7 Rezoning East of TH101
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7.-
PC DATE: 01/19/00
CC DATE: 02/14/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 3/8/00
CASE #: 00-2 LUP 00-1 PUD 00-1 SUB
STAFF
By: Kirchoff:v
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a:
(1) land use plan amendment to change the designation trom residential-low
density to residential-medium density;
(2) rezoning 13.41 acres trom RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R,
Planned Unit Development-Residential (Conceptual and Preliminary PUD
approval); and
(3) preliminary plat to subdivide 13.41 acres into 32 lots.
LOCATION:
East ofTH 101, north of Mission Hills and south of Villages on the Ponds
APPLICANT:
MSS Holdings, LLC
8905 Cove Point Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
934-0750
Andrew and Linda Freseth
Attorney: Bruce Hanson
·
607-7593
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential-Low Density
ACREAGE: 13.41 acres
DENSITY: 3 units/acre - net 2.2 units/acre -gross
~
·
i
J
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment, rezoning
and preliminary plat to subdivide the property into 32 lots for detached single family homes and
attached townhomes and open space. The site will be accessed from Mission Hills Lane and, in the
future, TH 101.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
·
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high
level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs, and amendments to PUDs becau$e the City is
acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto,
must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
·
)
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
~š:
I»
~
i'+
~
0-
"C'""
o
3:
D)
:5"
2 Marshlan Trai
3 BLACKBI D C
4 Heartland rt
~
5 MISSION A Y
6 RICE CRT
T
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On January 19,2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item.
The land use plan amendment and rezoning (conceptual and preliminary PUD) were
unanimously recommended for approval. The preliminary plat was recommended for
approval by a vote of 4 to 1 subject to staff's conditions and the following additional
conditions:
1. Staff shall revisit Section (b) ofthe Marsh Glen Design Standards for the PUD to
take into consideration the comments made by the Planning Commission with
particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the
different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant.
Staff would recommend that this condition be added to permit further evaluation of this
issue between preliminary and final plat approval even though modifications to the design
standards have been made.
2. Landscape buffering between Lots 17-20, Block 2 and the perimeter property line
shall be increased with evergreens for year round screening.
Staff would recommend that this condition be added.
3. The applicant shall post a sign that reads, "Trail Ends, Private Property" on the
east end of the trail.
Staff would be opposed to the addition of this condition. As a condition of the original
plat for Rice Lake Manor, a 20 foot wide perpetual pedestrian easement was required.
This condition would negate that easement. In the future, the City will make the
connection of the trail to Eden Prairie's trail system.
4. Lots 9-10, Block 1 shall be shifted to the west to provide a greater setback from the
eastern property line.
Although the structures meet the required setbacks, staff is recommending this condition
be added.
The commission supported the project, however, they had the following concerns: the
project's connection to TH 101, the monotonous architecture ofthe homes, additional
buffering on the southeast property line and shifting Lots 9-10, Block 1 to the west. Any
further discussion is addressed in their respective sections ofthe report.
This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information
has been struck-through.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 3
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
This application involves three requests: a land use plan amendment, conceptual and preliminary
Planned Unit Development (a rezoning) and a preliminary plat. The proposal seeks to develop
the property with detached single-family homes and twin-homes. The applicant is proposing four
different plans for the units. There are three twin-homes (6 units) to the north of the extension of
Mission Hills Lane and the remaining 27 are detached single family homes to the south.
The site abuts the Villages on the Ponds to the north, Mission Hills development to the south, TH
101 to the west and Rice Marsh Lake and Rice Lake Manor to the east. Rice Marsh Lake is a
Natural Environment Lake, therefore, all structures must maintain a 150 foot setback. The site is
to be accessed from Mission Hills Lane until TH 101 is upgraded. Until that time, a temporary
cul-de-sac will be required to allow traffic to turn around. Access via Mission Hills Lane is
appropriate as West 86th Street was designed and constructed to act as a neighborhood collector
roadway. Also, staff is recommending an existing sidewalk in the Mission Hills development,
located east of Mission Hills Lane, be extended to Outlot A.
The existing topography of the site will be generally maintained and much of the natural features,
including trees and wetlands, will be preserved. Staff is reesHlffieedieg the prepesed steFffi'.vater
pend 13e releeateå te fJFesenrethe seBsitive afe8anŠ 1P.Jeià tae fefl1::1ifeå fetainiøg \wlls. The fJÐRà
SBs¡ild be releellted te betweee ORtis! .\ and the prepesed pR'/ate sft'eet. A tree preservation
easement will extend through the 150 foot lakeshore setback and 50 foot aglurban wetla,nd
setback.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposal subject to the conditions outlined in the staff
report.
ANALYSIS
. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the land use plan map to permit the development of
the site for detached single-family dwellings and twin-homes. The property is designated as
residential-low density. Thus, the site could be developed as single-family homes or twin-homes.
However, the site would have to be rezoned to R-4, Mixed Low Density Residential or PUD-R,
Planned Unit Development, Residential for the twin homes. In the R-4 district, the minimum lot
size is 15,000 sq. ft. for detached dwellings and 11,000 for attached dwellings. The PUD
ordinance allows lots for detached dwellings to be a minimum of 11,000 sq. ft. with an average
of 15,000 sq. ft. for property designated residential, low density.
The PUD ordinance states that there shall be no minimum lot size for properties developed as
attached single-family dwellings on land designated as medium and high density residential as
long as it does not exceed maximum density. In this proposal, the lots range in area from 2,964
to 3,780 sq. ft. Although the proposed development does not exceed the low density standards (3
units per acres as opposed to the maximum 4 units per acre), the ordinance requires the applicant
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 4
request an amendment to the land use plan to permit zero lot line and clustered housing because
the lot areas do not meet those required in the PUD ordinance.
Staff supports this amendment because it will result in a more environmentally friendly proposal.
That is, if the lots were an average of 15,000 sq. ft., as required by ordinance, it is possible that
encroachments into the required 150 foot setback ITom Rice Marsh Lake would take place. With
the proposed plan, the lots are located outside of the required 150 foot setback ITom the lake
(structures cannot be constructed over a property line.) and a tree preservation easement will
extend over the 150 foot lakeshore setback and the 50 foot wetland setback, so no
encroachments can take place. Also, with a traditional single family dwelling subdivision it is
likely less trees will be saved.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of approximately 13.41 acres ITom RSF, Single Family
Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development-Residential. This property is currently zoned
RSF District. Only single-family detached dwellings are permitted in this district. The minimum
lot size is 15,000 sq. ft. The upland area of the subject site is 11.5 acres less the 1.45 acres for
Outlot A, leaving 10.06 acres. If this site were to be developed as a traditional single-family
dwelling subdivision, eftly approximately 29 units would be permitted (excluding roadways).
The applicant is proposing 30 units and 2 lots for open space. The purpose of this request is to
not gain additional units but to allow a more flexible design of the development.
Perhaps the most important point to remember is that this proposal meets the density
requirements of the low-density residential land use designation. The project proposes to
develop the site at three units per acre, whereas the designation permits up to four units.
Additionally. it complies with the goals and policies of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The
following are excerpts taken from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan:
HOUSING CHAPTER:
Life Cvcle Housinl! (D. 24)
"The City is committed to providing a variety of housing styles with housing available for
people of all income levels to meet the life cycle housing needs of Chanhassen residents,
including traditional single family detached housing, zero lot line and clustered single
family housing, townhouses, apartments and condominiums."
Housinl! Stratel!V-Action Plan (D. 28)
"Pursue the upper limits of zoning on new proposals where there is a density range,"
Housinl! Policies (p. 31)
"Where housing density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the city shall
encourage development at the upper end of the density range."
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 5 .
"The City will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout the
community,"
PARK AND OPEN SPACE CHAPTER:
Park and Recreation Policies (.0, 50)
"Provide open space areas which assist in the conservation and protection of ecologically
sensiJive areas,"
Furthermore, the proposal of this site as detached single-family dwellings and twin-homes is a
fine transition between future Market Blvd. and the single-family dwelling portion of Mission
Hills.
The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria are taken
ITom the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
"Planned unit developments offir enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density. construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. ..
Staff believes the applicant has proposed a more environmentally sensitive proposal than a
traditional single-family home development. First, the lots would require 15,000 sq. ft. (or
11,000 sq. ft, as permitted by the PUD ordinance) as opposed to 3,000 sq. ft. proposed and
second, Rice Marsh Lake, the most sensitive area, and the woodland area in the northeast portion
of the property are being preserved te the mœdlftllffi enteR! pessièle with a tree preservation
easement. The proposal seeks to protect the natural features of the site by clustering the units
toward the center of the property. That is, a large stand of maple trees on the northwest portion
of the site, the wetland to the north and the 150 foot setback ITom the ordinary high water level of
Rice Marsh Lake are being preserved with this proposed development.
SETBACKS
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks ITOm roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 6
TABLE I
Setback Reouired Minimum Proposed
From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet
From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet
From Exterior Lot Lines to 20 feet 20 feet
Parking and Drive Aisles
Interior Public 30 feet 20 on Lots 1-&9, Block I
Right-of-Way 30 on Lot 10, Block I and
Lots 1-6, Block 2
Hard Surface Coverage 30% 21 %
(total site)
The PUD ordinance permits the reduction of the ITont yard setback when it is demonstrated that
environmental protection will be enhanced. Staff supports a 10 foot variance ITom the 30 foot
front yard setback for Lots 1-&9, Block 1, to shift the structures away ITom Rice Marsh Lake.
This setback shall be measured ITom the property line abutting the extension of Mission Hills
Lane and the outlot. The ITont yard setbacks for Lots 1-6, Block 2 shall be a minimum of 30 feet.
In addition, the lots that have access via the private drive/driveway easement shall have
driveways with a minimum length of20 feet. This will ensure that vehicles are not extending
into the roadway.
ARCHITECTURE
The applicant is proposing four different exterior color schemes: beige, gray, tan and a fourth yet
to be determined. All units will have asphalt shingles with a combination of the following
materials: vinyl siding, cedar shakes and cultured stone. Although this is a fine effort to
diversify the product, staff would like to see varied facades, architectural details, porches and
garage entrances. Design standards have been drafted for this PUD in order to produce a unique
development.
As mentioned, the Planning Commission requested that staff revisit the building materials
and design portion of the design standards to take into consideration the commissioner's
comments regarding variation between the different types of units, In response to this
concern, the applicant has prepared elevation drawings that depict a variety of styles, A
specific front elevation has been designated for each lot, The exterior elevation list is
located in Attachment 9, Staff believes the revisions are fairly consistent with the Planning
Commission's concerns, however, Sf!eeiHsally, staff would still like a variety of porch styles
(e.g., wrap around, wider and deeper). The plans indicate porches approximately 6-7 feet in
depth and 10-12 feet in width. This variation is not enough. The lots can be increased in
width to accommodate different porch styles, Staff" y¡eRld alse like te see a variety sf faeades.
Although the applicant has revised the plans to vary the facades and materials, staff
recommends that the design standards continue to specify that Ie additiee, no two adjacent
units shall have the same front elevation or architectural style nor shall there be more than 10
units with the same exterior design. In addition, the standards shall require that varied
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 7
window sizes and locations, shutters, window boxes and columns shall be incorporated into each
unit.
The prepesal iadieates that all blit eRe eftfle gllfllges is "free! leadiRg." The revised plans
indicate that nine ofthe units are proposed to have side-loading garages, gtaff',yelild like
the IH1Íts te Bw/e ','aried al"l"eamnees. As part of the initial review of the proposal, staff
determined that the following lots have the appropriate elevations to warrant side loading
garages: Lot 8, Block 1; Lot 10, Block I; Lot 7, Block 2; Lot 16, Block 2; and Lot 17, Block 2.
The developer will be responsible for demonstrating that each unit, at the time of building permit
review, meets the criteria.
Staff supports the rezoning request. The proposal is more sensitive than a standard single-family
subdivision, since the structures are shifted ITom the environmentally sensitive area and grouped
closer together to reduce grading and provide greater efficiency for utility installation.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide 13.41 acres into 32 lots. Specifically,
30 lots are for dwellings and 2 lots are for open space. The site will be accessed via Mission
Hills Lane and, in the future, TH 101 after its upgrade. A private street is proposed to serve as
access for 14 lots.
Staff is concerned with leaving the open space areas as lots, rather than outlots. Typically, large
areas such as these are platted as outlots. Staff is requiring as a condition of approval that the
open space areas be platted as outlots. This will prevent the areas ITom being developed for
single-family homes in the future. f.ààitieaally, in the Streets seetiea efthis TepeR, staff
àiseHsses the æalignm.eøt sf tHe eutensieB. øf ~fissieB Hills Lane. This v:ill malEe it àiffiealt to
leeate beth Lets 9 1 G, Bleek I ea that pemeR ef the site. ThsrefeI'e, staff is I'eeemmemdieg that
Let 9, Bleek 1 be elimift&ted. The Planning Commission recommended that Lots 9-10, Block
1 be shifted to the west to provide a greater setback from the eastern perimeter property
line abutting Rice Lake Manor. Although both structures meet the required 30 foot PUD
perimeter setback, staff supports this condition, However, the design standards require the
home on Lot 9, Block 1 to maintain a 20 foot setback from right-of-way,
The proposed subdivision of the property is consistent with the guidelines established in the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be
approved with conditions outlined in the report.
WETLANDS
The northern border of this property is Rice Marsh Lake, which has been classified as a natural
environment lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The natural environment
classification is due to the large areas of shoreline that have not been influenced by development.
Rice Marsh Lake has a large amount of emergent vegetation that discourages traditional
recreational activities such as boating, swimming or fishing. Because of this classification, a 150
ft. building setback ITom the OHW (ordinary high water level) is required.
ì
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 8
There are two aglurban wetlands located on the site. The first is a small ditch section
approximately 2,500 square feet located in the west-central portion of the site. This area appears
to be part of a larger drainage swale that once drained runoff through the site. The runoff has
been interrupted by a stormwater pond built with the Mission Hills development to the south.
There is no existing buffer along this wetland as the edges are defined by a horse run, fill and a
driveway. This is a low quality wetland dominated by cattails, willow herb and reed canary
grass. The applicant is proposing to fill this wetland entirely and mitigate the impacts on site.
The second aglurban wetland is located on the northwest edge of the property and is adjacent to
Rice Marsh Lake. This wetland is slightly higher in elevation than the lake and there is an
upland area at its edge, which separates it ITom the lake. This wetland is an emergent marsh
dominated by reed canary grass and cattails, with an impressive buffer of dense woodland
consisting of oaks, maples and willows. Although the applicant is not proposing to fill this
wetland, they are proposing to expand its edge which would compensate for the filling of the
smaller wetland previously mentioned.
Due to the quality of this wetland, staff is recommending that the City permit the applicant to use
the WCA (Wetland Conservation Act) de minimis exemption, and allow the applicant to fill
2,000 square feet without replacement. This recommendation is in an effort to minimize the
grading and disturbance of the northern, higher quality wetland.
The applicant will be required to re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25
A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil conditions.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Water Oualitv Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development would be based on townhome development rates with a medium density use
at $1 ,530.00/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 10.06 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project would be $15,391.00
The applicant will be credited water quality fees where they provide NURP basins to treat runoff
ITom this site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations.
Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the
SWMP. The applicant will not be assessed areas that are dedicated outlots such as any wetland
mitigation or areas preserved along the Bluff Creek corridor. No credit will be given for temporary
pond areas.
Water Ouantitv Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
City-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 9
Medium Density developments have a connection charge of $ 2,975 per developable acre.
Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $ 29,928.00 fee. These fees will be due payable to
the City at time of final plat recording.
These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The applicant will be
charged SWMP fees for lots that are presented for final platting. Future phases of the
development will be assessed charges when they are submitted for fmal platting.
LANDSCAPING
The tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Marsh Glen development are as
follows:
Total upland area (including outlots)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
11.5 ac.
54% or 6,16 ac,
30% or 3,45 ac.
34% or 3,86 ac,
The proposal meets minimum canopy coverage allowed. The proposed landscape plan shows
good use of over- and understory trees to provide shade, privacy and beauty to the development.
The developer will make an effort to save many of the large oaks and maples on the western side
of the property. While staff applauds the efforts, it must also be noted that large trees such as
these are particularly susceptible to construction damage and must be protected with the utmost
care.
Buffer yard plantings are required along property lines abutting the Mission Hills development
and other residential properties. Requirements are shown in the Table 2. The landscape plan
indicates a deficiency of 3 overstory trees along the south property line adjacent to the medium
density area of Mission Hills development.
TABLE 2
Landscapin2 Item Reouired Pro Dosed
South property line - 8 overstory trees 25 overstory trees
Buffer yard B (30' width) 15 understory trees 22 understory trees
15 shrubs 27 shrubs
South property line - 5 overstory trees 2 overstory trees
Buffer yard A (30' width) 5 understory trees 9 understory
6 shrubs
East property line - 2 overstory trees 5 overstory
Buffer yard B (30'width) 2 understory trees 2 understory
3 shrubs existing vegetation
West property line - 5 overstory trees 8 overstory trees
Buffer yard B (30' width) II understory trees 11 understory trees
II shrubs (19 shrubs within right-
of-way - must be moved)
I;
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 10
*According to city buffer yard ordinance, the project developer is responsible for only 75% of the required plantings. Abutting property owners
may plant the remaining 25% on their property.
There is a heavy use of evergreens, specifically spruce trees, in the ITont yards and while this may
be done as a way to create privacy, it may also create problems in the future. Spruce trees tend to
spread out at the bottom of the tree and can be up to 30 feet in diameter at the base. Some of the
spruce are located less than 10 feet ITom ITont stoops and less than 5 feet ITom the road. Staff
recommends that either the location or the species of some of these trees be changed.
A number of plantings are located within the public street right-of-way. This placement is
unacceptable and all planting must be moved out of that area.
The Planning Commission has added a condition that additional screening be provided at
the end of the cul-de-sac, The home on Lot 7, Block 2, Mission Hills is approximately 6 feet
above the cul-de-sac, Staff is recommending evergreens be located at the end of the cul-de-
sac.
GRADING
The site characteristics are rolling in nature with wetlands and dense woodland areas over the
northerly portion of the site. Mature oak and maple trees are scattered throughout the westerly
and southerly portions of the site. The property also contains an existing homestead and barn
which will need to be razed. The barn was used as a horse training facility in the past. As a
result of this use, an extremely large amount of manure was deposited behind the barn area. The
developer is proposing to remove and dispose of the manure off site.
The plans propose mass grading a majority of the site to prepare the streets, subgrades, house
pads, and stormwater ponds. The proposed grading plan will generally maintain the rolling
features of the site as it exists today. The significant oaks and maples located in the
northwesterly corner of the project will be preserved. Outlot A which is proposed to be future
Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way also contains a number oflarger oak and maple trees. In the
future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded, the road will be shifted easterly within Outlot A.
The grades of future Trunk Highway 101 will be significantly lower which will result in removal
of the trees in Outlot A.
Staff Bfld the applieBHt "Nere semewHIIt peffJle¡¡ed \':Here te place the stermwllter peed ee tHe site.
An existing stormwater pond located in the southwest comer of the site, which pretreats
stormwater runoff ITom the Mission Hills development, is proposed to be expanded and utilized.
However, this pond is not large enough to accommodate drainage from the entire development
nor is it in the proper watershed to maintain recharged value to the wetlands to the north. ,
taerefere, Bflether peRd Has Been prepesed behind Lets:; 8, Bleek I. There appears te Be eneligB
reem if t The private street (cul-de-sac) entrance is was shifted approximately 40 feet easterly
which would enable the stormwater pond to be relocated between the private street entrance and
Outlot A. This will has also resolve staffs concerns with the intersection spacing between the
private street in relation to future Trunk Highway 101 in Outlot A. Staff is reeemmendieg that
The developer has redesigned the plans to show a pond location between Outlot A and the
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 11 .
private driveway. This may result ie the less efLet 11, Bleek 2 ee the pfi'late driveway. Staff
èelie":es tBeFe are sey¡emI reMeRS, i.e. minimize gæà.iag, Hae less antl1:ke east sf ret&ÎRiag ".valIs
hemad Lets S 8, Bleek 1 te FeEjliife this ekaage.
A pathway system is proposed through Lot 12, Block I between Lots 8 and 9, Block I down
towards Rice Marsh Lake. Upon preliminary review of the trail grade, it appears it would be too
steep to meet ADA requirements in this area. A switchback or angled pathway may be required
to meet grade limitations. This may result in additional grading and the loss of additional trees in
this area. The applicant shall work with staff to minimize the potential impacts of the trail.
Overall, given the site's constraints, the applicant's engineer has done well in blending the
proposed building pads with existing topography to maintain the site's characteristics. The
building sites range in elevation ITom 895 to 912. The building units on Lots 1-10, Block I are
located in the most environmentally sensitive area of the site. Grading, as proposed, will be
limited to within 15 feet of the building pad location on those lots. The home styles throughout
the development will be walkouts and/or lookout-type dwellings. On Lots 12-20, Block 2, the
lowest floor elevation of the dwelling must be raised to be two feet above the high water level of
the pond (up to 902.0). The dwelling type on these lots appears to be restricted to a rambler or
lookout-type dwelling unless the proposed grades in the area are raised significantly (four to six
feet).
Additional grading will occur on Outlot A due to the utility extension through to Trunk Highway
101 and extension of Mission Hills Lane and construction of a stormwater pond. Currently,
Outlot A has a large knoll that will need to be graded to blend into the proposed street extension
and stormwater pond.
DRAINAGE
For the most part, the site sheet drains in a north-northeasterly direction towards Rice Marsh
Lake or the adjacent wetland body. Based on the grading plan, the adjacent neighborhood
drainage patterns will be maintained with the proposed development. Stormwater runoff is
proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer systems into stormwater holding ponds on the site for
pretreatment prior to discharging off site. The plans need to incorporate an emergency overflow
swale from the existing pond located in the southwest comer of the project and any new ponds.
)',,5 pFevieasly æeøt.ieaeà, the steHIY....·ater paRå leeateà 8ft Let 12, Bleek 1 hemad Lets 5 8,
BleeIe 1 sà.ealà Be reløeateà ia emer tø lueserve tile \"¡eedlanà area alu! aveià the BeeEl fer
fetlliÐÏng walls hemad Lets 5 8, Bleek I. Staff is æeemmeadieg the applieant eeaGtrllet the
sterfftv;aler paRå èet\veeø OatIet ..^.. aRt:! tile fJFÍ7ate skeet v:æea lies seam sf Þ.fissisø Hills Lane.
The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development runoff conditions for a 10-year and
100-year, 24-hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff for review and approval.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 12
easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows ITom all stormwater ponds will also
be required in the construction plans.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading plan proposes Type I erosion control fence along the perimeter of the downstream
grading limits. In some areas, the erosion control fence is placed too far away ITom the grading
limits and needs to be relocated to the grading limits to avoid damage to the trees. In addition,
tree preserve fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. A rock
construction entrance will also need to be required at entrance points to the site. Watershed
District and NPDES permits will also be required in conjunction with this development.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service is available
from along Trunk Highway 101 or by Rice Marsh Lake. The plans propose on extending sewer
service ITom an existing manhole near Trunk Highway 101 through Outlot A to serve the site.
Staff has reviewed the utility access locations and believes it may be more cost effective and
desirable to extend utilities through the future street alignment of Mission Hills Lane out to
Trunk Highway 101. This would require less pipe/materials and be easier to maintain in the
future. Staff will perform a greater level of review of the utility layout upon submittal of the
detailed construction plans and specifications.
The construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to
final plat consideration for staff review and formal City Council approval. The developer will be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and
conditions of final plat approval. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City
over the public lines outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the
utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
The existing farmhouse is connected to city sewer. However, water service has not been
extended. There is an existing well located behind the farmhouse that will need to be abandoned
in accordance with State health codes.
The property was previously assessed for trunk sewer and water hook up charges in conjunction
with the Lake Riley Boulevard Trunk Improvement Project No. 93-26A, however, only one of
the 19 hookup assessments were levied; the remaining 18 were deferred. Since the applicant is
creating more lots than was previously assessed, those lots will also be subject to city sanitary
sewer and water hook up charges at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility
hook up charges are $1,300 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,694 per unit for watermain.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 13
STREETS
The applicant is proposing a combination of public and private street systems. The plans propose
on extending Mission Hills Lane ITom its current terminus to Outlot A (future Trunk Highway
10 1). At this time, there will not be a street connection to existing Trunk Highway 10 I due to
inadequate sight lines and impacts to the City's property which lies between Outlot A and
existing Trunk Highway 101. The road will be connected when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded.
Staff believes the current timetrame for the extension and upgrade of Trunk Highway 101 is
approximately five to six years. Until Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded and the street connection
made, this development will be limited to existing Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street for
access. In conjunction with the Mission Hills developrnent, West 86th Street was designed and
constructed to act as a neighborhood collector street (36 feet wide). The additional trips
generated ITom this project will not adversely impact traffic through the Mission Hills
neighborhoods. It is estimated the increased traffic volumes on Mission Hills Lane and West 86th
Street will be approximately ;00 150 vehicle trips per day once the site has been fully
developed. (Mission Hills Lane is a local residential street designed to accommodate 500 -
1,500 daily trips and West 86th Street can accommodate up to 5,000 trips per day,)
Initially, staff indicated the development would generate approximately 300 vehicle trips a
day through the Mission Hills development (Mission Hills Lane & 86th Street). This
assumed a standard single residential development (10 trips a day/Iot) which given the
dernographics for the proposed use is high. Given that the target for this housing market is
empty nesters/retired individuals, the actual trips per day would be in a range of 150 to 175
per day once the site is fully built out. Construction traffic during the home building
process is not counted in these figures,
It should be pointed out that this development is no different that others in the city when
construction is phased such as the Lundgren development - Springfield - just south of
Lyman Blvd. which had up to 71 lots using one entrance onto Lyman Blvd, Stone Creek
had 144 lots using one entrance onto Galpin Blvd, until Stone Creek Drive was extended to
Coulter Blvd, three years later, The Lake Susan Hills development along Powers Blvd, also
was constructed over a 7-year phasing plan with only one access, This scenario is very
common in development, The only concern staff typically has is from a public safety
standpoint. The Fire Marshal has commented on this development and did not express any
concerns regarding another access out to T,H, 101.
Concern was expressed about the sharp curve and poor sight lines at the connection point
to exiting Mission Hills Lane, The residential street complies with the design standards,
The curve in the street was "softened" and grades modified to improve the sight lines and
conform to the existing terrain, Although the curve does not appear to meet a 30 mph
speed design, which is not uncommon, a speed advisory sign and curve sign will be installed
to alert motorists of the situation in accordance with general traffic engineering standards,
The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way for the street extension (Mission Hills
Lane) along with a private street (cul-de-sac). A cross-access easement and maintenance
agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the
~,
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 14
private street. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. In addition, drainage and
utility easements shall encompass the proposed utilities along the private street.
Staff bas reviewed the 1eeatiee eftHe pri'lllte street ie relatiee te the fuære Tmnk Highway 191
and l3elie\'es that the pfi'/lIte àrivewlI)' shelild l3e releeated easterly ElfJpre¡¡jmately 19 feet te
fJrs":itie atieflÐ8te seJ:1a.mtion froæ the ifttefSeetisB ef Be\V TfW'lk Higl-1VÆY 191 threagk Outlot ~A....
This viiI! iWielve lesieg Let 11, Bleel¡ 2 frem the prepesed plat.
Currently, on Mission Hill Lane, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been constructed along the
easterly side of the street. Staff believes the sidewalk should be extended through the
development down to Outlot A on the north side of the public street. In addition, the plans
propose a pathway from Mission Hills Lane down to and along Rice Marsh Lake within the plat.
This segment of trail system around Rice Marsh Lake will eventually provide access to the
Villages on the Ponds development north of this project. Staff has concerns with the trail grade
on the pathway down to Rice Marsh Lake ITom Mission Hills Lane. The pathway should be
redesigned to meet ADA requirements.
Staffis seaøemed 'lith the street geemetries ef the prepesed exteesiea ef Missiea Hills Lafle
from its slIffeHt teFffiialis. The ElfJfJlieaet has worked with City staff ie attelBj3tiag te provide
smeeth seHtielii~ fer the eJ{teesiee efMissioe Hills Lane; hovle'/er, staffl3elie...es the str-eet still
Heetis t8 be shifted further to the Herdt anti the f)fepsseti rigkt sf VI&)" aligB ":.4tl-1 enistiRg Þ.fissisa
Hills Llffie right ef '.VilJ te aesemmedate a smeether tamsitiee. Ia additiee, by shiftieg the street
eortHedy it will ilBj3re'/e sight liees f-er the àri'¡eway aeeesses to Lets 9 aRd 10, Bloek 1.
CllffeHtly, the sight liees are eet desirable EiRe to the steep slope Md sftar¡¡ elif"/e. I selie...e the
dFÎyeway eRtraflee te Lots 9 and 19 may still Heed te l3e leellted somherly ElfJproJ¡jmately 10 feet
at the er-est ef the hill te ilBj3reve sight liaes to/frem tile lots.
The eu:teasion of ~fission Hills Lane thfeagh tke tie';elspæeB:t ffi8:)' reEJ.aire the reløeatisa sf an
e)¡jstieg Fire ~'draet and ellteh basies. The applieaet sballl3e r-espeesil3le fer the releelltiea ef
existieg lItilities afld street impre'/emeHts ie eeajliRstiee with the e){tensiee efMission Hills
Lane. .^.n e¡¡jstieg weed feeee is loeated vlithie the City's right ef vltlJ by the prepeFty e'/;eer ea
Let 9 (Missiea Hills CeRrt) v/hieh will aeed te l3e remeved frem the City's right ef ',vay te Il'.'øid
impaets frem the e¡¡teesiee efMissiee Hills Lane.
As proposed, the extension of Mission Hills Lane will terminate at Outlot A. A temporary cul-
de-sac will need to be constructed to accommodate traffic, maintenance equipment, etc. A
temporary cul-de-sac easement will need to be dedicated to the City. The temporary cul-de-sac
easement shall be a minimum radius of 40 feet and shall terminate when Mission Hills Lane is
connected to future Trunk Highway 101. The applicant may dedicate Outlot A to the City for the
future upgrade of Market Blvd.
THe prepesal iftdielltes a laadseape islaad lit tile ead of the pri'l31e street. The aeeess is loeg, e'/er
1,100 feet, and wewd make efJeratÎHg fir-e eE llÎj meHt diffielllt. THerefore, staff is reeeH!lflendieg
the laedseape island l3e eliminated. In erèer te aavigate fir-e el llÎpmeHt aroRRd the island, pllfldeg
mRst be prekieited oe the elll de sae. Hewe'/er, that may eot a"''ays held trlie. The landseEIfJe
islaad impairs the fire ElefJar'.!ReRt's ability te tII!'fI arell!1à safely ÌR the e¡,¡ de sae.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 15
TH 101 Access
Staff spoke with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Planning and Right-of-Way
Access Permit Divisions regarding granting an access from Mission Hills Lane to Trunk
Highway 101 with the development of Marsh Glen, Mr. Paul Czech with MnDOT
Planning and Mr. Keith Van Wagner with MnDOT Permits both indicated that MnDOT
would not grant an access to existing Highway 101 from proposed Mission Hills Lane at
this time nor would they allow a temporary construction access for development of the site,
MnDOT's reasoning for this, as staff anticipated, was due to poor sight line conditions
along Trunk Highway 101. MnDOT is also not in favor of a future connection to new
Highway 101, however, Mr, Czech indicated that since this road will most likely be a
turnback road, it will be up to the regulating governmental agencies to determine any
future access points along the road, It is MnDOT's position to minimize access points
along highways, Staffs position is that when the road is turned back to the County/City
and upgraded to the new Highway 101 alignment, staff would support, at a minimum. a
right-inlright-out onto new Highway 101 from Mission Hills Lane, Previous conversations
with Carver County Highway Department indicated that they as well would permit a
future access onto new 101 from Mission Hills.
In conclusion, staff does feel that the interim access to Marsh Glen from Mission Hills Lane
will not adversely impact traffic in the Mission Hills neighborhood. It will obviously
change the traffic trip generations now experienced by the neighborhood, However, this is
not unusual as neighborhoods expand and development growth continues in the city.
PARK AND RECREATION
In order to complete the trail connection from Marsh Glen to the Rice Marsh Lake trail, an
additional section of trail will need to be constructed. Staff recommends that the applicant be
responsible for the design, engineering and construction of all the trail work identified on staff s
plan. The applicant would receive reimbursement for all costs associated with construction of
the "city" trail. The applicants would be responsible for costs associated with the section of trail
linking Mission Hills Drive to the "city trail." Monies collected as park and trail fees for Marsh·
Glen (approximately $48,000) would be used to reimburse the applicant. Appropriate
documentation of the engineering and construction bidding and payment documents will be
required. Without the aid of a formal construction estimate, it appears that the $48,000 in park
and trail fees ITom Marsh Glen should cover the costs associated with this project. In the event
that costs exceed $48,000, the Park & Trail Dedication account reserve would be utilized to settle
the account.
On January 25, 2000, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended
approval the proposed trail connection,
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 16
SIGNAGE/LIGHTING
A signage plan has not been submitted with the proposal. However, if a monument sign is
constructed, a sign permit is required and it must comply with ordinance. Furthermore, any
future signage shall be limited to the entrance off the future TH 10 1.
Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. Residential street lighting shall be required along Mission Hills Lane.
FINDINGS
LAND USE PLAN
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the land use plan map to permit the development of
the site for detached single-family dwellings and attached townhomes. The property is
designated as residential-low density. Thus, the site could be developed as single-family homes
or twin-homes.
The PUD ordinance states that there shall be no minimum lot size for properties developed as
attached single-family dwellings on land designated as medium and high density residential as
long as it does not exceed maximum density. In this proposal, the lots range in area ITom 2,964 to
3,780 sq. ft. Although the proposed development does not exceed the low density standards (3
units per acres as opposed to the maximum 4 units per acre), the ordinance requires the applicant
request an amendment to the land use plan to permit zero lot line and clustered housing because
the lot areas do not meet those required in the PUD ordinance.
Staff supports this amendment because it will result in a more environmentally ITiendly proposal.
That is, if the lots were an average of 15,000 sq. ft., as required by ordinance it is possible that
encroachments would take place into the required 150 foot setback ITom Rice Marsh Lake. With
the proposed plan, the lots are located outside of the required 150 foot setback ITom the lake
(structures cannot be constructed over a property line) and a tree preservation easement will
extend over the 150 foot lakeshore setback and the 50 foot wetland setback, so no
encroachments can take place. Also, with a traditional single family dwelling subdivision it is
likely less trees will be saved.
REZONING
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
I. 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.
Marsh Glen
February 9,2000
Page 17·
Findinl!:. The majority of the site's natural and sensitive features are being preserved
because it is a compact development.
2. More efficient and effective use ofland, open space and public facilities through mixing
ofland uses and assembly and development ofland in larger parcels.
Findinl!:, The project utilizes land more efficiently through clustering the residential
units and the provision of open space areas.
3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Findinl!:, The development will incorporate high quality design and design compatible
with surrounding land uses. Staff has prepared design standards to ensure a higher
quality design and overall development than is found elsewhere in the community.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Findinl!:, The proposed development provides a sensitive transition between the existing
Mission Hills single family development and future TH 101.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findinl!:, The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, based upon the
existing density ranges.
6. 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.
Findinl!:, The applicant has proposed that much of the site be left as common open space
for the development. Also, the proposed trail along Rice Marsh Lake is consistent with
the comprehensive trail plan.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Findinl!:, This is not appropriate with this development.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Findinl!:. The proposed structures have been shifted from Rice Marsh Lake, thus
clustering the dwelling units, reducing grading and efficiently providing sewer and water
servIce.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 18
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Findinl!:. The extension of Mission Hills Lane will be the primary access to the site until
the upgrade ofTH 101 in the future.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the
staff report.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to the
conditions of the staff report.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development
subj ect to the conditions specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure
contingent upon conditions specified in this report.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
conditions in this report.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure
contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required
as part of the subdivision.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 19
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets.
c. Lake of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment
system).
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban inITastructure.
Staff is confident the proposal preserves the natural features of the site and recommends approval
land use plan, rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions:
"The City Council approves the land use plan amendment (#2000-2) to change the designation ITom
residential-low density to residential-medium density."
"The City Council approves the rezoning (conceptual and preliminary) (#2000-1) of 13.41 acres
from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential based
upon the plans submitted Deeeæber 8, 1999 January 26, 2000, dated November 29, 1999 and
revised January 18, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with the Marsh Glen Design Standards:
a. Setbacks:
1. The ITont yard setbacks for Lots 1-&9, Block I may be a minimum of20
feet.
2. The ITont yard setbacks for Lot 10, Block1 and Lots 1-6, Block 2 shall be a
minimum ofJO feet.
3. The driveway length for Lots 7-1 Gl, 12-20, Block 2 shall be a minimum of
20 feet.
b. Building Materials and Design:
1. Front porch styles shall be varied (e.g., wrap around, wider and deeper).
2. No two adjacent units shall have the same ITont elevation or architectural
style nor shall there be more than 10 units with the same exterior
design (see Attachment 8).
3. Varied window sizes and locations, shutters, window boxes and columns
shall be incorporated into each unit.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 20
4. The following lots have the appropriate elevations to warrant side loading
garages: Lot 8, Block I; Lot 10, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; Lot 16, Block 2;
and Lot 17, Block 2.
5. The developer shall be responsible for demonstrating that each unit meets
the design criteria, at the time of building permit review.
c. Sigrnuæ:
I. All signage shall comply with article XXVI. Signage shall be limited to
the entrance off future TH 1 01.
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat (#2000-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots
and 2 outlots based upon the plans submitted DeeemBer 8,1999 January 26, 2000, dated
November 29, 1999, and revised January 18,2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. Lot 12, Block 1, and Lot 21, Block 2, shall be platted as outlots.
2. The recording of the final plat shall be subject to the approval of the land use amendment
by the Metropolitan Council.
3. The impervious surface coverage shall be calculated for the entire site.
4. A lighting plan shall be submitted. Residential street lighting shall be required along the
extension of Mission Hills Lane.
5. The applicant shall plant three overstory trees along the south property line adjacent to the
medium density area of the Mission Hills development. Additions shall be shown on a
revised landscape plan.
6. No landscaping is allowed within the street right-of-way. Revised landscape plans shall
be submitted to the city showing this change.
7. The applicant shall revise the location and/or the species of some of the proposed front
yard spruce trees. Changes shall be shown on the revised landscape plan.
8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three
weeks prior to final consideration.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 21
10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pond net model. Emergency overflows
ITom all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits ITom the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan
Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota
Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of way. A 2%
boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of way.
14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
15. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of24 feet wide and built to 7-
ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on the
private street shall be prohibited. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall
be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 7-21, Block 2 in favor of the property
owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide.
16. The de':eleper shall iestall a S feet wiele eseerete sidewalk aleeg the Hefth side ef
1fissiøø Hills Lane Hem its elilTeBt tannÍBUs 18 Outlet }...
17. The developer shall dedicate the following easements to the City at no cost:
a. A temporary cul-de-sac easement with a 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills
Lane on Outlot A. The easement shall expire when Mission Hills Lane is
connected to Trunk Highway 101.
b. A 20-foot wide trail easement over the proposed "path" through Lot 12, Block I.
c. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line
through Lot 12, Block I.
Marsh Glen
February 9,2000
Page 22
d. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds and wetlands
outside of the right of way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall
be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all
ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level.
18. The plans shall be revised as follows:
a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and
wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood level.
d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler, with
lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations.
c. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan.
d. Sanitary sewer and watermain extension through Outlot A, underneath future
Trunk Highway 101, shall be cased.
e. Grade Outlot A for the future street extension of Mission Hills Lane. Provide
temporary cul-de-sac with 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills Lane.
f. Add 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Mission Hills Lane
from its current terminus to Outlot A.
g. Reløeate alll3rsfJÐseEi lanàseafJe 13laAtiags [rem tae rigfit ef·.·;ay aleag ~4:issiøfl
Hills Laee. Laedseapieg materials are Rot permitted withie tfle City's right of
WIiY= (Duplication of 6)
h. Redesign path through Lot 12, Block 1 to meet ADA grade requirements.
1. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and
drainage plan. The fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
j. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site.
19. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water
hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance.
20. The developer and future property owners should be aware that there may not be any
noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk
Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement (landscapinglberming) should be included
in these development plans.
21. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is
upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be a through street. The applicant
shall install a sign that states "This road will be extended."
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 23 .
22. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or
an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions.
23. The proposed residential development of 10.06 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of $15,391. Once the applicant demonstrates that the
ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, this fee will be waived. The
applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $29,928.00. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
24. The wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. In addition the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer
edge. The Applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the supervision of City
Staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
25. The Building Official's Conditions are as follows:
a. Demolition permits are required to demolish any structures on the property and all
well, sewage treatment areas and utilities must be properly abandoned and
documentation of such provided.
b. Any portion of a building within three feet of a property line must be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
c. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before permits will be issued.
26. The Fire Marshal's Conditions are as follows:
a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US west, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
b. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed they must be either chipped or hauled off
site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be
issued.
c. R-egæ:àiag the suI de sae ·.vitlt eeater isl8ftà. DHe t8· the leag assess, ever 1199
feet, the desiga sf the seater eæ de soo islaøàs is Bet aeeeptaèle anà HUlst he
elimiaateel. The TeaseR 1:Jeiag ia enter te negøtiate Bfe e~meBt 8fÐtiftel the
island it is iæpefati'"¡e tM! Be "f~Rieles park ia the eæ de soo. E~;efl våtk Be
pafideg sigas "/eæeles ean and de park there. With the islimd iestalled it
eliæiaates ear ahility t8 jeekey fiFe 813pamæs if eMS ",;ere sleeking aF parkeel ia
1£6 61::11 de see. Fire 8fJf)aratas atteR Reeds the Full etil de see diæeasieas te turn
afÐHßà iB tke e·¡eBt sf a fh:e.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 24
27. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
28. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of this
designated trail in its entirety as a part of their public improvements.
The city will reimburse the applicant for all design, engineering, and construction costs
associated with the "city" trail. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated
with the "trail connector."
Bid documents for all phases of trail construction shall be presented to the city's Park &
Recreation Director for approval prior to work being initiated.
29. The applicant shall submit the Homeowners Association private covenants agreement for
review by the City.
30. The applicant shall dedicate a tree preservation easement over the 150 foot setback and
buffer area of Rice Marsh Lake and the 50 foot wetland setback and buffer area for the
aglurban wetland on the north portion of the site as shown on Attachment 8.
31. Staff shall revisit Section (b) of the Marsh Glen Design Standards for the PUD to
take into consideration the comments made by the Planning Commission with
particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the
different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant,
32. Landscape buffering between Lots 17-20, Block 2 and the perimeter property line
shall be increased with evergreens for year round screening.
34, Lots 9-10, Block 1 shall be shifted to the west to provide a greater setback from the
eastern property line."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Memo prepared by David Hempel dated January 10,2000
3. Memo prepared by Mark Littfin dated December 30, 1999
4. Memo prepared by Steve Torell dated December 28, 1999
5. Staff report prepared by Todd Hoffinan dated January 25, 2000
5. Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat
6. Property Owners List
7. Tree preservation easement
8. Front exterior elevation designs
9, Memo prepared by David Hempel dated Febrnary 9, 2000
10. Sketch Plan received January 26, 2000
10. Minutes from January 19,2000 Planning Commission Meeting
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 25
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Marsh Glen
Planned Unit Development
On January 19, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of MSS Holdings, LLC for Marsh Glen for Planned Unit
Development property ITom RSF, Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development,
Residential. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned
Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony ITom all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single Family Residential.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential-Medium Density (as
amended).
3. The legal description of the property is: see attachment
4. 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 has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of
the area.
Marsh Glen
February 9, 2000
Page 26
c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance.
d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
5. The planning report #2000-1 PUD dated February 9, 2000, prepared by Cynthia
Kirchoff, Planner II is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Planned Unit Development.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this _ day of
2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:lplan\cklplan comm\marsh glen pud 2000-I.docg:lplan\ck\plan comm\marsh glen pud 2000-1.doc
OI1'WOF~¡O.SS!N
~~"'~I\IJlD
CITY OJ' CHANHASSEN
690 COOL TER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(61',) 937-1900
DEC 0 8 1999
CHANMI\.;IoJ"'" (rJ\ln'CII'1òI uE~T
DEVElOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPUCANT:)V6S· 4>LDI .) iPS, f..l.C;, .
ADDRESs:ß905 Ct>1Æ. {blur ~-
~IJ PMI~I¡::1 rttlU ~'b411
. 0 50
OWNER: A~ t Ly,utJlt-
~€tTH
TELEPHONE (Day time)
ADDRESS:
A-T1O~ ~ ~LL~ : &GŒc ~
TELEPHONE:.L.e.I~ -ldJ1- '16cr3
..::.L Comprehensive Plan Amendment
-ÎerooO _ Temporary Sales Perm~
- Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWÆasements
- Interim Use Perm~ - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Perm~ _ Wetland Alteration Permit
~ Planned Unit Development' ~ t'J.:oLÛ _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign 4t (60l0
- Site Plan Review' ...x.. Escrow for Filing Feesf Attorney Cost'"
($50 CUPfSPRNACNARfWAPfMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Y Subdivision" ~~B).cO, TOTAL FEE $ ;:;.. 'éH)O
.
A list of all property Qll/nerswJthIn SOO reet of the boundaries of the property must be Included wIth the
application. .
Building material samples mustt)e submlttecl wittl site plan revIews_
"Twenty-six fuUslze folded copies ofthe plans must be submitted, IncludIng an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
.. Escrow will be required for other appDcatlonstilrough the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be cha¡:ged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION 1/4
v"Æ ~µ (PL-f:, I\J
M IL.Q;, &wirt OF- ~w" 6
~D
a.J.ð..
fZA.8f
OF 10/
LEGAl DESCRIPTION
\2>.k/.¡ Ád11~s
-V YES
NO
TOTAl ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
Duo
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
Puo
MOLT I - FÆM [oj
OJ: L-A,vD
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ßUI?:>ÛI V l.sO A.J
This application must be completed in full and be- typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Trtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I wUl keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
puthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensi re appro ed by the a licant.
"
Id--'t ,-99
, Date
Signature of Fee Owner
~pplication Received on Ið-· 0· C14
Date
Fee Paid ~I~ 5D .00 Receipt No. 8-1..() 17
Ole applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
'If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address,
". .. .. -- . . - .
.. .. - . .
..~~., \".'~i~'vY1'.~""""',.~:;-~~".I't""_:""""~/''''i'i117,~KJ:1''J!Àr.)i.,:><,~;,¡,,¡~~_...~,.....,., .... . ','. .... .---. - '., h.
" . ,.
.
.
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
,Schcdu1cA Legal Description Continued
File Number: CA 16843
CaIver County, Minnesota
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range
23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Easterly of the center line of State Trunk Highway #101 and
northerly of the following described line: .
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence
on aD IIs5umed bearin~ of South 0 degrees 52 II1ÏJ?utes 40 s~conds, I?ast, al~ng th~ east lin~ of. said
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a dìstance of ~ 19,20 teet to tile pomt of begi1il1lI1g of
the line to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90
feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds West a distance of265.45 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a
distance of 143,04 feet; thence North 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 239.59
feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 491.20 feet to the centerline
of State Trunk Highway #101, and there terminating;
Excepting therefrom that part described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said
Quarter Quarter; thence West along the North line thereof, 903.8 feet to a point in the center line
of State Trunk Highway _#101, as now laid out and traveled, being the actual point of begimrlng;
thence East along said North line 137.51 feet; thence South 17 degrees 17 minutes West 247.43 feet;
thence South 33 degrees 59 minutes West 271.52 feet; thence North 48 degrees 37 minutes West
184.51 feet to said center line; thence Northeasterly along said center line 402.82 feet more or less,
to the actual point of beginning.
Abstract
~
.
.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARSH GLEN
Planned Unit Development of 30 units ranging in price from
S25O,000.00 to $350,000.00
This parcel is just South of the downtown area of Chanhassen
and very close to retail, churches and restaurants. Just to the
west of this parcel, the City-of Chanhassen will need to acquire
a portion of this parcel for the future expansion of Highway 101,
To the SW is an existing higher density townhome development,
and to the south is an existing single family development.
This site was a horse training facility with many old metal buildings,
and potential environmental concerns with the amount of waste that
has been left on the site. The existing owners have moved their business
to Wisconsin.
The development will consist of 4 different floors plans with units either
detached townhomes or attached units. All units will have large front
porches, a variety of masonry exteriors, double car garages, with
options of decks and porches to the rear. All buildings will consist
mainly of maintenance free materiaL
Overall density of 2.2 units per acre
Net density of 2.9 units per acre
This density is less than allowed by the Guide Plan we are requesting
a change to,
By allowing the PUD; the developer is able to pull all the buildings
built on Rice Marsh Lake further away from the high water mark
and any wetlands than the City could control if a single family
development were allowed. Also by approving a PUD, the City
can also control and have input on the future use of this land, MSS
Holdings, LLC will be implementing a Homeowners Association for the
future maintenance of the this land. Our plan is to keep this area as
natural as possible with a walking trail that will connect to any
future plans the City may have for a trail. A PUD will also
keep consistency along Rice Marsh Lake. MSS Holdings will be
donating the land to the south of Rice Marsh Lake as an Outlot to the
·
,
City of Chanhasseo. MSS Holdings believes this PUD wiDenhanee the
area with a Dew' and dift'erent product the City of Cbanh~ dòes not
currently have available. . .
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
o City Cmttr Drivt. PO &x 147
'11anhassm. Minntsota 55317
Phone 612.937. 1900
Gmtral FI1X 612.937.5739
:nginemng FI1X 612.937.9152
ublit Safety FI1X 612.934.2524
W,b WU/W.ci.chanhassm.mn.us
.. --_._~......-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ~
January 10, 2000
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Review of Preliminary Plat for Marsh Glen
Upon review of the plans prepared by Development Engineering dated November
29, 1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING
The site characteristics are rolling in nature with wetlands and dense woodland
areas over the northerly portion of the site. Mature oak and maple trees are
scattered throughout the westerly and southerly portions of the site. The property
also contains an existing homestead and barn which will need to be razed. The
barn was used as a horse training facility in the past. As a result of this use, an
extremely large amount of manure was deposited behind the barn area. The
developer is proposing to remove and dispose of the manure off site.
The plans propose on mass grading a majority of the site to prepare the streets,
sub grades, house pads, and stormwater ponds. The proposed grading plan will
generally maintain the rolling features of the site as it exists today. The
significant oaks and maples located in the northwesterly corner of the project will
be preserved. Outlot A which is proposed to be future Trunk Highway 101 right-
of-way also contains a number oflarger oak and maple trees. In the future when
Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded, the road will be shifted easterly within Outlot A
. The grades of future Trunk Highway 101 will be significantly lower which will
result in removal of the trees in Outlot A.
Staff and the applicant were somewhat perplexed where to place the stormwater
pond on the site. An existing stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of
the site which pretreats stormwater runoff ITom the Mission Hills development is
proposed to be expanded and utilized. However, this pond is not large enough to
accommodate drainage from the entire development nor is it in the proper
watershed to maintain recharged value to the wetlands to the north, therefore,
another pond has been proposed behind Lots 5-8, Block I. There appears to be
enough room if the private street (cul-de-sac) entrance is shifted approximately 40
feet easterly which would enable the stormwater pond to be relocated between the
private street entrance and Outlot A. This will also resolve staffs concerns with
the intersection spacing between the private street in relation to future Trunk
City of Chanhassm. A growing community with ckan lakts, quality schools. a charmin! downtown, thrivin! busin"''', and beauti/ù! parks. A mat Place to live. work, and pia,
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 2
Highway 101 in Outlot A. Staff is recommending that the developer redesign the
plans to show a pond location between Outlot A and the private driveway. This
may result in the loss of Lot 11, Block 2 on the private driveway. Staffbelieves
there are several reasons, i.e. minimize grading, tree loss and the cost of retaining
walls behind Lots 5-8, Block I to require this change.
A pathway system is proposed through Lot 12, Block 1 between Lots 8 and 9,
Block 1 down towards Rice Marsh Lake. Upon preliminary review of the trail
grade, it appears it would be too steep to meet ADA requirements in this area. A
switchback or angled pathway may be required to meet grade limitations. This
may result in additional grading and the loss of additional trees in this area.
Overall, given the site's constrains, the applicant's engineer has done well in
blending the proposed building pads with existing topography to maintain the
site's characteristics. The building sites range in elevation ITom 895 to 912. The
building units on Lots 1-10, Block 1 are located in the most environmentally
sensitive area of the site. Grading as proposed will be limited within 15 feet of
the building pad location on those lots. The home styles throughout the
development will be walkouts and/or lookout-type dwellings. On Lots 2-20,
Block 12, the lowest floor elevation of the dwelling must be raised to be two feet
above the high water level of the pond (up to 902.0). The dwelling type on these
lots appears to be restricted to a rambler or lookout-type dwelling unless the
proposed grades in the area are raised significantly (four to six feet).
Additional grading will occur on Outlot A due to the utility extension through to
Trunk Highway 101 and extension of Mission Hills Lane and construction of a
stormwater pond. Currently, Outlot A has a large knoll which will need to be
graded to blend into the proposed street extension and stormwater pond.
DRAINAGE
For the most part, the site sheet drains in a north-northeasterly direction towards
Rice Marsh Lake or the adjacent wetland body. Based on the grading plan, the
adjacent neighborhood drainage patterns will be maintained with the proposed
development. Stormwater runoff is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer
systems into stormwater holding ponds on the site for pretreatment prior to
discharging off site. The plans need to incorporate an emergency overflow swale
ITom the existing pond located in the southwest corner of the project and any new
ponds.
As previously mentioned, the stormwater pond located on Lot 12, Block 1 behind
Lots 5-8, Block 1 should be relocated in order to preserve the woodland area and
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 3
avoid the need for retaining walls behind Lots 5-8, Block 1. Staff is
recommending the applicant construct the stormwater pond between Outlot A and
the private street which lies south of Mission Hills Lane.
The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development runoff
conditions for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event will need to be
submitted to city staff for review and approval. Drainage and utility easements
will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system
including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum
easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows ITom all stormwater
ponds will also be required in the construction plans.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading plan proposes Type I erosion control fence along the perimeter of the
downstream grading limits. In some areas, the erosion control fence is placed too
far away ITom the grading limits and needs to be relocated to the grading limits to
avoid damage to the trees. In addition, tree preserve fencing will need to be
denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. A rock construction entrance will
also need to be required at entrance points to the site. Watershed District and
NPDES permits will also be required in conjunction with this development.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service
is available from along Trunk Highway 101 or by Rice Marsh Lake. The plans
propose on extending sewer service ITom an existing manhole near Trunk
Highway 101 through Outlot A to serve the site. Staff has reviewed the utility
access locations and believe it may be more cost effective and desirable to extend
utilities through the future street alignment of Mission Hills Lane out to Trunk
Highway 101. This would require less pipe/materials and be easier to maintain in
the future. Staff will perform a greater level of review of the utility layout upon
submittal of the detailed construction plans and specifications.
The construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be submitted
a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and
formal City Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of
a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public
improvements and conditions of final plat approval. Drainage and utility
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 4
easements shall be dedicated to the City over the public lines outside of the right-
of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum
drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
The existing farmhouse is connected to city sewer. However, water service has
not been extended. There is an existing well located behind the farmhouse that
will need to be abandoned in accordance with State health codes.
The property was previously assessed for trunk sewer and water hook up charges
in conjunction with the Lake Riley Boulevard Trunk Improvement Project No. 93-
26A, however, only one of the 19 hookup assessments were levied; the remaining
18 were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than was previously
assessed, those lots will also be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hook up
charges at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hook up
charges are $1,300 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,694 per unit for watermain.
STREETS
The applicant is proposing a combination of public and private street systems.
The plans propose on extending Mission Hills Lane rrom its current terminus to
Outlot A (future Trunk Highway 101). At this time, there will not be a street
connection to existing Trunk Highway 101 due to inadequate sight lines and
impacts to the City's property which lies between Outlot A and existing Trunk
Highway 101. The road will be connected when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded.
Staff believes the current timeITame for the extension and upgrade of Trunk
Highway 101 is approximately five to six years. Until Trunk Highway 101 is
upgraded and the street connection made, this development will be limited to
existing Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street for access. In conjunction with
the Mission Hills development, West 86th Street was designed and constructed to
act as a neighborhood collector street (36 feet wide). The additional trips
generated ITom this project will not adversely impact traffic through the Mission
Hills neighborhoods. It is estimated the increased traffic volumes on Mission
Hills Lane and West 86th Street will be approximately 300 vehicles per day once
the site has been fully developed.
The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way for the street extension
(Mission Hills Lane) along with a private street (cul-de-sac). A cross-access
easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by
the developer over the lots which access the private street. The minimum
easement width shall be 40 feet wide. In addition, drainage and utility easements
shall encompass the proposed utilities along the private street.
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 5
Staff has reviewed the location of the private street in relation to the future Trunk
Highway 101 and believes that the private driveway should be relocated easterly
approximately 40 feet to provide adequate separation ITom the intersection of new
Trunk Highway 101 through Outlot A. This will involve losing Lot 11, Block 2
ITom the proposed plat.
Currently, on Mission Hill Lane, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been
constructed along the easterly side of the street. Staff believes the sidewalk
should be extended through the development down to Outlot A on the north side
of the public street. In addition, the plans propose a pathway ITom Mission Hills
Lane down to and along Rice Marsh Lake within the plat. This segment of trail
system around Rice Marsh Lake will eventually provide access to the Village
Hills development north of this project. Staff has concerns with the trail grade on
the pathway down to Rice Marsh Lake ITom Mission Hills Lane. The pathway
should be redesigned to meet ADA requirements.
Staff is concerned with the street geometrics of the proposed extension of Mission
Hills Lane ITom its current terminus. The applicant has worked with City staff in
attempting to provide smooth continuity for the extension of Mission Hills Lane;
however, staff believes the street still needs to be shifted further to the north and
the proposed right-of-way align with existing Mission Hills Lane right-of-way to
accommodate a smoother transition. In addition, by shifting the street northerly it
will improve sight lines for the driveway accesses to Lots 9 and 10, Block 1.
Currently, the sight lines are not desirable due to the steep slope and sharp curve.
I believe the driveway entrance to Lots 9 and 10 may still need to be located
southerly approximately 40 feet at the crest of the hill to improve sight lines
to/ITom the lots.
The extension of Mission Hills Lane to the development may require the
relocation of an existing fire hydrant and catch basins. The applicant shall be
responsible for the relocation of existing utilities and street improvements in
conjunction with the extension of Mission Hills Lane. An existing wood fence is
located within the City's right-of-way by the property owner on Lot 9 (Mission
Hills Court) which will need to be removed ITom the City's right-of-way to avoid
impacts ITom the extension of Mission Hills Lane.
As proposed, the extension of Mission Hills Lane will terminate at Outlot A. A
temporary cul-de-sac will need to be constructed to accommodate traffic,
maintenance equipment, etc. A temporary cul-de-sac easement will need to be
dedicated to the City. The temporary cul-de-sac easement shall be a minimum
radius of 40 feet and shall terminate when Mission Hills Lane is connected to
future Trunk Highway 101.
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 6
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be
immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or
sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff
review and City Council approval. The construction plans and
specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to
final consideration.
3. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year
and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for
stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed
storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or
creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin
segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are
being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pond net model. Emergency overflows from all
storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract.
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits ITom the appropriate
regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission,
Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency
and comply with their conditions of approval.
6. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of
way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of
way.
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 7
7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain
tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile
as directed by the City Engineer.
8. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of 24 feet
wide and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1
and 20-1101. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited.
Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared
and recorded by the developer over Lots 7-21, Block 2 in favor of the
property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet
wide.
9. The developer shall install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north
side of Mission Hills Lane ITom its current terminus to Outlot A.
10. The developer shall dedicate the following easements to the City at no
cost:
a. A temporary cul-de-sac easement with a 40-foot radius at the end
of Mission Hills lane on Outlot A. The easement shall expire
when Mission Hills Lane is connected to Trunk Highway 101.
b. A 20-foot wide trail easement over the proposed "path" through
Lot 12, Block 1.
c. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing
sanitary sewer line through Lot 12, Block 1.
d. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds
and wetlands outside of the right of way. The minimum easement
width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the
depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and
wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level.
11. The plans shall be revised as follows:
a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater
ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-
year flood level.
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 8
b. The private street access from Mission Hills Lane shall be moved
east 40-45 feet to provide greater separation ITom the future
intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane.
c. Relocate proposed stormwater pond to Lot 21, Block 2 between the
private street and Outlot A. Provide emergency overflow swales
for all ponds.
d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout,
and rambler, with lowest floor, top of block and garage floor
elevations.
e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan.
f. Sanitary sewer and watermain extension through Outlot A,
underneath future Trunk Highway 101, shall be cased.
g. Grade Outlot A for the future street extension of Mission Hills
Lane. Provide temporary cul-de-sac with 40-foot radius at the end
of Mission Hills Lane.
h. Relocate proposed driveway location to Lots 9 and 10, Block 1,
and south 40 +/-feet to improve sight lines.
1. Align street right of way of proposed Mission Hills Lane with
existing right of way in Mission Hills. In addition, shift street to
provide a minimum of a 7-foot wide boulevard along the west side
of Mission Hills Lane.
J. Add 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Mission
Hills Lane ITom its current terminus to Outlot A.
k. Relocate all proposed landscape plantings ITom the right of way
along Mission Hills Lane. Landscaping materials are not permitted
within the City's right-of-way.
I. Redesign path through Lot 12, Block 1 to meet ADA grade
requirements.
m. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final
grading and drainage plan.
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review
January 10, 2000
Page 9
n. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. -
12. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City
sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of
building permit issuance.
13. The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not
be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the
upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement
(Iandscapinglberming) should be included in these development plans.
14. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end. In the future when Trunk
Highway 101 is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be a
through street.
jms
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:\eng\dave\pc\marsh glen.doc
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
MEMORANDUM
690 City Cmttr Drivt. PO Box 147 TO:
Chanlmssm, Minntsol4 55317
Pho1lt612.937.1900 FROM:
GtnmdFax612.937.5739 DATE:
Enrjnttring Fax 612.937.9152
Publit Safrty Fax 612.934.2524 RE:
~b Wllllll.ci.chonhllSStll.mn.us
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
December 30, 1999
Request for re-zoning 13.41 acres of RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R,
Planned Unit Development-Residential, a land use plan amendment to change
the designation of low density residential to medium density residential and
preliminary plat to subdivide 13 Al acres into 30 lots. The property is located
east of Trunk Highway 101, north of Mission Hills and south of Villages on
The Ponds, Marsh Glen MSF Holdings, LLC.
Planning Case: 2000- i PUD, 2000-1 SUB, and 2000-2 LUP
[have reviewed the site plan for re-zoning of the above project. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire DepartmentIFire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will
be addressed.
I. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around tire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US west, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
tire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
2. If any trees or shmbs are to be removed they must be either chipped or hauled off site.
Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning penn its will be issued.
3. Regarding the cul-de-sac with center island. Due to the long access, over I i 00 feet, the
design of the center cul-de-sac islands is not acceptable and must be eliminated. The
reason being in order to negotiate fire equipment around the island it is imperative that
no vehicles park in the cul-de-sac. Even with no parking signs vehicles can and do park
there. With the island installed it eliminates our ability to jockey fire apparatus if cars
were blocking or parked in the cul-de-sac. Fire apparatus often needs the full cul-de-
sac dimensions to turn around in the event of a fire.
g:lsafetylmllplrev2000-1
Tht Gty of ChanhilSSm. A growing community with ,/tan lakes, quality "hools, a ,harming downtown, thriving busilltSStI, and b,autifùl par/¡¡. A ff'at plat, to lillt, work, and,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I() ûty Gmt" Drillt, PO Box 147
Ch4nhlJSStn, Minntwtil55317
Ph411l612.937.1900
Gtntrai Fax 612.937.5739
~nginttl'ing Fax 612.937.9152
Publit Saftty Fax 612.934.2524
Wíb lIIWW.ci.ch4nhlJSSt1t.m...,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
FROM:
5¡-
Steve Torell, BuildingOfficial
DATE:
December 28, 1999
SUB]:
Site Plan Review for: Marsh Glen
Planning Case: 2000-1 PUD, 2000-1 SUB & 2000-2 LUP
I have reviewed the site plans for the above project dated: Revision 11-29-99 and
received by the Planning Department on December 22, 1999. Following are
comments, which should be included in the conditions of approval.
I. Any portion of a building ",ithin three feet of a property line must be of one.
hour fire-resistive construction.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Di vision before permits will be issued.
3. Meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan
review and permit procedures
GlsafetylstlmemoslplanlmatShgJen
ie City of ChanhllS$en. A gmwing community with clean lakes, quality schook a charming Mwntown, thriving businesses, and beautiM parks. A [/"tal place to lillt, work, and play.
J-
z
«
u
:J
D..
Q.
«
¡:;
~
w
I-
-
en
PRC DATE: 1-25-00
PC DATE: 1-19-00
CC DATE: 2-1~/
HOFFMAN:k 1/Y
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for rezoning 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R,
Planned Unit Development-Residential, a land use plan amendment to change the
designation of low density residential to medium density residential, and
preliminary plat to subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots; Marsh Glen
LOCATION:
The property is located east of TH 101, north of Mission Hills and south of
Villages on the Ponds
APPLICANT:
MSS Holdings. LLC
8905 Cove Point Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF-Residential Single Family
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N: Open SpaceNillages on the Ponds
S: PUD-R; Planned Unit Development-Residential
E: RSF; Residential Single Family
W: Highway 101
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this development as lying
within the Park Service Area of Rice Marsh Lake Park.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identified a trail within this
proposed plat. This trail segment will connect this development to the Rice Marsh Lake/Lake Susan
trail. Construction of this trail section will give residents the opportunity to visit Rice Marsh Lake Park
and gain access to the citywide trail system,
The applicant has designated a path connection to Mission Hills Lane ITom the "Rice Marsh traiL" The
western portion of the trail as shown does not need to be constructed. I have deleted this segment on the
amended trail plan developed by staff.
Marsh Glen
January 25, 2000
Page 2
In order to complete the trail connection rrom Marsh Glen to the Rice Marsh Lake trail, an additional
section of trail will need to be constructed. I will recommend that the applicant be responsible for the
design, engineering and construction of all the trail work identified on staff's plan. The applicant would
receive reimbursement for all costs associated with construction of the "city" trail. The applicants would
be responsible for costs associated with the section oftraillinking Mission Hills Drive to the "city trail."
Monies collected as park and trail fees for Marsh Glen (approximately $48,000) would be used to
reimburse the applicant. Appropriate documentation of the engineering and construction bidding and
payment documents will be required. Without the aid of a formal construction estimate, it appears that
the $48,000 in park and trail fees ITom Marsh Glen should cover the costs associated with this project. In
the event that costs exceed $48,000, the Park & Trail Dedication account reserve would be utilized to
settle the account.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the
following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails for Marsh Glen:
1. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
2. The applicant dedicate by fee title a trail outlot for the purpose of constructing the trails
designated on the attached map.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of this designated
trail in its entirety as a part of their public improvements.
The city will reimburse the applicant for all design. engineering, and construction costs
associated with the "city" trail. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with
the "trail connector."
Bid documents for all phases of trail construction shall be presented to the city's Park &
Recreation Director for approval prior to work being initiated.
g:\p8Jl¡Ithlmarsh glen.doc
. - ,
hi /
/ /
~/'/ /
/ /
-./ I 91
/ I .J~~ f.tI
"" ,~
,
.'
--
----
---,
i
;
I
I
,
!
,
....
....
...
.
.
.ttÞ
.
¡
I ¡
I I
"..-U
.....
....
.....
,
,e
\.
\:
\
/
/
,.
//
//
/
¡ ØIlf~E
, ~¿R
?i~J'~E
//¿é.f
~ ~ t..- I
:. ¡.'
~
~
, '-,i
i
¡-----
--
\-
,
.~:
, !,tt! é
?/~EAI'µ~'¿,¡J.
(1¡>&tI-!"~..I~¿
"-
'~
-"'- .
\ -~\\"ì ,s~_!-..-, "' ~ ,
~ \ \~~ ~ Hi~s~ ,.;., c-.',,\ ¡p"
ì\ _ "1- ! !. i. :1 \ \\~~~\''0~~2~rt.,~~~ \~~<; .,. ,
-- ~- ·1 f-N \ l~ . ~'~'---Ø--i .
LI J. I: i i ~e'b'· - rð'. ;:::..::::- -'_0~~~--~=---1MISSI0NWAY'HrtLVV-
i 1 LL.LJ~ , ' 0 . ~ ..6" 2 Marshland Trail
\ . ¡ :' ¡ Ii:' I {~- i ~-'i'i'1.>' 1 ~:;:~~~~ CRT
" ~.l:lj!l$; , ~~;::c:.::::" ~_H ,
~~"Ji.1H , ,I ë '--___~. ,'4
,'If -----""'.Q-u ~, ~,_
l::::::-\..~¡ Ô ~ ~ ~
"~ro.. .r-I.,
,,;.\. \..U ~- ~ i
~~~~,i
\¿~~~~~/
~~~,y I
l
r
-~
p"",,~,
\' \' oQ).!
, "\\'\\ "=:-¡":;
~~"-"--"2:::~ô
,\-'~i£;C. '''~< 2: 81.
, 'E:::8,
\.( - t;S'1
"
''''\ I
"I
I H~ '
'/ri/l"r~~.
I : f-;-: ii"
I '0 I 1 ; /\:
--~I , i ~
I a:~, I,: /;
I I c' ! i, I " I,
rï .~ \---;--" i i I Springfield Dr " ,.J
I ~o' " ! '----'---.: . ,-¡ ~[j
~dd~~(~\ Ú~ ¡ ~í\\~~~íc
li~::I)tI~_,0 ,\' ... '. ~Ummerf~Id_,~ ~.. '!...J
,~!e\-\',~; nl,~y-:~
i /~\G,,\\~~--:,~r\I:C1:::\Q~~t;{fJ
\ \ ". \ ' ~~",.w 0-2. '!fÇ?fi~~~;J.~.., ':. ~ ~
\ . i_\ . .......~ ,,-""_i....L~_/\\shcrOV,.,. ,'"",,---.
\ \ i .=.='n_ ~_~" , _
i-------
5 MISSION WAY HI
. 6 RICE CRT
--- --~TMONK"C
.-..-.-.....---..
~
....:¡
t;
::r:
fQ
~~ ..
;::
...
o
..
ro" ;¡;
E:-I ::;
~ ,. j
:>-.
~
~ -
~
0-..;
~
~
0..
",-
Q-
;¡:
~2
..c:
REVISED PLANS SEE ATTACHMENT 10
- ~I!
- ~.
I
i
ii¡iÎ
Ii ~
illl
I!!¡
~ i i-
i <,
~ .liI
~uu
~
,..
w
...
-,
..
><
ill, I
.'
S!
~ :co... .. 101
UQf.I'(H 3:""" 3::m
--
.
,
.
r
-
I .
--l
· I
! I
·
· I
-_1-
---
I
.I!IIlST1HIIGISU
-ì
¡: J I
, I \~!
j
. ( I ¡!¡
~ ...
. > / ,,¡
:1:
'- ----\
\
\
\
\
.
:;
Ut.R_
e
-I
-
.
.,.:t,l.C_
!
.
!
i
-"i
~
,
,
, /
'<--
,
J:~.... ..........
"~.¡.,
·
~
~ ~ I'
~ 'I:
I- I
~ tl J
t; II d
~ffil
~ .
- ,II 1M"
~Im~'
0<; IIII
I I
.
.
/
/
/ .
I"
..,
:f.
:r.
¡~
;i:
~~ ~
&-;~"'
~ ;; i
>-.
~
~
~
~
r:.:¡
~
~
....:
~
~
fQ
~ ~
r<:¡ u.
"
-.c:
~
~II!
<"
u .
~I
-
>0-
W
~
~
~c
:r. "¡
"'
c
c
r.
,....... 1111
'H 3'''V 1 3:JIH
ijOH¥ ...
,
_I
....n
I I
I
--l
-I
!
"-----" I
'I .
r-J . __ 3/
..__~w__
__1__-
-.----.....
-=r_-=-~ _
-.......
.. _SIN
.!!!Un.... I
!
~
I
I
! I
I
. I
I
..
I
. ~ )
~
..
1j
.
f:;::-:'-
I
;;:ï)ª\,.,
... L! __J
f.
ã ~
- ¡ ~:
.-- t" ¡ / :j'
: \-!---~ >....... .........,
\
\
/
/
/
t
~
~
!
a,,(u.(~
f I !
I = :
, ,
'---"",,_J
,
.
I
"
~
..
-
,
"
,-
, -
'-"
.
i
~
..
--1
l-.
,
" /
'<-.
, /
í~ .........
". ~ '-< \.
"Y",~~ ,~.
.Þ¡t~*., ~
. '~:'-.!>-<o(".r
~
/1
<"t/ I ,
..,t(.ø- /', /
"",./ I.. ',,!;!
. /'" '," 1
/ /', '-<. 1::
I I ': >., "
/ /....., / "-
/ I "/ : '>...
I, !'j )', /::;
- /r-, "<,~/ ~i
II JI ./ ' /)-.'> :::
I / /', / .. :::
/ X... /
I / ( !: /', /
. / .... / y
( V, /
~..~ .... /
I ,\' 'V-
.,.
=::
¡;¡
:t:
.
~
~~
~
....:¡
~
~
fQ
~ ~
õ
'"
E--i" '"
->:
~
~ ~ i
>...
Q:;
~ -
~
~
~
~
-
~::::
~!
",
..
'.
w
~
~
->:
>.0
'" 0 I
'., .
~i
.
i
~"..J i i
, £
L
I i
!
I i
i
--1
l-.
"
"
" /
"z..
"
i i
I
, j
L "
II ~
, ,I
I I
" ,
, ...... !
'I '
I ,I
,r I I
" I· I
II ~.
, I I
w
w
¡:
"
! I
~ i i
5 I.
I ~~
"
x
WI~
- ;¡II
- ~.
I
~ :.DO,." UI1
c:H:¡'¡~H ;::i'lfl E!JIH
I
-,..."
,I
hi
. ."
, III
I ,
I
, " .
J .I ' III
'II
i I ,
¡Ii
i .
I ~
I
,
þ
.
I,
~
I
.¡
,
. It
I "
"1.. I..
... .1
, .. ..
I
.. ¡
I
i' ,
I
.. I
I
1 I,
, ,
~ ,
.
I ...
/
/
_ -l
! I
š . I
I
-_1-
-
I'ij! .
. I,:
i I I
~ tl 1
~ lid
.
~ ,',', I
\/)1111
Q:; III;
~ ilil Mi
0<; IIII I i I
1 ,
1,"11'" · ······1 ili.I;!i
~. 'liiiilUII¡ Ilb';,.!1
:bl~ !i:I"¡mml" 1'!I;¡i;¡t!=
It~ II' i;;;III; I I ~!;; I
lilt I !:=llIIm=1 ¡¡i¡lhlli i
.~I In~ ¡¡¡¡¡¡~I i .llti.~ !
I :111. =.lllnlll;;: 1=1i¡11~; i
11i1~llii!¡;¡iiiiiillll¡~~:m i
,
I
J
I 'I'
. t
.¡
, '
.1
,
i,?/. ........
"~..,. '-.(
':O:11.~..... ""'-
"::".. ......
. ,:0. ......
<.
. -l'.~'
, ,
I ,.
,
I ,
.. ,I
I
I
,
}
~
¡ Ü
I i
,
'.
"
I.... ,_
II
,
.. ,
.. '
,
,
..
Ÿ
I
. ;
I
"
"
...",...IIGIS..
,
,
.
~-ì I
~_J ! \ ª
~ ( ! m
. > / ~
---- ....-\
\
\
\
\
I
I
,.
.
s
........-
.
.
/
/
/
.
"
(
-~
.
s
t ,
M'
.1
rr
...I:t.lt....
I
..
I
"11- i I
I- .1.
J i C J:
-~
L. ·
.¡ ::;!JJ".
./ / .
""....ør-/ ,.......
~ <.'y
/ Á. ,)" "-(.
/<,'y,".
/ "I"
,,/ "
0/ .....y!,
.. ...... t..
V ^0" v ~~
/ /.) ~;
/ <,)' ,,/
~ '('/ :::
::::- v '"
¡:.j
5:
,,\
r ,I
,
.
..
,
..
¡
,
I
.
i
I ! Iii ~ ,..
!!I .
, , I ~q:
il:' ~ 'Ii æ. I
I I I
II~II ~ 'I J
II!;! tJ t,
:.. II¡We ::t: {¡'Í !'
w ~, 'w
-,
~ !i~i! fQ
-< . """ .....
>< .
"'" l~lI"1D' e" . II I f
wi äm'¡'1H 3:;"'"J 3:;!t! t i.e!i :<t:
c: . ¡m I_¡
§~ <III . ~.."..I I~:~t: ~
.u. 111111
. . I I
.
. . : I ! IL
II I! I
. I . \JI . ~
.. $ !II
l . . . l ¡
I
5 · I
· . I
· .. s
I
,i.7..' "
::!i-' "'-
";;~. '-
"::~::::". "
-0'. /
":10-. ..........
..: ~,
.".. <>I"Î>
....." /~
.-
/'"
// ""-
<. ~ ',..
""- /""-
'J.....-;{ ::: ")
/ " I:!:
I " ç
'<," ì ¡::
....."vl ..:
~~ 1it'~ =:::::: '_:_;.;_;.
, ':.c',1
--- ---'{
~ I ~q' ¡.
fQ~ ~ /..
~t u.
~a;; Q <III
I c ~ S .. <II
··..lc;·
~¡r .
~~ .
t..>5 !
)Q i\!~ i ".Y . :I~J~-,,--
!"""-I S .. ]{~·'IJ
'"'" ! . -. I".
...... - .... '.--'
:H --j'
~
::j
'-
...
o
~
2
æ
s
. . ~
~ i ~~
s· §~f
. i '0
~ ' I~~~
é \1:
"_#~
...
1;:
¡::¡
1.::
:r.
(>
~
-
WI~
'¡I
U'
'" t
. I
! ~Idl!¡!
I I , "I I ", . I
! . ... .. .. - oo......
-
~¡
II II;
II !I~n I
II:,I!
. m I
I' .
IS' r~I"
n ~ II ~ ~ ,I i
'1'.Ør.::¡ LJ
hd q c:3 Ii If
! ¡I III if:r: i"'; II
,lnl,I'CI) 111
!:¡!I!~O::: I'
II II In ¡¡ ~ ¡!if l.w!
,IU I i I
I I
>.
~
~
~
'"
>.
æ i-
"
§
5:
~
....:¡
c.J
:r:
CI)
0::
~
I
..,..Ift I
.v
! I
. ¡
I ·
·
~
·
t!;
I
\:;:
)7-
m
/ "
........,
&-;
~
0..
:>-.
0::
~
~
....
rj
g:
.,. ~ i
;;: "".i
i "4 4
.
/
/
/
í
.
·
i
ï
1.··
I
I'
I~
II
~ '
~
,
"
"
" /
"<--
".
t:-::.. "
...
II1I
,I
:;:
¡
~ /ß,h,c
4.0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M,
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Marsh Glen Subdivision
APPLICANT: MSS Holdings, LLC
LOCATION: East of TH 101
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
MSS Holdings, LLC, is requesting a rezoning for 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to
PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential, a land use plan amendment to change the designation
of low density residential to medium density residential, and preliminary plat to subdivide 13.41 acres
into 30 lots. The property is located east of TH 101, north of Mission Hills and south of Villages on the
Ponds, Marsh Glen.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ex!. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 6, 2000.
\....
~
, '--"
i- ¡/ ".
"," . '-
. \\':
~ \
...... ~ i\ ì-~
, .
\
\ ~-
'",' !
'J:~,-I...-I\_/ÇI-
;---;gz .", \ I \ \ _
~ ,'--...~->-- C \,"-
- t'~..,-;--.:::::. ,
~"~kOtala(\e I ",
I ' ,
, \~
, .
c--
--:::::-
-.
..~ r,l
- -~\... :
..~._<~ \ onl ,~ '
ñ--.. -\.~ ~ ,'-, ~.,. I '" .
I 1 iT¡' , ~ ~' " Hili·, Jl ,.
I \ , . ~ ~ '" Court' ,;~ ~ -,'
N I \ ~ ÎI' '0~"".~S ~,,~:¡: .~ç /./
I , I - -....;. :'--. ~~--- '--' 3 I /' . /"
i i ì_.0.' ~....~~~2\-~. ~/
~'" ~'''''''':....u~, ,>
--" -- . ~/c' i ~I iÐN-WÄY1'ItttW
~ .~ 8: ". . 2 Ma"'hland Trail
! 'if, 0 2 l.q, = 3 BLACKBIRD CRT
~~'E2 'ã!B, '.. 1 4 H.a.uand Crt
I ~ii!~5'4!Ji~~~ i
, '5MlssION1AYHILLE
6 RICE CRT'
I' MUNK ¡;,{T
I .
õ
~
~
';I:
Smooth Feed Sheets™
AUSMAR DevaOPNENT co LLC
C/O LOTUS REALTY .
POBOX235
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
MILTON R A BATHKE
8404 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
MISSION HILLS L TO PTRSHP
C/O TANDEM PROPERTIES
7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310
MINNEAPOLIS, AIN 55439
MtSSION HILLS GARDEN HOtÆS
HOMEOWNERSASSN
·2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVlLLE, WI 55113
CHRISTINE A HUGHES
471 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
.ROSEMARY B WILL
475 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JANEEN D LANDSBERGER
480 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN.MII 55317
NADINE N NELSON
484 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
"ROBERTW ARMSTRONG JR
8400 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
DONALD L GALE
8402 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
1iJ~ A\f :~""
^A.rI..",...... l...h...T...
Frts;..tµ
MARK T & LORI JESBERG
8407 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
R LAWRENCE & TANMY A HARRIS
8408 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MI 55317
JAMES P & KATHRYN L JACOBY
8410 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN,MII 55317
ANDREW A FRESETH &
LYNDA WWILLlAMSON
8411 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
EUGENE D & MARTHA J KLEIN
8412 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MI 55317
JAMES J & TRUDI A AWNDSON
8500 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
SHIRLEY M ROBINSON
8502 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN
8500 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
BONITA R tJENDEN
8504 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
MARY R FISCHER
8520 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN,MII 55317
Use template for 51601!
KARLA K THOMSON
8524 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
ALLEN J COLE
8525 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JAMES J & TRUDI A AMJNDSON
8540 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY
8544 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
RANDY V ROSETH &
PENNY P WHITE
450 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID
451 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN
460 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS
461 MISSION HILLS CT .
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE
470 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR
500 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
_ . ~_I'#\
Smooth Feed Sheets™
:OBERT J & JOYCE H ZINNEL
'RUSTEES OF TRUST
04 MISSION HillS DR
:HANHASSEN, tM 55317
lEAN D & NANCY E SCHUENKE
05 MISSION HillS DR
:HANHASSEN, tM 55317
JllUAM V & MARY A AINSV\ORTH
08 MISSION HillS DR
HANHASSEN, tM 55317
IONICA M GALUSKA
J9 MISSION HillS DR
HANHASSEN, tM 55317
ONAlD R & MARY M TAYLOR
12 MISSION HillS DR
HANHASSEN,MN 55317
OBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON
13 MISSION HIllS DR
HANHASSEN, tM 55317
"'YMOND E & ELEANORE E FROM
16 MISSION HillS DR
;.tANHASSEN, tM 55317
:vERl Y E CHRISTENSEN
17 MISSION HillS DR
-iANHASSEN, tM 55317
:x 0 EDISON &
\DAWN C WARNER
:0 MISSION HillS DR
-iANHASSEN, tM 55317
,RNARD M & JOANN C GA YTKO
:1 MISSION HillS DR
iANHASSEN, Mol 55317
. _ t'ß.I 4\1I=DV®
lLrfrlrð~"" I ..1.....1...
HARLOW A NELSON
525 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. tM 55317
MARCIA J JOSEPHSON
528 MISSION HIllS DR
CHANHASSEN, Mol 55317
GERALD P & ADELINE R HARRIS
529 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, tM 55317
ROGER A WAINWRIGHT
532 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, tM 55317
KATHY J MCKIM
533 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. Mol 55317
RODERICK J MCKENZIE &
VIRGINIA T MCKENZIE
536 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, Mol 55317
IRVING l & GERALDINE MJOHNSON
537 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. tM 55317
HAROLD JR & POllY l HARTIN
540 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, Mol 55317
THOMAS C & KATHREEN A FAUST
541 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. tM 55317
KATHRYN M KRAGNESS
544 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN,MII 55317
Use template for 5160<!)
DIANE M DEPOE
548 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. tM 55317
RUTH M THONANDER
549 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. tM 55317
VERNON W & BARBARA l lINDEM'\NN
552 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. Mol 55317
ERWIN C & CLARA M SIDER
553 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, tM 55317
WALTER J & lUCY K BURKE
557 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. Mol 55317
FRANK J HANISH &
CAREN SOENS
561 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
l YlE H & ARDIS M OlUFSON
565 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
VERNIS M STROM
569 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, tM 55317
VIOLA M COlUNGHAM
573 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GERRING PROPERTIES INC
1405 EASTWAVZATA BLVD
WAYZATA, MN 55391
- ~
Smooth Feed Sheets™
JO C THOMPSON
S80 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
THOMAS J & TINA R SHElDON
581 MISSION HILlS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
GEORGE D 5TACY
584 MISSION HILlS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
VIRGINIA A WElLUMSON
585 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
SUSAN M HOAGLUND
588 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
lENORE J MOl5TAD .
589 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
PHillIP N GRONSETH
TRU5TEE OF TRUST
592 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
VERLE R & SEITE MPOFFENSERGER
593 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
. MARCELLA HO\'IE/JOYCE HANSON
TRUSTEES OF TRU5T
596 MISSION HillS DR
CHANHASSEN. M'I 55317
TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON
8495 MISSION HillS LN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
--
JOHN A & CATHRYN P M'\ZElKA
8525 MISSION HilLS LN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEl'f
8541 MISSION HIllS LN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
DANIEL T & KEllY A FASCHING
8550 MISSION HILlS IN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
GEORGE J CARLYLE &
JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE
8560 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
MARC A & HELEN R SCHNARR
8561 MISSION HillS LN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
RONALD S & BARBRA T EWNG
8570 MISSION HILLS IN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY &
SHUBHAGATGANGOPADHYAY
8571 MISSION HillS IN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
BRIAN M & DAWN M RODEll RILEY
8560 MISSION HillS LN
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JAMES A & MARilYN l CRAW'ORD
8581 MISSION HILlS IN
CHANHASSEN. MIl 55317
DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY
8500 TIGUA IN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
Use template for S160C!)
BEVERLY A FIEDLER
8521 TIGUA IN
CHANHASSEN, M'I 55317
DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL
8550 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
JO¡¡EPH & GAYLE HAUTMI.N
8551 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
STEVEN R HARPER
8590 TIGUA IN
CHANHASSEN, MIl 55317
!z
w
m
tJ)
~
z
2
~
~
w
tJ)
w
a:
A.
w
w
a:
J-
~
......:¡
c.J
:r::
iQ,
-q; ..
~;
~
-q;
......:¡
0...
:r::
~
~
if)
i '"
,. ":I .
1 ,__¡I f '!
\ ~ ¡ ~ ~--:-
~ ~~;!fi~~"¡'~1
)~\
I"
j'
\
\
\
\
\
WI\!
J.
,,- "\.
M!
~ R I
, "I
,. ~.
¡~ !
d Já
, V H
1 lhlt I
, 'II ."
i " ~
i I
:;:
.....
......
m :~
.¡.
,
.
'I
.:1
; 1
!
~
!
!
.
~
I.:. . /
..ttj:..,.oIPs: ..
I
,
;; ~ ~ I
.
;i
./
/
/
"/ ! ;
"z.. Ii
" /! '
,." , I
.., "~.,
:"':1-" "'<"
.""'. " " .~
......:::;....:.. ~""Y:::I
..:'....
n
¡
·I!i ; .
., 1._
iib " I
qlil~!m"l
gill k¡ ..
¡ ., J . , " "
~ I ' : X -. II ~ ¡
,r.,c.J__ œ
';; ! ,
p B9 I . I . . I II
I :'1 "i ïl:r:: j j L 3
p i~ I: r,..., :.
. - i, ¡. v J If
~ i~ ~I I. ~. J P:: IÎ ~.
. ~ '\ IX 'I' I
. f ï, r¡ ,¡ ,~~ MIll II
~ , II. I, I, ._.<; 'II. .-
. ! -- ---
<
I
,
,
I
/
/
(
:, r
IIUJ'.coIS
,..
/
I
I
:1
A1lAc..t-tM reN r 8
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
,...I"".......-:-.\',-. ""I
MARSH GLEN
Exterior Elevations
JAN 26 .2000
CHANI1J\\);;)'-\~, ...."~...,,,....I.iI:t'T
BLOCK #1 UNIT UNIT TXPE FRONT
Lots 1 &2 Double AorC Siding
Lots 3 &4 Double B Shakes
Lots S & 6 Double AorC Siding
Lot 7 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Shakes
Lot 8 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Siding _
Lot 9 Detached AorC Side Load (3) Window Shakes
Lot 10 Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Siding
BLOCK #2 UNIT UNIT lYPE FRONT
LotI Detached AorC Side Load (3) Window Shakes
Lot 2 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Porch Siding
Lot3 Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Shakes
Lot4 Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Siding
LotS Detached AorC Dutch Roof Porch Shakes
Lot6 Detached AorC Side Load (3) Window Siding
Lot7 Detached AorC Side Load (2) Window Siding
Lot8 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Porch Shakes
Lot9 Detached A,B or C Optional Side Load
LotIO Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Porch Shakes
Lot 11 Detached AorC Side Load (2) Window Siding
Lot 12 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Siding
Lot 13 Detached A,B or C Standard Shakes
Lot 14 Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Siding
Lot IS Detached A,B or C Standard Shakes
Lot 16 Detached AorC Side Load (2) Window Siding
Lot 17 Detached A,B or C Side Load (3) Window Shakes
Lot 18 Detached A,B or C Dutch Roof Siding
Lot 19 Detached AorC Dutch Roof Shakes
Lot 20 Detached A,BorC Side Load (3) Window Siding
~'~'..'. .I"~~:.~;;::~.~...,.:"·") ..,,'
·'·.~t k'~···~,-,,~ 1...;..~·.
ll:~ii~f::,;<:./:;.;~" '.
.:r"i·f::);~·:?'}:·
···,._:·:·....~.:t:·~., ,', .'.~
"
I
I 1
l:-
I
I
¡ iil
!! II iii
Ill,
t 1<1;
E~ !ê ~
t I'
¡i -'I
,
,
/
"
.1,
lit
II
~
I JJI'ì'Î!
¡I fit I
I
, ¡hili
¡¡Il,
·jUIJ
t 'II.
') '.-
'lj;
-J ~
...
. CI)~
¡
I
I
,
~
G
'"
~
:J! ~
,.,
<. '"
t . '-'
I:'"~ ~
OIl ò":"
\; 'e
¡I i~ 't
~
\j
"
¡ "
II «'
Ii
)
-~
- 1
.
)1
~
~
~
15
~
~
~ "
~
~
~. 'Il;,.
....:(.
:)::;:::.,::'·",;i":,:.~.:. .
.,:. 1',;:' : 'k' lr·..·~r·I-.~I!~'~·1 ¡
,i~lk,.I .,,/. .:,' ..¡:,'~:: - .I~ ,:
!!~~i¡~~:'
I
II
'-"v."I'.r.",'."'~" ....
'~.>:~r."'-""''''''''
.ca.~~:... ~r.. }'¡.' ", '..~ r
-~'I":;"iI""'" ..
,:~......... þ :c.~,.'~ .',
.....,...... :;.:j,..... '. .
pl"·:::", ' .v'
¡ I~J " '
.. ~..'-'
.-
1·.."..···
. '.-
.
,
,
.,
I,
i!,
"
....
, ..
".
~..'
¡
¡
¡
I;'
¡';:¡
!"'=
i~!,
'-I~
I~I¡
~;
i~'
I~I
1--
~J
, I 'I
iil . l
i1! II '
h ~
~?, !it
,.,""
~
¡¡¡
~
I. ~
~I ~
:¡ ~
I. ~
Il -
¥, ~
\J
..
<
i
Hlljt-
-I tit I
II'",
IIUt·
OJlo.J
t tll"
II]!
e/.:)~
-
I ~~ 1
! I ~ I
L"":'_J
~
,
,
,
;~~
'i¡'
;~
~;
li~tlì' '
j1tll!
{!HP
· f II J!
·II..J
f tl'"
IJ '1-
lj~
(/)1---)
-
~, ¡
~ ~ ~;
f~~ ~~ ¡
1~2 f
1~! i
I
';.
'c..
!~:~
:~':
,-
¡
!
~ i
fS ¡
\?\ !
- n! I
:;, \) ,
I~' \;! ,
~I¡ ~ !
,I~!i ~ .
;, ~
1"[ ù
I~, '"
\::
~
'"
.'
,
~r! y;{.: ....."
.,
. ,," .....
"
¡
¡
II II
I
I
,
,
"
._.
..
I I UIIi(I'
Iffl!'l
{,IIIIf¡
'I} ,I
.)..JJ1
}Itll_~
IUlih,
iJ!
(/)~'
!
.
/)
i
¡
,
.
,
:,...1:,
. 'oj'::" , . ..'.,
""'. """~;: <' ,-
'v i'
1''-;:
I. ~'.f'~;
. "..." ,'t!
,I"!, '~;"i:!~i..r~.q::I:
.\~ ~;T: 'I.~·;:' :1\I"i.
1¡' I' : ," !i~:1'¡j' .,."I'¡
" ;11 ,~" ..", '. ,', "..
I . "1"''''· "'I"';I:'I"~"
:l:~:~~:¡~I~;; '~;I ;¡Š~~
'I,:t"~i,';:I::_¡~!:~:' ,tt,:,
§; ! ,:..;..,.;,{:,I'I'.:'" ','
:!:~' ~;Itl..¡¡j~'f ;1I.'.11~;
:·_.I,;:I:';iI'<;;';I!"!¡!II~:
.1",II.·'!··'·'II....· "r-:'
¡'" .7;,'I',"~::'::~::'G,;~.
·I! ,'1"".1··.· . ..",,( "'....
IH'II. ~ ., :"b,· ¡ i '¡"I :'1' . '11"- ~I'; 1:.
'¡II :0,:" "1'1) ;'!~; ¡;,¡'; ;~:; .j;: ,~.~-I..
t !" :I' .,. .," ¡ ~ t'·'" '. "1" : I ., r
:;;;::::.¡::i,:::,':::YI,.:,::;'·\:¡;':
i~,.; :¡,' ' . . ,
. r' ,:;'", . -,it. "1',10'"::''''
,..,.-' :!.,
, '
'..
...
.) 'I,; :'~.- ,.i_~,. ..
i:"-:"
' . -.-;
...
:'::...:1:.'.
"
.,
,i·
',::..' .
'!~ ;..~' ;:' >1 ':.'
:.,. ::";
, " ,
:""" "
.." ".,~;,..
." '
1-
-
~ .
~'
. .
f
.;' ..; -;:: ~;'., ' . .
~'¡~~8(
'''''r'',,'':! '"r,""'
':~::ili:::;:i::;;"·:i~'::,:II: ';~~':
,~ i p' .:." I "; :;" : 'if'.!;' :.i'
·:¡-hl;.·'I.I.:.I....'., '·lþ"
::~"" )~~i'\':"::
,, ,.':;.' '
:.~ij! "~'!-;
L., .,~ .,
:~~1~/,':'
¡
,
--.
!:
i;:¡·
'..
t~l¡
¡~.:
I:: ~
;~
"
¡
~
,.
"
"
µ"
..it'~"ât'";~5~t.~~..<~~
.". ,c'.'..""'. '.'
.. "1-· .
.... ~.. '~" - ."
· ~1'" ..-
i .
---------
,.;:.·f,:.'.:·
I
..
I
¡ fil. II
!! II IlIi ! II
,.
~.,:
',.
:1- ,
~~
~s
~v p-
I','¡i'
'?¡I¡~~..
;' .;,.4 II .
...." '-"'" 'I'·'
Ii'.~>., '::!1"I;~¡o'i
!'; ,..~, 'r'" . .,1 'j'l ' I,
,;,.:",,"..],: ·.':/':j';'!'..I!t.
. -,' ". ,,1.'11'.
:.¡!i1Ij'I"'::;:¡"'I"''I
,t, 11,1'1.,,1 ~:I:¡::I~ 'I'"
'ii:!';:Ç:,!i"I~: ¡¡~:-'''f!t¡
',' ,..,.''1. : ~': '''1_.1',
: ~ 'I,:; . '.. ";;", t " " .. .'
,.""',; "".. '.i";'I'1
.' ~I: :i::~,;,,¡;J':'I ::\I. I!'
r,I!¡:'I'!:f"I'I¡r:'!JI'~"
. ,ilt·······I',
1:I¡!"lor"li"T'~' {¡II,!,
~,!. ,'t,t·; :;',"'to ;., .',1'
f>-T.;·f\-i'i7;:i~:;;;~:;~1:'
d "·~U-"I,. ;:'!/I~ ¡ "I, ,j!''':,:'II!
::~;'::::"!;::";:;:';""::;::::'::!:¡
¡(I' ','~ .' ',_ i I¡;..';¡j_
"" I "
'1;,',;,:: ..''';:'!:,;'::\,;::
i-:' .'!'
. ,J'
, . "~ .
.:
'..
..,
:.!
,
"
';,i
;·l.
I~
<,
~~
ë::
~Ii
. ¡ j~.: "',',
'!~~ ;:; ';., . ,::"¡ ;
I'll ;;.",;;
, ,
::r~; :";,'.> ,j,,~,:.,; ; I
::~":):!::,),),:~:;¡,:¡::::;::::;: .
. ,,';" "1'" .,,' "I '~III"
,1¡~!:I:::;,!.":;¡'i··,:·;:'r';ii'~" ;
)'ill' 'I,:'·J!tÌ¡;-"I!IIµ~I!:..
'î:~'~';~ '7rt .,
....~!"'; ¡ I . .I"i.'Ii!!I¡. '''!;, .
.;;í;;¡f-li:::I(::"
, .
1;~;~~:,.
ª
1
!
~
f
,
Ht1P-
>1111 I
Ithu i!
,J!ll
·jH!Jj
f,fll-.
'IJ!
Clh-,¡
!
:
,
¡;
'0·
:.
<
1_,·
~::
1<,'
,..,
-
'ì
¡
,
¡
~!
.-
¡~I
'"
"
·oV
ii'
'1..,'
II
-
.-;,.
i
dll
Iii
ill it
"
,;;~:.. .
,,'
:;~.;~~..
",~
~I!
S¡
I
.p.
l' :~~;f .~;~\~~:
~ ,' "I,'~ :'r"1l,\,:",~ '
·,ioflj....I, '
·.,,1f41"1. ,II I!I¡I' ~'" :
I".",.. 'IJ, 11,011'
, ,~t 'II(J:¡1r',1 i.:,!lr¡.~
l 'j,-~¡,Ir",Ff' "I. "!r.:-
I:.:Jwl'J"'I""'.!.I~
:~i~1 %/" '!¡~ ,!¡ V :or"I¡
", "".",.",1.,,,*.
!".,;:1:'i1¡1.".'I'i.iII' "il
fl!;',':.'..:",,-. '..
hi!'. "11:::1,,: 1''':''''.1'
""'1;',_, """_.
li.f'i j~' . :ii. ': :ø' :'!/lI. II :~
11:= 'I"~!: :I~", ':,I '?-I
'·\':·'f),1 ~ ¥I¡' '¡'1
11;1 I'!~)· t;~";, ;~,! .:d::
i""'·":¡I"',I.,~!"I~¡.,
:;...:::;;:::;~j~:'J.¡:2.i':~:;:
h'l.":W¡·¡c·;"'I;,.''';''i''Ii,t,.''I I:':
; '~":.I··,'I'! t -; "1:11. -..1,1..:..; 'I
j';r~~;:~:'~
, ;. r. .. i " . : : .:. ~ ¡ "'. " ;
".j
Ii,.,
I;,
.'- ',: l ',:'i
;1
.
< ,
ðt
~i
.,..·,1'!,., ;,¡.'
, . "
,;:"",.;,:1"."",::1::'
~::;:::;lt. 1! -!.}'n::J"ll:: : "I':i,
':(~ ''':'"V, ~;:' J¡; ''',: ::; .,~';:::'
·'I ~." . ,:; ': r ,11'11 ¡. ';~ ,. - . "_,~.'
\;), 'I' ~I'¡;' ,.!:~,.. ",' .' ·~t
'It ,!,'.,;"-';;.-,::,< '10;:..
:"" ·11 ·'''·ilt''''!·:'IÞ,:;.,I
·::r¡:',t; ,·,,':nf!!Ìi····:·',ij·i¡1Ji:~!
" '. \!'III,,;¡¡,..,~~,¡:¡li'I';ç ~¡
"i;:f:!;!:B,SJ;í~:'.
Ir¡.-,._,.. "'h,!,;
, .'"j,..:,;,
1¡~fJ·,11 j1!'
;'¡'I...",..
"",(;;,11,
·r:.~~1;~:
:.~}.
iW¡P1
'If I
Jhu'
{Hil,
·'IU!.
I ttl~
lh,U
JJ!
CI.:I~
!
.
.)
i
!
/
1.'
ü:
.'
I~¡
~!;
,¡,
I~I
,-
.,
I'
1'1
..
.,-~,¡... .":\-~'
~?~L.);J.~:~/'? 't't,: ,:
"
"
I
I
¡
.!I,
...
1.¡
~; I'
I.. .
?
. ..,-.: ;.,~ ':'I.' .
-. ,'¥ ..
.
..
~I\
.1
~
I
·V
:¡;:.::.:t'.)::;¡:;.:~!
·,'·· N¡"···!"I,¡ ~,tI'."
,~ I, 1-' '-'1'
¡ï '; ,~:;,j'r. :;Ir,I';ih;"!'; 'I' ,~
'. '1,' .I·!,' '~ :" ijl !II! :rl
!!;·t!!i,· l~:I: : ,~I¡:1111
'" :1."11""""'"
'", '1;11'11 ~ ;:'~ ~:11I:"'"
;;I.,.lf,ul·I:'!,III'
¡t'..·,,':!'..··~~~·'.,:h ,:
k··'''·\''··':''':'I,¡ "
Ij rlJ~'~ r..,llIlp. tqt.. .
,::',!~,':¡.,';},":,'~~ :",Pï·
',,' ,'!"::.::],[:;:;i,';:~:::
.,'.' II !! II ,,''': _".
"
,--,,, ;'.,,' '.
'. ....
.,
" .
.,
.-'-"...
.,
'.
.;.
I I . .;.1,
!ì !~~¡~;*,:.!
l' I"f...¡- i..,.rn __.....
:"::":::i::¡\';':::;" ";
h- ,~:- -:.~
Hili'
11tlll
11"'1
1,111 J
-¡U!J
I.tll.
u!
CJ')I-¡
~
~
!~¡
'0
..
!g;;
I;':"
!;'
¡
I
,
,
.-
,:
.,
'!,
~i,
'~. ;.~.j" .
....:'I' ¡,..~:. .,.:...,';.'
. ,,) .
7 '... . . '.
.:·t'· ..
.;....: I· ....
"'..i. ~ .
¡
J.:'
~~..' .
I.
:~~
I~',
1<,'
I;:;
1;:1
!=.
~~ h ..c'
ï ~~ i¡: ~. ;
h, '
t~
'"
Utl'i I' \
II' ,
11;,,·,
"11'
.jlll'
J,Iii~
'~~
CI)~
~
~
¡¡
i1\ I
ii, I\< ,
~ ~ :
~" ~ I
§IÕ '
::;P~
ã ~ !
. ~ !
~ i
,
'"
,
,
t, ! I
,; i ¡
¡ '"
lH.'¡ì'l:
'If I
11'''t
t:)Hh
.. 1..."
(/)~
\
-
~'!¡'I!¡":
-qp!II'I:· ~
. -i!!?'''1 .
:¡õ'I':;j,!:':: :,,:
I; iil:¡II" ::, .;;!
'[E" '¡'i:: ,!!,
, }111i'lili ¡;III ,§
!iiiid ¡,: 1j.:I' ":c.
'i""i¡:¡,j¡HQ
;'I!;¡ ii i. 'III' _
" ;-Ipi
II!.! II, ¡
:1:; ::':¡:I :'" III
' I, ",
. '·.1" I""., I 'I
. ¡"II"I- ! 'It
;';1',1,,,, '.
¡1!i!lilll'!!lilil 1 !
:W!i!"!,i:I,,;¡¡II'II!I'I'1
¡:iH iIJ!I'I!i IIII
¡¡if!:: II ~ II ¡'!! I,: ¡ Ii! i
',I I 'il;I!¡IIJ
13,~
;1
v
.
<,
~t
< -
à~
~
I
, . I I
I! ! f I I
j! !. I
; , '¡'I 'I I
' '¡~!,! I ,
~, I' Iii i ! ~~ 1-
~-;. 1. ~1E; . .
r
.
f
-
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Cmlrr Drive, PO Box 147
Ch4nhlWm, Minn(S/J14 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
Gmrral Fax 612.937.5739
EngintlTing Fax 612.937.9152
Pubfic Safety Fnx 612.934.2524
Web www.ci.chanhlWen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer~µj it'
DATE: February 9, 2000
SUBJ: Update on Marsh Glen Traffic Access Issues
Land Use Review File No. 00-01
Staff spoke with the Minnesota Department of Transportation Planning and Right-
of-Way Access Permit Divisions regarding granting an access ITom Mission Hills
Lane to Trunk Highway 101 with the development of Marsh Glen. Mr. Paul
Czech with MnDOT Planning and Mr. Keith Van Wagner with MnDOT Permits
both indicated that MnDOT would not grant an access to existing Highway 101
ITom proposed Mission Hills Lane at this time nor would they allow a temporary
construction access for development of the site. MnDOT's reasoning for this, as
staff anticipated, was due to poor sight line conditions along Trunk Highway 101.
MnDOT is also not in favor of a future connection to new Highway 101, however,
Mr. Czech indicated that since this road will most likely be a turnback road, it will
be up to the regulating governmental agencies to determine any future access
points along the road. It is MnDOT's position to minimize access points along
highways. Staffs position is that when the road is turned back to the County/City
and upgraded to the new Highway 101 alignment, staff would support, at a
minimum, a right-inlright-out onto new Highway 101 ITom Mission Hills Lane.
Previous conversations with Carver County Highway Department indicated that
they as well would permit a future access onto new 101 ITom Mission Hills.
In conclusion, staff does feel that the interim access to Marsh Glen ITom Mission
Hills Lane will not adversely impact traffic in the Mission Hills neighborhood. It
will obviously change the traffic trip generations now experienced by the
neighborhood. However, this is not unusual as neighborhoods expand and
development growth continues in the city.
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
Bill Weckman, Carver County Public Works
Paul Czech, MnDOT
g:\eng\dave\pc\marsh glen traffic access issues.doc
The Citv ofChallhasst11. A f[TOwinvcommunitv wilh clean lakes, aualitv schoo/i, a charmin~ downtown, Ihrivin~ businesses, and beautiful parks. A mat Place 10 live, work, an,
~ ';íl~
M~
\
!
~I
:.::::
§§
IIJI55
;jILU!
i I: 'I ~
! I
:¡I
::j
.,,:
:: ~
!;! ~
Hi
~
....:¡
c.J
::r::
.......'SrI
Slur
!
~
f
!
.. J
,I
"I
:"
~ H·::~if:'1:~::L~,.::.. _
.. ~ ,,- J _........
,; "r';;;C:"~ °oc" -_I
Y;'¡ Ii: !';A! ) , l
Y I iI' í , \
L !,i _~
",I. -., ..I
~: \ ~ n: \
':, ... )
',I
i.,: /
~,.~~, E
I
,; ,-.
1'..' 1: 1
\ I: (¡
1,..-
.
~
..q;
....:¡
Q.,
::r::
u
E-<
~
V)
,.,
j'
..\
\
\
~
¡
.
.
~
~~
-,
, ,
, :
., ,
, "
/.~.
".:
:-:}'
';~:';. .
-~ ..:.
:i
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. Yes, it's unfortunate but it's very clear the builder
agreed to it and there is an alternative so I think our hands are tied.
Peterson: Okay. I would agree. Motion and a second please.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-1 for a 12 foot
variance ITom the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based
on the following, number 1 and 2. .
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion?
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request
#2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a
gazebo, deck and patio based upon the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant can construct a deck on the site without a variance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously,
Peterson: Also I'd like thè record to show that an appeal ITom this Board may be made by a City
Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this with a decision to the
City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator witl1in four days after the date of
this Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda.
Aanenson: Which would be the 14th.
Peterson: The 14th of February. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR REZONING 13,41 ACRES FROM RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL. A LAND USE
PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST
OF TH 101. NORTH OF MISSION HILLS AND SOUTH OF VILLAGES ON THE
PONDS. MARSH GLEN. MSS HOLDINGS. LLC,
Public Present:
39
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Name Address
John Gerogeorge
Jeff Nordos
Brian & Dawn Riley
Tony Ferguson
Tom & Kay Faust
Bruce Hanson
Bill CofITnan
Roger Wainwright
Kathryn Krogness
Vern & Bob Lindemann
Roa McKenzie
John Mazeika
Steve Scheid
Scott & Shannon Fiedler
Steve Kroiss
Beth Andrews
Steve R. Kroiss
470 Mission Hills Court
461 Mission Hills Court
8580 Mission Hills Lane
8495 Mission Hills Lane
541 Mission Hills Drive
3300 Plaza VII, 45 So. Seventh Street, Mpls.
15070 Amur Hill Lane, Eden Prairie
532 Mission Hills Drive
544 Mission Hills Drive
552 Mission Hills Drive
536 Mission Hills Drive
8525 Mission Hills Lane
451 Mission Hills Court
8511 Mission Hills Lane
8905 Cove Point Road
8905 Cove Point Road
5605 Zumbra Drive
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions and I don't know if you want to take them
part by part or all at once. We'll start with the land use plan amendment. Okay. You talked
about the 150 foot setback from Rice Marsh Lake. Would that be applicable to anybody trying to
develop this property?
Kirchoff: That is correct.
Blackowiak: Okay, then is there a benefit? You're saying that there would be, that the lots are
located outside of the setback from the lake so no encroachment can take place. That would be
true even if it were single family. So there's no real advantage to.
Kirchoff: However the outlot, as we have required it to be, will be common ownership and no
one can encroach into that. For instance if a single family home was built on those lots and they
were per the zoning ordinance, there could be an encroachment that could be requested into the
150 foot setback.
Blackowiak: I thought that was DNR or something like that.
Kirchoff: Yes, but you still can receive a variance.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Aaneoson: I guess what we're saying, in our past experience, even though we put restrictions of
the buffer setback requirement.. .over time to give individual property owners that encroach,
work their way down and eventually are mowing. So we're saying this way we have more
control by making it an outlot and an association in control instead of individual tenants,
homeowners in control. So it gets a little bit better security in maintaining the natural features
which we think is a plus.
Blackowiak: Okay. Secondly, it talks about the fact that there's no minimum lot size for
properties developed as attached single family dwellings on land designated as medium and high
density residential. Currently this is low density residential, so is there a minimum lot size for
low density residential? It's just the l5,000?
Kirchoff: It's 11,000. A minimum with an average of 15,000 under the PUD.
Blackowiak: Under the PUD.
Kirchoff: But as it's zoned right now it would be 15,000. RSF.
Blackowiak: Okay. How many, if it were, went in as a straight residential RSF, 15,000 foot lots,
what would be the number of homes we could expect in that?
Kirchoff: Staff did a calculation based upon the acreage and it's approximately 29 units.
Blackowiak: That would be at the, if you went to the top? The four?
Kirchoff: No, that was.
Blackowiak: Four units per acre or what are you?
Kirchoff: That would be dividing the total area that's buildable by 15,000 square feet because
that would be the minimum lot size that would be permitted.
Blackowiak: Okay, and that's just, that doesn't take into account any streets or anything like
that?
Kirchoff: No it does not.
Blackowiak: But roughly the same.
Kirchoff: Roughly, yep.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Rezoning, you have Table 1 and it talks about the last item in Table 1.
This is on page 4. It talks about the hard surface coverage. We don't have it. Don't we normally
have that before we go ahead and approve any rezoning?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Kirchoff: A rezoning?
Blackowiak: Well you're talking about justification for rezoning to PUD.
Aanenson: Yes. We can get that information. It's not shown on the plat. I'm confident that it's
way under, significantly under than if you did single family home subdivision. Based on the
square footage of the units.
Blackowiak: Okay. But well within what we're required, the 30%?
Aanenson: Correct. Before this would be approved by the City Council, or if you wanted that
information, we can certainly get that. The applicant did not put that in there.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Kirchoff: And just note, it is a condition.
Blackowiak: It wasn't there so.
Aanenson: It is a condition of approval.
Blackowiak: Okay, good. Back to, what's my next one? Preliminary plat. Here we go. Talking
about water quality and water quantity fees. There being based on medium density
developments. How does it, is that common that we would make that change or how does it
compare to residential rates?
Aanenson: It's based on a per unit acreage, and because we have to up zone it, because we don't
allow the clustering ofthe smaller lots into low density. Even though we're still staying in that
range, we have to up zone it. That's what is making the change.
Blackowiak: So that's why the medium density rates would apply?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay. If it were to be all single family, would the fees be any higher or would they
be similar?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Blackowiak: Ifit were to all be single family.
Aanenson: It would be less, correct.
Blackowiak: How do the rates compare? I was just curious.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Ifit was single family it would be less.
Blackowiak: Okay. I think I have one more. Ah, here we go. Oh, you know what, it's not really
a question. That's it. <Thanks.
Peterson: Thank you. Other questions of stam
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if this is for staff or the applicant or both but I have some
concerns about the layout of the actual homes and is that appropriate to discuss a preliminary plat
or is that something to discuss at final plat?
Peterson: Now.
Kind: Now, thank you. Learning experience for me. My concern is what I would describe as
garagescape. Knowing that the main entrance into this area is going to be ITom 101 in the near
future, that when you're driving along here all you see are the sides of every garage as you come
in here. I'd like to see that each unit parallel to the curb I guess is how I would describe it. And
then you get away ITom that. It's something that bugs me about the North Bay development
where you drive along the street and you just see the sides of garages. The whole way. And the
same is true in that when you're driving this way you don't see these ITont porches because
they're all hidden on the other sides of the garages and I don't know if you all can see what I'm
doing here but I keep moving my target. Sorry. So I'd like, knowing that this is going to be
really the main drive I'd like to see those flopped and parallel to the curb. And then the same
would be true coming in this direction. All these nice looking porches I guess, are hidden by the
garages. 1'd like to see them flopped whenever possible.
Aanenson: Can we comment on that?
Kind: Yes. Please do.
Aanenson: The applicant has revised the site plan relocating the pond. That is shown here, it's
hard to see. They have introduced some side loaded and they will be doing more. That was a
condition. We also have the same concern.
Kind: I like that idea of the side loading.
Aanenson: And then additional, for the presentation of the porch a little bit larger. We did look
at the other product and we felt the porch should be a little bit more pronounced. And they have
agreed to do that and also they've shown some but they've also agreed to put additional side
loaded.. .opportunities.
Kind: I saw those in the conditions. I like those. And I was just thinking by adding those two
other ones.
Aanenson: No, they've agreed to do more. They're excited about that opportunity too so.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Kind: Okay. Cool. Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
Beth Andrews: Good evening. I'm Beth Andrews and this is Steve Kroiss ITom MSS Holdings.
Steve is also with Kroiss and Associates and his development company is developing the land.
He will also be building the product out there so he'll be able to address those issues for you.
This is the first time Steve has built in the City ofChanhassen. He's done severa} projects in the
City of Eden Prairie over the years and we are very excited and looking forward to building in
Chanhassen. This will be his second project similar type of townhouses that he's currently
building off of Pioneer Trail. Very successful. And part of what I'd like to explain to you is why
we decided to do what we did. Steve builds single family. Steve builds twin homes. In the
decision making process of why we like this parcel ofland and what we found would fit here
best, not only for environmental needs but also what would sell. You have to build a project that
the consumer wants to buy. And in investigating that we found a great need for this kind of
product in the City of Chanhassen. That empty nester, not the 200 or 300 project ITom a tract
builder, but something a little more custom. Something a little more upscale. Something that
they don't have to go to Bear Path and pay $500,000 for. We are anticipating that this is going to
be about $275 to $400. The more expensive homes of course being on the wetlands. In looking
at whether single family would fit there or not, economically what you would have to put there
for housing in order to make it work with the regulations. In talking about your questions on
building pads, in order to fit that there you're looking at putting 1,600-1,800 square foot main
level building pads with three stall garages. Those are going to take up a lot more hard surface
with bigger driveways than clustering the product that we found. We think that moving these
building pads away from Rice Marsh Lake gives the City something back. We're creating a
much larger buffer for the City than normally would be had single family homes been put in
there. Staff has done a very good job in their report and Steve.. .what we're trying to do here.
This landscape plan that we have is not totally accurate. Steve in a few minutes will address for
you how we plan to accommodate some of the questions that you had. We've agreed to put in a
hard surface trail connection.. .this thru street eventually will be a city street so the neighboring
properties to the south, and the properties to the southeast will be able to access the trail systems
for the City of Chanhassen. Also we're dealing with what kind of product is going to work there
as a buffer. We have high densitytownhomes here. We've got 101 and the extension that's
going to eventually in the near future go through here. In working in our project in Eden Prairie
we have several people that we are dealing with now that have seen the site and are very excited
about being able to...is way under what would normally be. With an association maintaining the
property we can control what's going to happen with those.. . and that landscape and the color and
style of buildings...
Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Yes, I'm Steve Kroiss ofMSS Holdings and first thing I want to do is
address the staff and thank them for all the effort that they have helped me to get through this
process. It's a learning curve when you're working with such a unique piece of property as this
one is. I think the first thing I really would like to talk about before I get into the product, what
44
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000
really excites us I think more than anything else is the fact that our vegetation and tree loss is at
well below what is, what the city requires. So we really don't have a tree loss issue. In fact, the
vegetation that we're actually going to be placing into the development is by Jill Sinclair is
saying far exceeds anything that the city is requiring. And I do, I'm excited about doing that. In
fact we're going to do a real good job here for the neighbors as a buffer both ways for us. I'd like
to plant a lot of pine trees. We're well known in our, we took a flat piece of property in our
Settlers Ridge and if you have a chance, really drive by and take a look at it. I mean we spent a
fortune in pine trees and it was kind of a fun project to do but it really looks like something now.
So along with that, I guess I really want to talk more about the product. Deb, you addressed the
issues about why, I do the design work for our company. That's my job and a couple of reasons
why I did lay things out the way they are is because I know this 101 is going to be approved here
in the future. A lot of what we have done is to try to take advantage of getting windows and most
of the living area and sunshine is also a part of my reasoning for why I do things. Away ITom
that 101 as much as possible. Because that in essence would be a negative. Yes, staff. I'm even
more so looking at doing more side loaded garages than even what has been proposed here. You
do see the plan that the latest one where we are here. We're going to move the road to
accommodate a little better. . .staff did want to see that. Weare going to take this donut out of the
cul-de-sac. We are moving this road over and this pond here is going to go up over there. We
are going to be building, talking the single on first floor. First floor only. Our units are what we
call our A units are 1,400 square feet. We have what we call a B unit and that's about 1,600
square feet. These will be walkouts. What we're doing is proposing these to be walkouts. The
exciting part ofthis for me is that, I spent a great deal oftime with my engineer and staff on this
to make sure that we can get this road here to follow the existing grade as much as we possibly
could. And there's going to be very little cut and fill situation going on there. So that these units
will be able to follow the natural grade very closely. We will individually grade these lots. Our
excavating and grading will be done on an individual basis with the least amount of impact on
the trees and vegetation in this area. So we don't really want to touch this, do any grading here.
The only thing that we really want to do is put a trail in. We're excited about that. We think
that's a real plus. Not just for our people here but actually for everybody in the community to be
able to use that and go to the parks system. Over in this area here we're going to, to the south
we're going to have some more walkout units. These here will probably end up to be more of a
look out situation. I may end up with one slab on grade but I doubt it. We're working very hard
not to end up with that because I do want to have lower levels on all my units. I think I did the
best we could possibly do with working with staff to try to get the best use out of this property.
With all the other things to consider, especially 101, high density, the neighbors to the south of
us here and, I'm excited to do the project and I went through.. .and this is the type of color
scheme. My wife does all the decorating for our company. We're pretty well known for her
coordinating of... So this is the type of product that we will be proposing to do. A mix of the
cedar shakes, siding, and stone. Every building will have stone. We will vary the stone per
building. Some will be, we'll definitely be doing the project and monuments in the ITont, pillars
and that's pretty much our approach. I want to make sure I've got a well coordinated project
going through that's color coordinated and matches and blends into the landscape well and so
there, I guess that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I appreciate you're hearing us. Thank you.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
I
Peterson: Okay, thank you. A couple questions for you. Can you walk us through just the square
footage of the units just to give us a general idea?
Steve Kroiss: Yes. Our what I call our A unit is.
Kind: A for Aspen.
Steve Kroiss: Okay, this is not going to show up very well. A represents our A unit and B is our
B unit. The square footage on the main floor is approximately 1,400 square feet. Most of the
people that we deal with are like Beth was saying, are empty nesters. In fact, there's a quite a
few of our people that are single women that actually do buy our A unit. It's surprisingly a high
proportion of population that we have there. And they end up finishing out at about 2,700,
excuse me, 2,600 square feet. Our B unit's about 1,600 square feet and when they finish the
lower level, then it's about 2,850 in square footage.
Peterson: And the C? Cottonwood. Is there a C or not?
Steve Kroiss: Yes. We will have a C plan as well which is almost a derivative of the A unit. It
ends up being a little larger on our porch and it increases the square footage by 45 square feet on
the main.
Peterson: Alright, thanks. Other questions of the applicant?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could you speak to my parallel to the curb issue? Is that something.
Steve Kroiss: Parallel to the curb?
Kind: That the front of each building being parallel to the curb rather than stepped back so you
see sides of garages.
Steve Kroiss: Okay. You would like, as I understand your question, you would like to see side,
more side loaded, what I call side loaded garages?
Kind: That too but I'd also like to see the fronts of the buildings curve along the curb rather than
being stepped along the curb so you see sides of garages. I don't like seeing sides of garages.
Steve Kroiss: Again, yes...
Kind: If you get a chance to drive by the North Bay development, like by Lake Riley, you can
see in real life my issue. All oriented so that when you're driving in the main drive, what you see
is the side of this garage. The side of that garage. The side of that garage. The side of that one.
Steve Kroiss: Now I understand. We're going to be very, I'm not going to force a side load
garage just to have a side load garage. It should be a natural situation. Like this is a natural
situation on the end. This is a natural situation.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Kind: Yep. I'm not talking about side loaded garages. I'm talking about how they are to the
curb. If these buildings were parallel to the curb, you would not see that. You would not see the
sides of these garages.
Steve Kroiss: Oh. You'd rather have them more straight, the units straight on?
Kind: Yep.
Steve Kroiss: Oh, okay. Geez, I thought I was doing something pretty good by staggering them
and putting them sideways a little bit. Okay. I guess we could address that and look at that.
Kind: Now, Settlers Ridge I've been there and I don't remember it being like this.
Steve Kroiss: No. That's what's unique about this piece of property because I'd like to be able
to do it a little different than just the straight.
Kind: I like it straighter.
Peterson: If you asked the five commissioners here tonight you'd probably get five different.
Kind: Yeah, but anyway. I like Settlers Ridge better though. It's really nice.
Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Kind: Did I have anything else? Let me take a quick look. No. Thank you.
Peterson: Okay, other questions?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. On page 5 ofthe staff report, at the top. The top paragraph. It says
staff would like to see a variety, different building types. No two adjacent units shall have the
same ITont elevation architectural style. Varied window sizes. Location, shutters, whatever. The
three examples in your kit are exactly the same. Did you read the, do you know what the staff
report says?
Steve Kroiss: Y es. Yes I do. This is a demonstration of what we have done... I am not done
with this completely either. Let's see, why don't I start. Here as an example would be a double
and we have very little.. .the roofline in this particular area here. Here's one that has the roof
line, just a different side of the situation. Our single units are more or less going to look like this.
We are going to be popping out the porches a little more on our A unit. Staff has recommended
that and I'd really like to do that. That's not a problem for me. And if! need to I can use more
variation in the roofline if staff would like that. I can actually do some hips if we'd like to do
that.
47
~
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Conrad: I think it's real important, for me to change and to rezone and whatever, I like what
you're doing but I don't want the same thing going in and what you've presented to date is the
same thing going in. You're saying different but you're not presenting different. I have to be
sure you're going to allow the home buyers alternatives that are varied. Real important to me in
this project and I'm not sure how we get that done because the words are pretty good but the, I'm
not sure how we make sure this happens to the point of, I'm not sure how we make that happen.
I think we can say staff, make it happen but again what we want to do here tonight might be
important direction for the applicant and the public.
.;
Peterson: We will get a formal site plan back because all we're doing tonight is rezoning.
Aanenson: No. In the past what we've done is, as this has moved through the process we've
asked the applicant to designate those and we will track those, each product as they come in. He
needs some flexibility as far as the product type. I mean he's going to say A, B, C and move
people towards that. We've done on other projects where we varied the windows, Walnut Grove
for example and it's staffs job to track those as they're permitted and working with the
applicant. Again, that's the thing about working with one builder. It's easy to resolve those
issues so, we've done it on other projects.
Conrad: But also with, what happens if one product starts selling, that's what you keep selling.
Aanenson: Well I think we have to mark a certain percentage and again it's onerous on them
that that happens.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question of the applicant. It kind of dove tails off the
last variance with encroachment into the wetland for decks. On the back of each little drawing
shows a little deck on there. Will, and some of the setbacks are right on that 150 wetland so
those homeowners would not be able to expand their decks at all. Does the association guard
against people expanding their decks or tell people you can or can't?
Beth Andrews: Part of your requirements is there's a legal written document, a conservation
easement that will actually be given to all buyers up front.
Aanenson: That's one of the conditions that was added. That we review the covenants to make
sure that all that language is in there, and also talking about the architectural styles.
Kind: Because here's a chance for us to make sure that the builder tells the homeowner your
deck cannot go there. I'm sick of that.
Peterson: Other questions ofthe applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public
hearing please.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Tom Faust: Good evening, my name is Tom Faust. I live at 541 Mission Hills Drive. Unless
I've missed something, it seems to me that the only access to this proposal would be 86th Street.
And that's a heavily traveled street already. We have 219 dwellings of one kind or another that
feed on 86th already. I would suggest that some thought be given very strongly that there should
be another access ITom 101 into this project, or into the whole area. But one street to handle all
this traffic to me, 86th is a bad street already. Is very dangerous. I want to make that clear.
Peterson: Dave, can you speak to the timing of that potential road going through. Your best
guess.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I probably said this five years ago when Mission Hills
was built, 101 would be upgraded in five years, though it's five years later. We currently
scheduled a program the turn back of 101 we're hearing 5 to 6 years in the capital improvement
programs that have been laid out in the year 2000 so. Now 2005-2006 is when it's been
programmed.
Peterson: I would safely assume just generally speaking that 18 months to 24 months to get this
thing built out? Okay. Anyone else?
John Gerogeorge: John Gerogeorge, 470 Mission Hills Court. I've got a few concerns. One is
concern with the rezoning of the land and any potential for the project to terminate, which has
happened with the previous project for which I feel leaves an open ended situation for a
potentially less attractive project, maybe high density apartments. Another concern is I think it
was stated before with the increased level of traffic through the neighborhood due to the lack of
any access directly between Mission Hills Lane and Highway 101. Also uncomfortable with the
level of buffering between my property and approximately a 200 plûs foot drive to which access
is for two car garages which face my back yard in particular.
Peterson: Could you point that out on the?
John Gerogeorge: Oh. That would be my lot is this one right here and the drive is here. Which
is approximately 200 feet and it shows trees here of course but they're not going to fill in quite
like that. The buffer is 30 feet. Also not convinced that the headlights ITom the traffic to those
properties on the south corner there will be sufficiently shielded ITom the west side of my home
which has most of the windows on this area here. The concern is with the lighting. The
headlights and so forth. As well as the encroachment of this turn about to this 30 feet buffer
zone. Also I don't see what I'll call ancillary parking pads here in this layout and maybe they're
not shown but.
Aanenson: They wouldn't be required for...
49
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
John Gerogeorge: Oh they're not? Okay. Because the other site, or the other project that the
applicant has talked about does have that. And I also don't understand how low density zoning
equates to 29 lots and medium density equates to 30 plus 2. I would propose to leave it as a
single family at that point in time because I don't see that much of a difference there. And
finally, I guess I covered that one. The turn about. With respect to the buffer zone. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Tony Ferguson: My name is Tony Ferguson. I live at 8495 Mission Hills Lane. Chanhassen.
This lot on the plat. We had a previous meeting with Mr. Kroiss and representatives of his
holding company and at that meeting I believe we were misled or misinformed, whether
intentionally or not I'm not sure. That the land was currently zoned as an agricultural zoning and
there was no current zoning on it. Now we find that it is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
And the request is then to change it to PUD-R. I have the similar concern as the previous
speaker in that that is a medium density or high density. I'm not familiar with the different terms
of zoning. However, you're butting up on a continuous road, or street, Mission Hills Lane with a
low density rating and adjoining it or proposing to adjoin it with the medium to high density
range. And that is, that's a lot of homes being put on that land. 30 plus 2 versus about the same
size parcel of property in the Mission Hills development, which has 16 lots. There's just a lot of
homes and I'm concerned about a number of things including the traffic levels that go through
there. There was some discussion about adjoining Mission Hills Lane out to 101 at this location.
And I'm a little confused, I heard both that the builder wants to adjoin it to 101 and the city
wants it but the city asked the builder to change the plan so it did not adjoin so I'm not sure
which way it is. I would strongly suggest that it does adjoin the 101 to allow an exit for the
residents in that new neighborhood, Marsh Glen, and also to allow fire access to those new units
as well. The other concern that I have is the, was the, excuse me. Let me gather my thoughts.
Oh, the concern was if the land is indeed rezoned and the builder for whatever reason needs to
back out, then it leaves us exposed to a new developer coming in that is, that has the zoning at a
higher density level than it is currently and then therefore that builder is ITee to put up apartment
buildings or some other medium to high density zoning, or level of construction. And as per the
previous speaker as well, if it is possible to place 29 units on that property in lieu ofthe 30 plus
2, then I would also strongly suggest that it remain as an RSF rating, Residential Single Family
versus a medium density PUD-R. So again, I guess we don't wish to discourage Mr. Kroiss and
his company. We don't wish to kick out a reputable builder and a quality builder, from what we
understand. He seems willing to work with the neighbors and we appreciate his environmentally
conscious design with saving the trees that are there and planting additional trees to create a
buffer between the current development and the new homes. However we don't want to be faced
with the prospect of reduced home values by putting in medium to high density so I would
suggest that we consider leaving the number of, consider leaving the zoning as is and if possible
then the only change would be to reduce the number of units in that development from the
proposed 30 plus 2 down to a 29 level. That would seem to still allow Mr. Kroiss to have an
adequate return on investment. Thank you.
Steve Scheid: I'm Steve Scheid, 451 Mission Hills Court, Chanhassen. I guess I'm looking at it
from a public safety standpoint. From when you turn off on 86th Street up into the Mission Hills
50
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Court area, it's .4 of a mile to reach the dead end currently. With the way the road curves around
to here, it appears to be at least another .4 of a mile which adds to approximately I mile to the
residential part of it, plus another .3 of a mile ITom the possible proposed connection to 101 later.
Fire Department protocol on a medical call is to, when you reach a residential neighborhood, turn
off the lights and siren. Go the speed limit until you reach the address of the, of any incident.
That's going to add approximately 2 minutes to any heart attack call or anything. And if he's
targeting the 50 plus or the empty nester that he said, that could make a great deal of difference. I
guess what I'm pushing for is ifit's going to be developed, to get an entrance on 101 as quickly
as possible. Five years seems much too long.
Peterson: Thank you.
Dave Nickolay: Good evening. My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. Just to
put it in perspective. I own all of the property that abuts the proposed development on the east
side. And I have talked to the staff and I have talked to the developer and they both have
supported the points that I'm going to bring up and I'd like you to, as you consider the various
conditions, to get these points worked into those conditions so that it's followed through on.
Because I'm sitting on approximately 3 Y2 acres of property, the two homes that are proposed up
in this area up here, the closest one is only 30 feet off the property line of where my home is on
right now. And I've been here before when Rottlund came in and did the development which is
known as Mission Hills I guess. You can't go ITom 3 Y2 acre parcels to this size parcel without a
transition and so what the staff originally recommended in condition number 2 on page 17, which
was to eliminate Lot 9 in Block 1. I would like to see that still happen. I think the developer can
put a home on this site that is consistent with the neighbors back to the south and in my direction
to the east and find a buyer who's willing to pay for that kind of privacy. That's why I moved to
Chanhassen 18 years ago. So I would like you to reconsider condition number 2, which is on
Block 1, and to eliminate one of those sites. The only other way, and I did talk to the developer
about this, that I could see and support having two homes here, would be to shift those two
homes to the west so that the yard on the one that's going to be closest to me would be more
consistent with an alignment with the house, and I think it's the Ferguson's house, up on this lot
here. So if somehow the developer could slide that over, then fine. He can have two houses on
that site. Otherwise I'd like you to go back to the original.. . The other two points are less in terms
of need from my standpoint, but down at the bottom of where the trail's going to connect right
down below here, the City maintains the sewer line that goes around Rice Marsh Lake which
goes through my property and through my neighbor's property. They come in about once a year
and they brush it off and it does look like a trail. It's not paved. If you're going to put in a trail I
would like to see you put some kind of signage probably at our property line there for now that
just says that that's not an accessible area. Because what's going to happen, it already does
happen. Snowmobilers get back there. Cross country skiers get back there and then they get
trapped back behind us because there's no outlet there. And they're going to look for a way to
get out once they're in there and they're either going to have to double back or they're going to
go across private property and then there will be problems down the road so I don't think it's an
unreasonable request to have some kind of signage put in as that trail's put in. My last concern
deals with the grading that will take place on the property line over here. Wherever you decide to
put that pad, I would like to see no grading occur between that pad site and my property line.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
We've got a nice stand of shrubs, trees, prickly ash. The deer move through that area yet. It's
the last place up on the high ground that they can possibly go through. And I don't think it's
unreasonable to leave that whole area alone so wherever you decide to put this pad here, between
that pad site and my property, that you not disturb or the developer not disturb any of the
vegetation there. He seems to be very willing to do that but this was a condition that I asked for
when Rottlund came and we were successful in getting that and that buffer has added to the
neighborhood between us there so those are my three requests and I'd be happy to answer any
questions. Otherwise thank you for your consideration.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Interesting one. Who wants to tackle this one first?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can Ijust ask a question of staff before you move forward?
Somebody, one of the neighbors made a point and she made me think of something. We're
asking to rezone this to residential, from residential low to residential medium. Do we have any
other option?
Aanenson: Certainly. The point being, I think there's some misunderstanding. If this property is
rezoned, we're rezoning it with this plan. We're bound by this plan. The site plan would be tied
to the PUD. It's going to be PUD with this plan identified. If this developer was to go away,
anybody purchasing this property is tied to this plan. The covenants and everything. It wouldn't
be recorded until it goes forward but let's say 2 or 3 buildings go up and he decides to move on.
This plan is still in place. Anybody requesting a deviation from that would have to come back
through a similar process. That's the beauty of the PUD. We're locking into a specific plan.
Blackowiak: Okay. So I was just curious about, you know if there was an option to rezone to, or
maybe not even rezone from residential low to residential medium or do we have to?
Aanenson: No. And that was, we pointed that out when we went through the comprehensive
plan and the Livable Communities Act. Some of the things that we were concerned about the
way our PUD ordinance was written and the way our PUD ordinance, as Cindy indicated in her
opening comments, is the way our PUD ordinance is written now you cannot cluster in the low
density. The only thing you can do is average the 15,000.
Blackowiak: 11,000 minimum.
Aanenson: Exactly. That's the only way you can approach it. And I understand the concern
about the other but again we're buying into this plan and locking into it. That's what becomes
the zoning. That becomes the rules. Just as we experienced in the first proj ect, those rules are
locked in place for the permit project. They run with the property. Thus, no one can come in and
ask for changes. It doesn't mean if this goes away someone can't come in and ask for an 8 unit
per acre. Still this number of units would be locked on the property.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000
Blackowiak: Okay. Thanks.
Burton: Chairman, last question for staff. Maybe I missed it earlier but can you talk about
condition 2 and what the history of that is?
Kirchoff: Sure. The original submittal ofthis PUD was Lot 9 and 10 being located here. And
staff after reviewing the plan decided that the road needed to be realigned here. As a result of that
we had felt that Lot 9 would need to be eliminated and that's why it was located in the condition
2. The applicant has revised the plans. Has realigned the roadway and Lot 9 and 10 can be
accommodated in this area over here as well as relocating the pond ITom this area to the western
portion of the site. Weare eliminating condition 2. Also this roadway right here, this private
drive, while it was relocated to the east and we had felt that Lot 11 was going to have to be
eliminated due to that. However, the applicant has accommodated Lot II with that condition.
Burton: Thanks.
Peterson: Another question of staff before you move on. On the cul-de-sac that is in there. How
have we dealt with the cul-de-sac in previous situations like this? I'm sure we have, or hopefully
have. .As it does go into the buffer line and the ramifications ofthat.
Kirchoff: The cul-de-sac can be a minimum of20 feet from the property line. The PUD
ordinance does permit that. Setbacks, structures have to be 30 feet ITom the property line.
Peterson: Okay.
Conrad: Two questions Mr. Chairman. Kate, you've made me comfortable on the zoning, but
on the land use plan amendment, if you rezone it to medium density, then we're at risk if this
project doesn't go through.
Aanenson: No.
Conrad: What's the trigger?
Aanenson: We're locking into this project. We're approving this project for the zoning. It
becomes PUD specific to this piece of property. They don't get carte blanche. We need to zone
it medium density and change the comprehensive plan, we said PUD and we're locking into PUD
dash, okay so it's locked into this. The contract runs with this specific piece of property.
Conrad: Okay. That's good.
Aanenson: That's the beauty of the application ofa PUD.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Conrad: Okay. That made me comfortable. Dave, a question for you. This is a huge cul-de-sac.
Don't we have a 500 foot maximum on cul-de-sacs? And I didn't read the Fire Marshal's report.
What does he say about this?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. The Fire Marshal's concern on the cul-de-sac island
area was restricting turning movements with a fire truck crew there. He requested the island area
in the center cul-de-sac be eliminated because of the length of the private drive I guess.
Aanenson: That was this part.
Hempel: Right.
Aanenson: And the island has been eliminated.
Hempel: That revised drawing has eliminated the island. Has moved the drive entrance further
to the east as requested.
Conrad: But that whole road is one long cul-de-sac. So what's our secondary access for
emergency?
Hempel: At this point there would not be one until future 101 is upgraded...
Peterson: Other questions? Comments from commissioners?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Dave. I'm sorry. Could there be a temporary
entrance onto 101 knowing that it's going to be 5 or more years until that road will go through.
Hempel: That's a good question. Staff did investigate that a little bit. Looked at the location of
where the street would come onto the existing 101 and there's very, very poor sight lines to the
north. Very short distance, reaction. Another issue, 101 is under the jurisdiction of the Highway
Department and their, it would be their decision to allow a connection point or not. Most likely it
would not because of the hazard or the sight lines.
Kind: When 101 is upgraded will the sight lines be okay?
Hempel: Yes. They will be corrected. The road, this area will be significantly changed and the
elevation quite a bit lower.
Kind: I'm wondering if this is premature.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, again. Shouldn't there be a temporary emergency access to this site?
I'm not sure we need the permanent access to the site right now. I think you said 300 car trips
are acceptable. What I would be concerned with is emergency access.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's always our first choice to have a secondary access
and we always try to strive for that. But I guess we were looking at the time ITame of this
development to build out to full capacity given the turn, different time line for upgrade of 101.
Plus a development like this would also help, it would push the 101 upgrade along a little sooner
as well
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, again I keep pushing the point. Dave, did you say therefore there can't
be an emergency access to the site?
Hempel: At this point no. It would be very doubtful to get the approval ITom the Highway
Department to get another access out on Highway 101. Given the sight lines. Where the existing
driveway to the farmstead is right now, it has severe sight distance problems to the south of the
bill, and where the proposed street would go out to 101 on the north has severe sight line
problems. I would say that they would not get an access permit.
Blackowiak: I hate to beat a dead horse, excuse me Mr. Chair. What about a right-in, right-out?
Would that be more likely to be approved?
Hempel: No, because they're always, traffic always will go against the flow. People
inadvertently don't know it's a right-in, right-out or take it for a full access. They'll still utilize it
as a full access. You put in a traffic delineator or... The other thing is the grades, that severe
knoll. That would have to be graded through. It would probably impact the houses located in
there as welL
Blackowi.ak: Forgot about the house. Minor detail right.
Peterson: Okay.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, another staff question. Regarding the 30 foot setback that is being required
on the property that abuts, oh I can't remember.
Aanenson: Mr. Nickolay.
Kind: Thank you. What are the rear setbacks on these homes?
Kirchoff: 30 feet.
Kind: So it's no different?
Aanenson: Correct. I guess that was our point. If it was a single family home it'd be 30 feet.
Kind: Got it. No difference.
Peterson: Alright, try this a third time. General comments from commissioners. Your thoughts
on the development as it stands today.
55
~
'~
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll go first. I'm getting tired. I want to get going. Keep it moving. I
think it's a nice project. I think it's a good transition project. I think it's appealing ITom both a
planning perspective and I guess an architectural or aesthetic perspective. I think it's a nice
buffer between Mission Hills and 101. I think, I found it important in the staff report that they
noted and justifying the rezoning, that the purpose ofthe request was not to gain additional units
but to allow a more flexible design of the development and I think that's a nice development.
With respect to the turn on 101, based on what I've heard, I concur that's probably not safe at this
time. The staff report discussed in more detail about the concern about sight lines and I just
don't think it's a good idea to put an additional access on at this time and with the time it will
take this developer to build out, I don't think it's that long of time between that time and when
101 would eventually be upgraded. I think that the neighbors concerns are pretty well addressed.
I don't think that there's a chance that if this developer backs out that anything different is going
to be put there. And it appears as though that the applicant is meeting the setbacks that would be
required under any circumstance so I think it's a nice project and I guess that's it.
Peterson: How do you feel about the two buildings versus one on Lot 9?
Burton: Two buildings on Lot 9. I'm not troubled by that. My recollection was the problem
was.
Peterson: The road. They fixed the road but one of the neighbors tonight was encouraging us to
consider one versus two buildings there.
Burton: I guess I would like to hear the other comments on that. I wasn't particularly troubled
by the positioning of the buildings as they are, but maybe if you are all concerned, maybe I'll
change that.
Peterson: Okay. Is that it?
Burton: Yep.
Peterson: Thanks. Other commissioners, any comments?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'll jump in. I'd like to start offby saying generally I think the concept
is very good. They have a lot of good things about this project. I like the setbacks. I like the
control that would be available to us from the Rice Marsh Lake area if we have an association in
place. I think that's important. The clustering is a good idea. The trails. The connections all
seem good. I like the fact that they're promoting porches because I think that's important for any
neighborhood. Tree preservation is good. I'm feeling more comfortable about the rezoning. I
was a little concerned about that and one of the neighbors brought that point up. You know I was
curious, I was even thinking could we have it run only with the developer. I suppose that's not
legal but it would be nice. I do have some fairly major concerns regarding the access onto 101. I
know that from a public standpoint ideally there are two entrances or two exits from every
neighborhood. We don't have it here, and Dave I think you're optimistic if you believe that
56
P1anning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
putting more houses is going to make 101 come any faster. I'd like to say I would agree with you
but I'm a real pessimist about that so I don't think that that's going to, whether we put houses
there, I don't think is going to have any affect on when 101 goes in or when it gets upgraded.
They're going to do it when they feel like it and what we do I don't think makes any difference to
them. You asked Mr. Chair specifically about Lots 9 and 10. I guess I don't have as much a
problem with that. Just from my eye balling this, it appears to me that they could be shifted to
the west and still get both lots in. I'm not positive. It seems that it could be and I would think
that that would be a nice compromise for everyone. The developer gets the lots they want. The
neighbor gets the increased setbacks so the deer can move ITeely. I think that would be a good
thing to look at.
Kind: Alison, where are you talking about?
Blackowiak: Lots 9 and lOon the southeast comer.
Peterson: Right here.
Kind: Is there a ravine there or something though? They could be moved there easily?
Blackowiak: They could pull them I believe. I believe, but again my major concern is traffic and
access and as I read through the findings of fact, I thought I had another question but it was
actually more of a comment. When we talked about findings of facts, we look down into 4( e)
and (f) that it can be accommodated with existing public services and traffic generation is within
capabilities. Ijust don't know if we've met those two requirements. 101 is bad, and there's not a
lot we can do about that until it's upgraded and I don't think we as a city have much say in when
that's going to happen, so I don't know that 3 more houses in there is going to make it happen
any faster. I don't think it is actually. So I wonder if they're, as Deb said, a little premature in
putting development in when the traffic is already so bad. It is only, I mean only 30 but still.
That's 300 trips and we have to consider that. I think we'd be remiss if we didn't. But again
there are lots of things to like about this project and I think we're moving in the right direction
with it. Ijust wish this 101 issue were resolved and we could get another access into the project
because I think it could be a real problem and I think the gentleman who stood up and talked
about the public safety aspect made a very valid point that you don't want to slow down any kind
ofa response time when you're talking about people's lives and people's homes so we need to
consider that. And I'd like to just listen to what the other commissioners have to say.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Kind: Yes, I guess that leaves me. I have that same concern about the access. I just, I like this
project though. And I want to see it happen but I don't know if we can direct staff to really
explore some sort of temporary access off ofl0l. Dave hates that idea. I can see that. I'mjust
talking out loud here. And then another concern I have is the neighbor who lives on the corner
right here by the cul-de-sac. The temporary cul-de-sac. The landscaping plan showed that
there's two box elder trees there and then there's some buffering here and here, but headlights are
going to shine right through those trunks of those trees. There's got to be better landscaping right
57
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,2000
t
f;
r
,
along there with some evergreens or some sort of year round screening. Those box elders may
not even make it after the road's there.
-
Beth Andrews: They're there. We are. It is on the plan.
Kind: No it's not. Not this one.
Peterson: Let's not argue...
BethAndrews: We'll get into it.
Kind: Okay. Ijust want to make sure that that happens because I think that's a real concern with
the turn around that there would be headlights going on. Especially once people take the drive
down this road.
Steve Kroiss: That's our concern as well.
Kind: Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate that. I know you guys build a nice house so I'm really excited
about that. Premature or not, I don't know.
Peterson: Any comments Ladd or have they all been said?
Conrad: You said them all. The only issue, emergency. It's not day to day access that I'm
concerned about. Staff has made their recommendation that 300 car trips is not harmful. That's
what the staff has said and that's what, so we're not playing that game. We are playing the
emergency service game however. There is not a second access to this site right now. And
staff.. .there isn't and that makes, so it doesn't matter to the current neighbors. It matters to the
potential future people who won't have access to their site. That's a concern. The other concern
that I have are the home styles. If! don't see 3 or 4 home styles that are different than one going
to City Council, this thing should come back. And I'm real serious about that. You gave us
three styles that were exactly the same look and staff said don't do that and I know there's
interchange here so you know there's timing issues but the question, and I think what the
Planning Commission should consider right now is do we table it and bring it back for a Fire
Marshal's report on emergency access, or do we let the City Council handle that? Do we table it
and take a look at the different, four different home styles that we might care about, or let City
Council handle that? I think the other issues have been handled. I think everything else looks
pretty good. I think the comments from the public are good. The cul-de-sac shielding is a good
issue. The Lot 9 and 10 and preserving the deer habitat and whatever, those are all good things
and they should be done. I guess our issues are emergency access for the people that are going to
move in and do we need a Fire Marshal statement on that and then in my mind, home styles to
make sure they are available. That doesn't mean they will be built but to make sure they are
available.
Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. As it relates to the public safety aspect of it, as conservative
has public safety has been through our previous reviews, I'm just assuming that they have looked
58
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
at this thoroughly and given their blessing. And Dave is that a safe assumption? That it's been
reviewed to the nth level and we should be satisfied with that? Not that we can't question
everything but
Hempel: I won't speak for the Fire Marshal obviously but he did review the cul-de-sac. He
made the comment about removing the island in the cul-de-sac. I don't believe he said anything
else about the distance or anything because it's not long term.
Peterson: With that I guess I'm personally comfortable that it's been reviewed. Deb, your earlier
comment about the angles and as you drive in from that. I would vote the other way. I like
North Bay in that feeling for whatever reason. It's unique versus the other. I think they can give
more privacy to the porches if you angle it and bring them straight, then your porches are right
out in the open so the residents, so I think you just give and take there.
Kind: And there's both in this so that we can both be happy.
Peterson: Yeah. As it relates to the comment about different designs. I mean I'm not adverse to
working through a number tonight. Should we say, or can we physically say that we should have
no more than you know 40% of one design within the development? Or 35% or 33 Yz%?
Aanenson: The way that Cindy had put it in there was no two adjacent have the same front
elevation. If you want a little bit more variety than that.. .
Peterson: So that's 50% though. I mean you can still have.
Aanenson: Right, but he's got three products though. Certainly.
Beth Andrews: There's actually four. There's actually four different, could be four different
ITont elevations. There's several twin homes of two different floor plans and then there's
detached villa homes of two different floor plans. And your comment that we want to put
shutters on and just because we two A units or two Aspen units right next door to each other that
are the same floor plan, doesn't mean that ITont elevation can't be reviewed and one can have
different stone and a different color shutters in a different angle of the roof and the other one next
door can have no shutters and all cedar and a gabled roof versus a hit roof. That sells our product
and we're looking to have our product sell.
Peterson: I understand. I think regardless of whether it's 3 or 4, it goes back to my question.
Should we.
Aanenson: Yes, you can put in a condition. If you want to do that or direct staff to work with
that before it goes to Council, there's a lot of different ways. Just as a point of clarification, the
staff has to sign off on every building permit that comes through the city so there's still that
check to make sure that they're following.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Peterson: Yeah, I'd be comfortable just making a notation on this as it moves ahead that you
work with the applicant to develop some percentages or something that gives you a little bit more
guidance than the no two adjacent because I don't think that meets what you hear the fellow
commissioners tonight saying. Traffic, Ijust don't see it as that big of an issue as far as the
rezoning aspect of it so. Good comments. Thank you for those. How about a motion?
Audience: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the protocol. Is it possible that I make one more
comment related to?
Peterson: The public hearing is over unfortunately so. You still have an opportunity to go to
council if you want to too.
Audience: Okay. Is there a meeting for that?
Peterson: Yep it will be, I'll tell you in a second.
Audience: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Motion please. It's 10:05.
Kind: I'd kind oflike to see it again. The elevations so I guess I'm in favor of tabling.
Peterson: The elevations, as far as the different designs?
Kind: Yes. Because I agree with Ladd's concern that even though there's three different ones,
they all look the same to me. And I guess I'd like to see what the different, the variety before it
goes to council.
Peterson: That's one opinion. Is there a motion?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the land
use amendment 2000-2 to change the designation from rural low density to residential medium
density. Do I have to do these one at a time or all together?
Peterson: One at a time.
Blackowiak: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the land use plan amendment #2000-2 to change the designation from Residential-low
density to Residential-medium density, All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Peterson: Another one please.
Burton: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of #2000-1 of
13.41 acres ITom RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
Residential based upon the plans submitted December 8,1999, dated November 29,1999 and
revised January 18, 2000, and subject to condition I.
Peterson; There's three so this is the second one. I think it's just I and 2.
Blackowiak: They just numbered those differently.
Burton: I think it's 1, a, b, c.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Oh! And I'd add, I'll let you guys add it actually. If you want to add anything.
Peterson; We're losing control here.
Burton: Well if you want to add anything you can make an amendment to my motion on that one
because I guess we've been talking about l(b) and in particularly (b)(2).
Blackowiak: Well I will second the motion.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Conrad: My concern with that would be, I think the, in the next motion we may have some
changes in the preliminary plat. And I don't want a condition, I don't want to sanction, you
know the zoning re-approval is okay. We have to condition it on a site plan to make sure we get
what we want. Yet I don't think the site plan is exactly what we want yet. But the motion locks
us into this which I can't vote for.
Peterson; One of the things I'm hearing Kate say is that the, you know Dave had success in the
past working with the applicant on each individual unit, which they have to approve. Each
individual one to have creativity there. Now whether we tighten up 1, this numbering is less than
desirable. I (b)(2). With some more meat to it but I also don't want, I want to give staff the, you
know as much autonomy as they feel comfortable with to creating a unique design.
Conrad: Ifwe don't force that right now, I'm not sure that it will happen. It's not that staff
won't be looking for it but if we don't do it right now, it won't happen.
Aanenson: It's the four products issue, correct?
Conrad: Yes.
61
Aanenson; And the variety ofthe four products.
~;
~~
f
~?
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Conrad; Yes.
Aanenson: Which is number 2 under building designs. If you want to modify that, that would
resolve that.
Peterson; Yeah, I'd be comfortable saying that no more than 30% of the four designs provided
be used.
Conrad: Can I jump in? It's really not ready yet. It's just not ready yet. I think staffs, the staff
report there were a lot of comments that said we'd like to see more side loaded. We'd like to see
more this. We're like, it's not there yet. I haven't seen the variety of building types. I really
think this is a case where maybe not this motion but I think the, I think we need to see it again. I
think we need to see this back again with the applicant responding to what the staff report said.
And I think that's something that we should be doing.
Aanenson; All three should track together.
Kind: Yeah, I was just thinking. Could we back up to that first motion now?
Aanenson: And a point of clarification, we have a work session in two weeks.
Peterson: I mean I look at this as somewhat of a custom project. These units will be custom
designed to some degree to the buyer and to what staff would want so I struggle with, in not
moving it ahead. So I don't know. I've got mixed feelings on it. I'd like to find a way to move
it ahead based upon it will be well over a month.
Burton: Could we add a condition that staff work to develop a condition that addresses the
concerns that we've expressed or does that leave too much.
Conrad: You can send it to City Council with conditions that staff works with the applicant on
the following issues.
Burton: If staffs aware of what our concerns are.
Blackowiak: Kate, you said that they should track together. Do they have to track together?
Aanenson: They should track together. We wouldn't rezone a property.
Blackowiak: Do they have to?
Aanenson: Well yeah. We wouldn't recommend a rezoning unless you approved a site plan.
Then we're back to we've got a medium density so we put it all together. That would be the
staffs recommendation. You can do whatever you want.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Peterson: Wen, why doesn't somebody make a fiiendly amendment that guides staff to address
the issue we discussed in the last 10 minutes. I mean a little bit more succinct than that but. I
mean I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but.
Burton: Wen I can, can I just tack that on to mine?
Peterson: Yep. Certainly.
Burton: I guess add a condition that staff revisit Section (b) to take into consideration the
comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with particular attention to
developing a condition that mandates a variation between the different types of units so that no
one or two types of units become predominant. Does that make sense?
Peterson: Makes sense to me.
Conrad: I'd really like the applicant to ten us, it's really his job to say I'd like to have 4 or 5
building types in there. We're saying we want that. But I don't want to, I'd hate for us to dictate,
1, 2, 3, 4. Maybe, but maybe this is sort of a soft way of doing it. It still gives them a lot of
liberty.
Peterson: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Blackowialc I already seconded it
Burton: I amended my own motion so does the second?
Blackowiak: Okay. I will second the amended motion.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Rezoning #2000-1 of 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R, Planned
Unit Development-Residential based upon the plans submitted December 8, 1999, dated
November 29, 1999, and revised January 18, 2000, and subject to the following conditions:
L The developer shall comply with the Marsh Glen Design Standards:
a. Setbacks:
1. The ITont yard setbacks for Lots 1-8, Block 1 may be a minimum of 20 feet.
2. The ITont yard setbacks for Lot 10, Block 1 and Lots 1-6, Block shall be a minimum
of 30 feet.
63
,
'l'·
,;
r
,
.,.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
3. The driveway length for Lots 7-10,12-20, Block 2 shall be a minimum of20 feet.
b. Building Materials and Design:
1. Front porch styles shall be varied (e.g. wrap around, wider, deeper).
2. No two adjacent units shall have the same ITont elevation or architectural style.
3. Varied window sizes and locations, shutters, window boxes, and columns shall be
incorporated into each unit.
4. The following lots have the appropriate elevations to warrant side loading garages:
Lot 8, Block 1; Lot 10, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; Lot 16, Block 2; and Lot 17, Block
2.
5. The developer shall be responsible for demonstrating that each unit meets the
design criteria at the time of building permit review.
c. Signage:
1. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI. Signage shall be limited to the
entrance off future TH 10 1.
2. Staff revisit Section (b), Building Materials and Design, to take into consideration
the comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with particular
attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the different
types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant.
AU voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: One more.
Burton: I guess I'll go with it. I'm on a roll here. Planning Commission recommends, I would
move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat #2000-1 to
subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots and 2 outlots based upon the plans submitted December 8,
1999, dated November 29,1999, and revised January 18, 2000, subject to conditions 1 through
whatever the end is. 32 as listed in the staff report and with the corrections made in the staff
report. And then if anybody wants to add an amendment, I'd welcome it. And I guess, let's see.
Whatever the wording ofthat last condition was that I put on the last one, I'd like to tack it onto
this one. And I would like to add a condition that, I don't know how to word it though. That the
units in the Lot 9 be.
Kind: Cul-de-sac landscaping? I'm sorry.
Burton; I'm trying to remember how to word that one.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
Kind: rve got an idea.
Burton: Go ahead.
Kind: Condition number 32 that landscape buffering between the turn around and property line
needs to be increased with evergreens for year round screening. And while I'm at it, I have an
addition to condition number 30 to add a sentence that that condition's pretty long as it is but it's
along the line of trails. That sentence that says, the applicant shall post in quotes "Trail End,
Private Property", end quotes, or some sort oflanguage, sign on the east end of the trail.
Peterson: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Friendlyamendment. And is there a second?
It's getting late. Is there a second?
Kind: rll second it.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat (#2000-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots and 2 outlots based upon the
plans dated November 29, 1999 and submitted December 8, 1999 and subject to the following
conditions:
L Lot 12, Block I and Lot 21, Block 2 shall be platted as outlots.
2 The recording of the final plat shall be subject to the approval of the land use amendment
by the Metropolitan Council.
3. The impervious surface coverage shall be calculated for the entire site.
4. A lighting plan shall be submitted. Residential street lighting shall be required along the
extension of Mission Hills Lane.
5. The applicant shall plant three overstory trees along the south property line adjacent to the
medium density area of the Mission Hills development. Additions shall be shown on a
revised landscape plan.
6. No landscaping is allowed within the street right-of-way. Revised landscape plans shall
be submitted to the city showing this change.
7. The applicant shall revise the location and/or the species of some of the proposed ITont
yard spruce trees. Changes shall be shown on the revised landscape plan.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
' ¡
,-
ft
~,;
8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three
weeks prior to final consideration.
10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pond net model. Emergency overflows
from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan
Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota
Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of way. A 2%
boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of way.
14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
15. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of24 feet wide and built to
7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on
the private street shall be prohibited. Cross-access easements and maintenance
agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 7-21, Block 2 in
favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet
wide.
16. The developer shall install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of
Mission Hills Lane from its current terminus to Outlot A.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
17. The developer shall dedicate the following easements to the City at no cost:
a. A temporary cul-de-sac easement with a 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills
Lane on Outlot A. The easement shall expire when Mission Hills Lane is
connected to Trunk Highway 101.
b. A 20-foot wide trail easement over the proposed "path" through Lot 12, Block 1.
c. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line
through Lot 12, Block 1.
d. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds and wetlands
outside of the right of way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall
be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all
ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level.
18. The plans shall be revised as follows:
a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and
wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100·year flood level.
b. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler, with
lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations.
c. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan.
d. Sanitary sewer and watermain extension through Outlot A, underneath future
Trunk Highway 101, shall be cased.
e. Grade Outlot A for the future street extension of Mission Hills Lane. Provide
temporary cul-de-sac with 40·foot radius at the end of Mission Hills Lane.
f. Add 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Mission Hills Lane
ITom its current terminus to Outlot A.
g. Relocate all proposed landscape plantings from the right of way along Mission
Hills Lane. Landscaping materials are not permitted within the City's right-of-
way.
h. Redesign path through Lot 12, Block I to meet ADA grade requirements.
1. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and
drainage plan. The fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
I
t
'I'j.'
j. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site.
19. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water
hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance.
20. The developer and future property owners should be aware that there may not be any
noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk
Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included
in these development plans.
21. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is
upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be a through street. The applicant
shall install a sign that states "This road will be extended."
22. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or
an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions.
23. The proposed residential development of 10.06 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of$15,391. Once the applicant demonstrates that the
ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, this fee will be waived. The
applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $29,928.00. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
24. The wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. In addition the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer
edge. The Applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the supervision of City
Staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
25. The Building Official's Conditions are as follows:
a. Demolition permits are required to demolish any structures on the property and all
well, sewage treatment areas and utilities must be properly abandoned and
documentation of such provided.
b. Any portion of a building within three feet of a property line must be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
c. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before permits will be issued.
26. The Fire Marshal's Conditions are as follows
a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US west, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
68
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanbassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
b. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed they must be either chipped or hauled off
site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be
issued.
c. Regarding the cul-de-sac with center island. Due to the long access, over 1100
feet, the design ofthe center cul-de-sac islands is not acceptable and must be
eliminated. The reason being in order to negotiate fire equipment around the
island it is imperative that no vehicles park in the cul-de-sac. Even with no
parking signs vehicles can and do park there. With the island installed it
eliminates our ability to jockey fire apparatus if cars were blocking or parked in
the cul-de-sac. Fire apparatus often needs the full cul-de-sac dimensions to turn
around in the event of a fire.
27. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
28. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of this
designated trail in its entirety as a part of their public improvements.
The city will reimburse the applicant for all design, engineering, and construction costs
associated with the "city" trail. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated
with the "trail connector."
Bid documents for all phases oftrail construction shall be presented to the city's Park &
Recreation Director for approval prior to work being initiated.
29. The applicant shall submit the Homeowners Association private covenants agreement
for review by the City.
30. The applicant shall dedicate a tree preservation easement over the 150 foot setback
and buffer area of Rice Marsh Lake and the 50 foot wetland setback and buffer area
for the aglurban wetland on the north portion of the site as shown on Attachment 8,
31. Staff revisit Section (b), Building Materials and Design, of the Rezoning to take into
consideration the comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with
particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the
different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant,
32. Landscape buffering between the cul-de-sac and property line needs to be increased
with evergreens for year round screening.
33. The applicant shall post a sign that reads, "Trail End, Private Property" on the east
end of the trail,
69
i(
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 2000
AU voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
I
Peterson: For the reasons already noted?
Conrad: For the reasons that I think it's a good example of something that should come back to
us and would validate some of the things we're talking about. I think the site plan has been
asked to be changed by staff and we haven't seen that and I think that would be good to see. I
think we also need to make sure that the Fire Marshal reviews this again for a real long cul-de-
sac and absolutely is comfortable that we can serve these people and their public interest. I think
the other conditions were put in were valid and responsible.
Peterson: Good, thank you. This goes on to Council on the 14th of February. I think that as you
heard the commissioners, you heard a very strong and passionate message regarding a lot of those
issues so we are going to entrust that you will work with staff to accomplish that goal and we'll
be there at the council meeting so make a mental note. Thanks. Thank you all.
ONGOING BUSINESS,
Peterson: Kate, any new business?
Aanenson: I didn't have any new business. I have some ongoing though, if you want to do the
minutes.
Peterson: I can go with that.
Burton: Receive the minutes?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Burton: So noted. Whatever.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Matt Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 2000
as presented,
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: Thank you. Just to remind you our work session will be the 2nd of February. I hope
you can all be in attendance. We will be meeting, the Senior Center is busy, we'll be meeting in
the court yard. Dinner provided. We'll start a little early. What I've got scheduled, design
standards. There's a pretty entertaining exercise we did with the City Council. We'll do the
same thing. Talk about building materials and what makes a livable community. Some of the
70