller. It would have just, it would have been a much smaller area so I'm
' just saying that I think these homeowners need to be able to respond to something that you'll
be changing around them.
1 Krauss: We can certainly do that.
Mancino: And I'd like to hear.
' Krauss: I honestly don't know if people have been in contact with Kate or not. I know the
P
last contact I had with anyone were the calls I received quite some time ago so it wasn't
1 related to this issue.
' Mancino: So none of them have been contacted on this particular issue?
Krauss: Other than the normal notice procedure, no. I don't believe so.
1 Mancino: Okay. I agree with Jeff on the concern about setbacks and just how Highway 5
and Galpin and all of this is going to relate and how it's going to be a safe area. That there
1 won't be a lot of noise. There won't be a lot of street lights, etc so I think a lot of attention
1 11
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
has to aid to the landscaping and bermin around the development. And any other, I
beP P g g P Y
don't have any other thoughts. New ones other than what he said.
I
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I would also agree with Jeff's comments. I think there's definitely some 1
safety concerns that we need to have addressed. Looking at recommendation number 2, I'm a
little concerned about the density and also the coverage, hard surface coverage. These units I
along the north look pretty tight to me in terms of how they're laid out. But I understand
we're looking at a conceptual here but I just, and I know that's part of your evaluation but
that's a comment I'll make at this time. And I had a question for Dave. As it relates to the I
driveways or the accesses off the proposed frontage road. Is that number of accesses
acceptable or how do you see that? Is that a problem?
Hempel: We always encourage to reduce access points where we can...and it's a question of 1
it being a collector frontage road like this.
Ledvina: I look at it, it doesn't look too bad on the east side but then on the west side, two 1
of those driveways are pretty tight in there but I don't know. I think there's actually 3
driveways there. 1
Krauss: Yeah. There's a total of 7 curb cuts and I think the...certainly willing to look at but
it's these 3 possibly right in here. 1
Ledvina: Right. That's just something that I noticed that I know it was an issue with one of
the other developments we're going to see tonight but if that could be revisited in terms of 1
safety. I guess other than that, I think this proposed development is certainly appropriate for
the site and I would support the conceptual from this point.
Scott: Okay. Diane. I
Harberts: My comments have been shared. I guess mine were basically in the public safety 1
area. I noticed that the Fire Marshal noted the need for turn arounds. I think it was 14, 1
and 19. Dave, did you, did someone get a chance to maybe just look at that internal I
circulation? When the Fire Marshal put his memo together, did he look at the internal
circulation to make sure that it was adequate for the vehicles and things like that?
Hempel: He did briefly look at it and we had some conversations. The driveway entrance, 1
the units on the south side of the frontage road, kind of in the east area. He was somewhat
concerned about that. I recommended that the loop sweep around the back of them and I 1
12
I
1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
think that can be easily accomplished.
Y P
1 Harberts: I guess mine were just to reinforce the public safety issues, circulation. I think
they're nice homes. Nice units. I think it's going to be positive so.
1 Scott: Thank you. Mr. Blake, what is the future of the project if let's say that the high
ground where it looks like you've got 5 buildings slated. What if that's not profitable for you
I do build those? Are you still planning on, or is that something that you're considering, or
what do you think is going to happen?
I Dan Blake. That would certainly be a big factor in the doableness. I don't know if that's a
word or not.
1 Scott: It works.
Dan Blake: One of the things we've talked with Park staff at least about, and I think with a
I little bit talked to the rest of the staff, especially when this was maybe going to be looked at
as park. If this didn't get built, does the park department want it? They were looking at this
entire wetland area as a park area. And if they did want it, would the city be interested,
I would the city be able to justify constructing a road across here. This is, in my mind, the
most significant issue of this project which really has nothing to do with our project. It's
already been proclaimed that the road needs to get from here to here. So that issue stands no
1 matter what goes on this site. If we drew, it can be built. That's really not a question as
how expensive it is being built because we can do it, I believe we can do it within
regulations, and ...even necessarily as much of a planning issue as just a structural issue. But
1 if it's too costly then we need to look at how does that affect obviously the cost of the whole
project and the construction of this road through here. And sewer and water that go with it,
that really are to be serve a bigger area is a big factor. You know this project may work by
I itself if it was just this piece and a road to here and that's something we looked at and I think
we'll continue to work with the staff...what's the best combination.
1 Scott: Okay. Well I support this. Approval of this conceptual plan so can I have a motion
please.
1 Dan Blake: Can I ask a question?
1 Scott: Sure.
Dan Blake: Pardon my ignorance but there's a lot of discussion about the Highway 5 impact
1 and I know the city's been looking at that for a long time. We're a little confused. I don't
1 13
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
1
know if when you talk about more creative berming and landscaping, if that was more
creative than what this plan here represents or if that means more creative than what's out on 1
169. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be trying to hide these buildings or make them more a
feature. I understand the objection, or I believe what I understand is that the city doesn't
want maybe a bunch of 3 story flat walled apartment buildings.
1
Farmakes: I think the first statement probably than the last. I would try to make, the typical 1
guideline I think are goals are set out, and Paul might be able to provide you with that.
Dan Blake: I think we have them. 1
Farmakes: I think the issue is to attempt to work that into the existing landscape and the
existing landscape in many people's minds, although it's subjective, is probably more the
wetland area than a development. People want to continue to see open areas, balanced areas
and a mix as they drive through. I believe that they do not want to see a parallel wall of a
single type of development covering it up just because it happens to be by the highway. I
think you get a certain type of development and certainly I think if we can get a mix of that
going on and some, as I say some creative hiding of some of these issues. Parking. Some of
the buildings themselves go a long way. This is not a huge development plan so I'm not.
Dan Blake: Right. I mean we're talking about 3 buildings and...facing ends to the highway.
The higher peak or the fronts, which have a little more character and that was kind of our
attempt to respond to the concerns of your staff.
Farmakes: I think also your particular development is one of the first in this particular area
that we've been discussing.
Dan Blake: I realize that. That's why it's a little bit hard to know exactly what...
Scott: Well if you hide them, that's probably a good two word description of what Highway
1
5 task force is looking for.
Mancino: Well yeah, not only from the Highway 5 perspective but from the homeowner's 1
perspective too. We don't want to be looking onto this huge highway and having traffic
noise and lights and everything else and the safety issues if there were children.
Farmakes: Although we've been working on this now for, what is it? Going on 2 years now.
We have yet to fmalize but we're in the process of doing that now. Where those
requirements are going so lead time may still be a bit out but I think that there's a relative
14 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers
Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive.
I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the
highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems
with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I
' would fully support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion.
Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approval of the conceptual planned unit development #93 -5. The applicant being
Centex Real Estate Corporation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with
modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional information
and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance
with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard
intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the
1 proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conceptual PUD #93 -5 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
preliminary plat submittal.
' 2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic
considerations for the Highway 5 /Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues
as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the proposed frontage
road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap
g P
additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development.
The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment
of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A
1 buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
1 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin
1 15
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 1
1
Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping.
1
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer. 1
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard 1
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10
year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's 1
water quality standards (NURP).
8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and 1
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in
the development contract.
with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 1
9. Compliance P
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1
1993.
11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues 1
raised in the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190
DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 1
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION
OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT
86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. 1
Public Present:
Name Address 1
1
16 1
.1