1k. Highlands of Bluff CreekCITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 L,larkd B,~,ulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 553~7
Administration
P'x)ne 9522271100
Building Inspections
Phone: 9522271180
Fax 962 227 1190
Engineering
Ptx;,r e: 952 227 1160
PaX U~,22 1, 0
Finance
Ph',: ~e 952 2271140
Fax: 952227 1110
Park & Recreation
Phon~x 952 2271120
Fax 952 2271110
Iaecreat or Oer tear
2S10 Coulter Boulevarcl
Phore 9522271400
Fax 9522271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
P!,~ne: 9522271130
Fax 952 227 1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952 2271300
Fax 9522271310
Senior Center
Phore 9522271125
Fa;,:: 952227 1110
Web Site
?,,'Ch? :! ci!arlhas sell FIFq LiS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: April 26, 2004
SUB J: Highlands of Bluff Creek (Planning Case 04-01)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to
Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within
the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Review for an 16-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 16-Unit
Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 16 Townhouse Lots and Outlots;
and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff
Creek - Planning Case No. 04-01.
City Council tabled this item on March 22, 2004, to permit the applicant to revise
the plan to maintain a 20-foot setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone and due
to concerns over the safety of the proposed access to the site off West 78th Street.
City Council asked staff and the developer to take another look at relocating the
proposed private street access of Century Trail. The applicant has revised the
plan reducing the number of units from 18 to 16 units.
As part of the revisions to the development plan, the following issues were re-
examined:
Access - Staff had a traffic engineer review the development's traffic
impacts. Their review showed that the proposed access on West 78th
Street would not negatively impact traffic. Additionally, staff reviewed
the potential for access to Century Trail and determined that not only
would the access not comply with city standards, but it would also
negatively impact the existing housing in the area.
Pond - Staff requested that the applicant review the relocation of the pond
to the northern portion of the site. Based on their engineer's review, this
would require the elimination of three additional units.
Grading - Staff continues to work with the applicant to investigate ways to
reduce the amount of grading on site. Specifically, staff is investigating
whether the housing units and ultimately the road could be lowered. The
development's ability to reduce grading is limited by the requirement that
the lowest floor elevation remain two (2) feet above the flood elevation of
the pond.
The City of Chanhassen · A growing cornmunit~ with clean lakes, qtJalitv s.h,, s a (harn~ino d()',,,~,,,ni(?¢,,~ ? li~i!/( !),is '~ ,s(:,s ¢,,i[/di! (~ !,a;!:~ sr-,c; [)eautifLl! [,irk' A 1[~' '3/~:;t !,' ii,: ::ark ,~d play
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 2
Staff is recommending approval of the revised development. Due to the reduction in the number
of units from 18 to 16, staff has prepared a revised staff report.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment requires a 2/3rd majority vote of City
Council. City Council approval for the preliminary PUD, Site Plan, Preliminary Plat, Variance
and Conditional Use Permit requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2004 and on March 2, 2004, with a
revised plan, dated February 3, 2004. The Planning Commission voted 5 in favor and 2 abstentions
to deny the land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat with variance, conditional use permit
and site plan review.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Since the plans have been revised, staff has prepared a review of the revised plan.
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Highlands at Bluff Creek
development are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage required
Proposed tree preservation
6.52 ac.
42% or 2.75 ac.
30% or 1.96 ac.
32% or 2.06 ac.
Developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed.
Bufferyard planting are required along West 78th Street, Highway 41 and the east property line.
Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is
including additional landscaping in that area.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 3
Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table:
Bufferyard B* - South 9 overstory trees 17 overstory trees
property line, 440', 13 understory trees 24 understory trees
buffer width 20' 22 shrubs 27 shrubs
Bufferyard B* - West 5 overstory trees 5 overstory trees
property line, 250', 8 understory trees 9 understory trees
buffer width 20' 13 shrubs 18 shrubs
Bufferyard B* - East 5 overstory trees 7 overstory trees
property line, 250', 8 understory trees 12 understory trees
buffer width 20' 13 shrubs 16 shrubs
Boulevard Trees - West 15 overstory trees 6 overstory trees
78th Street, 1 per 30'
Applicant meets minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings with the exception of boulevard
trees along West 78th Street. The applicant is unable to plant the required number due to the area
along the pond that will require a fence along the path and eliminate any planting space. The
east bufferyard is proposed to be planted on public property. Staff recommends allowing this
with the condition that the developer and homeowner association be responsible for all
replacements and maintenance responsibilities for the plantings. The evergreens in the east
bufferyard should be moved uphill, without interfering with underground utilities, to alleviate
any headlight shine into the neighboring home.
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary
Zone extends to the edge of the tree line. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40-foot
setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the
setback. Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3, which are 20 feet from the Primary Zone
boundary, do not meet the required 40-foot setback. Grading is proposed within the first 20 feet
of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone must be preserved.
Due to site constraints, the location of West 78th Street, the need for a stormwater pond on site
and the location of the Primary Zone boundary, staff recommends a variance that would allow a
20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10
feet of the setback.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site must be
provided at all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that
the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 4
and to address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering
regulations.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the
stormwater basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control
methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet
protection could consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4-foot spacing of metal T-
posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock
and wire could be used as temporary inlet control.
Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A light-duty
silt fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following
the outlet installation and during home construction.
Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed
soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a stormwater conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water facility.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
Surface Water Management Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for
this proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre.
Based on the proposed developed area of 5.66 acres, the water quality fees associated with this
project are $11,133.
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Medium density townhome developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 5
acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $21,644 for the proposed
development.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $32,777.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions
of approval.
Lot Tabulation:
Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
L1 B1 3,975 46 86
L2 B1 3,115 36 86
L3 B1 3,859 36 86
L1 B2 3,893 33 86
L2 B2 3,125 36 86
L3 B2 3,965 46 86
L1 B3 3,929 46 85
L2 B3 3,079 36 86
L3 B3 3,997 46 87
L1 B4 3,974 46 86
L2 B4 3,115 36 86
L3 B4 3,975 46 86
LI B5 4,280 46 90
L2 B5 3,354 36 87
L3 B5 3,354 36 87
L4 B5 4,224 46 87
Outlot A 79,672 # NA NA
Outlot B 107,559 # NA NA
TH 41 37,374
Total 284,007
# The Outlot boundary shall be adjusted to corres 9ond with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone
boundary.
The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 2.83
units per acre.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 6
SITE ACCESS
From an engineering and safety standpoint, the steepness required for the private street to access
off of Century Trail would make the access less safe than if it came off of West 78th Street. This
is because the required grade for the private street to access off of Century Trail is nearly 14%.
The elevation of the private street within the site is set by the elevation of the townhomes on the
south side of the street. The basement elevation of these townhomes must be two feet above the
flood elevation of the adjacent pond. This is a Watershed District requirement and it applies
whether the townhomes are walk-out units or not. The applicant's engineer has provided a road
design that shows a required street grade of nearly 14% for the private street to tie into Century
Trail. The maximum private street grade allowed by City Code is 10%. For comparison
purposes, the maximum allowable public street grade is 7%. The private street grade that would
be required to access off of Century Trail would be nearly double the maximum public street
grade. This raises obvious concerns with road icing and the ability of residential traffic to stop
on a street this steep prior to the intersection of Century Trail.
There are also non-engineering related concerns with moving the site access to Century Trail.
Since the March 22 Council meeting, staff has received a letter from the resident who lives just
north of the City owned park/open-space land which the private street would go through to
connect with Century Trail. This resident is opposed to having the private street connect with
Century Trail. Also, in order for the private street to come off of Century Trail, the applicant
would need to purchase a piece of park/open-space land from the City. Staff has concerns with
potentially selling off this property because it was originally dedicated as permanent open space
to the City. Moving the roadway would bisect this open space and add traffic to an area that was
meant to be permanent open space. The applicant has also expressed concern over the time it
would take to negotiate a price for the land purchase. For the above reasons, staff does not feel
that the access location to the site should be moved.
Staff also took a second look at the proposed site access location off of West 78th Street. The
proposed access is in the same location as the existing driveway access to the property. The
existing access was installed by MnDOT as part of the Highway 5 project and is located just east
of the raised concrete median at the intersection of Highway 41 and W. 78th Street. The access
was designed to provide full access to the property from either direction.
The worst potential traffic conflict at the proposed access to the site would be the eastbound
traffic attempting to turn left into the site and having to cross the westbound traffic lane during
p.m. peak periods. MnDOT took traffic counts for the Highway 41/West 78th Street intersection
the week of April 12, 2004. Staff enlisted the services of a professional traffic engineer who
evaluated potential left turn traffic conflicts into the site. Based on 16 townhomes, a
conservative (high) estimate of traffic making a left turn into the development during the p.m.
peak hour is 11 vehicles. The traffic counts indicate that the westbound p.m. peak hour traffic
flow, which would be the conflict for the entering vehicles, is 30 vehicles. These numbers do not
indicate any potential for operational problems with regard to access to the site. There will be
approximately one vehicle every six minutes entering the site that could be potentially opposed
by one vehicle every two minutes driving west past the site.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
April 26, 2004
Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planning Case 04-01
Page 7
It should also be pointed out that MnDOT has reviewed the plans for this development. The
MnDOT comments have not stipulated any type of restriction on the West 78th Street access to
the site nor have they recommended the addition of a turn lane into the site. In summary, it does
not appear that the existing traffic or the development-generated traffic will be great enough to
require modifications to the proposed access location.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
Staff is currently working with Westwood Church on concept plans for the extension of West
78th Street, west of Highway 41. Because of the existing alignment of the Highway 41/West 78th
Street intersection on the east side of Highway 41 and the property line location of Westwood
Church on the west side, the existing West 78th Street intersection will need to be realigned to the
north. This will require an additional area of right-of-way in the southwest corner of the site to
be dedicated to the City from the applicant on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will
not impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined at
the time of final plat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached motions approving the development (Land Use
Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit
and Site Plan).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Plans
2. Recommended Motions
3. Findings of Fact
4. Letter from Curtis R. Neft to Matt Saam dated 4/15/04
5. Letter from Dale and Jean Rusch to Robert E. Generous dated 4/12/04
6. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission dated 4/19/04
g:\planL2004 planning cases\04-01 - highlands of bluff creek\executive summary reviseddoc
Highlands of Bluff Creek
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following five motions for Planning
Project #04-01, Highlands of Bluff Creek, and adoption of the findings of fact.
A. "The City Council approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential - Low
Density to Residential - Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of
the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the
Land Use Amendment.
B. "The City Council grants conceptual and preliminary approval of the rezoning of the
property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development -
Residential, PUD-R."
C. "The City Council grants Preliminary Plat approval of the proposed development for
Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance to permit a 20 foot setback from the Bluff
Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development Services, Inc., dated
04/02/04, subject to the following conditions.
1. The plat shall show a property line creating Outlots A and B which common
boundary shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary.
2. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent
to West 78thStreet.
The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to
recording. The association shall be responsible for the maintenance of any common
elements of the development.
The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on fifteen of the sixteen
lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt
from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park
fee, using 2004 park fees, is $2,200 per unit, which shall be paid prior to recording
the final plat.
5. One tree shall be added to the landscape plan in the northeast comer of Lot 1, Block
4.
6. Applicant shall be responsible for all development plantings located on public
property. The applicant shall submit to the city a maintenance agreement signed by
the homeowners association to assume responsibility of the plantings once the
development is completed. Evergreens shall be located at the end of the cul-de-sac
and positioned so as to alleviate headlight glare into the neighboring home.
7. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any
work commencing.
The developer shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD agreement with the City.
The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in the development
contract.
All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and
no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and
vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved.
10. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone
(Outlot A). Outlot A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space.
1 i. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
12. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and
100-year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat
over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and
wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The applicant must submit storm sewer
sizing calculations for staff review.
13. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the
grading area and Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay
line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree
removal. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the entrance to the
site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep
slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be removed once
the site has been revegetated.
14. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat.
15. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections
through the City's Building Department.
16. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 15units will be $44,910
(15 @ $2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary
sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004
trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per
2
unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Metropolitan Council.
17. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water
improvements as a part of the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due
payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may be re-spread against the newly
platted lots on a per-area basis.
18. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a
preconstruction meeting before the building permit issuance.
19. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting.
The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City
and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash
escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat
approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained,
including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
MnDOT, etc.
20. Addthefollowing City of Chanhassenlatest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002,1004,
1005,1006,2001,2101,2109,2109,2201,3101,3104,3107,3108,3109,5200,
5203,5207,5214,5215,5216,5300 and 5301.
21. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access.
22. Add a street light at the access.
23. On
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
the utility plan:
Show all the existing and proposed utility easements.
Remove/delete the last note.
Call out water-main fittings.
Show sanitary sewer pipe class & slope and watermain pipe class.
Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe.
24, On
a.
b.
C.
the grading plan:
Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3-foot sump.
25. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is
required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and
approval.
26. The partial hammer-head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's
Fire Marshall.
27. The private street must be enclosed in a 40-foot wide private easement. The
developer must submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7-ton
design.
28. CBMH-6 shall have a two-foot sump since it is the last structure that is road
accessible prior to discharge to the storm water pond.
29. The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage from the site
must be provided at all times." The note regarding positive drainage shall be
amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment and erosion control regulations
while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations.
30. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water
pond.
31. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of
the storm water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet
structures.
32. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A
light duty silt fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water
pond following the outlet installation and during home construction.
33. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
34. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for
the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time
frames:
Type of Slope Stabilized within
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
35. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
4
36. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $32,777.
37. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
38. Additional area of right-of-way in the southwest comer of the site shall be dedicated to
the City for West 78th Street on the final plat. This right-of-way dedication will not
impact the proposed lots. The exact size of the required right-of-way will be determined
at the time of final plat."
D. "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the
Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development, Site
Plan and Subdivision requirements for the property.
All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and
no grading may occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and
vegetation within the Primary Zone shall be preserved.
3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone
(Outlot A).
E. "The City Council approves Site Plan, plans prepared by Westwood Professional
Services, Inc., dated 04/02/04, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
o
The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the
differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent
buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors.
3. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan for city review and approval
prior to final plat approval.
°
The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they
are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement,
property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and
garages is included in the floor area threshold.
5. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before permits can be issued.
7. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures."
(Approval)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
IN RE:
Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use
Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat,
Setback Variance and Site Plan Review.
On March 22, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan
McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to
Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the
Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development -
Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for
an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and
Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback. The City Council
reviewed the minutes of the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting at which a
public hearing was conducted on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by
published and mailed notice. The City Council now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.
3.
4.
The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2.
The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density uses.
The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A.
Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission
to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six
(6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
a)
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and is consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
b)
The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of
the area.
c)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in
the Zoning Ordinance with the approval of the setback variance.
d)
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed.
e)
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and
will not overburden the city's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the
following criteria:
a)
The proposed development preserves the majority of desirable site
characteristics and open space, and protects sensitive environmental
features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands.
b)
The proposed development is an efficient and effective use of land, open
space and public facilities through the clustering of the development on
the site and the use of a private street.
c)
The proposed development is a high quality of design and design
compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and
planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
d)
The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional
areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors
within the city.
e) The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development preserves the majority of the Bluff Creek
Corridor primary zone.
g)
The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not
affordable housing.
h)
The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use
of the clustering of buildings.
i)
The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for
traffic conflicts.
6. Subdivision
a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval
of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report.
b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development
District.
c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan.
d)
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,
and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development.
e)
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter.
f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage.
g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will
dedicate all appropriate new easements.
h)
The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are
available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if
any of the following exists:
(1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
(2) Lack of adequate roads.
(3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
(4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must
determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed
uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include
the following 12 items:
a)
The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or
the city.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
c)
The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of
that area.
d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or
planned neighboring uses.
e)
The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be
served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or
agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
g)
The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
h)
The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which
do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public
thoroughfares.
i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k) The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding properly values.
4
l)
The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as
provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback
variance.
8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following
facts:
a)
The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship.
Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use
because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable
use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet
of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this
provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that
there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance
is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary
corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without
departing downward from them meet these criteria.
b)
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78th Street lead to the need
for a variance.
c)
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with
surrounding development.
d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to
site constraints.
e)
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
parcel is located.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets
or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the
development's compliance with the following:
a)
The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of
the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road
mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
lO.
et al,
b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review
requirements;
c)
The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent
practicable subject to the revisions of the staff report by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas;
d)
The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and
open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with
natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual
relationship to the development;
e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for
structures and site features, with special attention to the following:
(1)
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
(2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
(3)
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
(4)
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,
preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately
covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous,
is incorporated herein.
Westwood Professional Services, Inc
PLANNING , £NGIN£ERING · SURV£YING
April 15, 2004
W
Matt Saam
Project Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN .55317
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 553¢4
Phone: 9S2-937-S150
Fax: 952-937-5822
Toll free: 1-888-937-5150
E-mail: wp$@westwoodps.com
1~/IN CITIES/METRO
Re: Highland of BluffCreck ST. CLOUO
Reft 2003-2566.00-CO BRAINERO
Dear Matt:
[ have attached a sketch of the site showing the pond located on the north side of the development per our conversation April 13,
2004 and fax sent April 14, 2004. Moving thc pond will require the outlet elevation to be lower in order to collect the water that
would drain directly to the pond on our current site plan with the pond located on the south end of the property. Essentially
moving the pond to the noah requires forcing storm water against grade in turn requiring deep storm sewer in the street and
lowering the outlet elevation.
I have also attached a "PONDSIZ", i.e. NURP, calculation sheet showing a required treatment volume of 0.37 ac-ft. However,
due to the snmtl size of the pond the required volume would have to be increase to accommodate the city's requirement of an
average depth of 3 feet. The City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan states a phosphorus removal efficiency
requirement of 50-70% based on a Walker "PONDNE'F" analysis. I have attached a "PONDNET" analysis for the proposed
pond demonstrating a removal efficiency of 63%. The average depth requirement of 3 feet is the controlling factor for the size of
the pond.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that thc proposed pcak discharge rate to the ROW to be equal to or less
than the existing condition for the i0 and 100-year storm events. Moving the pond to the north will increase the amount of direct
drainage to West 780, Street. On a previous site layout w/th the pond located on the north side of the development the pending
calculations indicated that the outlet for the pond would have to routed to the wetland located north of the site in order to
maintain this rate control requirement. The impacts of discharging to the north would entail open cut installation of storm sewer
from the development all the way to the existing wetland, clearing a path of trees 25 feet in width.
The retaining wall on thc sketch is 12 feet in maximum height, which may be considered a safety issue. In ordcr to remove the
retaining wall a 3:1 slope would have to be extended from the north edge of the roadway to the south 45 feet. The pond would
become long and narrow increasing the required size of the pond and removing an additional unit to the west and a 29-inch maple
tree, which would otherwise be saved.
Moving the pond to the location illustrated on the attached sketch would have dramatic impacts to the development. Three
additional units would have to be removed. A large retaining wall would be required along the south side of the pond. The storm
sewer system would be deep in the streets creating an undesirable maintenance and utility conflict condition. Clearing and tree
removal would be required through the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Moving the pond would result in the termination of this
development.
Please contact me if you have any questions at 952-906-7405 dd.
Sincerely,
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Curtis R. Nell
Design Engineer, EIT
cc: Todd Sirnning /"'"" '
enclosures
Oesk:jnlng the Future Today..~nce 1972
/
,-, O02L'O'
MODULAR BLOCK ~"\'~
RETAININO WAll_
April 12, 2004
Robert E. Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Generous:
We live in an Arboretum Village Club Home at 2856 Century Trail. Our
townhouse is the most westerly of the one level townhouses in the Pulte
Addition and is adjacent to the proposed Plowshares Inc. addition.
It has been brought to our attention that Plowshares Inc. is proposing that
an outlet road be put in east of their proposed addition and east of their
property line. This road Would encroach on and across the green space that
Pulte dedicated to the city.
We are strongly opposed to an outlet road in this location. It would create
noise, fumes, and the distraction of headlights in addition to destroying the
tranquility of the green space. If Plowshares Inc. needs the outlet road let
them devise a plat plan using their own property!
Thank you for your consideration.
We are,
2856 Century Trail
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Susan McAIlister
OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
April 19, 2004
APR X 0 200 .
Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong,
Members of the City Council,
Planning Commission Members,
City of Chanhassen,
7700 Market Blvd.,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Hand Delivered
Due to my thiling health from a serious car accident December 30, 2002 I had no choice but to sell my property.
Last June I had a discussion about my decision to sell with someone from the City Planning Department, who told
me they believed 1 could get 24 units on my site. Then I asked the planning department to move tbrward with the
language that would allow low density guided land to be able to develop in the Primary Zone but Kate told me it
would be less problematic to just up-zone my land to medium density, so with hesitation I went along with it. I hope
[ didn't make a mistake.
Then things seriously changed down to a plan shown lbr 21 units, then down to 19 units, then down to 18 units, then
down to 17 units, then down to 16 units, then possibly 15 units. Uli said he would go for 19 units if we can fit them
in. Obviously the developer can't because of the amount of Primary Zone.
It will be interesting to see the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan and the
BluffCreek Ordinance working in conjunction with each other as it relates to my development, it is the most classic
example yet to go through the development process since the conception of the BluffCreek Watershed Natural
Resources Management Plan. I'm sure many if not all landowners affected by the Primary Zone will be tuned in as
to how it works for me or possibly works against me, as it will be the same outcome ~br them also.
For the record there are two issues I wish you to know about;
1. The BluffCreek Ordinance; It is problematic lbr more than one reason but the most important reason is that
had no idea how much developable land l had because the Primary Zone is not delineated until the
development is approved. I based how to sell the property on the number of units I was initially told I could
have, which was around 24 units. The norm is to market the property at the going rate per acre, but with the
Primary Zone not being delineated until after a development is approved is a definite problem.
The second issue is I agreed only the North East comer of my property, which is 9/10 of an acre, was to be put
in the Primary Zone as the Management Plan called tbr under the "Watershed Vision and Goals" Section pg. 8.
and also under the "Recommendation" Section pg. 64. When the ordinance was written it allowed the
Planning Director to make the delineation on the Primary_ Zone which changed the Steering Committee's
recommendation of 300' to ultimately give me only about 1.47 developable acres out of 6.5 acres. Had I
known this would happen I can guarantee you I never would have been a part of the Steering Committee, and 1
can just about guarantee none of the other land owners would have wanted any part of it either.
I should not be punished for having an arbitrarily large amount of Primary Zone on my property, when Pulte was
allowed to remove at least 50' - 60' of Primary Zone. What was allowed to be removed was the great oaks and
maples along their North East section which runs along the south side of the Bluff Creek Headwaters.
Unfortunately, the only thing left is invasive Buckthorn, one tree deep in that area.
I felt compelled to take down my barn to force the 7 years remaining of the Petting Farm IUP to be eliminated.
(Please see exhibit A).
Now, with the farmstead eliminated I feel you can finally compare me to Arboretum Village (which was the
majority of land that originated with my farm) with an overall density of 5.6 units per acre and net density according
to your printout of"Residential Development Statistics" fbr Arboretum Village of 6.42 units per acres. (Please see
Exhibit B.)
2930West78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501
952-474-5099
Pg. 2
According to your printout of"Residential Development Statistics" (Please see exhibit B).
I have 3.86 net acres, to develop x 5.7 (Arboretum Village's average net density according to the city's narrative for
the Highlands of Bluff Creek packet, dated March 2, 2004 pg. 3 of 20) - 22.002 units for my site.
Or:
3.86 net developable acres x 6.42 (Arboretum Village's net density exhibit B) 24.78
Or:
3.86 net developable acres x 6 (according to exhibit C) - 23.16 units on my property. (D+E)
There are 3 entities involved, the city, the developer and Susan McAllister, land owner. The way this has been
playing itself out the city will get "the Big Woods" aka the "Primary Zone" in its virgin state (a good deal for them).
The developer will be getting at least 16 units or possibly 18 units according to the ghost plan along with a beautiful
peaceful wooded site which will allow them to command a higher price per townhome. (A good deal for them also).
Susan will get ripped off. Her land will sell fbr much less than what it should command. (Not a good deal tbr her).
Example, Vasserman Ridge paid $1.2 million tbr 8 acres.
In summary, the problem is an interpretation of the Bluff Creek Ordinance that is inconsistent with the neighboring
property which results in a governmental taking of private property without due process of law or compensation lbr
the land owner.
The remedy could be;
· The city gets the Primary Zone in almost its virgin state from the 1850's.
· The developer gets 16 -18 units built and a site that commands a higher price point due to fewer units plus
the "virgin Big Woods". The Big Woods was what Chanhassen was originally known as. Chan is the
Dakota meaning for tree and hassan is the Dakota meaning lbr berry juice. Chanhassen received its official
name around August 22, 1853 and thisjust all fits so beautifully. This would be a very good selling point
fbr the developer. The city could possibly require lower park fees to the developer in exchange fbr a lower
unit count build out.
· Susan gets paid $40,000/unit from the city over and above what the developer was actually allowed to build
up to 22 to 24 units. (To be consistent with Arboretum Village, which is within 500' of her project). In
essence the city would pay Susan $40,000/unit that she couldn't build in order for the city to have the
"virgin Big Woods" fbr passive park land.
This last scenario in my opinion is a win/win for the three entities involved and also for the community. Finally, I
would support the thought of re-naming the development "The Big Woods at Bluff Creek" as it seems appropriate
for this particular site.
~tlshn McAIlister,
Landowner
cc: Kroiss Development
COMPR-E~ ENSIICE~ LAbI_. .. 1998
Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map Inconsistently;' LAND USE GOALS
Regardless of a property's land use designation, ~"~ GOAL~''"j- t~L]/xA t t'J/~['~'~.['Z~ -f'~ -~,'
properties not served by urban services shall not ~ .7.~'~/2_~ll~t~.~,,Z.-..~ f,4.~l~'-/'{- ~]'.D "~
be rezoned to a zoning category consistent with the ~(~;hieve a mixture of development which will
land use designation until such time as urban /'jassure a high quality of life and a reliable tax
services are available. Current zoning of a parcel .,/ ,/base t.~'~'
with a less intensive land use des_~na~-'---~--~"--~ion, ma-----'-~- //- ' 'CL-)~,,,jf,.,)
~e-~a~. J~ensificati~)~o~f-l'~-d-~es ~'~_..~./' DISCUSSION A,~ff~:-4'~ ~l ~/~,',
happen with the provision of urban services.--~- -1-~ ~;~ ~__%IV~
MUSA Exemption
Based on the limited need for municipal urban
services the following areas will not be extended
municipal services; the Minnewashta Regional
Park, Camp Tanadoona and the Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum, but they may be brought in
if petitioned.
Maximum Use of Allowable Density
Based on the city's housing goals and the city's
participation in the Livable Communities Act, the
city has the right to deny approval of any project
that does not meet the minimum density allowed in
the land use designation. Reasons for denial may
include deviation from city requirements, or off-
setting goals of the city.
PUD Allowance
The PUD zoning district may allow up to 25%
support or ancillary uses, if deemed appropriate by
the City Council.
MUSA STAGING
The following is the city proposed staging plan and
documentation. This plan ,takes into consideration
the land uses that were approved by the city as a
part of the Bluff Creek and Highway 5 Studies. The
land uses encourage compact contiguous
development. It efficiently utilizes the existing and
proposed infrastructure and capital investment.
The staging plan acknowledges the character of
existing development and the desire to be
consistent with the Metro Regional Growth
Strategy.
Chanhassen's early development was
predominately single family residential. Industrial
and commercial uses as well as different housing
types have been developing since the early 1990s.
The City of Chanhassen is achieving diversity in
housing types and attraction of commercial and
industrial uses that assist the tax base and provide
local services for it residents.
POLICIES
· Develop and maintain the city's land use plan so
it is utilized as a fundamental tool for directing the
community's growth.
· Recognizing some uses pay their way in terms of
the property taxes they generate and some uses
do not. Chanhassen will strive for a mixture of
development which will assure its financial well
being.
- Development will be encouraged within the MUSA
line and at the same time Chanhassen will plan the
reasonable and orderly expansion of the MUSA line
to meet its need for additional developable land.
· Encourage Iow density residential development in
appropriate areas of the community in a manner
that reinforces the character and integrity of
existing single family neighborhoods while
promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods
of similar quality.
· The plan should seek to establish sufficient land
to provide for a full range of housing opportunities.
These opportunities require that adequate land be
designated for medium and high density land uses.
The city will seek to discourage the conversion of
these areas to lower density uses to ensure that
the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless
of temporary market fluctuations.
PROJECT NAME
Highlardsot Lake ~ Joe
Woods
J93-15 SU(~ )Church F~3ad
[94-§ PUD It~s-~on Hils~Singl~-lami~
~Wood~dge Heights
94-10 SUB ~b~erden Pond
g4~13~UB JPo~le l~ke Lt~-y
~10 SUB ~For~ ~
~BI~ Estat~
~r~
Lake L~
S~
A,,undet
lake Mater Estates
Rook Place
Add,l~on
Av~ Oe'vek~ment
Point
~ G~n
Meadows
B~ W,:x~ds
~ P,;d c~e
Knob Hal 2nd
Hidde~ Creek Eslales
Ridge 3~d Add*ion
Burlewood
Walnu~ Grove 2rrJ
S~lters Wes~
Kenyon BIoI!
SUBTOTAL
pERCENT
iFInal Plat '.SROSS)
711
1151
ACRESI
o 6)
o~
3 67
0 83l 2 12
6391 478
MISC ~
PARK HETi
ACRESI
108
I 44)
0) 52
TOTAL{ t%ROSS
2J 164
lj
11 012
2OO
0
3.9% 657%1
AVG
Highlarx:ts on ~kflt Creek._
SUBTOTAL
i 6
PERCENT
481j
NETI Land IJse
farm field
farm fie~
iniill development
#ellands/topog~a phy_ i
~arge wetland
Iree preservatio rFwelb~ds
development
mfitl developme~
ir/ill development - Rice Marsh Lake
In~tl deve~pmenl Lotus Lake
IM~ ~me~
~it ~ - ~e ~ Lake
Lake ~wa~a
~e~ ~. ~ke ~e. ~m]
b~
~ affo~b~
densily t~r~-ler BCO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1998
While committed to providing life cycle housing, the
city must overcome obstacles to their development.
One of the most difficult impediments to providing
one facet of life cycle housing and/or affordable
housing, is land costs. Without the outright
purchase of land by public bodies, the only way to
moderate land acquisition costs is to assure that an
adequate amount of land is available within the
urban services area to alleviate real or perceived
shortages of developable land. Another
impediment to life cycle housing is the fear of the
unknown by existing residents. To overcome this,
the city must educate citizens about the different
housing opportunities available. In addition, the
city must work with business groups and
organizations to show the benefits of providing
housing diversity. Developers must be brought in
as partners in providing life cycle housing. With
changing demographics, it will become easier to
convince the developers that life cycle housing is
marketable. Finally, land development costs must
be brought down. To do this, the review process
must be streamlined, local, regional, and state fees
must be reduced, and development must utilize
existing infrastructure investments more efficiently.
in addition, the city will provide density bonuses in
order to promote the provision of affordable
housing opportunities that may otherwise not occur.
Table 2-5 and Figures 2-4 and 2-5 provide the
city's analysis of the residential potential within the
community. The city estimates the following gross
acres for the different land uses: 5,615 acres of
Iow density guided lands, 562 acres of medium
density guided land, and 202 acres of high density
guided land vacant within the community. Of this
amount, there were 3,021 net acres of developable
residential land within the community, as of January
1997 (2,530 acres of Iow density, 362 acres of
medium density, and 96 acres of high density). The
city assumed single family lands contained 15
percent right-of-way and 30 percent open spaces
including parks, bluffs f~ins,~we~
undevelopab~.lc_,_Jarrd. 'Medium density and high-"~
/---'-d~nsity lands assume 10 percent right-of-way and ~
30 percent open spaces including parks, bluffs,
~,,..._flood plains, wetlands and undevelopable landJ
To project future housing, assumptions of various
densities for the land uses must be made. For Iow
density residential, the city assumed a range of
housing would be developed. Using historical
development data, the city estimates for scenario B
a net density of 1.8 units per acre as one end of
the density range. However, city code would permit
up to 2.9 units per acre. As a compromise, the city
estimated for scenario A a net density of 2.42 units
per acre, which represents lot areas of 18,000
square feet, as the other end of the density range.
This equates to between 5,844 and 4,555 single
family units. In order to attempt to meet the higher
projections, the city will need to encourage
development of single family homes at the higher
end of the permitted density range. However, in
order to protect the character of existing
neighborhoods, the city will need to transition
density within new developments, preserving the
expectations and investments of existing residents.
Medium density housing is projected assuming 6~
~ per ac_re.~, gh density housing is projected
assu~nits per acre. This represents an
addition of 3,179 multi-family dwellings in the
community. Included in multi-family housing are
townhouse developments, apartments,
condominiums, and other types of attached housing
units. Additional multi-family housing could be
included as part of mixed use developments.
However, with little historical evidence to base
assumptions upon, the city will not attempt to
project the number of units that will be developed in
these areas.
Table 2-3 CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL
Affordability
Ownership 37% 60-69% 30%
Rental 44% 35-37% 35%
Life-Cycle
34%
Type (non-singfe 19% 35-37% 1991 Comp
family detached) Plan
Owner/Renter Mix 8~115% 67-75 ! 25-33% 80-90 t 20-10
Density
Single Family 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1 .B
Detached
Multi-family ' 11/acre 10-14/acre 9-10
Overall Average 3.3
The city projects that approximately 56 percent of
the future housing will be built within the existing
MUSA boundaries and 44 percent will be in the
MUSA expansion area. Overall approximately 75
percent of all housing will be inside the existing
MUSA boundary and 25 percent will be in the
MUSA expansion area.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1998
Table 2-5
EXISTING HOUSING UNITS ~JANUARY 1997)
Net Acres Units
........... S. ingle Fa?il~ .... 2,955...4t,50.2 ...........
Multi-Family 664 1 412
Subtotal 3,619 5.914
EXISTING MUSA 1991 (VACANT LAND)
Net Acres Units A Units B
S~n~le (:a~nily ' 1.577 3,816 2,839
Multi-Family '- ' 179 1,496 _ :1,'495
,Sub-total 1.756 - 5,312 4.3~34-
MUSA EXPANSION AREAS
Net Acre~ Units A Units B
Single Family 838 1.724 I 716
Multi-Family 260 1 6~6~83 1,683
Subtotal 1,098 3.407 3,399
The city should continue to ensure
nondiscrimination in the sale and rental of housing TOTALS
units.
Citizen participation in developing plans and
implementing housing programs is encouraged ~n
redevelopment, rehabilitation, and in the planning
for future housing.
Single Family
Multi-Family
TOTAL
Net Acres_ Units A Units B
5,370 10.042 9,057
1.093 4,591 4,590
6,463 14.633 13,647
NOTES:
Net ACr~,~
Existing MUSA: SF 15% ROW, MF 10% ROW, 30% wetland/park
h ~ MUSA Expansion: SF 15% ROW, MF 10% ROW, (wetland/parks
ere housing density is given by a range in the~ excluded via GIS) Scenario A represents an optimal developmenl
mprehensive plan, the city shall encourage ',N~scenario. Scenario B represents a more realistic scenario.
~..~velopment at the upper end of the density range._.../)
The city will promote the mixing of housing densities
within projects in order to provide a wide range of
housing styles and types. Such mixed densities
must provide appropriate transitions from existing
development.
The city will continue to participate in the
implementation of the Livable Communities Act of
1995 as stated in the golas and policies.
The city will promote the integration of life cycle
housing opportunities throughout the community.
Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be
overly concentrated in one area of the city.
/
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1998
~// Residential - Medium Density (R-M) "'-~~
The medium density designation is intended to
accommodate multiple units including duplexes,
townhouses and lower density apa~ment~ A net
density range of 4.0 - 8.0 units per acre is covered
~y this category with an expected average net
~.0 units per acre.
Residential- Hiqh Density
The high density category which includes units
with a maximum net density of 16.0 units per acre
accommodates apartments and higher density
condominium units. Within this category, an
average gross density of 10.0 units per acre has
been used for projection purposes.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chanhassen has the historical development
pattern of an agriculturally oriented community.
Until the mid 1970's, a feed mill was located within
the downtown area. As the community grew and
the feed mill was displaced by other uses, the city
shed much of its agricultural image assuming
more of the role of a metropolitan suburb yet
retaining much of its original rural flavor.
Prior to 1980, Chanhassen did not have a
significant industrial base and employment
opportunities were located primarily outside of the
community. In 1980, nine locations existed within
the city which were classified as industrial: the
BMT Company, M. A. Gedney Company, Apple
Valley Red-E-Mix, Statewide Auto Salvage, the
Moon Valley Gravel Company, Instant Web,
Animal Fair, The Press, Inc., and businesses in
the first phase of the Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park.
From 1980 to1990, industrial expansion
continued to occur. The community became the
home of corporate offices for Rosemount, Inc.
and Pillsbury. Approximately 1,200 people are
employed at the Rosemount facility alone. Both
of these businesses, as well as several others,
established campus environments containing
large areas of open space. Since 1995, the city
has added 600,000 square feet of office/industrial
uses.
Based on a comprehensive employment study by
the city in 1997, there are currently 8,000 jobs in
the city. The Metropolitan Council estimates there
were 6,538 in 1995 and will be 8,000 jobs by the
year 2000. The city believes these numbers are
Iow. The city has documented 470 businesses that
have approximately 8,000 employees. Of the 470
businesses, 185 are home based. The city
believes the number of home based businesses
will continue to grow.
The city will ultimately have 1,291 acres or 9% of its
2020 land use industrial/office guided property.
The proposed area for office industrial expansion
includes the area south of Lyman Boulevard
adjacent to the City of Chaska and north of TH
169/212 in the southern portion of the city. With the
proposed MUSA expansion, there will be an
additional 205 acres of industrial office guided